Environment committee  To clarify, Mr. Scarpaleggia, you asked before about the word “deny”. It is true that usually it is the court that denies standing. One of the witnesses, Theresa McClenaghan, suggested wording to address the situation. To address the situation where the Government of Canada is participating in a lawsuit and opposes a person's standing—so they make submissions to the court that the court should deny standing—the wording suggested by this witness was that the federal government “shall not deny, oppose, or otherwise contest this standing”.

Environment committee  That would be one way of dealing with what I think is envisioned.

Environment committee  That's right, in a court action, it's the court that grants or denies standing to a party or to someone who seeks to be recognized as a party. I believe one of the witnesses made a comment about it, that it's not technically correct to say that the government shall not deny a resident standing to participate in a court action.

Environment committee  I'm not really sure. It's common. That's all I can say about that. I can look into that more, if you like.

Environment committee  If you remove the first sentence, which says “This Act is intended to ensure consistency with Canada's rights and obligations”, then I would suggest it probably doesn't belong in the purpose clause. As Ms. Duncan just said, it might belong better somewhere else, at the end or where you're talking about remedies or orders, or in the civil action provision itself.

Environment committee  As domestic law, no.

Environment committee  I'm not sure about the second question. As for the first question, it depends on what is meant by “any international convention in force in Canada”. Canada is free to sign international conventions, and technically they're binding on us as international law. But if we don't implement them with domestic implementing legislation—

Environment committee  Sorry, I didn't understand the question.

Environment committee  Maybe. But I think this relates to what we alluded to at the end of the last day, that an international convention that imposes duties on a party is different from an international convention whose domestic implementing legislation—such as the Marine Liability Act, which we enacted for some international conventions that we signed—affords protection to parties against liability.

Environment committee  Or it would if there were a conflict, whichever.

Environment committee  It's certainly possible. Without putting words into their mouths, I think what the shipping industry had in mind was the Marine Liability Act. There may be other acts as well, but that one specifically provides protection to the shipping industry from being sued, basically, if they've complied with certain obligations.