Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also wish to thank our witnesses.
I liked what Mr. Huffaker had to say in reply to Mr. Scarpaleggia's question. He pointed out that there could be differences regarding environmental law and the right to a healthy environment, whether under Ontario law or under this legislation. In this legislation, the right to a healthy environment is being created, which is a good thing. I don't see a problem with that principle. There may be a problem insofar as civil actions are concerned.
Perhaps the matter needs to be researched, but according to what I've understood, where these rights exist in the provinces, they are subject to more guidelines than the provisions of the bill before us. It might be interesting to conduct a comparative analysis of this bill and what exists in the provinces, such as in Quebec. Quebec adopted a comparable model.
That said, there are two groups of witnesses before us and I believe I understand that according to one group, we are being urged to throw the bill overboard. However, one witness said that it might be possible to work with the bill, among other things by clarifying subclause 23(3).
The Shipping Federation of Canada said in its brief that the simple fact of alleging environmental harm will be sufficient to trigger procedures, and that is the problem. I think that that is an important point.
If all of this were subject to limits and guidelines, namely as to the grounds that could trigger legal action, do you think it would be possible to improve the bill? My question is addressed to all of you.