I agree with Ms. Duncan's reasoning that her amendment would be inadmissible, although I regret that the act as a whole, including the preamble, does not enshrine the principle of sustainable development as it is enshrined elsewhere in federal law.
The act does make reference to sustainable development, but it does not actually flesh out what is meant by “sustainable development“ in a way that would allow for proper consideration of social and economic considerations and needs. The definition refers only to development that meets the needs of the present and does not follow the usual formulation.
I think the witness from the chamber of commerce was correct to say that what should really be in the preamble of this act—I'm paraphrasing him—is that years of development of statutory and regulatory and environmental controls are now going to be bypassed by way of applications to the courts.
Even the removal of subclause 16(4) won't prevent this. Once we open the door to court action, the courts will simply imply the same provision as was found in subclause 16(4). I accept Ms. Duncan's opinion on this point. Introducing all these new lawsuits will vastly expand the powers of courts and greatly reduce the power of the legislature to deal with these matters. It will create uncertainty for developers, which can only have deleterious effect.
There is no good reason for this. We've heard several times that this act really doesn't change what's already occurring. I say that if that's the case, why do we want to pass it and introduce such uncertainty?
Those are my comments on the preamble. Thank you.