In your concept of aspirational targets—I've been pushing this from day one of this bill's being tabled in the House of Commons—there was no review of this legislation. It's only been reviewed twice in 40 years. It's like a tumbleweed that just goes across the legislative landscape.
I'm looking at some potential amendment that would have some softer or maybe lower targets for the actual mandatory target requirements, and then “explain” in that lower percentile. Then there would be aspirational targets after that. If we keep the bill the way it is, the way the minister's tabled the bill, it's likely not going to be reviewed for another eight years, in terms of parliamentary process and so forth—even longer potentially—and there are no powers to the minister.
I'm looking at some other targeted areas, and then going from there. What would be your thoughts on somewhat of a mixed-model approach as a potential?