Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her kind words. Of course we disagree, but it is good to have a collegial working relationship in which we can discuss issues on which we disagree.
Earlier in my speech I did talk about the distinctions between Kyoto and Paris, some of the problems with the Kyoto protocol, and the ways in which it was not in Canada's interests.
The global response right now is gas emissions. When it came to deciding whether Canada should pay Canadian tax dollars to other countries to buy emissions credits or whether we should invest that same money in responding to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions here at home, the government decided that being part of the Kyoto protocol framework would require us to use tax dollars to buy emissions credits, and this would actually be less in our interests and less effective in terms of the overall issue than it would be to spend that money domestically to try to respond to and improve issues around our environment.
I would like to speak very briefly on the issue of the Arms Trade Treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty raised serious concerns for the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Canada. While we should be forceful in trying to address the problem of the arms trade, we should recognize the realities when there is a negative effect from certain kinds of international treaties, an effect that may not be the one intended by those who promote these agreements or sign them, but still a negative effect on the legal rights of Canadians, and recognizing that reality was a reasonable response.
Being committed to multilateralism does not mean going along with everything. Being committed to multilateralism means engaging in the—