There are two questions.
Why do we need a more expansive project list, or one that would actually include law list regulations?
The bottom line is that federal decisions, under whatever legislation they're made or wherever they are on federal lands, should be based on sustainability criteria. That's the way we have to do business in the future. If we just decide we're not going to do that, then I think we're really missing the boat, and creating even more problems for our children and grandchildren.
There are events like an Olympics. Calgary has now indicated that it wants to host an Olympics in 2026. Are we not going to do an environmental assessment on that? Will we just let Parks Canada do what it has been doing over the past few years, and just work quietly and not involve the public? I don't think we're going to get to sustainable outcomes that way, and I think the evidence is clear from the information that CPAWS had to get by access request. Again, I think that's another issue that we're having to go to access to get information that should be publicly available.
We really have to expand the list. Law list provisions would be our first preference. If we're not going to go there, then we have to really focus on the project list.
One comment that I would make to the committee is, are you not concerned that you are buying a pig in a poke, here? You're being asked to make recommendations for amendments, bring this bill forward for third reading, when you have no idea what's on this project list. The project list is really the primary way in which projects will be assessed. Isn't that a problem? I suggest to you that it is and that you should know. You should at least have a draft list from the government.