Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here. This is actually very, very interesting.
I marked down some notes from Tuesday, a summary of what we heard: that globally, greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow and that a long-term goal is essential, referring to 2050; that we need short- and medium-term targets or objectives; that we need solid science; that we need a global effort; and that we need quick action on a global scale.
We also heard, in the witnesses' closing comments, that generally they agreed with Canada's approach that we have a North American approach to setting a target to tackle climate change. They acknowledged that it would be a stronger position, as we go into the negotiations in Copenhagen in December, to take a North American approach as we are doing now with the United States, their target being very similar to ours. Ours is a 20% reduction by 2020, and those are absolute targets. The U.S. has a similar target: a 20% reduction by 2020.
In your brief you talked about pathways, so I think what you're insinuating is that each country may have unique situations, unique challenges. Is this what you're referring to when you say “pathway”? Would Canada, or even North America, have a different pathway, different challenges, different issues that they have to deal with compared to necessarily some other countries?