I'll disagree with you on that one.
If we give major emitters like China and India and Korea up to 20 years before taking on an absolute target, IPCC scientists have said that global emissions are still going to rise. So I'm having some trouble squaring the circle, because if we have to arrest the rising global GHGs in 10 to 15 years but we give major emitters a pass, it's not going to happen.
In fact, we heard that if we were to stop everything in Canada and the United States, for example, global GHGs would still rise. So that question still has to be answered out there.
I want to move on to another issue here, and that's the “offshoring” of manufacturing jobs. You and your party have decried the offshoring of manufacturing jobs, yet by taking a position in alignment with environmentalists that countries like South Korea or China don't have to factor in the compliance costs for taking on an absolute reduction target in the post-Kyoto period, you're allowing a competitive advantage to continue that's going to allow offshoring to continue over the next two decades.
Don't you find that to be a hypocritical position, to decry offshoring on one hand and yet allow competitive advantage by non-compliance with environmental costs? Isn't that a contradiction, Mr. Layton?