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.