Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I am pleased to participate in this second reading debate on Bill C-339 proposed by the hon. member for Oxford. I must congratulate him for his goodwill, for trying to enhance democracy here in Canada, so that some groups can give their opinion on environmental matters concerning natural resources.
This Bill C-339 is quite simple. It has virtually only two pages, if we take out the ones containing the terminology and the definitions used in the bill. It establishes the principle that the proponent of a project that requires review and approval under federal legislation, for example, Bill C-56, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and that affects the public interest or the environment, should fund intervenors in public hearings on that project.
On the face of it, we could be in favour of the principle of funding groups who want to participate in public hearings, because often, groups that represent less advantaged people in our society do not have sufficient financial resources to pay for scientific studies, transportation, research studies or efforts needed to prove their good faith. I am thinking here of studies needed, for example, in my region, Abitibi, or in Northern Canada or the Arctic circle, where intervenors certainly do not have sufficient financial resources to pay for their travel and their stay when defending the interests of people they represent.
We have seen in the past citizens who were penalized in their rights because, unlike large businesses or developers, they did not have the financial resources to defend their view on a project. So we are in favour of the principle that proponents pay for administrative costs related to the reviews.
But after examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize that it has a much greater scope than it purports. There are a number of questions. First of all, whether this bill was drafted to complete the program that already exists at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency created under Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
It is clear that the government, by using the procedure suggested in Bill C-339, can save on the funding it now has to provide to groups that are interested in taking part in public environmental hearings. If that is the case, why not simply amend the legislation instead of drafting a whole new bill? It is difficult to determine which agencies will benefit under this program and how proponents will react. And besides, this bill would institutionalize duplication, because provincial governments often already have their own structures for evaluating the projects of proponents.
So why add to the duplication in procedures for analysing the impact of natural resource development on the environment? This bill would create one more commission that would propose further administrative constraints, in addition to the far too numerous existing ones which the industry has criticized as jeopardizing project development and hence employment.
For instance, on October 18, when the mining industry, through its national organization, held its open house, one of its principal demands was that the government streamline the many unwieldy administrative structures restricting the development of this industry.
Bill C-339 would merely create one more administrative level instead of making intervenor funding the responsibility of a decision making level that already exists.
If we look at the two pages in the bill that provide a list of definitions, it is not quite clear what is meant by the term "public interest". In fact, a large number of frivolous interventions could be made claiming a "public interest", which would cause delay and add to the cost to the proponent of studies or the actual project.
The bill would also assist intervenors with a record of responsible representation of a facet of the public interest to put their arguments respecting the project before the approving authority. In this situation, doubt could be cast on the objectivity of the funding panel, which determines the groups to be funded by the proponent.
Clearly, in no case, should the fact of forcing the proponent to provide financial assistance threaten the feasibility of a project. However, it could happen that the proponent is the government itself. This is the case with the Irving Whale .
Thus the SVP group opposed to refloating the Irving Whale , as proposed by the government, receives no assurance from this bill of being considered an organization the federal government does not want to recognize as an intervenor with a record of responsible representation, because the panel is appointed by the government itself.
A question arises: Who benefits from representing these public interest organizations? There is cause for concern that some may find personal interest in the process and will not hesitate to specialize in defending public interest organizations.
The question could arise, for example, during a study on the opening of a new mine, if the representative of a local group, with no expertise, but wishing to protect the environment, and having an opportunity to develop their region through new jobs, ran up against a group like Greenpeace, which could defeat the local group through its expertise and international reputation.
In clause (7)( b ), contrary to what the bill proposes, funding should not be available to cover lawyers' services. The aim of public hearings is to help the government make a public and not a legal decision.
It has generally been observed that, when lawyers represent certain groups, the other witnesses are intimidated and refuse to express their viewpoint. The hearings then take on legal overtones. This opinion is what officials who are used to this sort of hearing have to say.
In clauses 3 and 4, the funding panel should also ensure that studies witnesses want funded have not already been undertaken. For example, the panels set up by the federal environmental assessment review office, if we refer to Bill C-56, which has this instrument already, have many scientific studies done, in addition to having witnesses testify at public hearings.
The witnesses must not be funded for doing the same studies as the panel. Bill C-339 contains no provision for such an eventuality.
In conclusion, we feel this bill has good ideas and that it is innovative, but it also contains a number of serious failings.
It should therefore be amended before submission to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources so that its objective of enabling groups of intervenors to defend their point of view with funding may be possible.
Furthermore, given how open Bill C-339 is in its present form to encroachment on provincial jurisdictions, such as natural resources and the environment, we must vote against it in its present form.