Mr. Chair, I take Mr. Albas' point. The amendment that's coming up, NDP-3, speaks to the progress reports prior to 2030, referencing the 2026 interim objective for [Technical difficulty—Editor] 2023 and 2025. That's forward looking, because those are prior to that year. For 2027, it would be backward looking, and I don't think that detracts from Mr. Bittle's amendment here. It just means that instead of looking forward, you're retroactively looking at whether we were successful at hitting that interim objective.
The real strength of Mr. Bittle's amendment is that we have three progress reports. The NDP was very clear in debate that we supported these additional accountability measures in the lead-up to 2030, which is the most important decade, as many of the scientists have told us. We have three progress reports in the lead-up, and we also have a reassessment of the 2030 target in 2025. That's going to be very important in case there is emerging science which suggests that our 2030 target is missing the mark.
I won't be supporting it for that reason. I think the 2026 reference... Obviously, those three progress reports deal with much more than the 2026 interim objective. They also include.... We're pre-empting our discussion, because the content of those reports, I believe, is going to be covered by amendments that are coming up very shortly. Those reports also deal with our progress towards 2030, which is an important milestone year.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and turn the floor back to you.