Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses.
As I was listening to your presentations, I was trying to put myself in the place of Canadians who would be following the arguments that have been put forward. It occurred to me--and I do understand the concept of rule of law and predictability through natural justice--that at the front end, in terms of a full airing, all have a right to appear before a tribunal or whatever the body would be that would be dealing with, in this case, an environmental assessment, be it a class or an individual assessment, provincial or federal.
It occurred to me that you've characterized this bill of environmental rights as being draconian in nature. Possibly, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms back many years was viewed the same way. The charter was invoked to bring some closure to that natural justice, that the issue was being dealt with, and would have probably been a human rights or a social issue at the time.
Would it still be your position that if the bill could be changed in some way to be a final tick-off, if you will, that it would conform to the declaration somewhat similar to a charter? I've been at hearings where the final question that's asked is whether it conforms to the charter. So could this bill be improved or changed such that it was a final touch test in principles, as opposed to substantive judicial process? Could that be done?