Environment committee  I'm not personally, no, but I can't assure this committee that I've done a thorough review of federal legislation.

Environment committee  No. I apologize if I sound like I am splitting hairs. The short answer is that the act makes a fairly significant distinction between targets and plans. This particular amendment has to do with establishing a 2025 plan, whereas the subsequent NDP amendment that you referred to

Environment committee  If NDP-2 is passed, it would be more than a promise. It would be a legal obligation.

Environment committee  No, you're correct. At the moment it is simply described as a interim greenhouse gas emission objective.

Environment committee  I'm going to apologize to the committee. I had trouble getting on. I'm just bringing the document up. I need to have a look at the provision. I apologize. I'm not quite ready to answer the question.

Environment committee  I can't speak for the intention of the person who wrote the amendment. I think it should have an “s” on it. That's the way the term has been used in the rest of the bill, so it would be consistent. I think there should be consistency throughout the bill. Just to be clear, the t

Environment committee  I think they'd be treated differently. “Target” is already used in the act. As you know, there is a requirement for targets for every five years. “Objective” is a different term, but I think it would nonetheless require a numerical outcome. It would require, in the context of t

Environment committee  I think it's a slightly different meaning. Each target in the bill as currently written has to have its own plan. This amendment refers to an objective, which would be contained within a plan. I think the expectation would be that the 2030 plan would include measures to achieve t

Environment committee  Just to be clear, that's not in the legal sense used in the act as a target. It has its own independent plan. There would be a number that would need to be articulated. That number would be public, and government would be held accountable for it. There would be measures to achi

Environment committee  I'm trying to distinguish what we might commonly refer to as target and the way in which “target” is used in this act, and the specific difference is that in this act each target has to have a stand-alone plan. In this case, there would be no stand-alone separate plan associated

Environment committee  Yes, I think that's the correct way to understand the term. It doesn't have a specific meaning in the act.

Environment committee  Yes. I think you have to read the whole collection of words: “interim greenhouse gas emissions objective for 2026.”

Environment committee  To my knowledge, that's correct. I have a team that can double-check in the next few seconds.

Environment committee  I think it would provide additional specificity to that NDC, because the NDC is more than just a number. The NDC is the number for 2030, the target, if you will, in common parlance, plus the measures that will be put in place. In Canada's case, it would likely include some form o

Environment committee  I'm sorry. The report or the interim objective...?