We're already at 60%, so when we see in the bill that it is 80% a million years from now, it doesn't seem overly ambitious for our industry.
We're not talking for the entire Canadian society or the entire Canadian industrial base. Frankly, I cannot tell the government what the numbers should be for the entire Canadian economy, because I don't represent the economy. I haven't access to that kind of data. I can only tell you that for the forest industry, these sorts of numbers are achievable. I can also tell you that for the forest industry, which is suffering from the impact of climate change, we would like to see numbers that are muscular and ambitious and show real intention.
I would also add that sometimes the actual number is like a flag or a symbol, things that people hang on to. What's really important is whether they actually do it and whether doing it actually has an impact on the climate. Having an ambitious number that leads to leakage, for example, that leads to greenhouse gases coming out of Indonesia's forest industry instead of Canada's forest industry, doesn't actually help anything. So it's not the number that's important; it's the details and the design that are important.