Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have many questions for you this morning. I will try to keep it short.
First of all, I am a bit surprised by what you said on page 2. You spoke to us about the costs associated with greenhouse gas emission reductions, but very little about the costs associated with an increase in these emissions. I would like to give you the following simple statistic as an example. In Quebec, we have seen the trade deficit increase considerably over the last few years, partly because of the energy sector. An increase in $1 in the price of a barrel of oil represents, in terms of debt, for Quebec's trade balance, $160 million per year. That means that there are costs associated with the status quo and the maintenance of our dependence on oil.
Moreover, Mr. Plourde, I was rather surprised to hear you say that a province-by-province approach should not be favoured. Yet the Europeans decided to negotiate an agreement targeting an 8% greenhouse gas reduction in 1997. In a common and differentiated way, they distributed the various targets associated with the carbon exchange among the 15 member countries of the European Union. This was based on absolute targets and not on intensity targets. They used strong market-based tools that they had at their disposal and hopefully they are on track to get closer to the Kyoto Protocol objectives. They are doing much better than Canada.
Given the fact that natural resources come under provincial jurisdiction and that the provinces' energy policies differ from Alberta's, for example Quebec would not have the same policy as Alberta, where you come from—how can we not move toward a common and differentiated approach, as well as a threefold model, such as Europe has done?