If that's the starting point, then we have to look at where the causes of action would come from. If it didn't create any new causes of action, but it didn't extinguish any, what are the causes of action? A civil cause of action can come from an existing tort, in common law, or it can be in statute, or it can be in the Quebec civil code. For example, if section 28 were to be repealed, and there was no express wording creating a cause of action for an infringement of a right under the CVBR, it seems unlikely that repealing section 28 alone would create a cause of action.
I think the possible unintended consequence of repealing those provisions is to create the impression that something is going to happen that may not. It's not known how courts will interpret the repeal of those provisions. It may be that it has an impact on causes of action, but it will certainly create the impression that something is happening. Victims may have their expectations raised, and it may lead to dissatisfaction.