Let me start by saying that the past is the past. But when we looked at where this 6% below 1990 levels came from, it was obvious that there was no sound analysis to support that. We have said that in the report. The federal government picked that number based on what the U.S. was going for. So that's clear. There's no doubt about it.
I have made it clear in chapter zero that if the targets are unrealistic the government has to come up with new targets, make sure we have learned from past experience, and come with sound analysis and some key measures to get us to wherever the government decides to put the targets.
You have referred to governance and accountability. I also want to raise that these problems are still there. So whatever targets and measures are put in place, if the governance and accountability aspects are not looked at seriously, I will probably be here again five years from now and have an almost cut-and-paste copy of this section.
I also would like to remind you that in 1998 we looked at climate change and almost said the same thing. So things have not evolved that much in terms of good governance and accountability.
Mr. Cullen was asking who was responsible for what, and I can still not tell who is responsible for what. So as long as the government doesn't come clear about who is responsible for what, five years from now we will probably be in a position to say that roles and responsibilities should be clear, were not clear, and we are still facing some of the weaknesses we have identified in this report and the previous one.