Okay. I didn't want to cut her off.
I think it's important to point out that we are debating clause 28 of this bill. It deals with the right to not be deprived, except by due process of law. It's right in the provision. There are lots of ways of providing due process of law, but it's essentially enshrining a right in the Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with litigation. There are lots of ways that one can assert those rights. It makes it clear that the government cannot remove those rights without following the due process of law, which is what this bill sets out to do.
Of course, rule of law is the dividing line between a dictatorship and a democracy. I would think that all the members at this table hold the position that Canada should be running its affairs through the rule of law in a democratic fashion.
The whole intent of adding this provision is to bring us in step with the majority of democratic nations around the world. As was pointed out to us in testimony, approximately 170 UN member countries have recognized the right to a healthy environment. More than 85 of those nations have actually amended their constitutions. I have not made that recommendation, because opening up a constitution is a monumental process. Instead, the recommendation is to amend the Bill of Rights, and when we look at the context of the Bill of Rights, I think it makes a very sound case.
I find Mr. Sopuck's comments about this right harming rural organizations to be absolutely offensive. The majority of organizations and individuals who have contacted me in support of this bill are small rural organizations. They desperately want these rights and opportunities. When he speaks of giving people the opportunity to fight against the firepower of foreign-powered entities or large entities, that's the right of small rural communities and aboriginal communities to fight against major international operations that are about to devastate their areas or draw down their water. If he had spent time in Alberta, as I have for my entire life, he would know about the battles, the lines drawn, and the changes in the political landscape of Alberta--100% because rural Alberta feels that the government is not representing their interests in protecting their lands, waters, and wildlife. This is precisely what this bill will do at the federal level.
I find the comments absolutely peculiar. If you look at the number of organizations and entities that regularly appeal permits, and so forth, it's the small farm organizations that are concerned that towns want the revenue from a massive intensive feedlot, from a proposed hazardous waste landfill, from an oil sands operation, from the emissions from a sour gas facility. They're farmers, they're rural communities, and they are the ones seeking these rights and opportunities.
I remain puzzled that Mr. Sopuck spoke about the rights of small rural communities to express their rights, yet voted against clauses 11 and 12 that specifically would have given those communities the right to participate in environmental decision-making where they felt that their families' heritage farms, their enjoyment of their properties, and their access to traditional hunting grounds were impacted. This provision has absolutely nothing to do with the right to go to court and has everything to do with the right to ensure that their right to a healthy environment is not taken away without due process of law.
