Debates of Nov. 7th, 1995

Intervener Funding Act

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak today on Bill C-339, an act to provide for the funding of interveners in hearings before certain boards and agencies.

The bill introduced by the member for Oxford raises an issue of extreme importance to the House. The issue of intervener funding is of great interest to all elected officials. Parliamentarians are the first to recognize that public participation is fundamental to any meaningful consultative process. I believe that organizations that represent a relevant public interest should be able to participate in review processes.

The question that does need to be answered is how do we fund citizens whose views should be brought forth.

It would be useful to the debate to look at an intervenor funding program at work today. I will take a slightly different approach from other speakers on this subject and refer to the federal environmental assessment process which has included a participant funding program since 1991. The need for such a program was identified many years before.

The 1987 white paper on the reform of the federal environmental review process addressed the need and proposed the establishment of a participant funding program. In national consultations carried out as part of the above reform some funding was made available by the previous government. The funds were administered by the federal environmental assessment review office and were provided to participants in the activities of federal or joint panels reviewing such projects as the Sainte-Marguerite hydroelectric development project and the Vancouver airport.

The environmental assessment of large projects subject to public hearings is very complex and often results in several volumes of technical information. We therefore cannot expect informed public participation unless the groups representing the citizens directly affected by the projects have access to funding. Participation in the environmental assessment process requires staff and technical resources for analysing reports, drafting the response, preparing briefs and presenting these views at public hearings.

The participant funding program established in 1991 did not guarantee intervenor funding for all environmental assessments. This was not considered to be fair so the government recognized the flaw and created a statutory obligation to do so as promised in the Liberal Party's red book. Our government listened carefully to many Canadians who indicated that intervenor funding if carefully administered adds value to the environmental assessment process.

Accordingly the Minister of the Environment in Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, put forth as a key amendment a legally entrenched participant funding program that ensures interested individuals and groups have the resources they require to participate effectively in the process. As a result the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act now recognizes intervenor funding as an integral component of the assessment process and creates a statutory obligation to establish a funding program for that purpose.

The Minister of the Environment deserves much credit for making this amendment among others to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The legal provision for intervenor funding goes hand in hand with other elements of the environmental assessment process which recognize the importance of public participation. These include the provision of numerous opportunities for public involvement at various stages of the assessment process and the creation of a public registry through which interested persons can have access to documents relating to all current assessments of the environment, both federal and joint federal-provincial.

The participant funding program presently administered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has many different uses and criteria because public input is crucial and should not be frivolous. The present program makes funds available for different stages of the environmental assessment process. It outlines exactly who is eligible and it describes what kind of activities will be funded. The program is funded over a six-year period and is made up of funds allocated by the federal government.

Bill C-339 brings forward an aspect of intervenor funding that is of increasing importance: who should pay for public participation in environmental assessment. The debate on the issue is diverse in the opinions brought forth. There are those who support the proponent pays principle. Others suggest that any more cost to development would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Others point to the ability to pay based on small versus large size businesses. Many will point out it is unthinkable that taxpayers foot the bill for those who will reap profits. There are diverse opinions in the harmonization of federal-provincial environmental assessment processes. It is certain there is no simple answer or easy direction.

The government has recognized the need to look carefully at process efficiency as well as at all related expenditures. The Minister of the Environment is responding to this need. In last year's budget the Minister of Finance announced a special initiative:

The Minister of the Environment will develop, in consultation with concerned ministers, provinces and stakeholders, proposals for recovering costs attributable to environmental assessment as well as options for streamlining procedures and time lines for the environmental assessment process.

That is very clear. Since then the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has been developing the options in consultation with stakeholders.

What I have just said is a fair mouthful with respect to an environmental assessment process. It has brought in some of the factors that have to be considered in looking at a bill of this import, of this initiative and of this way of looking at how we do things with respect to public intervention, public interest and public hearings.

It has always been a policy of the Liberal government to involve the public. The best example I could give of that is the recent special standing committee on Canada's defence policy where policy was formed from the bottom up. Previously, to my knowledge, it was always done from the top down. The public process in formulating the white paper on defence was very important to this party and is why we did it that way.

Returning to the subject at hand in Bill C-339, if we are looking at cost recovery with respect to public participation, it is obvious that any successful initiative will have to contain certain process efficiency elements. If we are to ask proponents to assume certain costs we must be able to commit to efficiency of process. If individuals or organizations are to pay the cost of public participation surely they must receive some guarantee that there will be a certainty of process.

I have spoken long enough to make the point I wanted to make on the bill. I have used the example of a recent system that is in operation. There are still some questions to be answered. However in looking at Bill C-339 some of the proposals put forth and some of the examples used could be used in the model. The concerns are being addressed and we look forward to the options that will be presented.

Bill C-339 contributes very positively to the debate on public participation by recognizing these concerns. However I caution that we should wait for the completion of the government process I have just described before we proceed, as we say in the navy, at full speed ahead.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House in support of Bill C-339 sponsored by the hon. member for Oxford.

