This is a good case in point of the difficulty we have with the time allocations and closures that have been debated. These are complicated issues. I have been talking quickly, and perhaps too quickly, to get my point across, so I really should repeat this for my friend across the way, since I didn't quite articulate for her what I'm trying to say.
I voted against deleting subclause 19(2) because there are government agencies that do require permits to put up public buildings or to do other things. Let's say the public works department puts up a building and it clearly involves some harm to the environment, but the environment department of the Government of Canada assesses it and determines that it should be authorized anyway, because sometimes, even if there is harm to the environment, the benefit of a particular undertaking outweighs the harm.
So in this case, if the court sees fit, it can order that kind of an undertaking. It violates the public trust duty that is imposed upon the government under this act, and it can order the government to take remedial action. For example, the court could order the government to pay an amount to restore or rehabilitate that part of the environment that the public works department has harmed.
However, having said that, this subclause 19(2) is sort of necessary in the scheme of this unusual act. In fact, it makes it even more unusual because the provision doesn't say to whom the money should be paid and it in effect sets up one department of the government to be forfeiting money from another department of the government. It creates all sorts of oddities.
That's my point with respect to this subclause, and I regret that it's taken so long, because there are more injurious and harmful clauses here that we really need to discuss in the five minutes or so that I have left, assuming my colleagues give me their one and a half minutes apiece.