Environment committee  I think that would be valuable. Certainly I have pursued, over many years, trying to get clarity on the question of the Fisheries Act, just historically where it has been much more vague. It is quite clear now. If you wanted to put in a provision to say, for instance, that in i

Environment committee  Well, our legislation is very definitely prescribed to provincial statutes in areas of provincial responsibility. With some regularity, we get requests to our office, for instance, to pursue things under the federal Fisheries Act, which we now have to turn back. We simply say it

Environment committee  I have worked in this field for over 30 years and I can only see one area where that would occur, and that's in the provisions of the federal Fisheries Act. Someone could pursue a dual action in the case of a deleterious substance--to use the federal legislation--that was put int

Environment committee  I'd have to fall back on the way we define it. We keep it open with respect to harm to a public resource. That is probably the most relevant here. We're not talking about people who suffer economic damage. Let's leave that aside. A claim of harm to a public resource is the closes

Environment committee  May I clarify? You didn't quite put it the way it's done. For instance, let's say we're talking about a piece of legislation. If there's an issue going on, I may become engaged; I may even on my own initiative bring forward an issue on such things. But once it has progressed to

Environment committee  I do not review legislation before.

Environment committee  It's after; once it's in the legislative process, I reserve all comment until it's concluded.

Environment committee  A quick response would be to say that, yes, on the environmental registry, the ability of the public to respond has evolved quickly in time in that thoughtful ministries are using it very effectively in multiple tiers to identify public concerns early with draft papers and such t

Environment committee  It's a request for investigation.

Environment committee  There has to be a request for investigation, which may be turned down.

Environment committee  I agree. If I was unclear on that, I apologize. I agree with your analysis. There are more parameters. It is more restricting in its application. That was, in the design, the attempt...if you review the comments made at the time of drafting, the rights to sue, the actionable po

Environment committee  Well, I would argue that the right to request an investigation under the Ontario legislation is more powerful, in that it puts an obligation on the two applicants. They have to provide evidence. Their request doesn't have to be a prima facie court case, but it has to provide evid

Environment committee  Perhaps I would go so far as to say that perhaps I've overstated that in the sense that when I'm talking about comparability in my comments, I'm talking at a very general level, in that both pieces of legislation invite the public to participate in some kind of civil action. In

Environment committee  The other one is the harm to a public resource claim, which is quite different from what is in your proposed legislation. The only similarity is that they're both civil actions that can be brought.

Environment committee  It's interesting; the way I look at it is that it brings your proposal.... I mean, there is a very big difference between the federal commissioner and my office in terms of the way we're structured and the way we are intended to report to the legislature. I see the provisions