Thanks for the question.
Let me first say that under the law we are required to do two things, and the honourable member is right that we were required to provide an analysis of Canada's progress in meeting its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, but there was a second part. It is to provide an analysis of Canada's progress in implementing the climate change plans. So we viewed our mandate as twofold: one was within the strict Kyoto targets, and second, the overall implementation of the plans that had been presented by the government.
In terms of the reasonable timeframe, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment. I think what we looked at very strictly is what the law required us to examine. We kept a very straight and narrow interpretation of what the scope of this was, and this is what we presented and tabled to Parliament in this audit.