Right. I saw those from the Bloc and NDP members.
The author of the bill, Ms. Duncan...her bill, along with the ENGOs. She has, I believe, 17 amendments.
How can any bill that is that substantially proposed to be amended now...? Will the witnesses we heard have confidence? Will Canadians have confidence, if a bill like this were to go forward?
One of the number one considerations in any regulation, permit, or environmental law is consultation with first nations. Was there any consultation or input from first nations? No. Should there be? Absolutely.
If first nations would be affected by this bill--if it went ahead and passed through the Senate, this bad piece of legislation—without consultation, would it withstand constitutional challenge? What a wrong way, I believe, to begin: to forge ahead without proper consultation.
I'm actually surprised that the NDP would want to forge ahead without proper consultation. But that's what we see before us today.
Chair, is the bill redeemable? Should we be trying to patch up a bad piece of legislation, an American type of “legislation by litigation”, a “kill the Alberta oil sands” bill, or a “shut down Hydro-Québec” bill? No.
This bill, I believe, is a Trojan horse. It's a bad bill. It's not redeemable. What is the solution? Set it aside.
I make my point.