Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of NDP committee members, I will be moving these amendments, and I want to speak to them briefly. These amendments are extremely important amendments in terms of dealing with some of the issues I raised earlier that have to do with the lack of opportunity we've had to focus on the details of these bills.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for example, has been completely repealed and replaced with a new act.
That's just one piece we're dealing with. There are also major changes to the Fisheries Act, which we heard representations about again and again and again during our 14 hours of discussion on all these matters. People pleaded with us to, at the very least, split the Fisheries Act out of it.
In the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for example, there's a statutory review every seven years. But these changes, the repealing and the new wording to replace what was repealed, have gone through without anybody seeing these changes, without amendments, and without there being a full discussion and deliberation by experts. There was nothing. We had a few last-minute representations here at committee last week. We had very few hours to deal with something that is so critical. And the fact that we're going through it in this manner is going to result in delays. I'm convinced of that, as were many of the presenters who came and spoke to us. It gives overriding power to ministers. It gives overriding power to cabinet to override panels.
There's a lack of clarity in terms of the offshore petroleum. I was asking the environment commissioner, who was here at some point last week—I can't remember when—about what's going to happen, for example, with the development of the Old Harry site in the gulf, in terms of the responsibility of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. He said he didn't know, because it wasn't clear. It wasn't clear whether there was going to be a requirement that the panel be able to ensure that there is a full environmental assessment.
It is so troubling, Mr. Chairman, that I'm almost at a loss for words, and this doesn't happen very often. I will recover—honestly.
The designated projects list, for example, is another area where it was suggested to us that for questions of responsibility and responsible governance, and because of the impact it will have, we should not proceed with the passing of these changes through to the House until those regulations and what is contained in the designated projects list are clarified. It may be, as was suggested by the environment commissioner and a few others, that the designated projects list will clarify who's on it and who isn't on it, to the point where we have some confidence. But to leave that up in the air is irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, in the extreme.
The fact that we're going forward and making these environmental assessment changes and these wholesale changes to the Fisheries Act, which are just two pieces of legislation, without any consultation with first nations people and without providing clarification on how and where they will be consulted, is irresponsible.
The fact that we're proposing in the legislation provided for in this bill that the federal government can designate the provincial rules to cover a project or an assessment may well be unconstitutional, it has been suggested, because of where the jurisdiction already rests, not the least of which is that this is very clearly ignoring the role that has increasingly been defined by the Supreme Court on first nations communities that are affected by any development, Mr. Chairman.
We talked about it in our subcommittee and during the presentations and said that we're trying to find balance, we're trying to get rid of duplication, and we're trying to clarify, but in the haste and the overwhelming imbalances created by these changes in these various acts, Mr. Chairman, we're creating a huge imbalance that exists out there.
There are different opinions. There are going to be differing opinions in the Commons, and if, as the government says, we're committed to their four pillars for the sustainable development of natural resources, then we have to ensure that all of those opinions are brought to the table, that we're able to ensure that there's a full debate and discussion, and that we're able to achieve some compromise.
But what these changes do, Mr. Chairman.... And I honestly believe that if members of this committee had the opportunity and weren't so jammed up by these time constraints, these absolutely irresponsible time constraints.... You are here for a reason as members of Parliament: to represent your constituents, to make a stronger country, and to make your community stronger. I believe that.
But if you had paid attention to the representations we've had in this committee, in our subcommittee, and to the concerns that were raised and the uncertainty that this is going to create.... My point was the power imbalance that is going to be created whenever these projects come forward. This is not Canada. This is not the Canada I know. We can have a civil discussion and debate, an exchange of ideas, and come to a conclusion without there being such unreasonable power in the Commons that a group that has more access and more money is always going to be the victor.
