Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Scarpaleggia said earlier that we were in the dark when it comes to the right to a healthy environment. On that point, I am going to take the opportunity offered. I have the impression that the courts are also completely in the dark when it comes to the right of Canadian citizens to a healthy environment. I am trying to understand what the effect of this kind of bill would be in future. As the witnesses have said, some provinces have decided to incorporate this principle in the law. In Quebec, for example, it has been the law since 1978.
Mr. Boyd would probably have preferred a constitutional amendment. We know what that involves. As the constitutional experts say, making that kind of amendment often amounts to opening a Pandora's box. would it not have been preferable to amend the existing legislation, which have stood the test of time in the courts, and in particular in the Supreme Court? Would it not have been preferable to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or other environmental legislation for which there have already been judgments by the Canadian courts, rather than creating a new bill of rights dealing with the environment?
I want to be clear: my goal is not to reject this bill, quite the opposite. I adopt the principle. However, I'm trying to see what would have been more effective, what would have made it able to withstand scrutiny in the courts. This principle is by no means clear, whether for parliamentarians or the courts at present.