David Anderson

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be answering the member's question in more detail when we discuss the species at risk legislation. However, I can assure the hon. member that if a province or territory fails to take adequate measures to protect a species at risk, the architecture of the legislation suggests that we should step forward. I will be happy to give more details when the legislation is before the House. I appreciate the member's concern and it should be flagged.

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I can assure him that we will indeed table the bill on endangered species this afternoon, at least I hope so. I appreciate that we should wait before discussing a bill that we have not yet seen.

He said something very important regarding greenhouse gases. We are working together with the provinces and I salute everything that Quebec has done. It has been very well done. It can serve as an example for many other provinces.

I am not saying that everything is perfect or that we have reached our ultimate goal. Not at all. I am saying we must work with the federal government within the federal jurisdiction, with the other provinces and territories, and with other countries in the world. The efforts made by the Quebec government have really been appreciated at the federal level and we are working together.

We have the same objectives and I hope that with this co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, with the Quebec government and the other provinces and territories we will succeed. I am sure that the targets set—6% below 1990 levels—we can reached. This objective is not so out of reach that it impossible to achieve.

I think that with the co-operation of all jurisdictions and the awareness of the Canadian people, we will be able to achieve the Kyoto objective, which was a 6% reduction by 2010.

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is a general outline of approaches which I reiterated in my speech. In response to the first question of the hon. member from Esquimalt, I indicated that within the last week Canada has been named third in the world with respect to the environment and its protection. Finland and Norway are ahead of us, and both are small Scandinavian countries in terms of population and area.

I could pluck a myriad of reports out of the air to support this. However, it is the most prestigious of the various reports dealing with Canada and its position with respect to the environment.

The hon. member has plucked out another report which says that in the view of a certain group we are not doing enough. I tend to prefer the type of report which analyzes objectively on the basis of some 66 criteria reduced to 22 headings and dealing with 122 nations. I tend to prefer that objective approach and analysis.

This is not to say, as I said in my speech and which the hon. member appears to have missed, that we should sit back and say nothing more should be done, we are doing well, who cares. Not at all. Third is not good enough. We wish to be first. We will continue to work. We know that many other countries have the same objective, so it will be a tough race.

He is demonstrating, like so many members in the opposition, that a Canadian optimist is someone who says things could be worse. There are times, when it comes to issues such as this one, when we should sit back and say we are doing well. The next thing to say is we could do better and where we can do better. Let us not always bring forward the negative, negative, negative, because that discourages people.

I mentioned in my speech that we work with large numbers of people throughout Canada on voluntary co-operative efforts. Occasionally we should point out to them that their good work on the ground is recognized at the highest levels internationally.

The second point raised by the hon. member is CITES. I will certainly work closely with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is a major problem.

We will be putting resources where we think they are most effective. Just as with many other smuggling issues around the world, it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with it simply at the borders. We will have to deal with it in some of the markets of Singapore or Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world. We will have to deal with it in concert with other countries. This is not simply a question of more and more heavy enforcement at border points.

[Speech From The Throne, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have rise in the House since your election. I am delighted to see you in the chair. You have demonstrated great skill in the role as the Deputy Speaker. We look forward to one of the most productive parliaments that one could possibly expect as a result of your leadership and your skills as Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Speech from the Throne. As Minister of the Environment it is my particular responsibility to concern myself with Canada and our natural heritage from coast to coast to coast.

We are blessed to live in a country that is rich in nature, wilderness and ample resources. This rich natural heritage is a sacred trust passed from one generation to the next. Indeed, as former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to remark “geography and nature defines us as Canadians”.

As Canadians, we understand that protecting the environment is not an option. It is a must-do. Nothing is more fundamental in this country.

That is why one of the key planks in the government's plan for its third mandate is to ensure a clean, healthy environment for Canadians and the preservation of our natural species.

For its part the Government of Canada has already made significant investments in the environment by supporting community initiatives, funding research, facilitating the development of new environmental technologies, supporting international environmental initiatives, and strengthening measures to reduce air and water pollution.

