I understand Mr. Bigras' concerns, but according to what I've read, the intent of the provision is to keep the government's power in check. A decision on a project could become an unrestricted licence to destroy the environment or cause environmental problems, unless such a process makes it possible to identify other issues. If a ban is imposed on companies or individuals with a permit, it could become too difficult to appeal it through the process provided for in the bill now before the committee.
I just think it is a limit to the government power that makes some sense, because the whole permitting process is not meant to be a blank exemption. And I don't think it takes away the ability for hydroelectric or other projects to go ahead; it simply says where there are grounds. And notwithstanding what we've heard from the members opposite, there are many qualifications, against frivolity, against other things, that really only genuine environmental concerns should be raised. If environmental things are caused that weren't anticipated at the time of permitting, this is a limit on the power of government to not be omnipotent and with one act to cause a bunch of other unintended harm.
That's how I regard it, and I hope it might be viewed in that way. I don't think it is overarching or that it knocks out other statutes or that it takes away the powers that government has to provide permits. It simply says if damage is caused, that's not a complete defence. It's simply you've got a permit, therefore whatever else you do is also allowed.
The fact is those arguments have been raised, and I think that Ms. Duncan accurately raises where courts have often disposed of them. But it does take a lot of time in the process, and I think it would be fair for us to be able to get to the heart of the matter: is there a new environmental damage or not, and is it beyond what was contemplated? People can rely on the fact that they've followed their permits; it's just that's not a complete defence if something else has happened.
You can look at any number of instances and find that's something we could use to make sure that companies have the whole reliance that a permit is not permission to do whatever the heck else might come up. I think most companies would acknowledge they don't intend to do that per se, but this would put everybody on their toes to make sure.