I was going to say that I recognize a lot of these overheads from Bill C-30 and was wondering how they in fact apply to the specificity of Bill C-377. Thank you for clarifying that.
Can I ask both of you to comment where Mr. Bramley left off?
Mr. Bramley, earlier the parliamentary secretary raised questions about you and about whether your fingerprints were all over this bill, as he implied they were all over Bill C-288. I think he's trying to draw a connection; I'm not sure whether he's trying to make a more pointed statement about it. But it's curious that it falls hard on the heels of the tongue-lashing that environmental NGOs received yesterday from the minister in a very public way about their being responsible for Canada's situation today.
I'd like to ask you both, though, about the comments Mr. Bramley made about science.
Mr. Bramley, you said your Case for Deep Reductions report and Bill C-377 were aligned with science, that this was a science-based approach.
Can you help us both, please, understand, in the wake of the comments made by Professor Weaver two weeks ago about the government not relying on the science—in fact, to quote him, he said he thought the government was drawing its scientific inspiration from an Ouija board.... The IPCC president said yesterday in Bali that the government is not following science, certainly not informing its negotiating position with science.
Can both of you help us understand, in the case of Bill C-377, and in the case of your overheads, Ms. Donnelly, and of your report, Mr. Bramley, is the government's climate change plan, which is the foundation we're standing upon in Bali today—the “Turning the Corner” plan—in fact informed with science, and is it based on the consensual science that now exists around the world?