Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to thank the association representatives for their testimony. We now have a better idea of the bill's scope. At the beginning of your presentation, you said that the bill's aim is laudable, and we agree. Despite that fact, the bill's scope seems to be problematic. From the outset, the bill has been compared by some of our witnesses to the legislation of certain provinces. Quebec legislation, and Ontario and Yukon charters, have been mentioned. It appears that the further our study progresses, the easier it becomes to make these comparisons. However, the fact is that the legislations differ in scope.
I will start with clause 9 of the bill, which concerns the right to a healthy environment. Subclause 9(1) of Bill C-469 states the following:
9. (1) Every resident of Canada has a right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
However, section 19.1 of the Quebec Environment Quality Act, in Division III.1 on environmental quality, states:
Every person has a right to a healthy environment and to its protection, and to the protection of the living species inhabiting it, to the extent provided for by this Act and the regulations, orders, approvals and the authorizations issued under any section [...]
I want to draw your attention to the last point, as it's probably important to you.
So, is it wrong to claim that the scope of the bill before us is not the same as the scope of the Quebec act, since the provincial legislation sets out a number of parameters, which are absent from the bill?