First of all, I think it is designed to fit directly with the Kyoto Protocol and Kyoto targets. Of course, when the bill was written we couldn't be sure what was going to come out of the international negotiations and how the transition, internationally, would be agreed to. We proposed that we would work backwards from the science-based targets for 2050 and a fixed medium-term target for 2020, and then the notion of five-year plans that would get started in 2015.
In light of the developments since this bill was put together, if the committee is able to determine some language that would create a smoother intersection between the end of the first period and the beginning of the next, we'd certainly be very open to looking at that.