Debates of Dec. 5th, 1994

Petitions

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House two petitions.

The first petition asks that Parliament ensures that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament makes no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

I concur with the petition.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a second petition that respectfully requests that Parliament acknowledges, through compensation under a redress agreement, an injustice did occur when Canadians of Japanese ancestry who happened to be in Japan on December 7, 1941, were denied by the actions of the Government of Canada the right to return home until March 31, 1949.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from all across Canada and contains 244 signatures.

The undersigned request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a six-year old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament. The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.

I fully concur with the petitioners and endorse the petition.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition from more than 40 people living in the city and county of Peterborough.

The undersigned consider the present gun control legislation in Canada to be more than adequate. Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to refrain from any further gun control legislation in the name of controlling crime that would be of no value and would constitute unjust harassment of a lawful gun owners.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present two petitions from citizens of Oxford.

The first one is signed by 25 petitioners and requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to legalize, normalize or indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

The second petition, Madam Speaker, is from 156 constituents. They request Parliament to ban lap dancing as understood, as such activity poses a potential fatal health risk. It may be compared to prostitution.

Exotic dancers may have to lap dance against their will or lose their chosen profession. Lap dancing devalues the essential worth and dignity of all people.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting six petitions from my constituents in the riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe.

The first two petitions containing 120 and 467 signatures respectively call upon the government to amend the Criminal Code to extend to unborn children the same protection enjoyed by born human beings.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

The third petition contains 121 signatures and calls upon the government not to amend the human rights code in relation to the recognition of same sex relationships.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

The fourth petition contains 59 signatures and calls upon Parliament to conclude the parliamentary prayer with the phrase "through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen" and reinstate the Lord's Prayer at the conclusion of the opening prayer.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

The fifth and sixth petitions contain 121 and 362 signatures respectively and call upon the government to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code with respect to assisted suicides be enforced vigorously and make no changes to the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall all the questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2), because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 40 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There are four amendment motions on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-56, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: Motion No. 1 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 3.

On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 3.

Motion No. 4 will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the House.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-56, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 11, on page 1, the following:

"(b.2) to ensure that projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects or public concern are publicly reviewed through a process of independent decision making."

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-56 in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 33, on page 2, with the following:

"(1.1) Where a report is submitted by a mediator or review panel, the responsible authority shall take a course of action consistent with the findings and recommendations in the report.

(1.2) Within 30 days of the public release of a report mentioned in subsection (1.1), the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of dealing with any or all of the findings or recommendations set out in the report a ) require the mediator or review panel to clarify any of the findings or recommendations set out in the report; and b ) substitute its own findings and recommendations for those of the report where it concludes that the findings or recommendations of the report are not in the public interest.

(1.3) Following a decision by the Governor in Council under subsection (1.2), the responsible authority shall take a course of action under subsection (1) that is consistent with the decision of the Governor in Council."

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-56, in Clause 3, be amended a ) by replacing line 22 on page 2, with the following:

"approval of the Governor in Council given by order in council, re-"; and b ) by adding after line 33, on page 2, the following:

"(1.2) The order in council made under paragraph (1.1)( a ) is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.''

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak on the amendments, some of which I brought forward and one of which has been brought forward by a member of the Reform Party.

The amendment process of Bill C-56 that is in front of us today will give us a good indication of the seriousness with which the government wishes to approach the process of developing the best environmental assessment legislation that we possibly can.

A lot of testimony was heard before the committee studying the bill. Among that testimony were many clauses of the original bill that are not discussed under Bill C-56 today but are matters which require attention in any case. I am hoping that we will have some opportunity in the future to address some of the additional concerns that we are unable to deal with in this bill.

Also among the testimony of the witnesses before the committee were matters relating to the concept of an independent decision-making process. That is what the first amendments I proposed today deal directly with. First, these amendments ensure that the concept of independent decision-making is included in the section outlining the purposes of the act to make things perfectly clear. Second, they ensure that the decisions are consistent with the recommendations of the assessment panel and are treated seriously by giving the necessary authority to the responsible authorities.

The concept is not a new one. It is one that has already been recognized by the Liberal Party which, prior to being elected, made certain promises to the Canadian people in regard to the environment. These promises contained in the now famous red book include the following: "Under a Liberal government the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be amended to shift decision-making powers to an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to appeal to cabinet".

