Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, we are abandoning amendment BQ-10 and would rather proceed with amendment BQ-11. There was a small issue between the two, but I understand that if we forget about amendment BQ-10, we will need to discuss amendment G-8 before returning to amen

Environment committee  I would just add that, as Mr. Bachrach mentioned earlier, I think the original intent of the NDP and all parties was to strengthen the legislation. That's why I think that “interim … objective” is not binding, whereas “target” is more binding.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. In light of what Mr. Moffet just explained, can I propose a subamendment to replace “interim … objective” with “target”? That would be truly binding for 2026, and it wouldn't just be something that's part of the 2030 target, but that really has no force.

Environment committee  I would just replace “interim … objective” with “target”.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the member mentioned, the NDP members have been calling for 2025 to be a milestone year from the beginning. Now they are backing down and proposing an interim target of 2026, which is unfortunate. I guess that's part of the deal they made with the Libera

Environment committee  I'm not sure I understand, Mr. Moffet. I'm going back to section 11, which says that the minister can amend the target he's set. If we take into consideration what the minister said earlier, that he will include the 40% to 45% GHG reduction target, that means that he can decide t

Environment committee  Section 11 could then allow the minister, for example, to reduce the target from 40% to 30%, which is the Paris Agreement target. Is this correct?

Environment committee  Thank you.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, gentlemen. I would like to come back quickly to the target range of a 40% to 45% reduction in GHG emissions that will be included in the act and its feasibility. Earlier, I asked the minister whether there was a shortfall between the Departme

Environment committee  A deputy minister who has the answer to this question could answer me. If you do not have the figures in front of you, you could send them to the committee. Otherwise, I can ask another question.

Environment committee  Okay. Section 11 of the bill provides that the minister may amend targets for the relevant milestone years at any time. If the minister saw that Canada was not on track to meet the targets set, he would therefore have the power to lower them. In other words, in the event of fai

Environment committee  Is there a problem with the interpretation? I only have two and a half minutes and I don't want to—

Environment committee  When the 2020-2021 budget announcements were made, it was said that implementing these new measures would reduce GHGs by 36% by 2030. However, your target remains a 40% to 45% reduction. So there is a shortfall in this respect. In your opening remarks, you mentioned working with

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to come back to the new target range of 40% to 45% reduction compared to the 2005 base year emissions. Currently, to meet the minimum 30% reduction target, Canada's emissions would have to reach 511 megatonnes in 2030, or 517, depending on ho

Environment committee  That is a very good point, Minister. I thank you for mentioning it. For the sake of transparency towards our international partners and for the sake of honesty and clarity in the political debate, would you be in favour of setting your GHG emission targets using 1990 as the base