Thank you very much.
I would like to complete my earlier question with respect to the principles of natural justice. According to the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec, the bill we are considering does not abide by the principles of natural justice, such as the right of a party likely to be affected by the action to be heard. So you answered my question. It stated the following:
[...] it undermines the credibility of all authorization processes where stakeholders have an opportunity to participate in what are often long, tedious processes. Consequently, it would create enormous legal uncertainty, since all federal government environment-related decisions and authorizations, taken or granted legally, could be challenged.
Our previous witness was the Canadian Hydropower Association. Referring back to Mr. Ouellet's question, I was looking in my notes for the quote from their brief. That is another brief that contains a legal opinion on the bill that is quite devastating, as they say that a hydroelectric project is normally developed over a 7- to 14-year horizon. But, according to them, this bill could result in much longer timelines.
Do you share that view, given the legal uncertainty that is created?