I'll state again that there are international programs Canada participates in that we think are very valuable. But we do believe that if taxpayer money is at play and is being invested, we'd like to see third-party verification of the projects we're investing in. Also, if they are projects that are supposed to show emissions reductions, we want to see that they're verifiable emissions reductions and that they actually help towards us reaching our Kyoto target.
As I said, so far what we've seen to date is 1%, 2.6 million tonnes, of reductions, which is 1% of our Kyoto target achieved. There are programs like adaptation programs, which we work with other countries on, that may not see direct emissions reductions. But we have verification that these projects are achieving their intended goal, and we support those, and we'll continue to support those. But we will not use taxpayer money to purchase credits in a way that's not showing any verifiable emissions reductions for Canada or helping us get any closer to reaching our Kyoto target.
The Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency that was set up by the former government, which in the last budget was a $1 billion undertaking solely for the purchasing of credits--this was not an investment vehicle, it was a purchasing vehicle--is not something that we will undertake to use.
To speak to Mr. Cullen's point, it was the intention of the previous government to set up an artificial market for trading by using taxpayer dollars to facilitate the buying and selling of credits both on the international market and the domestic market. We think we can create a viable trading system that's market based, and industry can participate in it obviously, but the government's role is to regulate and identify tradeable units. But we have no reason to be involved in subsidizing a market like that with taxpayers' money. We wouldn't take those kinds of risks with taxpayers' dollars.