Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I actually practised in this area, in northern Alberta, for a period of time. I had an opportunity to represent some 16 of the 23 Wildlife Act offences that were prosecuted in 2001 in Fort McMurray and area. So I do agree with the department's analysis that if the undue hardship clause were not in there, the minimum fine provision would probably be struck down under the Constitution. I think it's absolutely necessary to have that in there.
I'm interested specifically in this part. It seems that indeed the deviation from the guidelines is very similar to the child support guidelines that have been successful. I know that's not your expertise as far as practising goes, but the child support guidelines, when they came in, I think in 1999, were very successful. Judges did not deviate from the child support guidelines, much the same as this, because they had to give written reasons. Of course, the written reasons, if they were not sufficient, would be appealed.
It appears to me that, just as a matter of practice, it would be extremely unlikely that any judge would deviate from the guidelines--unless, of course, there were tremendously extenuating circumstances to do so, and then there would be justification to do that.
My interest has to do with the cost of doing business for large corporations. We've seen this on an ongoing basis with ballast discharge in the Great Lakes and, in fact, in our oceans and other areas. Can you describe, just in general, the economics of the kinds of cases where large corporations will continue to pay fines rather than comply because it's easier for them to do so by way of the cost of doing business? Is it possible, do you think, under this particular act, with these amendments, that corporations would actually do that?