Our work is paying off. Just last month at the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, a study was released which shows that, together with Finland and Norway, Canada is one of the top three countries in environmental sustainability.

Canada ranks third on an environmental sustainability index, the most comprehensive global report comparing environmental conditions and environmental performance across 122 countries.

We can be proud of that progress, but we should not be content to rest on our laurels. I would like to speak today to how the government intends to build on this and other environmental achievements to ensure the preservation of our vast landscape and the wealth of our natural resources for future generations to come.

Specifically I will address clean air and clean water, the conservation of Canada's parks and species at risk, health protection and climate change.

Our goal is to help Canadians push the frontiers of environmental science and technology. Let me stress that science must be the foundation of all our environmental policies.

If we do not have the science right we obviously will not get the policies right. By investing in our science capacity and sustainable practices we can harness the power of science to support our environmental goals and to protect and promote the health of Canadians.

Science is already showing us that children do not react the same way as adults to toxic substances. They are not small adults. They are at the most delicate stage of development and one of the most at risk groups.

In its third mandate the first key step for the government will be to fill critical research gaps that exist now so that we can assist in developing the appropriate standards to safeguard the special vulnerabilities of our children.

Our science also tells us that some 5,000 Canadians annually die prematurely because of air pollution. Hundreds of thousands of others suffer from aggravated asthma, and I am one of them, bronchitis, and other respiratory illnesses. Now we are learning that air pollution affects our health at lower levels than we previously thought.

Canada has already launched the beginnings of a clean air strategy. It addresses transboundary pollution, vehicle and fuel standards, industrial sectors and the science of air quality. In so doing, it engages Canadians and the communities in which they live to become part of the solution.

We have also reached other important national and bilateral agreements related to air pollution. In December I had the pleasure and privilege of signing on behalf of Canada the ozone annex to the 1991 Canada-United States air quality agreement, committing both our countries to significantly reducing the creation of smog causing pollutants in the eastern half of this continent.

In our new mandate the Government of Canada will move quickly to implement that ozone annex and to extend it to the western part of the continent. The annex complements many other initiatives already underway to improve air quality in Canada itself, including the Canada-wide standards for particulate matter and ozone agreed to by the federal, provincial and territorial governments only some six months ago.

The quality of our air is rightly one of the top concerns of Canadians. So is the quality of our water. Indeed, the quality of our water is now preoccupying Canadians from all walks of life and all levels of government.

The Government of Canada is committed to working with all partners and all levels of government to protect Canadians from the dangers of polluted water. During their June 2000 meeting the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of the environment agreed to establish three task groups to deal with water management issues including water quality, demand, use management and preventable measures for water hazards such as flooding. We have put some $135 million into supporting municipal projects through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that protect the environment such as waste water treatment and solid waste management.

The Speech from the Throne commits the government to do more and to take leadership in developing stronger national guidelines for water quality. Drawing on expertise within the government and across Canada we will significantly strengthen the role of the National Water Research Institute.

We will invest in research and development to protect surface water and groundwater supplies from industrial and farming activities. We will fund further improvements to municipal water and waste water systems.

We are also taking action to protect fragile ecosystems. We have created seven new parks. We have also provided Parks Canada with an additional $130 million over four years to establish new parks, manage the existing ones and build on our scientific capacity within the parks system. My neighbour, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will no doubt be saying more on this later in this debate. I look forward to hearing her remarks.

In addition, the Government of Canada is committed to protecting species at risk through strong and effective legislation, stewardship to protect habitat, a productive recovery process in partnerships with provinces, territories, stakeholders and aboriginal groups.

I stress the importance of effective legislation. Duplicating less effective legislation elsewhere simply because it appears to be stronger is not the way to go. Let us learn from the mistakes of others, craft something totally Canadian and effective on the ground, which is where we can protect species and the battle lines can be drawn.

I will be reintroducing the species at risk act in the House today, but I want to point out that our strategy to protect species at risk is already producing good results.

Legislation is supported on the ground through voluntary activities by conservation groups and individuals who are taking action to help protect species, protect habitat and conserve biodiversity where it matters most: on the land, in our streams, oceans and forests.