In Bill C-56 the only amendments the Liberals have brought forward to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act fail to create this independent decision-making body. In fact one could argue that they do almost the opposite because the government bill amends the act to give cabinet, referred to as the governor in council, the ability to amend the panel reports and then gives it

the final say on the panel report. Certainly cabinet cannot be considered an independent decision-making agency.

There are all too many examples where government departments and even ministers are the proponents of projects which would sooner see the recommendations of an independent assessment panel disappear than have them implemented. The possible conflict of interest with cabinet or between federal and provincial governments is altogether far too likely to go unaddressed.

On the other hand it is important to recognize that elected governments must be held accountable for their actions and they must be given the power to act when the interests of the electorate, the Canadian people, the citizens of Canada, need protecting.

I recognize that at the end of the day the government is responsible for its actions or the actions of those operating in its name.

Therefore in writing the amendment before us I have tried to establish the framework for independent decision-making, that is establishing the independence of the assessment panel.

At the same time, I want to express my support for the concept of an appeal of this decision to cabinet. I tried to incorporate the idea of appeal into my amendment but it was ruled out of order by the legislative counsel before it appeared on the Order Paper. Therefore I had to rewrite my amendment in a way that would fit the needs of the legislative counsel rather than the needs that I really wanted to bring forward here today.

I was told that the idea of an appeal to cabinet was not consistent with the government's intent in Bill C-56, but I want the government to realize that although my amendments do not specifically allow for the appeal to cabinet of a panel decision or of a cabinet decision, I am willing to accept an amendment in the future, another bill that the government may wish to bring forward.

I am willing to accept an amendment that would incorporate an informal appeal process. It would be easy to do with reference to the fact that any person who participated in a mediation or a panel review in respect of a project could appeal to the governor in council any or all of the findings or recommendations set out in the report.

I want to make clear that accepting my recommendations today does not preclude a further amendment by government in the future to ensure that the appeal process exists and to give the protection that the government may think is necessary by government.

In the meantime, it is absolutely imperative that the legislation ensure the independence of the process. I think only the support of my motions today would ensure that. It is worth noting that the concept of independent decision-making is already accepted and practised in other areas of federal government activity.

Perhaps the best known example of the process, although it is somewhat different, there are similarities, exists within the mandate of the CRTC. It exists basically at arm's length from government. It issues orders that are basically binding on those applications that have been made before it.

However, there is an appeal process of sorts that allows the cabinet to make decisions on appeal. In the testimony heard during the committee study of the bill before us, officials from the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, admitted that the current process requires that every decision of an assessment panel is not actually final until such time as the cabinet responds to it.

They also admitted that cabinet is not required to respond within any specific period of time. Therefore it is fairly easy to say that cabinet could take an infinite amount of time to respond to any report or any recommendations contained in a report from an assessment panel or from a mediation review.

We are already aware that cabinet, when it is not supportive of a panel decision or indeed parliamentary decisions, and I give the example of Bill C-13, the legislation that required more than two years to be proclaimed because of arguments received in cabinet over the regulations, as an example of how cabinet can delay matters for a long period of time.

Actually, the Indian lands claims process is also one in which cabinet has indicated that it is prepared to take its time on reviewing a decision that it is not altogether happy with. The Indian Land Claims Commission reported two years ago on the Canoe Lake Indian Band claim regarding the Cold Lake air weapons range. Cabinet is still sitting almost two years without responding to that recommendation of the commission.

We cannot allow that sort of a timeframe to elapse in regard to environmental assessment reports. Without going into any specific detail about how the two amendments that I have brought forward would work, let me simply conclude by saying that regardless of which path the cabinet wishes to take, the responsible authority is required within a short period of time to take a course of action consistent with the recommendations of the panel and, second, cabinet, if it has found the panel authority not consistent with the public idea, does have an opportunity to respond but the idea of an appeal is not within this amendment.

Therefore, I would be very happy to hear what the government has to say about adding an appeal process to the motion I have put forward.

It is my submission that the bill fails to meet the test of an independent decision-making authority as promised by the government prior to the election. I urge support of the motions I brought forward to ensure that the independent decision-making authority exists within the new agency.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to put forward Motion No. 3 to amend Bill C-56. This amendment addresses clause 3 of the bill which amends section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. My amendment changes the decision-making authority on environmental panel reports from cabinet to order in council. That is the basic meat of it, changing it from cabinet to order in council.

