Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Where do I start? I will only reply to some of the issues raised.
In respect of the issues that Monsieur Bigras has raised, if it were the case that these kinds of actions were not allowable under federal law, then presumably section 22 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would not have been allowed. I'm not aware of any actions being brought to strike down that provision. If it is found to be valid in a previous federal statute, I would presume that the same rationale would have been provided for it that is provided for this.
Also, one thing that I would clarify is that this part of the bill, clause 23, is about standing. Yes indeed, citizens can seek standing to bring civil actions forward, but what this does is.... It doesn't take away from any pre-existing rights. In fact, the statute is very clear later on that in no way does this bill take away any pre-existing or otherwise existing remedies. What it does in subclause 23(1) is specify that citizens have the right. In other words, it provides for standing.
I'm a little bit puzzled by Mr. Woodworth's proposal, although I don't object to it, and I would welcome an amendment to add in that prerequisite. Maybe I could get clarification from the clerk, but it's my understanding that all the Conservative members voted against clause 14. In order for that to be a prerequisite, we would need to have the opportunity to file, to request an investigation. The two would go together. So to be consistent, we would have to retain clause 14--which, as I understand it, I think survived the vote--in order to make that a prerequisite. I would not be averse to adding that, but that's up to the members of the committee.
I think that's all I wanted to provide, except for the issue that the purpose of this is specifically tied to contraventions of environmental laws. It's not a wide-open provision where damage has occurred and may occur. It's because of a contravention of a legal requirement in the statute.