Our strategy balances strong regulations with voluntary measures and incentives. When Canadians, for example, donate ecologically sensitive lands to an environmental group, they can now benefit from a 50% reduction in capital gains.

I applaud the Minister of Finance for his recognition of the importance of this measure in getting the goodwill and co-operation of landowners in the battle to protect habitat of species, endangered and otherwise.

Let me turn now to the issue of global warming. Canada is extremely concerned about climate change, and with good reason.

The North, and our country is a northern country, is the area which perhaps is experiencing the most severe impacts of climate change. We see that the ice is melting. Polar bears are starving. The traditional lifestyle of aboriginal peoples is threatened. The fauna and flora are highly disturbed.

As a northern nation we are on the frontline of the impact of climate change. We have taken action to respond and will take more action throughout the coming decade. We are beginning to see results.

Since Kyoto we have succeeded in decoupling economic growth from emissions growth in Canada. Indeed that has dropped to one-fifth of what it was before. Previously for every 1% increase in gross domestic product we would see a 1% increase in emissions. Now for every 1% growth in GDP we see one-fifth of that. Indeed that is a dramatic change.

Canada has become a leader in the science and modelling of climate change. Last fall we adopted the first national climate change action plan.

This $500 million action plan captures many of the best ideas that came out of a consultation process with representatives of industry, environmental organizations, aboriginal people, municipalities, academic institutions and other.

We engaged all our provinces and territories in the effort. All relevant federal departments were involved in preparing the action plan.

No other country in the world has gone through such an extensive process to develop its national plan. This means that once the decisions are made we will have an already high level of buy in and acceptance and hence, we trust, a smoother path to implementation.

The action plan targets key sectors that will provide both environmental and economic benefits. As a result Canadians will enjoy cleaner air and water. They will save money from energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy technologies.

Ultimately our climate change action plan will make the Canadian economy more innovative and more competitive on the world scale.

When fully implemented, the plan will take Canada one-third of the way to achieving the target established in the Kyoto protocol. It will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by about 65 megatonnes annually during the commitment period of 2008 to 2012.

This is a major step forward that sets the stage for future reductions and reflects the seriousness with which Canada takes its international commitments.

On the world stage we have championed a comprehensive approach to climate change that will lead to practical action.

I must confess disappointment at the results of the meeting in The Hague where inflexibility on the part of the European Union did not allow for an agreement between the United States and the countries of the umbrella group and the European Union. Nevertheless that is a minor setback. We will continue to play the role of bringing people together on climate change and other key environmental issues because Canadians have told us they want Canada to take a leadership role in protecting the global environment.

We have already played an instrumental role in bringing about the Montreal protocol on CFC reduction, the persistent organic pollutants, or POP, negotiations, which took place in Cartagena and again in Montreal, in addition to the successful outcome to the Montreal conference on biosafety and genetically modified organisms.

This weekend, I will be joining my international colleagues, the various environment ministers, at the United Nations environment program meeting in Nairobi to continue in our efforts to build a world that is more secure, more prosperous and more sustainable.

I would like to turn now to an important tool to promote development that is sustainable, and that is environmental assessment. By bringing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act into force in 1995, this government has ensured that the environmental effects of our actions are fully considered before decisions are taken.

Each year the Government of Canada assesses almost 6,000 projects each with the potential to affect our air, our health, our water, our wildlife and natural spaces. Project by project, and step by step, we are using environmental assessment to avoid adverse effects of development.

I will report to the House soon on the outcome of the recent review of this act. I plan to take the measures needed to make it an even more effective tool in support of this government's focus on a clean, healthy environment for Canadians.

In closing, I will tell a story that captures the essence of these issues. It demonstrates the holistic nature of environmental issues today, and the need to embrace new ways of thinking and new alliances.

The Georgia Basin ecosystem initiative from the west coast of Canada, an area which we share with the United States, is a partnership among the federal and provincial governments, business and industry leaders, first nations, citizens and volunteers.

