Could I answer that? Because that's a good question.
At the end of the day, it's intended to be a principled document and it's meant to be a broad statement of values. But at the same time, it gets into a bunch of nuts and bolts, and it would appear to open the door for recourse to judicial proceedings where a lawyer's assistance might be necessary.
Ecojustice would echo the comments of Ms. McClenaghan. Ecojustice isn't going to be representing any more people because of this. Our resources are limited; that's just the reality. But what we might be able to do is assist citizens who are concerned and help them understand what their rights are and how they can participate in the process more effectively.
Theresa's comments are well taken that in Ontario there's a registry and citizens can follow a process from the beginning to the end. Following a process and understanding where decisions are coming from, and why, and seeing a basis of documentation, is absolutely critical. I'd say that at the end of the day this opens more doors for the average citizen in terms of access to justice. I note that in paragraph 21(2)(a), they talk about “counsel fees” being made available for litigants whether or not they have representation, so I think there are specific references to situations where that might not be the case. I think the goal here is to move this away from the domain of the lawyers and move it into the hands of citizens.