Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have three points. First, I find it very ironic that the opposition coalition--if I may call them that for today--has come up with three versions of the same amendment, with two of them coming from the same party. If this is what we can expect from them in government, I think Canadians ought to worry.
Second, this provision is one more example of how this bill is creating incentives for environmental groups and activists to engage in litigation, because they're going to be paid as lawyers, whether they are lawyers or whether they have lawyers or not. That's one of the fundamental flaws with this bill that doesn't exist in any of the other environmental litigation legislation we've looked at, including the CEPA environmental litigation, the Canadian environmental bill of rights, and so forth. I think this is a very bad way to go.
The third observation I'd like to make is to recall a speech I heard from a good Liberal many years ago. Some of my Liberal colleagues opposite may remember Elinor Caplan. She gave a very good exposition on the difference between socialist government, extreme right government, and good government. She used the analogy of a boxing ring. She said the government was like the referee in a society that is like a boxing ring. The socialist government will always leap in on the side of the weak guy and start beating up the big guy along--