The initiative tackles environmental issues such as clean water and air and species at risk. At the same time, it addresses the social and economic needs of communities within the Georgia Basin.

In one of their projects, they have developed an interactive computer model that shows how three prime systems, the biosphere, human society and the economy, interact with each other. Community members have had the chance to plug in their choices and see the kind of world they can create for the Georgia Basin by the year 2040.

I like that project for a number of reasons. First, it is a great management tool that will be useful for decision makers. Second, it is a motivator of ordinary citizens. It gets people involved and shows them the consequences of their potential actions. In that way it allows a higher level of debate about society and its goals.

In the months and years ahead, as we struggle to protect the myriad aspects of our environment, we need to use all the available tools. We need to embrace innovation, whether it comes from a computer model or an aboriginal elder. Finally, we need to promote the notion of personal stewardship among all Canadians.

Our ancestors have thrown us the torch. It is for us to hold it high, to keep it burning brightly and to pass it on to our children. The government and I, as Minister of the Environment, are committed to that task.

[The Environment, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, monitoring is currently taking place to determine the situation at the Bouctouche River. If it is indicated that there is a deleterious substance entering the water as a result of the pig farm, of course it will be instructed to take remedial measures. If it does not, then appropriate measures will be taken.

I would remind the hon. member that initially this was analyzed by DFO. It said there was no impact on habitat directly and that it was inappropriate to put in a restriction on the use of land within the province which would have affected farming in the province and the provincial jurisdiction.

[Economic Policy, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has understood that in the budget for 2000 we set aside some $640 million in new dollars for the environment, especially for the greenhouse gases. In addition, we added $500 million to that in the speech the Minister of Finance gave a few days ago.

The figure has increased by $1.2 billion in the past eight months, something the hon. Bloc Quebecois member should be proud of.

[The Environment, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the tirade of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party there is one element that is totally absent, and that is the fact of the Canadian constitution. The federal government does not have the power to walk into every problem in the country simply because the problem exists, whether it is at the municipal level or the provincial level.

Why is it that she thinks that simply because there is a problem the federal government should take over? There is a problem with illiteracy. That does not mean that this government should set up educational programs for every child in the country.

[The Environment, October 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the Adams mine is this. The province of Ontario has carried out an assessment. It has come to a certain conclusion, which is that it is environmentally safe to carry out the use of the mine site for Toronto garbage.

On the other hand there are two aspects of federal jurisdiction. One is the transboundary aspect with Quebec, between Ontario and Quebec. The other is the transboundary aspect between the Ontario jurisdiction and the federal Indian reserve in the area.

As I have said in the House time after time, and the hon. member knows it, that question has been put to the environmental assessment authority. When it comes up with scientific conclusions I will make a decision on whether to proceed with a fully inquiry.

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, October 20th, 2000]

moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset what a pleasure it is to speak to this particular bill. I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for allowing me the opportunity of doing so.

I would also like to mention that the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has been of great support to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself on this legislation and has indeed followed the issue of water quality in Canada with great care. Two other members I would like to quickly single out among the many are of course the member for Mississauga South and the member for Leeds—Grenville, who have been extremely supportive and helpful in the work of bringing forward policy in this particular area.

I am pleased to address the House on second reading of Bill C-15, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

In May 1998, a company proposed a project to export water by tanker from Lake Superior. This sparked a debate among Canadians on the future security and preservation of Canada's freshwater resources. However, this is not a new issue.

Anyone who has followed the deliberations of the House over the past 40 years will remember the grandiose continental schemes dreamed up to transfer water out of Canada. The views of Canadians and the Government of Canada on this have not changed. Canada's water is not for sale. Our freshwater resources are too precious to allow bulk removal or diversion. They must be protected for future generations of Canadians who will follow us.

Successive Canadian governments have opposed the diversion or bulk removal of Canadian water. However, to date this has been little more than declarations. The time has now come to deal through legislation with the issue, and that is why we are taking action.

Bill C-15 will protect boundary waters, including the critical resource of the Great Lakes, from bulk water removal under federal law.

