I will respect your ruling, Mr. Chair, and simply make my comments very general then, which is to say that the problems for Quebec and for other provinces from this judicial environmental policy bill cannot, in my opinion, be cured by any amendment. And it is inherent in the bill itself that it will encroach upon and interfere with the developments that the provinces wish to encourage, including those in Quebec and including Hydro-Québec.
That moves me to my next point, which is to say that this bill is so fatally flawed in so many areas that in my view it is beyond redemption by amendment. And the fact that we have already had so many amendments proposed in a way reinforces the point of view that this is a fatally flawed piece of legislation. It will end up being a Frankenstein piece of legislation if all these amendments that may come forward are grafted on.
I want to mention two things I see in illustration of the flaws in this bill. First, I'm going to mention a very specific but highly important flaw, and secondly I'm going to mention some themes that run through the whole bill.
As to a specific flaw, I would draw the members' attention to the definition of “precautionary principle”, which is found on page 5, in paragraph 3, of this judicial environmental policy bill. I want to point out that the definition is inconsistent, and I rather think deliberately inconsistent, with all other.... I'm sorry, “all” would be overstating it. It's inconsistent with most other accepted definitions of the precautionary principle.
The one I'm going to hang my hat on is the UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which contains, as principle 15, a comment--