I'll speak to that, and of course that does summarize our view.
One time many years ago I was in a parliamentary committee, and one of the members of Parliament spoke exactly to this issue of the unanimity of legislation. He called it—he was making an extreme point for the purpose of illustration—the Clifford Olson provision. He said what if only one person in the country didn't want to do something and it was Clifford Olson? He's still a resident of the nation. You could drop Mom Boucher or someone else in there for the purpose of it. The point he made, and I think it's one that always has to be made, is that members of Parliament are being asked to make those decisions.
If I may offer one other point here, in these hearings I would encourage the committee to hear from the Canadian Bar Association or some other organization about the situation that will confront a judge when a case comes forward. It seems to me it's just a common sense observation that it would be extremely difficult for a judge, given the resources available in the Federal Court, to handle an extremely sprawling environmental case, analyze all the motions, compel all the studies and examination, and come up with some kind of conclusion—even then still arriving at the point I raised in my brief, which is that the judges don't want and you don't want them to actually make the law.