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.