The only thing I can say about that, Mr. Chair, is that the target that was set by the government when it ratified the Kyoto Protocol was not based on sound analysis. I mean, as we were doing the audit, it became obvious that this number was not supported by any kind of strong social, economic, and environmental analysis. So the question is, what is the cost of achieving the Kyoto Protocol? I guess nobody knows.
What is the cost of inaction, though? That's another interesting question. Nobody knows, because we don't do that kind of analysis. At least we haven't seen anything in the course of our audit that will support that.
Then the third question is what is the cost of adaptation? When you are referring to what is going on up north, Neil and I had the privilege about a month and a half ago of going to a remote island in Nunavut, and I heard the same anecdotes--if we can still call them anecdotes, because we hear so many of them.
It's not clear how the government will manage adaptation to climate change, which you have to remember is also a component of signing the Kyoto agreement. There were two components to the agreement: adaptation and mitigation--reducing greenhouse gas, but also getting prepared to adapt. There's nothing in the books to clearly identify that the government was prepared to move in the direction of adaptation.