Thank you.
I'd like to make two points.
I'll respond to my colleague's inquiry in a moment. First, though, I neglected earlier to mention that changing and restricting the definition of “resident” will not in any way prevent the problems regarding who can apply under this bill, in that it is not necessary for an “entity”, which is the problematic section, to be a Canadian resident.
That's the actual point that I have tried to make repeatedly in the course of the debate. There is nothing in the bill that requires entities to be Canadian residents, so this amendment will not touch that problem and will not do anything to prevent foreign agents, being groups from outside the country who open an office in Canada, from enjoying the rights that are guaranteed to entities under this bill.
With respect to Mr. Scarpaleggia's inquiry, first a disclaimer: I don't pretend to be an expert in this particular area of law. That said, I think the answer to his question is fairly simple. The rights that were guaranteed to refugee applicants--that is, people whose cases have not yet been determined--are those under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those which we consider to be fundamental to the proper protection of individuals.
I suppose that before we had this discussion, I was operating under the assumption that the title of this bill, and the quasi-constitutional references to it, meant that this bill was intended to give environmental rights in a very fundamental way to people. It was in that way analogous to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But now, if this amendment passes, of course, we will have to say that this bill is not really a bill of rights, that it doesn't protect anything that's so fundamental that it ought not to be deprived from everyone who resides in this country. Instead, it only protects extras that are not really that important and that therefore don't have to be secured to people who are not either citizens or permanent residents.
That, to me, is a fundamental change in the scope of the bill. But if the colleague who proposes it wants to tell us that this really isn't a bill of rights, that it's really not protecting anything fundamental, then I guess that tells us something about her intentions.
I'm sorry; let me amend that. I don't want to comment on her intentions.
That tells us something about the bill that she's proposing.
Thank you.