Parliament could always come back and revisit these numbers. I'm sure Parliament will. I can't imagine we would be in exactly the same spot in 2050, when we get there. I'm unlikely to be present at the discussion, but probably my kids will, or my grandchildren.
The approach we took was to say what does the best science say now about what the objective for 2050 should be. We turned to the scientific calculations that have been done, very well summarized and documented by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki. This is based on pretty broad-sweeping analysis. We thought that's the best advice available from some of the best minds in the world. Let's use that as the objective at this point. I would imagine that the experts who would be commenting on the five-year plans and on our progress, and Canadians, in general, would be encouraging future parliamentarians to constantly revise the targets as more information becomes available.
I think it's fair to say, from a scientific standpoint, the 80% number is now considered a minimum. Your point that it might well be that we would have to go further could be well taken. George Monbiot's work certainly suggests a higher number, for example.