I would first like to tell you that the Bloc Québécois amendment has two parts, (a) and (b). Part (a) of our amendment establishes that the Minister cannot amend targets. Since amendment G-3 was passed, with the wording: “each greenhouse gas emissions target must represent a progression beyond the previous one”, there is no longer any point in removing the word “amending”.
I would add, however, that you told us with pride that amendment G-3 draws its inspiration from what was done in countries such as New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. I would just like us to remember that those countries use 1990 as the reference year, while Canada is using 2005. Canada is disregarding 15 years of pollution. Basically, those other countries are much more ambitious. Canada may be setting a weak target and a low bar: the amendment just says that it “must represent a progression beyond the previous one”. That amendment may not be completely useless, but in my opinion, it doesn't mean a whole lot. So I am not going to move forward with part (a).
However, part (b) of amendment BQ-13 removes a reference to the advisory body. There is actually no reason to refer to that body in the section on public participation. We must try to clearly distinguish between public participation and the role of that body. This is important. In the same spirit, the advisory body does not have to represent the public. The public has 338 elected representatives, their members of Parliament, in other words, us. The advisory body's role is something else. It's a committee of scientists, as we see it, at least.
Clause 13, as it presently stands, puts the advisory body, the provinces, the Indigenous peoples and the interested persons on the same level. In our opinion, an emissions reduction plan is not a matter for public consultation. The advisory body must deal with it. However, we will be proposing subsequent amendments that deal with public participation, Indigenous peoples, the provinces and all the organizations. We will be proposing amendments, each one of which is consequential to the others.
I move amendment BQ-13, part (b), and I invite you to vote for it in order to clearly distinguish the two roles.