I just wanted to clarify your position.
The environment commissioner last night brought up the fact that CEAA is on record stating that 99.9% of the environmental assessments that happen right now are screenings, and that 94% of them would be characterized as having little to no environmental impact.
There was some testimony that came out through our review of CEAA, where I do have to push back that there hasn't been consultation on this, because we spent the better part of the fall session reviewing CEAA.
Mr. Hazell, you made a comment:
At the federal level, I think we do need to focus on the big stuff and not sweat the small stuff so much, which unfortunately hasn't been a feature of CEAA so far. Not that there hasn't been a lot of good work done in the screening assessments—there has been, but we've learned some things. A lot of standards have been developed because of the work that has been done, such as, for example, no pipeline crossings over streams.
We also heard from the environment commissioner last night. He agreed that by reducing the amount of small projects that have little to no environmental impact, the 94% of them, we could allocate resources to review those big projects, the ones you're rightly concerned about.
How do you reconcile those comments with some of the things you've said tonight? How can you depart from that comment so much?