I do. My colleagues will know, because I've spoken about this before, that these principles we're talking about here have little to no legal standing in any court that I know of. If it's true that there have been cases decided in which it has been determined what these terms mean on a legal basis, particularly in Canada—things like principles of “substitution”, “non-regression”, “intergenerational equity” and “environmental justice”—I have yet to see any tangibility around these terms. As opposed to this committee drafting or approving legislation that will open up somebody else to interpreting what we mean here, I think it is kicking the can down the road.
I think we have to get precise in what we're trying to accomplish here and not just put nice words on paper but find something that lands. I will be saying this whenever these terms come up in this bill. These are not, as far as I know, tangible terms for which any meaning has been determined through a legal process. I can be educated on this, but I'm certain it hasn't happened in Canada. The meaning of this terminology is wide open and subject to somebody else's interpretation at this point in time.
Thank you.