I think the beginning of the shift, if I can put it that way, Mr. Chairman, is the view of the government that without a significant downturn in the economy, or really significant—in the billions of dollars—investment, it would be impossible for the Government of Canada to meet its Kyoto commitments within the timeframe. I think both my minister and Ms. Ambrose have said that.
What we're trying to do for ministers is develop a range of policies and options that will still lead absolutely in the same direction your government did when you were in power, which is a reduction in greenhouse gases. I think what ministers need to come to grips with is the timeframe and exactly how they want to do it.
It's not really for me to say whether it's a good thing or a bad thing for you to examine it. My preference would be that ministers be given an opportunity to develop a view before the committee really launches into it, but that of course is for you to decide.
There are a variety of existing programs that are being continued for the time being that help on the greenhouse gases front. Even if you just read the literature generally, there are a variety of other things that could be done, some that might even have been contemplated by your government and some new ones that will be proposed to ministers.
I'm not trying to be cute in not answering your question. It's just that it's very difficult for me to talk before the committee about what I talk about with my minister. But I do want to say, and Mr. Lunn asked me to say this, that he is absolutely committed to the idea of assisting Canada to reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals. What we're talking about is not whether, but how and under what timeframe.