Thank you, Madam Chair.
Not to take time now, but I'd like to remind this committee that I'm here due to a motion passed by this committee, and time limits relating to my participation can't be imposed on top of a motion that you've already passed and that ensures I speak to every amendment. As you know, I've been very flexible and have not insisted on speaking to every amendment, but those are the terms of the motion you passed, which requires me to be here. I'm in a different position. It's not one I like, but it is based on the motion you passed.
To go back to my amendment PV-29, this goes to an issue that I know means a lot, and particularly, I'd have to say, to Mike Bossio.
I've heard you speak so passionately about the right to public participation, Mike, and I know the Liberals care about this. I know the Conservatives care about it, as do the NDP and Greens. My amendment deals with the frequently heard complaint from witnesses before this committee that the rights to public participation, which admittedly are expanded in this bill by removing “directly affected” as a limitation, are not defined at all.
What my amendment attempts to do on page 22 in line 8 is to insert after the words “to participate” the word “meaningfully”. Meaningful participation will give the courts something to look at if in fact participation involves engagement that is not meaningful. Secondly, this amendment deals with the same issue, but it's found later in the bill, on page 34, where, under proposed section 51, the practice of holding hearings is referred to, and where it states:
hold hearings in a manner that offers the public an opportunity to participate
Again, that is with no guidance. My amendment would include providing the public an opportunity to participate meaningfully, and then, as further clarification, an opportunity to be heard and to ask questions.
Those are my amendments to flesh out what we mean by “public participation”. Thank you, Madam Chair.