Yes.
As always, I do respect my friend's comments and her efforts to respond to my submissions, and it would be unfair of me not to pursue that for the benefit of all of us and particularly her.
What she did was just to state exactly my point that in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in the manner that I described, the Government of Canada has designated a lawsuit against a private individual who has caused significant environmental harm, after the Minister of the Environment has failed to conduct an investigation, to be an environmental protection act. That is quite distinct from what Ms. Duncan has invented in this act, which, in clause 16, is a lawsuit against the government to compel the government to do things.
So the two things are quite different, and that's why I think the heading she's proposed will mislead people. It may be that another way to solve this would be to include in this bill before us some amendment of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to change the name of the lawsuit it's talking about. But to try to equate them is what will cause confusion.