moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-56 be amended by adding after new subclause 5(2), the following new Clause:
"5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 59:
"59.1 (1) Every regulation that is proposed to be made under section 59 shall be laid before each House of Parliament at least twenty sitting days before the proposed effective date thereof.
(2) Where, within fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of that House to the effect that the proposed regulation not be approved, signed by no fewer than fifteen Senators or twenty Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, is filed with the Speaker of the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, the Speaker shall, within five sitting days of the filing of the motion, without debate or amendment put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(3) Where a motion referred to in subsection (2) is adopted by both Houses of Parliament, the proposed regulations to which the motion relates may not be made, and the proposed regulation shall be referred to the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers environmental affairs for further consideration.
(4) Where Parliament dissolves or prorogues earlier than fifteen sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before both Houses of Parliament under subsection (1) and a motion has not been disposed of under subsection (2) in relation to the proposed regulation in both Houses of Parliament, the proposed regulation may not be made.
(5) For the purposes of this section, "sitting day" means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which the House sits."."
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to my motion in front of the House today. This is a motion that I have raised in this Chamber on one previous occasion. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to again try to convince the members of this House of the importance of dealing with public involvement in the regulatory process.
I should indicate to members and to those who are watching today from outside this Chamber that public involvement in decision making is something that I have always taken very seriously.
Although Bill C-56 in front of us deals to a certain extent with participant funding and individual participation within the process of environmental assessment, I was very anxious to include amendments as well dealing with participant funding, define more readily participant funding and also ensure that the agency in the legislation take more responsibility for participant funding programs.
I found that the amendments I submitted for inclusion on the Order Paper for today were ruled out of order before they were printed, again because they did not deal specifically with the intent of the legislation before the House.
While we are dealing with the importance of public participation in the environmental assessment process I want to urge the government to do more to ensure a public participation funding program or an intervener funding program than has been done in the legislation in front of us.
The government responded in committee to the question of greater definition of public participation funding programs by stating that it will include guidelines and rules within the regulations that make the act operable. That and other reasons is what prompts the amendment on the table now.
What I am saying by moving the amendment is that the current regulatory process is inadequate, troublesome and lacking in public scrutiny. Members of the public and in fact the members of the House do not have the ability to examine in public, debate in public, discuss in public with a view to change, regulations once they have been dealt with, generally behind closed doors.
As witness after witness before the committee in the previous Parliament and before the committee in this Parliament indicated, it is the regulations which run the act and therefore the process, not the act itself. The regulations are as important as the act.
We have spent on environmental assessment legislation hundreds if not thousands of hours putting in place the proper wording for the legislation but we have not dealt at all with the regulatory process.
One of the witnesses before the committee, a man by the name of Brian Pannell from Winnipeg had some comments in this regard that I want to bring to the attention of the House before I proceed with my arguments. Mr. Pannell said: "On the law list, the law list remains substantially deficient. I can tell you that this law list has been worked on for years and it has always been a struggle to be relatively inclusive of the real substantial decisions that should be on there and there are still many decisions that should be on there that aren't because there are many departmental interests that are served by not having them there and I don't see an early resolution to this process".
The regulatory process takes place behind closed doors. Decisions are made about how the act will be run by people who study this very closely. To a certain extent the people in this regulatory process are doing a great job. The regulations are put in place and go before cabinet. Before those regulations can be published the cabinet makes decisions, makes deletions, makes additions, does whatever it wants to, not referring anything back to the regulatory development committee or whatever it is called, and the regulations are published. That is it. Everything is done and the operations of the act proceed.
Some time ago in dealing with the previous government's gun control legislation the government set a precedent by establishing a process by which regulations could be reviewed by members of Parliament. The government conceded, because the regulations concerned the addition of firearms that could be prohibited by order in council, not by debate, not by public discussion but simply by cabinet deciding that this or that firearm could be put on a prohibited list.
In this case we have regulations that can decide the future of environmental assessment, the process, how the participant funding program is going to operate, who is going to get funding under participant funding processes, which projects will be reviewed, which projects will not be reviewed, who can appear before panel decisions, who can sit on panels and where they are going to operate. All of these details about the decision-making process that will eventually lead to recommendations on projects are dealt with under regulations. As members of Parliament we and the public have no participation in that process before, in the middle of or after it is completed.
The point I am making is fairly simple. We are asking that when the regulation process is complete and the regulations are on the table that we set aside a period of time when members of Parliament or members of the Senate can respond to those regulations. We can say to the country that we do not want these regulations to pass until such time as we have had a chance to look at them. These matters can then be brought before committees or dealt with in any way that the government wishes to have them dealt with. Should public scrutiny allow those regulations to go forward, they can.
The government loses nothing in this process other than the fact that some of the regulations and some of the regulatory process is under the scrutiny of members of Parliament, the Senate and therefore the people of Canada, if we are paying attention to the needs and the interests of the Canadians who are concerned about these matters.
I do not consider this to be a significant amendment in terms of what it means to the government achieving its ends. I do see it as a significant amendment in terms of allowing for greater public participation on the side of the question that really matters: the operational and administrative side, the regulatory side.
I urge the government to carefully consider its concern and its stated support for public participation in the process. By supporting this amendment it will bring greater clarity to the whole regulatory decision-making process.