There is simple option A and complicated option B, so we're now on to complicated option B.
One proposal, or one suggestion, is to amend subclause 10(1)—that's the provision for the contents of the plan—to make it more detailed and more prescriptive.
This committee has heard proposals about explicit references to modelling and projections. I would recommend that as well, and generally the more detailed the better, because, again, what you're trying to set up in this statute are objective criteria that can be embraced by a court, interpreted by a court and applied by a court so that the court is not forced to move out of its comfort zone into determining policy matters.
The other specific suggestion is to add language to the effect that the federal government and the minister have a duty to “take all necessary measures to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established under this act and elsewhere.” Those specific words were heard earlier this morning or yesterday. Words really do matter, and those specific words—“take all necessary measures”—have been judicially interpreted and linked in Canada to a matter being justiciable. That may be helpful, and what form that may take is a new clause—probably a new clause 9 following clause 8—that is devoted to clarifying that there's a duty to take all necessary measures to achieve the targets that have been committed to.