Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thought I heard the member opposite refer to kangaroo courts. But the courts are able to dismiss anything that's frivolous. They don't have to stop a project or grant an order. The probity of the courts is not in question here. This simply says that we're going to have extra insurance for individuals, which other jurisdictions already have.
The Conservative Party used to believe in the rights of individuals; they believed in people exercising their rights. That's where the American tradition comes from. A lot of environmental protection in the States is done by individual litigation in support of defending the environment. Sometimes property rights are a little bit stronger there, but essentially it is done in a constructive fashion. So the allegation that it's a kangaroo court simply because it concerns the environment or that reconciling the economy and the environment requires damage to the economy is very old-fashioned thinking.
The idea that you can't reconcile things in a manner that would not require any action by the court is part of the problem. That's part of the reason we need to have an environmental bill of rights. All the members opposite have had their briefings from Environment Canada and know how few enforcement officers there are.
I'm not sure what Mr. Calkins means when he says Canada has an outstanding reputation for protecting the environment. We're 54th out of 57 countries in dealing with climate change. On biodiversity we're not rated that highly. Our marine protection is way behind that of other countries. As to species at risk, I think we have seven habitats out of 450 that have actually been identified.
There is perhaps a genuine interest on the part of all members of the committee to see the environmental protections brought from the realm of something abstract to something that can happen. This is simply saying that we people in government don't have the wherewithal, that the discretion of ministers is not always sufficient to protect the environment, and that individual Canadians can actually express themselves in a manner we shouldn't be afraid of. Who are we to take away their rights to do that? Who are we to restrict this option?
This simply opens the door to individuals to take action on behalf of the environment—not in a kangaroo court but in a court of law. They should get that respect, and this simply enables that. For the members opposite to be on the one hand accepting of the bill and on the other fundamentally dismissive of that principle is something they have to contend with.
This is an expansion of the rights of individuals. I think it's a useful thing. It's not a frivolous or a reckless thing, and anybody who tries to use it that way will find themselves unable to do so.
Thank you.