The act implements the 1909 Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty. This is one of our oldest treaties and a landmark in Canada-U.S. relations.

With over 300 lakes and rivers along the Canada-U.S. border, the drafters recognized the critical role played by water and the importance of providing a structure and mechanism to prevent and resolve disputes between the two countries. Ninety-one years later we are using the same mechanism to ensure that these waters will be protected for future generations of Canadians.

The amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act in Bill C-15 are based principally on Canada's treaty obligations to the United States not to take action in Canada which affects levels and flows of boundary waters on the United States side of the border. I would note that the United States has the same obligation to Canada, that is, not to take action in the U.S. which affects levels and flows of boundary waters on the Canadian side of the border.

These amendments also have a second objective; to protect the integrity of boundary water ecosystems. The amendments have three key elements: a prohibition provision; a licensing regime; and sanctions and penalties.

The prohibition provision will give the Minister of Foreign Affairs the authority to impose a prohibition on removals of boundary waters out of their water basins. Exceptions will be considered, such as ballast water, short-term humanitarian purposes and water used in the production of food or beverages, for example, bottled water.

While there are many boundary waters along the Canada-U.S. border affected by the prohibition, its most significant effect will be on the Great Lakes. This will provide to Canada the ability to stop any future plans for water removal out of the Great Lakes.

Separate from the amendments dealing with the prohibition, there will be a licensing regime. These licences will cover projects such as dams and obstructions in boundary and transboundary waters. Under the provisions of the treaty, these types of projects must have the approval of the International Joint Commission and the Government of Canada.

I would like to stress that the process of approving such projects has taken place over the past 91 years without any problems under the general authority of the treaty. In essence, the process is not changing, except that it will be formalized now in a licensing system. Also, the licensing regime will not cover bulk water removal projects. These, if they are proposed, are covered by the Act's prohibition.

Bill C-15 will also allow for clear and strong sanctions and penalties. This will give teeth to the prohibitions and ensure that Canada is in the position to enforce it.

I would also like to set Bill C-15 in the general context of Canada's strategy announced on February 10, 1999 to prohibit bulk removal of water out of all major Canadian water basins. Why did the Government of Canada take this initiative? The removal and transfer of water in bulk may result in irreversible ecological, social and economic impacts. We want to ensure, for future generations of Canadians, the security of our freshwater resources and the integrity of our ecosystems.

However, to be effective, any approach must take account of two factors. First, no single government has the ability to resolve this question. Flowing water does not respect political boundaries. In the case of the Great Lakes system, two federal governments, eight state governments, two provincial governments, and a number of regional and binational organizations are involved in managing and protecting freshwater resources.

Furthermore, it would be a gross oversimplification to view the issue only from one angle. It is a multidimensional issue involving removals, diversions, consumption, population and economic growth, the effects of climate change, and last but not least, the cumulative effect of all those factors.

All levels of government must act effectively and in concert within their respective jurisdictions. Hence, Canada announced in February 1999 that the Government of Canada would be acting within its jurisdiction. Bill C-15 fulfils this commitment.

Canada also announced a reference from the governments of Canada and the United States to the International Joint Commission to investigate and make recommendations on consumptive uses, diversions and removals in the greatest of our shared waters, the Great Lakes. It said that it recognized the primary responsibility of provinces and territories for water management. My colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, and I proposed a Canada-wide accord to prohibit bulk water removal out of major Canadian water basins.

As of today, all provinces have put into place or are developing legislation and policies to prohibit bulk water removal.

The International Joint Commission delivered a landmark report on March 15 of this year, that is, the protection of the waters of the Great Lakes. I would like to reflect briefly on the IJC's conclusions and its recommendations. They are consistent with and supportive of the broad environmental approach adopted by Canada on the issue of bulk water removal.

The International Joint Commission concluded that “water is a non-renewable resource” and the vast volumes of the Great Lakes are deceiving. Less than 1% of the water in the Great Lakes system is renewed annually. The other 99% is a gift of the glacial age. Taking water out of the water basin is in fact like mining. Once taken it will not return.

