This is going to combine with what a number of the other amendments that are—I'm getting feedback here. I actually asked for the volume to be turned up, but I didn't realize what I was asking for.
While there could be some differences between what each province seeks to do and their own measures to meet a national standard, if the equivalency is not held by some objective standard, it will be impossible until much later, after the fact, as we've seen with even the federal programs. If you can't clearly delineate what the policy is as to how many carbon emission reductions you can expect—If a province comes forward with an equivalency that says it will move so many automobiles off the road or that it will make so many of them of a lower emission standard, they have to be able to account for that in the same way as the federal government is accounting for it, so there aren't apples and oranges and so the province next door can't make claims. If you don't have clarity with the accountability, you'll have an inter-jurisdictional mess between provinces, with some of them saying, “We've met our targets”, and others saying, “No, you didn't”.
We believe if you don't clear up the language—and I know we're going to stand this motion—that will connect back to funding, because we imagine the federal government will use contingency funding through this process. So if province X says, “This is the equivalency we're doing to your plant”, the government will say, “Here's a certain amount of money, if you actually meet those targets you're setting”. If you don't have the same comparison of the effect, which is at the heart of this debate, then there's no way for Canada to stand on the international stage to say this is what we've done, but more importantly, this is what we're going to do.
Your equivalency agreements are a series of different measures, and none of them are really objective. So we have a caution over the language the Bloc is going to be supporting. I think there have been some potential modifications that we're willing to look at.
That's the root of it. We need to have the same language, if you will, when talking about greenhouse gas emissions from coast to coast to coast.