Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've heard that you're pleased with these changes. I'm going to give you what we've heard, from legal experts who work in this field to scientists. They feel that under the guise of streamlining to speed up review for industrial projects, the federal government says let provinces review major projects where possible. This will land projects, some harmful, in a patchwork of provincial environmental laws, many that are weaker than federal laws.
I'll give the example, since you said it happened once. A gold mine was approved and then the federal review rejected it. Let small projects go ahead without a review and you may be reducing regulatory oversight from 40 agencies down to 3. This will remove experts, and of those that remain, many have their budgets cut. People are concerned that there is a loss of responsibility for managing the environment.
To pick up on Ms. Leslie's comments, a few months ago we had 625 scientists sign a letter warning against changes to the Fisheries Act. We've had former Tory ministers speak out and the B.C. Conservative Party leader has also spoken out. A fish must have aboriginal, commercial, or recreational value before it is protected from serious harm. These terms are vague, and they're loaded.
What does “serious harm” mean?