Mr. Speaker, I rise to make similar points, perhaps with greater emphasis on what we just heard from the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I wish to echo some of the comments he made and perhaps add some.
In the course of reviewing the environmental assessment legislation, and even more so than what we see before the House in the way of amendments, in some of the discussion we had in committee there was a great deal of concern about the lack of enforcement provisions in the bill. In what is in effect the existing section 62 of the act, there was a variety of amendments proposed by all parties, I believe, certainly by most of the parties represented on that committee.
It was clear that when one stood back and took an objective overview of it, part of what we were trying to do was get at that issue of how we at least could be sure that in the legislation, which as I have already said in the House on a number of occasions is inadequate and relatively weak, what is there would be carried out and enforced, so that as much protection as possible that could be garnered for the environment would in fact be garnered by this legislation.
Various proposals were put forward specifically around monitoring and enforcing, making sure that both the act and the regulations, and I think that is an important point, were in fact carried out, both in the wording that is there and in the spirit that is intended by the act and the regulations.
Most of the amendments, the more strongly worded ones in particular, were voted down by the Liberal majority on the committee. We did end up with what we now find as Motion No. 25, which is a compromise, I would say. It is better than what we have in the law now. The amendment will be an improvement.
I have to say, perhaps as a warning to the government, that this is being monitored by the opposition parties, by the environmental community and by other people who have followed the course of environmental assessment legislation. They are going to be watching very closely, because this compromise was in effect a statement by the government, which was saying, “Trust us. This wording is strong enough. There is enough direction in this wording in these amendments that in fact we will see to it that the law, limited though it may be, at least will be carried out”.
I suppose what I am saying to the government today is that it should be aware that the environmental community is watching this part of it very closely to see if the government is going to be true to its word and is in fact going to enforce and carry out the terms and the spirit of the law.
With regard to Motion No. 27, there are a couple of points. The committee was very clear, I think, that it was concerned about the length of time before the next review of the legislation would be done. There was a good deal of evidence, which we took from a number of witnesses, that the amendments were not going to be sufficient to deal with the problems that accrued since the act was originally passed seven years ago.
A number of specific amendments were proposed for a shorter review period. It is now seven years from the time of royal assent. There were proposals for as brief as one year all the way up to five years. Ultimately, the amendment now before the House is the one that was sent forward from the committee, again under a vote from the majority party.
The comment I would make to the government is one I heard the member for Lac-Saint-Louis make. We do not have to necessarily wait those seven years. The minister responsible at any given time and his or her department have to monitor this on an ongoing basis to see whether the proposed amendments, most of which we expect will ultimately pass, are sufficient to deal with the problems that have accrued. If they are not, I urge the minister not to wait out the seven years and to use this period of time wisely. If problems continue to be pointed out that we have already experienced, we should review the law and pass the necessary amendments so that the environment is protected by way of a valid environmental assessment process.