Prior to Bill C-56, the decision to act on or reject panel recommendations was made solely by the Minister of the Environment. Bill C-56 broadens the distribution of power to include the governor in council, which basically means cabinet. However, this is still not strong enough.

Although the spirit of the government's amendment is to ensure that responses to public panel recommendations are decided by cabinet, it must be clear that cabinet, or governor in council, does not refer to cabinet as a whole.

Cabinet remains undefined. It could mean full cabinet or it could refer to only a few ministers. Cabinet may be many things. Cabinet can be simple and informal or it can be formal in the way of an order in council. Cabinet has many versions. For example, there are inner cabinets, outer cabinets and committees of cabinet.

The term cabinet is far too loose. As it stands, important environmental decisions could be controlled by two or three ministers with their own agendas. To avoid this potentially divisive situation, an order in council involving the full cabinet is required to ensure that all interests are fairly represented. The interests of one particular region will then be balanced by the representation of ministers from regions all across the country.

To ensure that decision-making is democratic, panel recommendations must be approved or rejected through order in council which means the cabinet as a whole, not just two or three ministers. This amendment reduces the likelihood that environmental decisions will be subject to the whims of any individual minister as government as a whole is responsible for actions on panel recommendations.

The amendment addresses concerns brought forward by the Liberals regarding the environmental assessment process. The Liberal red book states: "The gap between rhetoric and action under Conservative rule has been most visible in the area of environmental assessment. All too often Conservatives have ignored the solid recommendations for environmental protection offered by public review panels".

As it stands there is nothing in the bill to prevent a few cabinet ministers from rejecting panel recommendations. What better way to ensure that recommendations for environmental protection, brought forward by public review panels, are fairly reviewed and justly responded to than to make sure that the decision-making power is held by cabinet as a whole, not two or three ministers. This amendment directly addresses those concerns by limiting the discretionary powers of ministers.

It is my hope that hon. members on the opposite side will give serious thought to this amendment before they cast their vote. This is a fair and just amendment that will ensure a more democratic and balanced process of environmental assessment. It ensures the interests of the environment and industry are protected and works in favour of the best interests of all Canadians to ensure the continued protection of our environment.

I now wish to respond briefly to the proposed amendments to Bill C-56 brought forward by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

In Motion No. 1 the member proposes to amend clause 1 of Bill C-56 by adding a subclause that strengthens the intention of the bill to ensure that projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects or public concern are publicly reviewed through a process of independent decision-making.

The Liberal red book promises that: "Under a Liberal government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be amended to shift decision-making powers to an independent, Canadian environmental assessment agency subject to appeal by cabinet". Yet nowhere in the act or proposed amendments contained in the bill is such independent decision-making powers granted to the agency. As it stands, the current intent of the bill is in conflict with the promises contained in the red book. There is no process of independent decision-making granted to the agency in the bill.

As it stands, the agency provides for ministerial decision-making as Bill C-56 proposes to broaden decision-making to cabinet. However, there is nothing in the bill that allows for independent decision-making because recommendations are approved or rejected by cabinet. The agency attends the hearings, prepares its report and presents it to cabinet. Beyond that there are no powers granted to the agency. This proposed amendment will recognize the agency as an independent decision-making body.

I agree there are several advantages to having this agency at arm's length from the government, similar to the relationship of the CRTC and government, as proposed in the red book. This proposed amendment by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is in line with the Liberal red book and as such I

would expect the government to honour its election commitments and include this amendment, which I support, into the act.

The member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake also proposed Bill C-56, clause 3, Motion No. 2 in the Order Paper, to make the panel or mediator reports binding to the governor in council. This proposed amendment requires the responsible authority to take a course of action consistent with the findings and recommendations in the panel report.

The amendment addresses the first amendment as it gives the agency independent decision-making powers. As I said earlier, I agree that the agency should have some independent decision-making powers. However, the proposed amendment would give the agency absolutely authority over decisions. There are some merits as well as some concerns with this proposal.

One aspect it recognizes is that panels and mediators have a far greater level of expertise regarding the issue than a review by cabinet. It also makes the final decision-making process more open to the public as panel reviews are open to the public, whereas cabinet meetings are not. The public is not privy to matters which guide cabinet decisions behind closed doors.

I agree that there are many benefits to granting decision-making powers to the review panel. However, I cannot support this clause which allows for appeal to cabinet. The government must be allowed the opportunity to intervene when necessary.

