Sorry for losing my temper, Mr. Chair, but it's been years of having to run from committee to committee because every committee passes an identical motion under the fiction that the committee is in charge of its own process and the master of its own process. The notion that every committee in the House of Commons simultaneously came up with identical language to reduce my rights doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I apologize, but I've been through almost 10 years of larger parties reducing the rights of a much smaller party. We don't have very many rights.
To speak to this briefly, I want to thank Dan, because again, it isn't redundant to put it in the legislation. John Moffet's summary is correct. In terms of “Statutory Interpretation 101” in any law school in this country, everyone knows the preamble has very little impact and can be used only for statutory interpretation. If the matter goes before a judge, the judge will take note of what's in a preamble, but it doesn't have the impact that putting it in the legislation has.
I would think the Liberals on this committee would be proud to embrace 1.5°C, just as a matter of historical record. During COP21 in Paris, the first minister of environment of an industrialized country to say that the text of the Paris Agreement should include 1.5°C as a goal was Catherine McKenna. She was the first, and everyone else followed. Now we are running to net zero by 2050 instead of saying firmly and clearly that this legislation should be about holding to 1.5°C.