Okay, thanks.
Thanks, gentlemen, for being here this morning.
Over the witnesses we've seen so far, I believe this is our 13th or 14th meeting on this particular bill and two and a half years of study. I was handed a document yesterday that showed a New Democrat member raising the issue of climate change in 1983 in the House of Commons. We've been at this quite a while.
The debate that seems to be shifting right now between Kyoto or not Kyoto seems to have moved more towards precise action and what is the best course of action. The question of economic pain over meeting our international obligation seems to be shifting as well. From the witnesses we heard this morning, as Mr. McGuinty pointed out, most have talked about meeting or exceeding their industrial targets while growing as industries—the steel industry, the mining association, and Alcan in particular.
Let's start with Mr. Peeling. The concept that to meet hard targets, to meet an international standard that the country agrees to, equates to economic pain--is this a simple quid pro quo, that if a country sets out a target that has something to do with GHGs, then the economy must suffer for that target being set?