If there are programs that are contributing substantially, we'd like to know. We'd also like to know from the responsible officials as well as the minister, when he's available, that there is actually a plan.
My colleague was asking whether this was an important part of the plan. The minister is on record that he's not advocating for this to continue. We're not asking you to contradict him, but it must have figured in the plan. So you've said you have a plan. The plan, I assume, adds up to the right number of megatonnes being removed by 2020, because we assume the government is sincere in its goal.
You say you don't agree with the environment commissioner. The national round table on the economy and the environment has given an estimate to suggest that the government, with the lead of the ministry, is going to reach 3% above 2005 levels, not 17% below.
Can you table a plan now in which things like retrofits are no longer part of the plan? The reasonable question is, how significant was that? Does the environment ministry know whether the plan was effective and efficient? Did it deliver? Could we see the plan that articulates not just the 65 megatonnes, a slight majority of which comes from the provinces, but the rest of the reduction as well? Are there numbers to support that?
I think that's what most people understand a plan to be—a numerical achievement we're trying to get to. So there are two things here: one is in respect of the reminder on the climate retrofits; the other is on the overall plan.