I'll read the quote to you from John Godfrey, Stéphane Dion's chairman of the environment committee, in the inner cabinet. He said, “Well, 'intensity-based' isn't bad, in and of itself—it's better to be doing more with less energy.”
Not long ago in the House of Commons, he then said, on the intensity target, it is recognized that Stéphane Dion's 2005 project green “was intensity based when it came to large final emitters”.
The difference is they had a 12% intensity target and we have a 33% intensity target. It's a target that is so tough it will break the back of the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, and, as part of a comprehensive plan, it will help us to have an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Twelve percent wouldn't cut it.
When people criticize intensity emissions, I agree that a 12% cut doesn't deliver the goods, but a 33% cut will lead to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases.