Environment committee  Yes, I think it would obviously help if we came as a North American bloc to the discussions in Copenhagen. Personally, I'm very encouraged by the recent developments with the President of the United States taking steps to actually reduce emissions. I think that to achieve this reduction in emissions we need a mobilization similar to what we had for the Second World War.

Environment committee  I'm not an economist, that's for sure, but I have followed the debate very closely. I've read the Stern report and other reports and everything, and we are projecting one billion cars by 2030 and two billion cars by 2050. You can also see the example of European countries. Take Germany; the German environment minister is trying to push this idea that we will be able to power Europe as a whole, in 20 years, from solar power, which will come from somewhere in the Sahara desert or whatever--

Environment committee  That is how economists are seeing the future.

Environment committee  I'm not an economist. If you--

Environment committee  I wouldn't be able to answer that question.

Environment committee  There is no doubt a connection. The problem is political; let's not pretend otherwise. What I want the current government and any Canadian government to understand is that it is extremely profitable to make this transition. We will not be losing jobs or become less prosperous. However, if we do not go ahead, we will become poorer and head towards a Soviet-era economy which will not be competitive.

Environment committee  That's an excellent question. Please don't think that scientists are calling for an immediate halt to the production of fossil fuels. We have to begin by decreasing the use of fossil fuels. A country as rich and prosperous as Canada can make that transition. It would not be an abrupt change, but a slow transition towards an economy which is increasingly unreliant on fossil fuels.

Environment committee  Absolutely. Take Quebec, where 97% of power comes from hydroelectricity. As in most of the rest of Canada, most emissions come from cars, gas and jet fuel. We have made progress with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in every sector, except for transportation. That's really where we have to make progress.

Environment committee  No, it's not adequate at all. Certainly, it would be hard to hit that target, but it is actually the wrong target. We should have a target which is much more ambitious. That is why we need a very tough bill.

Environment committee  If one wanted to be cynical, since Canada is emitting less than 3% of overall global emissions we could do nothing about it and it wouldn't have much impact globally. But that would be extremely cynical. It would also be a huge mistake economically. If we don't do anything now, if we don't transform or metamorphose our economy towards a renewable energy economy, then we'll be the poor cousin of the world.

Environment committee  My opinion is exactly the same. What are we going to say in Copenhagen? We have absolutely no power, no clout, no.... We're not in the game in Copenhagen, as long as we haven't ratified or developed a bill like that to force Canada to take some action. It's impossible, but suppose we adopted Bill C-311 before Copenhagen.

Environment committee  To briefly respond, there are at least 15 proven technical ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each country does not have to use all of these methods. If in Canada, from a technological point of view or because of our environment, it is better to focus on certain sectors, then we don't need all of the other methods.

Environment committee  Absolutely, and very quickly. In fact, not only the political but also the scientific international community is somewhat taken aback and surprised by the recent attitude of Canada toward those major global issues. Canada has always been seen as the country that can actually influence the U.S.A., having the high ground environmentally over the U.S.A., and having some clout, some impact, some effect on the U.S.A.

Environment committee  Absolutely, Mr. Bigras. I did not realize I was engaging in politics when I wrote that magazine piece. That's the point: Kyoto does not go far enough. This is what scientists have been saying from the outset. We have to do much more. Bill C-31 is music to my ears, no doubt about it.

Environment committee  To just add to what my colleague said, how could 1,200 scientists from around the world, who have 6,000 other scientists looking over their shoulders, possibly be part of a conspiracy to falsify data and to announce to politicians, and to the entire world for that matter, that a catastrophe is imminent?