Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it has been fairly plain again, in our testimony today, that the Kyoto targets as originally set by the previous government were just not realistic and were very misleading, in terms of getting up false hopes and so on. That's been plain to me from the testimony.
I am intrigued in terms of the issue of adaptation...the mitigation, of course, is the reactive mode that it is necessary to deal with, and then the adaptation required in Canada. I go to the old saying that necessity is the mother of invention, and how the change does provide new opportunities. Change is a constant of life, and in this area it may be not as much, but there certainly would be opportunities that appear now. I'm a little curious, and in exploring that frontier a little, Mr. Sauchyn mentioned growing grapes in southern Alberta. I guess he sees an edge or a possibility there.
I'd like each of you to respond to that whole issue of change providing new opportunities. I agree that the reactive mode, dealing with the emissions and so on, has to happen. Is enough time and energy in Canada being put into exploring some of the very positive possibilities? Are there positive possibilities? What are some of the things we need to do to look at that side of the equation, where it seems that less time and energy is being given, because we're into the reactive mode more?
I'd like a response from everybody, actually.