If you take a look at these numbers, for us and for manufacturers, which are about 17% of the total of the amount the previous plan tried to reduce of industry, either 45 or 55 megatonnes, if you actually recognize this contribution, you're now 17 megatonnes short. You have to find it somewhere else, and you're going to find it from oil and gas, or you're going to find it from electricity, or you're going to find it from consumers. The target structure sets up a zero-sum game, and by recognizing anybody's performance, you penalize others. It's the same issue that Mr. Bigras has for Quebec.
It has been in the interests of government not to recognize performance, because the penalty for others would have been higher. That's why we included it in the charts, and also the graphs that were put in the Environment Canada submission. If you start looking at what consumers are as a piece of this problem, it's fairly significant, either in driving their cars, heating their homes, or using various products. That 17-megatonne burden would probably shift to either one of the other sectors or to consumers. Frankly, I don't think governments have wanted to deal with these realities. It's easier to say that industry is a problem. It has been easier to ignore the fact that manufacturers have already met Kyoto. We've always argued, “Give us the Kyoto numbers, thank you very much, for 1990. We'll take them right now.” But nobody has ever given us that number. It has been 2001 and 2003, and nobody has ever given us that number.