I wondered if maybe the question wasn't really phrased easily enough to get at this, but the idea is that this is a fairly broad and encompassing effort. By definition, it touches on principles, and those principles are then meant to be relied on, I suppose at various stages of different hearings and so on. I don't know what the overarching value is in the sense that it's not actually in the constitution and so on and what reliance there could be in conjunction with other acts.
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not asking for a legal opinion. I'm just trying to understand its place. What will this bring that's new and different? Is it totally supplementary? Will it displace some of the things in place today? I'm trying to get that sense or a lay perspective of what the existence of an environmental bill of rights would do for citizens out there and how they can understand it, as against the protections we currently have.
I've heard a lot about the gaps, and I understand them, but I just want to know how it addresses those gaps. Does it make this somewhat more complex? Do you rely on one thing and then you might try another...? Or does this simplify things? Does this clarify what citizens can have by way of what they know is there and legally protecting their right to their environmental health and well-being?