Thank you, Chair.
I'll deal with that one last, and then mention the other two that were mentioned.
We're not going to die on this hill, but the fact is that we really believe, much as my colleague has already mentioned, that this panel will help set the context for the bill that's being put forward. Canada is going to have to come up with solutions of some sort or another. This is in front of us right now in a timely way, and hearing from Bali to get some sense—because I agree with you, we're not going to hear anything earth-shattering in the early report—of where this bill starts to put us, in terms of what they're trying to achieve at Bali, and whether the scope of it is big enough to deal with what we think is going to come towards us at the end of the process....
Flip it around the other way. To do it in the absence of putting it in the context of Bali leaves us a little bit in the dark. Hearing this panel helps us understand, having gone through the other panels, how this fits into the overall scheme they're hopefully going to be coming up with in Bali.
Again, I'm not going to die politically on this hill, but we really think it would be useful and of value, regardless of which way you feel about it; it'll just help all of us understand.
When Mr. Warawa mentions in point number three the economics—he's talking about the mechanism of implementing, and the cost of meeting the targets, etc.—that's all fine and well, and obviously we'd be open to that too, because it's part of the discussion. But what we are really seeking here in this instance is to know what the cost of doing nothing is, so that when we look at the economic questions that my friend has asked we look at, we have something to compare it to. As soon as you're spending dollar one, you want to hear whether or not dollar one is being compared with the cost of nothing, of another dollar, or of a million-dollar challenge. That is what we were looking for.
But I'm fine with the expansion, as I would see it, of looking at those other costs. That works for us.
On the third one—number five, the question of the constitutionality—obviously the member has some reason to believe there may be some questions around constitutionality. If that's the case, obviously we'd like to hear it.