I'll take it that Mr. Boucher was the only person who wanted to answer that.
Let me table a second theme for your consideration. I have one minute left, so maybe you can weave this into your answer.
We've heard expert testimony telling us that Canada's approach through intensity targets will not be fungible with the United States Senate bill, which is calling for absolute reductions, in a trading system. So the two won't connect. That's number one.
Number two, I want to ask how it's going to be possible. And this is our position in Copenhagen: we're going to meet the government's weak targets, apparently, exclusively using domestic reductions—no international credits, only Canadian offsets. The United States is contemplating massive use of international credits, and we all know that every country that has achieved its Kyoto reductions has done so by buying at least 20% of its credits offshore, its reductions.
Can you explain, on both of those fronts, how your sectors see us as congruous with the United States?