Thank you.
If you've reviewed the previous testimony, you'll know the question I'm about to ask, because I've asked it several times.
I used to be a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. A few years ago, a couple of Bloc Québecois members on that committee brought the Chisasibi First Nation to the committee to talk about the massive ecological damage they're claiming happened on the east side of James Bay as a result of the James Bay hydroelectric projects. They say that the eelgrass has disappeared, the migratory birds no longer come there, and the fish and all the other aquatic species have changed.
If this legislation were to pass in its current form, according to the test that is provided for in clause 16, which is about a balance of probabilities, and the paragraphs in clause 19, which are about the powers of the Federal Court, do you read paragraphs 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(e) and paragraphs 19(2)(a) and 19(2)(b) the same way I do? Should the first nation find a judge that would agree with them, the judge could actually order a permit that was granted years ago to Hydro-Québec to stop, cease, and desist. From the clauses I see here, a judge could “suspend or cancel the permit for authorization”, “order the defendant to provide financial collateral”, order the defendant to restore or rehabilitate any part of the environment, or “grant an injunction to halt the contravention”.
Do you see this potentially happening if this bill were to become law?