Perhaps it's the language we're using here—and there was a comment from Mr. Jaccard on this. I think Canadians get confused by this. I've heard from various parliamentarians that we wish to stay within the framework of Kyoto, as the minister has said, but not to meet Kyoto. Canadians want to understand if emissions are going to hit a certain point—and I take your point, Mr. Jaccard, about obligations and the need to have a penalty, or something, ascribed so there's a serious tone to this.
Can you clarify the language a bit, because the idea of staying within the framework and the intentions of...? Kyoto is unique in its perspective in holding out real numbers. It wasn't an intention to do something about climate change; here are the numbers Canada signed on to and agreed to.
With this bill as is and the comments we've heard so far, what is your opinion on its efficacy in achieving the numbers—not the framework, the spirit, those grey words?