That's correct. I'm not an economist, so I'm loath to comment on the economics of it, but a path that would lead to 60% to 80% reductions by 2050 using a framework such as exists in Bill C-30 may be a kind of path that is workable; I'm not sure. But the right numbers are there, 60% to 80%. And 45% to 60% I think is a little on the light side, in light of the fact that we're already substantially above 1990 levels; 60% to 80% would be more in line with what I would hope.
On February 19th, 2007. See this statement in context.