In so doing I need to address the question of exactly what is meant by intervenor funding. I would characterize intervenor funding as up front funding to assist Canadians before they participate in a process, to assist Canadians who have real interests in matters of public concern before a board, commission or an agency.

One needs to reflect on the question of who should receive such intervenor funding. The strongest argument can be made that such funds should be available to landowners first and foremost, to people whose properties are impacted by a decision of government and who have every right and responsibility on behalf of their families to participate in a decision by this government or by any government. They have the right to participate to make sure the best possible decision is made and that their rights as property owners and as Canadians are respected.

My colleague has previously spoken about making sure we do not fund frivolous objections. I would certainly support that. All too often people are quick to make frivolous objections and want to intervene in the process. I would not support funding for those kinds of objectors, but certainly there are many legitimate concerns that need to be raised by Canadians and we ought to fund such individuals.

The funding needs to be up front. People need to know they will have an opportunity to hire counsel and various other experts to assist them in their presentations. They need to know that before the fact and not after the fact. To me it really is not legitimate intervenor funding and proper if it is not guaranteed to people up front.

In supporting the bill I do so with some firsthand involvement in the process. As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex and as the chair of the southwestern Ontario Liberal caucus, and as my colleague for Oxford well knows, I have been directly involved along with him and other members in our region in issues of this type in southwestern Ontario.

We have had several instances of the building of interprovincial pipelines through our region which have involved the public in protracted disputes, the most recent one before the National Energy Board. Landowners are laying out thousands of dollars of their own money having to organize themselves without the help of counsel unless they pay for such counsel. Why? It is because a company

wishes to use their lands supposedly for the public good but certainly for the good of the company. Yet the people involved have to make sure their rights are respected.

In the latest example the people went before the National Energy Board some months ago and won the argument they put forward. They made a very good case. Yet the whole question of funding is up in the air for these people and we need to address that.

Perhaps the biggest inequity is that in Ontario there are two sets of rules where landowners are concerned. The first set of rules comes under the provincial government. If a pipeline comes under provincial jurisdiction such landowners are guaranteed that they will have funding provided to them under the provincial rules. However, if the pipeline involved comes under federal jurisdiction there is no such guarantee. It is a very clear and obvious inequity.

In the case of some of my constituents, farmers have two pipelines on their land barely feet apart, one coming under provincial jurisdiction and one coming under federal jurisdiction. When they are involved in hearings before the National Energy Board or other agencies or commissions, they are funded when they go to provincial hearings but are not funded when they go to federal hearings. This seems patently unfair and certainly an inequitable situation that our government needs to address.

I fully support my colleague from Oxford and his Bill C-339. As a Liberal I believe it is the role of government to ensure the little guy has full opportunity to participate on a level playing field with big corporations in society. We have to do everything possible to facilitate that.

It is not enough to say to people that they can appear before the National Energy Board and argue for their rights as citizens. It is simply not enough to do that if they do not have the means to do so, if they do not have the wherewithal to make that presentation. That means funding and that is why I fully support the bill. I think the member is on the right track. The government needs to make sure the playing field is level, that this inequity is addressed and that a landowner, particularly in the province of Ontario, does not have to play under two different sets of rules. The only way we can ensure that is to have meaningful, up front, intervenor funding available to serious Canadians, certainly landowners, who have a legitimate concern and who want to argue that concern before whatever board, commission or agency.

I fully support the bill and applaud my colleague for bringing it forward. I hope the bill will pass.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak on Bill C-339 as introduced by my colleague representing the riding of Oxford. I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my colleague for the great amount of work and research he has put into Bill C-339. He truly has done a marvellous job.

The primary objective of this legislation is to give all of those who speak in the public interest the opportunity to be heard before federal boards and agencies. Federal boards and agencies will make better decisions with a higher level of public input, consultation and participation. Bill C-339 is designed to assist those with bona fide concerns. It is not meant to provide funding for special interest groups. It is in the interest of each of us for the public interest to be heard. Bill C-339 will ensure the public interest is heard.

Bill C-339 is modelled after the intervenor funding act in the province of Ontario. The bill establishes the principle that a proponent of a project that requires approval by a federal board or agency should financially assist those who are intervening in the public interest before the board. The bill allows intervenors to put forward their perspective in a way which would allow the board to make a decision having the best information available.

This intervenor funding act will be a significant step forward for groups speaking in the public interest that do not have funds available to make an adequate representation in a highly technical age.

Before receiving funding, intervenors will need to meet the following criteria. First, that the intervenor represents a clearly ascertainable interest that is relevant to the issue before the review authority and that should be represented at the hearing. Second, that the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to make a representation without funding. Third, that the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources.

Fourth, that the intervenor has established a record of concern for a commitment to the interest. Fifth, that the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to co-operate with other intervenors who represent similar interests. