We are at a standstill, and we have to proceed with a reinforcement, but the question is what must be reinforced. Does the solution lie in reinforcing the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol? Among other things, I'm thinking of the Clean Development Mechanism, through which we could make it so that the efforts of the developing countries are taken into consideration within the overall effort. In recent years, haven't we neglected the contribution of the Clean Development Mechanism? Even Canada has not paid the minimum fees it was to pay the UN. The last I heard, it had not paid the Clean Development Mechanism its share. In short, shouldn't the clean development mechanisms be reinforced, which might make it so that there is a contribution from the development countries?
Furthermore, as my colleague said earlier about the WWF, this morning's report is quite glaring. We knew it, but now we have figures. The approach adopted by the federal government toward intensity won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms as the minister claimed. On the contrary, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 129% to 219%. This approach takes us further and further away from the greenhouse gas emissions stabilization target for 2015 proposed by the G8. Wouldn't that distance us even further from the target of limiting the rate of global warming to 2%? Ultimately, wouldn't the government's approach risk undermining the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases?
Lastly, I have a fear. I would like you to tell us, in the event we leave the Bali conference without a mandate, what risks that would entail in the greenhouse gas emissions credits market. Wouldn't there be a risk of a carbon crisis, a financial crisis in the markets, if we weren't guaranteed an acceptable follow-up to Bali?