Thank you.
I'd like to echo the very cogent comments by Mr. Kennedy. Well said.
We heard a lot of testimony about whether the existing rights and remedies to have access to the courts have created a floodgate situation, and very clearly they have not. The government, in their wisdom, when they amended the enforcement bills, did not take away the existing rights of access to investigation and access to the courts. Perhaps now they're thinking in another direction. But thus far in Canada there has not been a floodgate of litigation; that's far from the truth.
I am encouraged that Mr. Woodworth believes that decisions should be made by the democratically elected members. I am looking forward to my bill going through the House of Commons and being approved by the Senate.
Again, these provisions are simply consistent with the commitment made by the Government of Canada under the North American agreement on environmental cooperation. If you look at the sections on private access to remedies, we undertake that we will provide access to injunctions. It's up to the court to determine if the case is valid or not. It's very clearly circumscribed by requiring that there be significant environmental harm so that action is brought in the public interest. It's not an action for damages. It is an action brought in the interest of the public and protection of the environment, and may only be sought in the case of significant environmental harm being caused if there is not an interim injunction.
And on the matter of limiting the damages to $1,000, that's consistent with the approach adopted in the United States, because they have found that it's not simply enough to give communities the right of standing if they're barred from accessing the courts because of onerous costs. This is just ensuring that we deliver on our responsibilities as well under that side agreement to NAFTA.