Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The citation you just read referred to the ability of headers to assist people reading the act. I'm concerned that this proposed amendment will do exactly the opposite and will simply serve to confuse people reading the act.
First of all, although as a lawyer I am well aware of what is meant by lawyers when they say “action”—and I guess the lawyers who read this act will indeed know what an action is in a legal sense—the majority of Canadians don't necessarily equate the word “action” with the lawsuits that this section is governing. In fact, it doesn't lend anything to the interpretation of this section to call these things actions. If anything, I might say with a little irony, the intervention of the court and the increased access to lawsuits may result in a greater degree of inaction on the environmental front.
Apart from that, it is my understanding that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 contains provisions that are referred to as an environmental protection action. I think that's the exact wording of this amendment, if I'm not mistaken, although I should get it in front of me—environmental protection action, yes. I'm pretty certain that is the exact phrase or wording that is used in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. Yet that wording in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act refers to an action against an alleged offender who has caused significant environmental harm, and it may only be brought after the Minister of the Environment fails to conduct an investigation of the alleged offence and to report within a reasonable time, or gives an unreasonable response to the investigation.
This, by the way, is another one of those duplicative provisions. Those provisions I just referred to in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are now duplicated in clauses 13 and 14 of this bill. Poor, ordinary Canadians are going to have some difficulty sorting out which act to apply under. By the way, if they're looking to see what the current state of things is, they're going to have some difficulty. They're going to now have to check under two acts. Of course, there will have to be two government ministries: one that is administering the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and one that is administering this act.
We're certainly, by the protection of those earlier provisions, doing a great service to environmental lawyers and environmental groups, because it is going to increase the red tape. I just don't think we're doing a service to ordinary Canadians.
However, be that as it may, I've digressed. What I really mean to say is that the wording that is proposed in this amendment, rather than helping people, is likely to mislead them and confuse them into thinking that we're talking about the kind of environmental protection action that is referred to in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.
Indeed, clause 23 is such a thing, but clauses 16 to 19 are quite distinct, because they deal with lawsuits against the government, all of which I say for two reasons. The first is to express the reasons that I will not be supporting this amendment. The second is because I would like to move, if it's permitted under the rules, a subamendment to Ms. Duncan's proposal, so that the word “action” in her proposal is replaced by the word “lawsuits”, which more adequately captures in ordinary language the intention of this provision, clause 16.