There will be occasions when the government will need to make decisions for political reasons, contrary to the review panel. Obviously this will not be a popular decision for which the government will undoubtedly take political heat. However, I feel the option must be open to the government. Therefore, I cannot and do not support this amendment.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the three motions. First, Motion No. 1 from the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, ensures that projects reviewed through a process of independent decision-making are instituted.

The member's suggestion is indeed interesting. However, he is adding words to an amendment which has been put forward to promote the concept of one project, one assessment. In this regard I suggest his proposal is out of place.

With respect to the intent of the member's suggestion, the government has put forward in Bill C-56 an amendment to section 37 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which would ensure that projects are subject to public review through an open and transparent process. This amendment ensures that panel recommendations are reviewed and responded to by the governor in council, thus ensuring that not just one minister will respond to panel recommendations.

The government believes that this amendment, along with the creation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, will allow for decision-making which is as independent as possible, coupled with an open and transparent process in which all Canadians may participate. For this reason the government will not support this motion.

Motion No. 2, moved by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, goes right to the heart of the cabinet decision-making process. The government has committed itself to ensuring that public reviews are carefully considered and responded to.

However to suggest that the governor in council be given a time limit to respond would unduly fetter the decision-making process of the federal government. It would as well not reflect the seriousness of the decisions in front of cabinet.

In some cases ministers may wish to respond quickly, or depending on the significance or complexity of the issue, the governor in council may well wish to take more time in its consideration of projects which are of national significance. The length of deliberations might also be influenced by stakeholders that in some cases may desire speedy responses or in others a more lengthy debate.

Further, as the member knows, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is progressively designed to encourage harmonization with the provinces. In this light many provinces do not have time lines and it would be inappropriate for the Government of Canada to impose them.

While we can understand the intent of the member's motion, we feel that the proposed amendment would unduly fetter decision-making and would contradict the careful deliberation that environmental assessment calls for. The government therefore cannot support this motion.

Finally, with regard to Motion No. 3, introduced by my colleague for Comox-Alberni, as was confirmed by the committee studying Bill C-56, the governor in council responses to public reviews will be and must be made by order in council. This is the way the governor in council works.

In this regard the member's motion is somewhat redundant and the government again cannot support its adoption.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 put forward today by our colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and Motion No. 3 put forward

by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni are amendments to Bill C-56.

First, I will remind you that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-56 since this bill amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which implements across the country an environmental assessment process that duplicates a process already existing in some provinces, including Quebec where there has been an environmental assessment process for more than 15 years now.

We have spoken against the enactment of this Act wich we consider to be unacceptable federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. We will have another opportunity to oppose federal interference in provincial jurisdiction on third reading of Bill C-56.

Let us look now at the motions from our colleagues. Motion No. 1 wants projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects to be publicly reviewed through a process of independent decision making. That amendment would be included in the purposes of the Act. It is hard to see what our colleague from the NDP is really getting at with this amendment. He should tell us more about this process of independent decision making. Should the body or agency making the decision be permanent or ad hoc? What would the administrative structure of such an agency be? Who would be on it? Who would pay? How would the recommendations or the reports of that body be handled?

Members of the NDP propose creating a new body which would only add to the list of existing agencies. In Quebec, we already have the BAPE, Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. On the other hand, for those who support the imposition of the federal process-which we do not-the act provides for the establishment of the Canadian assessment agency, as well as opportunities to use a mediator or a review panel for major projects.

As you can see, there are already many authorities provided for in the act. It seems to us that the NDP motion wants to add more to that federal superstructure, but without saying specifically what that new independent authority will be.

You will understand that we, in the Bloc, cannot accept this motion from the NDP. We have a firm fundamental position on this bill and nothing can change it. We will also vote against Motion No. 2 that was moved by the same member.

I would like to deal a little more with parts (1.1) and (1.2)( b ) of the motion. Part (1.1) says: ``Where a report is submitted by a mediator or review panel-'' But what does the NDP do with the independent authority that it is proposing in its first motion? It is talking here about the report of a mediator or review panel. What about the independent authority report? Clearly defining structures does not seem to be a strength of the NDP.

I think that the NDP does even worse when it proposes, in clause (1.2)( b ), that:

-the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of dealing with any or all the findings or recommendations set out in the report b ) substitute its own findings and recommendations for those of the report where it concludes that the findings or recommendations of the report are not in the public interest.

