Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-339, standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford.
This bill, which is quite straightforward, establishes the principle that a proponent of a project that requires review and approval should assist with funding for interveners who would like to be heard. The hon. member for Oxford suggests adopting the principle that the proponent pays.
On the face of it, we would support the principle of funding groups that want to participate in public hearings, because often, groups that represent less advantaged people in our society cannot afford to go and put forward their views and their interests or pay for scientific studies or even for the transportation to get to the hearings.
Consider the studies required in the far North, for instance, where interveners lack the financial resources to travel, pay for accommodations, and so forth, when defending the interests of the people they represent.
We have seen in the past citizens who were at a distinct disadvantage because they did not have the same resources as large businesses or developers to defend their interests. In fact, these businesses and developers can afford to pay lobbyists on a regular basis to push their projects ahead, while small groups that are not as organized and are not supported by the big guys are always looking for financial support.
In other words, we do support the principle that proponents pay for the administrative costs related to the reviews. However, after examining this bill more thoroughly, we realize it has a much broader scope than it purports and offers few guarantees for the arm's length nature of the process it proposes.
First of all, we should realize that this bill will create funding committees. Some public organizations already have a funding option. One example is the Environmental Assessment Agency established by Bill C-56, which provides for a sort of funding from the government.
How will the new funding panel work with the assessment agency? Naturally the government could save money by having the proponents pay, but why not simply amend Bill C-56 to include the concept of "funding proponent".
We have to ask ourselves whether the panels proposed in Bill C-339 are not another layer of administrative structures and duplication within the federal system. We can also see in this bill the danger of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. For example, in Bill C-56, the Environmental Assessment Act, the federal government is clearly meddling in provincial affairs. We could therefore end up with projects assessed by both levels of government with proponents having to pay twice to fund various interveners.
I do not suppose proponents are interested in this costly duplication, which, moreover, delays the whole process of project approval. It is an obvious hinderance and has an impact on our economy and on job creation.
I would now like to consider the independence of the funding panels. According to subclause 4(2), a review authority that receives an application from an intervener for intervener funding shall appoint a funding panel from its membership.
To my mind, this provision reveals that the funding panel is clearly not independent of the review authority. Indeed, what happens when the authority assigned to review a project comes under the authority of a department that is the project promoter?
The best example is doubtless the case of the refloating of the Irving Whale . Do you think that SVP, the Société pour vaincre la pollution and RMPG, the Regroupement madelinot pour la protection du golfe, could get funding through this bill? I have very strong doubts.
People who will be appointed to the funding panel under the authority of the Minister of the Environment will certainly be under pressure from that same minister not to give groups such as the SVP and the RMPG, which are strongly opposed to her project, an opportunity to be heard.
In other words, I believe that the government will have the power to choose which groups it is willing to listen to, and it will be able to reject those groups that do not share its views.
Transparency and independence are lacking in this bill. The concept of funding proponent is good, but the process proposed in this bill is flawed. Therefore, the bill does not achieve its ultimate goal.
About this process, it is worth noting that it appears to be rather cumbersome and complicated. For one thing, the funding panel will have to determine if the intervener is eligible for funding, and from what we can read in clause 4, the least we can say is that interveners will be scrutinized. Also, the bill provides for an appeal
process to the review authority and ultimately to the Federal Court of Canada if the proponents and the interveners are not satisfied with the funding panel's decisions.
Knowing full well how slow bureaucracy can be, I am sure that some interveners will be left high and dry. Projects will be completed and interveners will still be waiting for the outcome of the appeal process. The same goes for the proponent. In fact, I wonder if projects will be allowed to proceed during the appeal process. I would like the member for Oxford to answer this question.
Finally, we think that this bill contains good ideas and that the principle on which it is based is innovative, but it has serious flaws.
Bill C-339 is off the mark.