Mr. Kennedy is invoking trivial reasons, but the facts are quite the opposite. I invite him to read subclause 16(4), which states the following: “[...] has the power to authorize an activity that may result in significant environmental harm.” It does say “that may result” and not “that results” in environmental harm. Therefore, we're talking about the possibility of resulting in significant environmental harm.
First, there is a problem with the very definition of “significant environmental harm” if we compare it to the definition found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, where “significant adverse environmental effects” is the wording used.
Second, I want to remind Ms. Duncan that any issues related to civil action, which she talked about in her opening arguments, are covered by clause 23, which we will have the opportunity to debate. We are currently not discussing civil action, but rather the government's decision-making power.
I invite my Liberal colleagues to have a good look at the briefs submitted by the Shipping Federation of Canada. I also ask that, before making their decision, they read the brief submitted by the Conseil patronal de l'environnement du Québec, which represents Hydro-Québec as well as many other Quebec companies.