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  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  That's a good question. I'm not sure how the term “ensure” would be interpreted. As members are aware, there's an obligation in the act on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to consult with other ministers in order to ensure a whole-of-government approach. Whether

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  It's correct that we have obligations under the UNFCCC and under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that result in various reports. There are no such regular requirements for plans as contemplated by this provision or the bill as a whole, however.

Environment committee  At the moment, we don't have anything like this particular provision, where there would be an obligation nine years in advance of a target to publish a high-level description of the overall approach the government intends to take to achieve that next target.

Environment committee  Well, the amendment that's been proposed describes “high level” as something that is similar to Canada's nationally determined contributions. There is guidance under the United Nations framework convention about what a nationally determined contribution submission should include

Environment committee  It's argued that the amendment is not redundant in the sense that the bill requires setting multiple targets en route to 2050, but there is nothing in the bill, without this amendment, that requires that each successive target be more ambitious than the previous one.

Environment committee  I'd remind members that the bill is primarily focused on political accountability and speaks to the obligations of future governments, which would have discretion to set whatever interim target they chose. This provision would require that each such target be more ambitious than

Environment committee  The government released modelling with a strengthened climate plan in December, which showed that the measures in the strengthened climate plan, on top of the already implemented measures, would achieve 31%. That is without any additional provincial-territorial or business action

Environment committee  I didn't address that issue, and I don't know that I have it right now. I apologize.

Environment committee  I'd rather not speculate. I apologize.

Environment committee  I would agree with the interpretation of the act that there's nothing in this act that precludes the government or any government from jumping higher than the bar is set, to continue with Ms. McLeod's analogy. This would add greater legal certainty, but it doesn't change the lega