Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just in relation to the point that Ms. Duncan has raised, I think it's interesting that people across the country are beginning to hear about this bill and to get worried about it and to send us briefs about it and I think that can only assist in our deliberations.
There are just two or three more points I'd like to make, finishing off first of all on the issue of the judicialization of environmental policy. Again, Mr. Irving of the Canadian Hydropower Association commented as follows:
Perhaps the most significant change to the current regulatory system would be the fact that under Bill C-469 the courts would be required to decide on environmental protection actions against the federal government, environmental civil actions, and judicial reviews relating to environmental protection. We are very concerned that this would essentially bypass the system of environmental regulations described above by handing over the final decision-making to federal courts and private litigants.
That rather sums up the general concern of judicialization of a policy.
I want to add one more point about the judicialization of environmental policy, and it's one I alluded to a moment ago. That is to say that actions under clauses 16 or 23 of this bill can be brought by Canadian residents who are entities. An entity is defined as follows:
a body corporate, trust, partnership or fund, an unincorporated association or organization that is authorized to carry on business in Canada or that has an office or property in Canada
So any foreign agent who wishes to inject his own agenda--foreign or otherwise--into Canadian policy will be entitled under this bill to commence one of the legal actions that are available. That includes anyone who sets up an office in Canada. They don't have to even do business in Canada, they just have to have an office in Canada. That can include the People's Republic of China if nothing else.
I think that is a very dangerous precedent and road to go down, but it is the road this bill goes down.
The last point I'd like to raise as a matter of concern--and this was mentioned to me by my friend Mr. Calkins, who may want to expand on it--has to do with the fact that we have not had any evidence that there has been any consultation with first nations in relation to this bill. I'm no constitutional expert, I will be the first to admit, but I have the impression generally that the federal government ought not to be encroaching on first nations rights without first consulting them.
This bill is specifically designed to apply to first nations land--at least as I think I understand it--and therefore it certainly will have a very broad effect on the first nations across the country, from the west right through to northern Quebec.
It will mean that they also will be faced with the regulatory uncertainty that I've mentioned, and they also may be up against foreign or other interests with big money and good lawyers to challenge their decisions and their activities that touch on the environment.
This is not the way we do things in Canada. It's another reason why I am so vehemently in support of Mr. Warawa's motion.
Thank you.