I have to say that the spirit of this act is violated by the fact that we are trying to say we want input on environmental issues and yet members of Parliament, who are the elected officials, are being denied a voice in the discussion of this act. I feel quite strongly that this is an incredibly foolish way to proceed. I can't say it in any polite way.
However, I want to refer to a couple of things about this. One of them is that paragraph 19(1)(f) has no parallel in Canadian law anywhere. I don't say these things without having researched them. The particular language used in paragraph 19(1)(f) is not replicated in the United States, for example. Indeed, the language used in paragraph 19(1)(f) has not been used in any other Canadian legislation in relation to orders that can be made against the crown. The result of that is that anything we say about how the courts are going to interpret paragraph 19(1)(f) is pure speculation. We don't know whether they will order the government to take remedial action when they think the government has not acted.
For example, on the issue of greenhouse gases, day after day we hear people in the environmental activist community say that the government is not acting to curb greenhouse gases. Well, if an individual or a group, even an American group, were to come to Canada and take advantage of this legislation, and if they were able to get the court to agree that the government has not acted on greenhouse gases, then under paragraph 19(1)(f) we would be left to speculate. Can the court order the government to act on greenhouse gases, and if so, in what respect? And what lawsuits can the government be ordered to launch against private individuals under this?
I see I'm out of time and I haven't even scratched the surface.