Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a number of problems with this motion. First of all is the process. I think it would have been appropriate to discuss this at the steering committee, and then it could have been worked into the work plan. Only moments ago we passed the third report from the subcommittee, which included a work plan, and this wasn't in it. I know there's always the possibility--and I'm okay with that--of putting things into the work plan after we pass it, but I think it would have been better for the steering committee members to have discussed this first.
The second problem I have is with the word “study”. Fin said he wants it to be a small study in some way, but that's not up to him, frankly; it's up to this committee. And once we decide to study this, we have to study it fairly. As with every issue, there's more than one side to this. So I think it would be difficult for this to be a one-day study, for example. I think it would go beyond that.
My bigger problem is with the notion that we're going to be studying DFO's response. For one thing, it's not in DFO's hands at this point. It's in cabinet's hands. The province did its own environmental study and came up with a conclusion. It actually approved the project provincially and has begun to issue provincial authorizations and so on that are required provincially.
The federal government had an environmental review panel, which is actually under the authority of the environment minister and not the DFO minister. That review panel did significant work. In fact, it had more than 30 days of public hearings in 10 different communities, and certainly DFO participated in those and gave its information. At the end of that, the environmental review panel concluded that there are adverse environmental impacts to the study, both environmental and social, largely with respect to first nations, and it concluded that the plan didn't adequately compensate for those. That was the review panel's sort of “Coles Notes” conclusion, and then the panel report goes to cabinet.
Cabinet has had it for some time now and will respond in due course to that. So DFO is not the one responding to this. The cabinet will be responding to that panel report and hasn't yet. So I guess at the core of it, it just seems premature to study this when we don't know what the government's response to this will be.
It would be difficult for us to vote for this. There are other reasons as well. The motion's outline of DFO's mandate isn't exactly accurate, because the legislation, in addition to what he's quoted here, does allow for authorization of harmful alterations as well by the minister. In fact, that's a normal part of the process in any development, big or small, within all of our communities.
I think either this motion should be defeated or there should be a motion to reconsider it after the cabinet has actually rendered a decision on this.