Up until about seven or eight years ago the federal government was undertaking a review of environmental protection laws that concluded that our current federal protection regime for the environment was too weak. In terms of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act, concurrent reviews were proceeding, which sought to extensively strengthen those two laws.
For example with the Fisheries Act, two preceding bills might have made it to the final orders but were lost in prorogation or it might have been before that. In any event a lot of work was done on what those laws would look like if they were going to meet current and future needs in terms of ensuring sustainable protection of the environment. If the committee wants anything in depth on that, since we participated in all those committee hearings, we'd be happy to provide the committee with the process.
The only two other comments I would make are, that in terms of laws to protect the environment, Canada is largely in a state of infancy. One example is in 1973 the United States passed the Endangered Species Act; we passed ours in 2002. The development of the laws also reflects being in a state of infancy in terms of understanding the relationship between us and the environment. All I would do is recommend to the committee to look elsewhere for examples of what forms a basis for strong laws to protect the environment.
In particular, Europe is light years ahead of us, and even the United States has measures in a lot of ways. We're now seeing a commitment to sustainability in more progressive jurisdictions that's captured throughout all components of the law. Its manifestation is so much more science-oriented and thoughtful, when it comes to its application on the ground.