Just briefly. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I just want to reiterate to Monsieur Bigras.... And I'm not saying I won't agree with his amendment, if that's the hill he wants to die on. If he looks again at Ciment du Saint-Laurent v. Barrette, the court said:
In Quebec, art. 1457 C.C.Q. imposes a general duty to abide by the rules of conduct that lie upon a person having regard to the law, usage or circumstances. As a result, the content of a legislative standard may influence the assessment of the duty of prudence and diligence that applies in a given context. In a civil liability action, it will be up to the judge to determine the applicable standard of conduct — the content of which may be reflected in the relevant legislative standards — having regard to the law, usage and circumstances.
So essentially what they're saying in relation to Quebec as well is the judge still looks at the circumstances of the case and whether they were duly diligent and so forth.
This is a civil action; this is not a criminal action. This is in fact a civil proceeding.
That's all I wanted to add. The intention was simply to recognize, over time, what the Supreme Court has been holding. I don't want to add anything else.
We could call for the vote. If this is a hill upon which Monsieur Bigras must stand, then I would support removing the provision, but it is simply meant to reflect what the courts have held.