I'll take the plunge.
It seems that in every parliamentary committee hearing somebody, somewhere, has to say “If it's not broken, don't try to fix it.” So it falls to me to say that here.
It's not clear to us. Your colleague compared this legislation to the charter. What the charter did was establish an individual right in excess of the collective power of the state. We don't see that as a useful approach to this legislation.
You asked if the legislation could be altered to take away the danger of continuous litigation. I'm almost tempted to ask Ms. Duncan to answer the question. The bill is set up to allow private parties to bring litigation, even if state agencies have made themselves content with a project or a situation. As such, we consider that the danger of frivolity or inappropriate use of the act is considerable. And it's not all targeted at business; an individual could run to a federal statute to set aside a provincial land decision. Land planning legislation could be trumped by a person accessing the federal legislation.
I don't believe there's a compelling enough reason to justify this kind of legislative adventure.