I've heard you say two different things. I've heard you say that this bill won't increase litigation significantly, and then I've heard you say that Ecojustice might assist citizens to participate more effectively and that this bill opens more doors to access to justice for average citizens.
I heard another witness say that the Ontario legislation is vastly underutilized due to the high thresholds. I'm going to take all of that as being authentic evidence and the notion that more litigation won't be resulting from this bill as not quite so authentic.
But I have another issue I'd like to ask you about, and that is coming out of subclause 23(3) of the bill, which has to do with civil actions. I read subclause 23(3) as a presumption that authorization by another act will not be a defence to an action under clause 23. It's a rebuttable presumption, but am I reading that correctly?