Yes.
Mr. Godfrey, I dealt with some of this in my presentation, so I will repeat this. I understand the pressure of this, so I'm in no way conflicting.
First of all, in connection with it, one of the points I try to make is that under this bill our company would have no option to just buy domestic and international credits when our purpose is long-term technology change. Under the Kyoto rules we cannot be given credit for technology investments until the emissions are actually being cut with the commissioning of the new plant. It's a five- or six-year process to go through all the regulatory hurdles and this kind of thing.
Our clean coal sequestration technology, which will virtually eliminate all the emissions from our coal-fired plants, could only come in about 2012.
Our difficulty with your bill is, then, how do we meet the heavy costs of the credits that we would have to be purchasing? I gave figures in my statement to document all of that. The difficulty is that we would have to then use the money that otherwise we'd be investing in that new technology change, which Mark was talking about as well.
So we're in this dilemma that if we focus exclusively, as the bill is, on the short term, then we're in fact interfering with the achievement of the long term, which is the fundamental technology change that Canada needs. I think you'd agree that our really deep cuts beyond Kyoto are only going to come from fundamental technology change.
So this is the kind of dilemma we're in here, which this bill imposes on us. I think it's really sad that we're being put into that kind of either/or situation, but for our company it's very clear that we need long-term targets, we need long-term goals, and we need to start tomorrow on that.
I think all of the panellists here are agreed about the urgency. Our company is committed to regulation. Our company is committed to the science that is behind climate change.