I think it will work. There's an advantage in what you're proposing. What I'm now seeing is next week being as I've described, the first meeting on Tuesday being on both the scientific and economic impacts of climate change if we don't do anything. The impacts of action will potentially come on Thursday, and we have lots of people who will talk about that.
We then have a week-long break, at which point I think it would be most timely—and maybe we can even get the minister in for this—for the first session after we return to be an update on the Kyoto process, because it will be concluded at that point. It would be on what's happened. It's a complicated business, and I think we would want to spend serious time on that.
The fourth session, on the Thursday of the week after we get back, would be on mechanisms of various sorts: the ways in which we might be able to get to targets now that we know how the Kyoto process is evolving, target setting, and all those kinds of things.
The fifth session would then be the international session on how other countries are dealing with this and what we can learn from them.
The sixth session would be on accountability, which is when we'll bring in the Auditor General.
If people accept that as an outline, we then have to put on our thinking caps as to how we can take people out of one list and put them on to another. I'm making this up as I go along, but I don't know if that's helpful.