Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've heard a lot of testimony here today about the need to balance and that the representatives for industry in Canada strongly believe in the need to balance. I put before you that this is exactly what this bill is setting out to do, to begin to redress the imbalance that's already there. For example, we have the NAFTA agreement. We have a trade agreement with Colombia. We have a trade agreement with Panama. We have a trade agreement with Chile. The government has a process of negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union. Since the negotiation and signing of the NAFTA agreement, the side agreements on environment have been seriously watered down, to the extent where there are practically no environmental rights whatsoever. In these trade agreements industry has lots of enforceable, litigatable rights: just claim compensation if the government makes a decision that, for environmental reasons, it can't proceed with the project in any of the three countries. Yet in the environmental side agreement, those rights aren't enforceable.
I hear a lot about the need to redress the imbalance. We now have the MPMO in the government because industry feels the CEAA process is not considering enough the needs of industry to streamline. We have the new Budget Implementation Act of the government, saying they intend to streamline all the regulatory processes to enable northern development.
I put this to you. If you truly believe in the balancing, why are you so against a bill that by and large has nothing to do with litigation but for the most part would provide the rights and opportunities to the public, who feel very strongly that they have not had an equal voice in decision-making, that they have not been given standing in a lot of federal reviews?
Yes, indeed, there are a lot of opportunities at the provincial level. I come from a province that I think has one of the best energy boards and review processes. Unfortunately, for transmission lines, now the government, in their wisdom, have decided they will not allow public hearings for a good number of those hearings, so we're regressing. Previous to that, we had a very good review process.
The question I would put to you is why are you so opposed to begin to accord some of those rights when in fact the Department of the Environment Act, which gives the mandate to the minister, makes absolutely no mention of a duty to balance? Is it not true that this balance should occur in cabinet, not within the environment ministries or the authorities who are supposed to be enforcing and applying environmental statutes?