I'll move this important amendment. Of course, we'll have to change the name from “independent expert committee” to the name adopted. I believe that this was in relation to amendment NDP‑4. That name prevailed.
Amendment BQ‑23 provides important clarifications regarding the composition of the expert committee. This is about science and expertise, along with a lack of conflict of interest in relation to the committee's mandate. I'll say it again. Words have meaning. Legal experts, who can attest to this here, are fully aware of that. Some words are interchangeable, but others aren't. An objective, for example, isn't a target. That's why legislation must be concise.
With respect to the committee, the benefits of selecting members based on specific criteria related to their profile, training and expertise have been demonstrated. That's the important thing. This is about significant and multi‑disciplinary skills and experience in the fight against climate change. Don't think that, in our view, only scientists should be on this committee. That isn't our position. However, many members should have that profile. It should be noted that the fight against climate change has involved experts and specialists from many disciplines, including applied sciences. Nevertheless, there are also economists, specialists in public policy development, experts in green finance and green taxation, and so on.
Moreover, part (b) states as follows:(b) at least one member must be a health expert with experience relevant to the committee's mandate;
We want the committee to include a person who has relevant experience. This seems responsible and logical. Why is that so? As you know, since I've been doing environmental work, I've always put health and the environment side by side. This issue is still very important to me. I won't ignore it today. I share the opinion of thousands of physicians in Quebec and Canada. This includes one person who came to speak to the committee. Doctors in other parts of the world are calling for legislation that will protect the physical and mental health of the public.
I want to remind you that, according to Health Canada, the cost of pollution‑related health issues accounts for 6% of Canada's gross domestic product, which is quite significant. If we believe in our institutions [Technical difficulty—Editor] think about that in our deliberations. I also want to remind the committee members that a person who came to speak on behalf of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment as part of this study said that medical expertise must be included in this committee.
I'll give you the example of the United Kingdom, where a similar committee requires that six of the nine members, or 67% of committee members, have a scientific background. In France, 11 out of 13 members, or 85% of committee members, have a scientific background. In New Zealand, as noted earlier, two out of six members, or 33% of committee members, have a scientific background. In Quebec, nine out of 12 members, or 75% of committee members, have a scientific background. In terms of Canada, the minister announced—this winter, I believe—that the proportion would be one in 14, or 7% of committee members. The government, through various ministers, parliamentary secretaries and members of Parliament, has said countless times that we must rely on science and that it would listen to scientists.
Well, I want to tell you that it's time to keep this promise and that you'll have the opportunity to do so by voting in favour of amendment BQ‑23.
Thank you.