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.