Very quickly on this, first of all we have not modelled the targets that are set out in this bill, so I can't give you a dollar figure here in terms of what that might mean. It would certainly mean a higher cost, and that's what I said in my deposition, and that's as far as I'm prepared to go this morning until we have time to look at it more seriously.
I come back to just the difference between a 3% cut from a 1990 baseline and a 25% cut from 1990, and then go back to some of the sector-by-sector modelling and analysis we've done in our reports, and you could begin to see some of the direction in which we'd be going here. The cost would be significant in connection with it.
Canada probably has the highest costs in terms of compliance, for instance, with a Kyoto target, and that has to be taken into account. The differential with the United States is a serious competitive issue for a number of Ontario manufacturers, who certainly contacted us, as well as the western energy folks. So the competitiveness issues with regard to carbon costs are very clear, and they're added to by the protectionist measures that have been implicit in some of the U.S. proposed legislation.