Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to say, Mr. Chair, that I am finding these presentations a little incredulous. The process of reviewing bills by committee provides committee members who feel that certain provisions of the bill should be added or subtracted and that the bill could be improved every opportunity in constructive debate to table amendments. We've heard in provision after provision, including the one we're discussing right now, that the representatives of the Government of Canada, the Conservative Party, are extremely concerned that there isn't reference to sustainable development in every provision of this bill. I will note that they did not offer that when they brought forward their various bills.
I have been completely open to any suggestions for amendments to this bill, and if they are sincere in wanting to have those provisions included, I would encourage them to table those so we can debate them, and I think they would find a lot of support. I might add that we need to review back, in looking at clause 21, the very purpose of the bill and the intent of this part of the bill, and particularly clause 16, that these remedies are attributed to.
This Government of Canada has said that it believes in a balance between economic development and environmental protection, and yet there has been a record, in decisions by this government, in both its expenditures and in its decisions, to exclude the public from decision-making and to exclude consideration of the environment. Evidence of that is in the record of the mounting number of cases being filed against the government by either first nations or by environmental organizations, simply for failure to enforce mandatory provisions of statutes such as the Species at Risk Act. The very purpose of this act is to ensure that when the federal government is making decisions to balance the various interests to ensure that we have sustainable development, environmental protection is thoroughly considered.
A case brought under this part of the act would not succeed unless the plaintiff proved that the government had failed to consider protection of the environment and the responsibility of the government to consider that in its decision-making. I find it frankly a very specious argument to be arguing continuously that sustainable development is not here. Sustainable development is going to be delivered in this country by a whole coterie of projects, of activities, by industry, by citizens, by the government, and by having provisions to ensure and require that both economic development and environment are considered together and integrated.
As to the question of whether or not this provision allows for some kind of unfair profiteering, I find it frankly absurd. The rules of court will determine what kinds of costs are awarded, and this in no way derogates from that.
On many occasions, small organizations can't afford to hire legal counsel but are extremely brave and come forward and intervene in a lot of proceedings, and this simply provides that their work done, they can claim the costs of providing that. That could include transportation. That could include a hotel when they bring the case for it. It's hardly profiteering.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.