Another option might have been an omnibus bill, that would have amended a number of acts. That being said, clause 3 of the bills says "This Act must be interpreted consistently with existing and emerging principles of environmental law". I see that it's talking about a principle that again seems to create legal uncertainty: the concept of environmental justice.
I don't know whether there is cassel on that principle, but, and I want to stress this point, it is defined in the bill as "the principle that there should be a just and consistent distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among Canadians...".
We are told that we must act in a way that is consistent with a principle other than polluter pays. The Supreme Court has already stated a legal opinion and ruled on the polluter-pay principle. The polluter-pay principle, on which there is a judgment of the Supreme Court, holds that the one that pollutes must pay. The environmental justice principle then says that for the environment, there must be a just and consistent distribution of the burden among Canadians. I don't see how those two principles can be compatible.
Am I to understand that if a company in the oil sands industry polluted the environment and was then responsible for an environmental burden, all Canadians, whether they be in Quebec or in Alberta or another province, should shoulder that burden in a just and consistent way? Is there not some inconsistency between the principles being presented to us?