Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand Mr. Woodworth's concern about the scope of the bill, particularly the part about judicial review.
We need to keep in mind that we were initially also concerned about the lack of guidelines in this bill. That is why—and correct me if I'm wrong—Mr. Woodworth was concerned about clause 16 of the bill.
If I'm not mistaken, the committee adopted amendment BQ-6, which stipulated that we are eliminating subclause 4 of clause 16, which states, "It is not a defence to an environmental protection action under subsection (1) [of clause 16] that the Government of Canada has the power to authorize an activity that may result in significant environmental harm."
If I'm not mistaken, amendment BQ-6 was adopted, Mr. Chair.
So it seems to me that this should be a strong argument that would give Mr. Woodworth some guarantee about the scope of the bill. I think that we have given the guidelines required in this bill so that it can wend its way to the House of Commons—at least I hope it will—and reach the report stage.