Environment committee  Thank you very much. Thank you to the members of this committee. It's a really happy day for Ecojustice to see this bill being discussed. I'd like to congratulate—

Environment committee  That's okay. You're always allowed to interrupt your own congratulations. We at Ecojustice feel that Bill C-469 is a major step forward, and we're happy it's being debated, so thanks to all of you for the invitation. Ecojustice, for those of you who don't know, has been practis

Environment committee  Could I answer that? Because that's a good question. At the end of the day, it's intended to be a principled document and it's meant to be a broad statement of values. But at the same time, it gets into a bunch of nuts and bolts, and it would appear to open the door for recourse

Environment committee  My answer to the question would be that this is going to allow Canadians to put on a pair of glasses through which they can see how myriad federal statutes are going to be applied, because there's going to be an assumption that this is the baseline. The baseline is that public pa

Environment committee  I think that it is absolutely necessary to amend a whole range of environmental protection legislation at federal level. But I do not think it is realistic to have to wait for all that to happen. In the review process for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we had to wai

Environment committee  There are benefits to it, but if it precludes the use of the stick at the end of the day, then no, it's not useful.

Environment committee  Settlement of a dispute and protection of the environment ultimately are going to be goals of this.

Environment committee  I'm aware of that. That's also the case for CEPA 1999. The reason these provisions haven't been used is that the individual who has a problem will say that the request for investigation was—

Environment committee  To the point of nullifying their utility.

Environment committee  It's not a question of encouraging litigation; it's a question of ensuring that the objectives of the statute are achieved. In this case, it's environmental protection.

Environment committee  I think “discouraging” might be a bit kind. It's rendering literally useless the provisions.

Environment committee  I think it's a false question. I think that at the end of the day you're going to have settlement processes that occur prior to any litigation. The point is that you need to ensure that the potential for litigation actually affects the behaviour of the litigants.

Environment committee  I would agree there is a non-litigious culture that has developed in Canada, primarily because of the difficulties associated with standing and the difficulties of actually bringing an action to court.

Environment committee  I don't imagine that the Federal Court would have jurisdiction over the interpretation of provincial acts. However, since clause 23 indicates that the judicial forum available is not simply the Federal Court but also the provincial superior courts, it would be my understanding th

Environment committee  That's my understanding of it. The issue of statutory authorization as a defence is a very live issue that's being debated in the courts these days.