So the second one, the scientific panel, I'm totally fine with.
On the third proposed meeting, with the economists, what we would like to see discussed would be the economics of climate change and Bill C-377 and the mechanisms, the options, that are available to meet the Bill C-377 obligations--market-based mechanisms, fiscal measurements and incentives, regulated emission limits, performance standards, cooperative measures--and the feasibility of meeting these obligations. So it would deal with the mechanisms from the economic aspect.
Also, there's the cost of meeting the targets. What are the costs of meeting those obligations and the economic ramifications of forcing a government to meet those obligations? What will be the consequences?
So that's on the economics, which is proposed meeting three.
The fourth, the environmentalist panel, I have no problem with.
On meeting five, the jurisdictional experience panel, I have one quick addition. What is the constitutionality of Bill C-377? We've heard concerns over its constitutionality, so that needs to be addressed in the jurisdictional panel.
Those are my comments.