Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to add that Mr. Woodworth is quite correct. The government, in its wisdom, did create an environmental protection action under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but that action restricts actions related to violations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The very purpose of this bill is to provide for those remedies and opportunities under all federal laws. And unless it contradicts, the position can stand and it simply applies to violations of other statutes.
As I've stated earlier, I'm open to any amendments or proposals that members of the committee might like to make. Frankly, I think it may well be advisable to add the condition that Mr. Woodworth is suggesting. I'd be open to a friendly amendment to require the same prerequisite that is in CEPA, that the action may only be filed if under clause 14 the plaintiff had filed a request for investigation that was denied. I have no problem with that. I am open to any constructive proposals and amendments to the bill. I think that may well be a very sensible proposal to add if he would be interested.
This opportunity does not allow for personal damages. It's a public interest civil litigation. It has brought in the public interest where environmental harm has been caused by some party. The intention is to allow persons to bring forward requests that those damages be remedied in some way. It has been the common practice in court--there have been quite a few of these kinds of actions brought in Alberta, including prosecutions--where the court orders the defendant to pay moneys to some entity. For example, in the prosecution of CN on the massive spill in Wabamun Lake, which damaged wildlife habitat and wildlife, the court ordered that moneys be given to certain fish and game associations, I think. So the court is very experienced with this.
My understanding is that some divisions of Environment Canada--and certainly that was my experience with the Ontario region of Environment Canada a few years ago--have actually, in advance, identified organizations who would be worthwhile recipients of court orders. I think the courts and prosecutors and so forth are quite familiar with this.
I don't in any way see this as a measure where somebody is intending to profit. It takes a great deal of work to organize and present a winnable case. I don't think anybody who is concerned about the environment sets out to do that simply for a profit. They're doing it because they see some kind of harm caused to the environment and caused due to a violation or clear evidence of a violation if it did proceed. And they would have to prove that in court.