I ask my colleague if the whole process that the federal government wants to implement and impose on the provinces is really to further public interest in environmental assessment issues. With this amendment, the NDP is telling us that the process as a whole is not important and that, in the end, Cabinet can impose its own decision in the public interest.

It is not reassuring at all, considering who influence our dear ministers. Lobbyists are certainly not the greatest champions of public interest and the environment.

Another major inconsistency in the motions of the NDP is that it is asking for an independent public review while giving the last word to the government. It is inconsistent and illogical to advocate these two things at the same time, that is, an independent agency whose recommendations will be submitted to a higher authority.

The NDP is not very clear and rigorous in its proposals. If what it wants is to give more power to the people, its two motions are not very convincing. They are pulling in opposite directions. The result is a draw, since it is impossible to answer yes and no at the same time.

Motion No. 3, presented by the member for Comox-Alberni, adds a reference to orders in council in clause 3 of Bill C-56. The bill only mentions the approval, or consent, of the Governor in Council, in a non-specific fashion. The Reform Party simply wants to specify how it will be done, by order in council. For us, this is merely specifying how they will go about it; it does not change Bill C-56 significantly.

Finally, we will not vote in favour of any of these motions. Bill C-56 and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are both unacceptable and the changes proposed by our NDP and Reform colleagues do not make them more acceptable to us.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the amendments to Bill C-56 proposed by NDP and Reform members.

My comments will be similar to those made by my colleague for Laurentides, because, for different reasons, three of the motions cannot be approved by our party.

The first motion proposed by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake raises problems, as it says this:

"projects likely to cause- public concern are publicly reviewed through a process of independent decision making".

The process of independent decision making causes problems, because it remains undefined. It is said that an independent process should give some directions, but the process itself is not defined.

As far as environmental assessment is concerned, I wish to analyze some aspects, some government structures, mostly at the federal level, where these assessments are made. One must remember that each department, before implementing a project, must do an assessment demonstrating that it is not harmful to the environment.

Moreover, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, is about to be replaced by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The bill provides for a mediator who will review, hold hearings, carry out consultations-an activity our Liberal friends are particularly fond of-and this mediator will make decisions as part of the environmental assessment process.

Such processes also exist at the provincial level, as my colleague from Laurentides pointed out earlier. In Quebec, the BAPE, or Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (office of public hearings on the environment) conducts an environmental assessment which, by the way, is very serious and highly respected. My hon. colleague, who was Minister of the Environment, could attest to this.

The bill also provides for something that no one has objected to, a very good idea: environmental groups, which are concerned with the environment but, unlike industry groups, may not be able to afford to appear before committees and panels to express their views, would receive government funding to come and share their views with various committees. I think that this provision, and particularly the government funding granted to environmental groups-it is important to mention this because these groups will finally be given a chance to be heard-will facilitate public participation in the various environmental assessment processes.

I think that adding to the four or five existing environmental assessment organizations or agencies a fifth or sixth one, which would be this independent umbrella organization at the federal level, is going too far. It is difficult enough getting along as it is. As my colleague said earlier, they are pulling in opposite directions, so that putting the icing on the cake would not necessarily make sense.

As I said in my preamble, how does our colleague from The Battleford-Meadow Lake define "independent organization"? That is very important because we can move in different directions with that.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to give you another reason why we are opposed to Bill C-56. We see here that Clause 4( d ) of Bill C-13 would allow the public to participate in the environmental assessment process. Bill C-56 also provides for the compulsory creation of a participant funding program, as I said earlier. So we see that the public is really involved in this.

As for Motion No. 2 providing that the Governor in Council may substitute his own decisions for those of the mediator, we find it somewhat unparliamentary and undemocratic, since we were elected to the House of Commons by the people. We have had responsible government since 1848 and we are here to make it work.

So the Cabinet could be asked to reject out of hand the work done by our environmental assessment agencies and impose its own decisions when the public interest is at stake. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that this is not quite acceptable in a democratic society.

With respect to Motion No. 3 proposed by our Reform colleague from Comox-Alberni, we have a slight problem, as we have with three of the motions, in that simply adding by order in council would not amend the bill sufficiently for us to support Motion No. 3.

Decisions are made by the Governor in Council but it remains to be seen whether the government has the will to act on the environment; we seriously doubt it. That is why I support my colleague from Laurentides in opposing the three motions proposed to us.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.