Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to respond to what Mr. Scarpaleggia said in his comment, that "good environmental policy is also good economic policy". I agree with that notion, and the concept that he brought up in his particular example dealt with mines and the tailings ponds created during mineral exploration.
If he were to propose a motion for this committee to study a way to make recommendations to the government, to mitigate some of those concerns through either the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Fisheries Act, I would wholeheartedly welcome that. If he were planning to propose legislative changes to mitigate this or the adoption of new regulations along with any other investments that the Government of Canada may make so that we can clean up our environment, I would agree with Mr. Scarpaleggia.
The problem is that Mr. Scarpaleggia's premise says that good environmental legislation is also good economic legislation. I would disagree with him that this is good environmental legislation. Therefore, it's not going to be good economic legislation, and that's the premise we're operating from on this side, based on the witness accountability we had.
Everybody around this table shares a common concern for the health and well-being of our environment. That goes without saying. I don't believe this legislation is going to accomplish what Mr. Scarpaleggia's noble goal is, and I would be more than happy to work with him in a constructive manner in the future to address some of these concerns, because they are concerns shared by most Canadians.