Thanks for the question. It's a good question, Mr. Chair.
I can't pre-determine, because I can't anticipate that anybody would bring a case that simple. They would still be required to bring forward the case and make their case, and they're going to be seeking specific remedies. It will also be within the jurisdiction of the court within the confines of those remedies. Because provincial governments are the ones that authorize—the forests are owned by the provinces—it probably would not be within the ambit of the federal government to shut down that operation, unless there was some pre-existing federal law that required some kind of activity be undertaken; for example, if it was the last wren in the boreal forest and the last of the woodland caribou. It may be that they bring the action and they also enjoin the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and say that there should have been a cumulative impact assessment.
You'd have to look at the nature of why they brought the case and what would happen. In that case, it may well be.... My guess is that the first thing they would do is judicial review, probably. I'm going on the basis of what the majority of cases have been in Canada. The vast majority have simply been judicial review by first nations, environmental organizations, community associations, fish and game associations, and so forth, or nature organizations, to require the government to deliver its responsibilities. So they'd want an interpretation of the law and then they'd want the government to deliver those if the court held that is the correct interpretation of the law.
It would depend on the extent. I can't say what the determination would be. I don't think the court would impose a duty that it didn't think was in the confines of the established law to begin with. I don't believe that, but then I don't know what would happen. You have to look in terms.... Remember that this act is simply on the federal government within the bounds of the federal jurisdiction. It's probably more likely.... I can't think of what kind of action that would be.
From my experience, I would say that the actions would be constrained. First of all, you have to find a lawyer who's willing to bring the case. My experience with lawyers is that it's hard to get them to bring a case. Organizations like Ecojustice prefer to bring cases that are winnable. They're also expensive to prepare and put together. So I can't say specifically what would happen in that kind of case. Somebody might do that, but from my experience I can't think of anybody who would bring a wide-open case like that.
You're going to want to have an experienced lawyer who understands the constraints of federal jurisdiction and the bounds of what the court would probably rule. As I said earlier, I think the most important part of this bill is the front end. It was with deep regret to me that that provision was struck down.