We had testimony, primarily at the beginning, from those who helped the NDP write this bill--which we questioned: to what extent did they help Ms. Duncan write the bill, and what was that motive?
Chair, we were surprised to hear from everyone but the NGOs that this was a bad bill, a dangerous bill. It would create uncertainty throughout industry and could retroactively remove all existing permits.
We heard that it could jeopardize the existence of Hydro-Québec and its operations. We heard from shipping. We heard from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We heard from legal experts. The common theme, other than from the NGOs that we heard, was that the bill was not redeemable and should not go forward.
Some of the legal input we heard from the witnesses is incorporated into the motion. Actually, most of what we heard is incorporated in it. So it's relevant and I think the motion is very appropriate.
We also heard, Chair, that Ontario and Quebec already have legislation for an environmental bill of rights. Their legislation does have some restrictions so that there is what people in Quebec and people in Ontario believe to be a balanced approach for an environmental bill of rights.
The concern with the coalition bill now...and I call it a coalition bill, Chair, because unfortunately, every member of the coalition supports this bill--shockingly, even the Bloc members.