The report also stated that if all the interests in the Great Lakes Basin are considered, there is never a surplus of water. Every drop of water has several potential uses. Forty million Canadians and Americans depend on the waters of the Great Lakes for every aspect of life: day-to-day living, industry, recreation, transportation and trade.

On top of this, the ecosystem of the Great Lakes has its own, equally important, demands on the water. As we are dependent on the future health of the Great Lakes, the future health of the ecosystem is dependent on our action.

The IJC concluded that the Great Lakes require protection, given all of the present and future stresses and uncertainties. Recommendations for action were made to all levels of government in Canada and the U.S. These recommendations provide the basis for developing a consistent approach to protecting the Great Lakes on both sides of the border.

The Government of Canada agrees with the IJC's conclusions. The prohibition provisions of Bill C-15 will provide the protection to the Great Lakes called for by the IJC.

The Great Lakes are the largest reservoir of fresh water in the world. If the IJC, the International Joint Commission, considers caution is the watchword for the management of waters in the Great Lakes basin, is it not equally so for other smaller bodies of water and ecosystems across Canada wherever they are located?

I would also like to take this opportunity to address the trade implications of Canada's policy approach. A number of persons and groups have called on the federal government to use an export ban.

There is a consensus among Canadians that our water resources need protection. The issue before us, then, is not whether to protect the water, but how best to accomplish the goal.

Canada's approach, embodied in Bill C-15 and our overall strategy, is to protect water in its natural state in water basins. It is better than an export ban.

Water is protected and regulated in its natural state, before the issue of exporting arises and before it has become a commercial good or a saleable commodity. It is the most comprehensive, environmentally sound and effective means of preserving the integrity of ecosystems and is consistent with international trade obligations.

The critical point is that the Canadian government and Canadian governments of the past have full sovereignty over the management of water in its natural state and, in exercising this sovereignty, they would not be constrained by trade agreements. Canada's view of this matter has been supported by a wide range of expert opinion. The International Joint Commission, which is an independent binational Canadian-U.S. commission, came to similar conclusions in its final report after exhaustive public hearings and submissions that included government and independent experts representing every point of view.

The deputy United States trade representative, in a written submission reproduced in the IJC report, indicated that under customary international law, non-navigable rivers to a watercourse, including the right to control or limit extraction, belong solely to the country or countries where that watercourse lies. He further indicated that the World Trade Organization “simply has nothing to say regarding the basic decision by governments whether to permit the extraction of water from lakes and rivers in their territories”.

In this light, I am puzzled by the insistence of those who continue to recommend that we institute an export ban. It comes from people who apparently share our desire to protect Canada's water resources; however, it is clear their approach would make our water more vulnerable to trade challenge, not less, and make it harder to protect, not easier.

Unlike the Government of Canada's approach, which is focused on comprehensive environmental objectives in a manner that is trade consistent, an export ban does not address the environmental dimension, has possible constitutional limitations, and may be vulnerable to trade challenge.

An export ban would focus on water once it has become a good and therefore subject to international trade agreements, and would likely be contrary to Canada's international trade obligations.

Canadians are looking to all levels of the government to act. Bill C-15 will provide protection against the bulk removal of water from the Great Lakes and other boundary waters. Joined with the efforts being made in other parts of the federal government's strategy, including the Canada-wide accord on water and the Canada-U.S. reference to the International Joint Commission, it will provide the best protection possible for Canada's freshwater resources.

This is the best way to protect Canada's freshwater. It brings together a comprehensive, environmentally sound approach that respects constitutional responsibilities and is consistent with Canada's international trade obligations.

For all of these reasons, I urge members to support Bill C-15.

[The Environment, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the draft agreement calls for a 50% reduction of nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian coal powered plants in Ontario, and a 70% reduction of nitrous oxide emissions from American plants during the smog season, May through September.

I have some doubt, and at this point I cannot say exactly what Ontario will do, as there is some ambiguity in its positions, but I can assure the hon. member that we expect the Ontario government to co-operate with the coal powered plants it owns. If it does not, federal legislation will be used to make sure we meet those targets.