Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This morning, it's not the presentations and statements of the scientists and meteorologists that surprise me, but rather those of the industry. During his presentation this morning, Mr. Paton told us that we needed a long-term strategy that takes economic analyses into account; that the Kyoto Protocol objective can't be achieved without purchasing international credits; that the entire strategy regarding the Kyoto Protocol must take into account a cost evaluation in order to achieve objectives.
I'm a bit surprised to hear that. We could conduct an economic analysis of the effects of achieving the Kyoto Protocol objectives, but I think we should also do an evaluation of the costs associated with not complying with the Kyoto Protocol. I think the British study released last week, which puts the cost of climate change at $7 billion, must be weighed as well. When we talk about a nearly 20 percent reduction of global GDP, I think these are also economic analyses that have to be taken into consideration when public administrations are required to make decisions.
I put the question to the industry because its record is good. A 7.4 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is similar to that of Quebec's industrial sectors. Wouldn't it be in your interests to promote the Kyoto Protocol and for the progress that you've made to be recognized in the form of offset credits in the approach that should be presented to Canada? As Mr. Villeneuve said, in a domestic carbon market, I think you'd have every interest in selling the credits you've achieved to other industrial sectors, probably the oil sector, which doesn't have the same footprint as you. Wouldn't you have an economic interest in the Kyoto Protocol being reinforced?