Okay.
I'm not quite clear on civil actions. There is already a right to private prosecution here in Canada, is there not? Somebody can take another private entity to court for breaking an environmental law, and so on. That exists. So why do we need to talk about civil action in this bill if that right already exists?
I'm told that attorneys general can stay a civil action in Canada. Would an attorney general still be able to stay a civil action under clause 23? Is clause 23 somehow stronger in that it wouldn't allow an attorney general to stay a private prosecution?
You see, industry came to see us, and they were quite concerned about the civil action clause. They feel it makes them vulnerable, when, in fact, there is already a right to private prosecution in Canada. They're saying, look, if environmental laws and regulations aren't strong enough, it's the government's fault and it's the government's problem. They think it's a good idea to have judicial review of government policies, but they'd rather we left them out of this and sorted out these issues in democratic fora.