Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to preface my question by highlighting some of the things that I think most members of this committee already know.
Just off the top of my head, I can think of what we have. We have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species, the Canada National Parks Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, not to mention any others that I may have forgotten. These are just the federal statutes that apply to the protection of the environment. They're all quite long and arduous.
We go through and debate these things quite a bit at this committee when we do statutory reviews. All of these acts and pieces of legislation have their accompanying regulations. You know all about those regulations. They outline the processes companies, organizations, and utilities will go through to get the permits that allow them to conduct business in Canada.
I'm going to talk to you specifically about clause19 of the bill, and I'm just going to read these out.
Paragraph 19(1)(b) would allow a court to grant an injunction to halt any contravention. Paragraph 19(1)(e): “order the defendant to restore or rehabilitate any part of the environment”.
Paragraph 19(2)(a): “suspend or cancel a permit or authorization issued to the defendant or the defendant's right to obtain or hold a permit or authorization”. That means suspending permits that already exist. Paragraph 19(2)(b): “order the defendant to provide financial collateral for the performance of a specified action”.
You'll notice that paragraphs (a) and (b) can be both; there's not one that says (a) or (b). A judge can actually make you clean up everything you've done and order equal payment and restitution at the same time, which is basically getting hit twice for the same thing.
These kinds of clauses really concern me. The problem is that these are brought about by clause 16, which says that every resident of Canada may seek recourse. The actions under subclause (3), if you look at it, are subject to a civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The balance of probabilities is having a civil test applied to basically what could be considered, in a criminal case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm going to ask you very simply.... On the fisheries committee two years ago, Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Blais from the Bloc Québécois--and my colleague Steven Blaney does a great job sticking up for Quebec on this, as well--invited the members of the Chisasibi First Nation, which is located on the eastern shore of James Bay, to appear before the committee to testify on the disappearance of eelgrass, and the massive environmental problems and degradation caused by the James Bay hydroelectric project.
If this legislation were to come to pass, would the members of the Chisasibi First Nation not be able to use this legislation, if they found a sympathetic judge, to basically order Hydro-Québec to undo all they have built in the James Bay hydroelectric project and ask them for financial compensation of the same amount?