Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a follow-up to a question that I raised on March 2, regarding the bad environmental and economic choices made by the Conservative government.
Since I asked my question, the government has tabled a budget and a budget implementation bill that illustrate once again its inability to reconcile the environment and the protection of our economy. I am going to provide a few examples.
The budget implementation bill proposes to repeal the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. In addition to speeding up the process and restricting public consultation, the government reserves the right to overturn rulings made by review panels to allow major projects promoted by powerful oil interests. To make matters worse, the new regulations will apply to review processes that are already underway, so that projects such as the oil sands and the northern gateway pipeline could escape close scrutiny.
The second example is taken from the budget. The government is giving $8 million to the Canada Revenue Agency to monitor charities, including environmental groups, to ensure they do not get involved in the public debate. The government claims that these groups should not get involved in politics. In addition to interfering with a fundamental freedom, namely the freedom of expression, this measure seeks to prevent environmental groups from participating in the public debate and will yet again weaken the environmental assessment process by giving free reign to lobbyists representing big oil companies.
My third example is the changes to the Fisheries Act. Relaxing the act's requirements will jeopardize the economic activity related to commercial and recreational fisheries. In fact, John Fraser and Tom Siddon, two former Conservative ministers of Fisheries and Oceans, have condemned these changes. I think they are absolutely right. It does not make any sense to want to promote economic development by jeopardizing the work of thousands of fishermen and workers whose livelihood depends on tourism.
The budget also repeals the Kyoto Implementation Act. I have said it repeatedly in this House: this is an ideological decision that will end up costing us more in the long run. First, there is the issue of costs related to climate change. We can think, for example, of shoreline erosion, of the impact of global warming on agriculture, and of the destruction caused by severe weather events, but there is also the whole issue of missed opportunities for Canada regarding jobs in green industries.
With the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the major decisions regarding our collective future will now be taken without any serious analysis. Unfortunately, it is future generations that will pay the price.
Finally, the budget also targets environmental sciences. I particularly condemn the abolition of the experimental lakes program run by the Freshwater Institute in northern Ontario, and of the MRS program, as well as the research, technology and instrumentation grants program run by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Hundreds of scientists will be affected by these cuts, and some important and irreplaceable data will be lost.
Will the government introduce a sustainable plan to develop our natural resources and to preserve them for future generations, for our children and grandchildren?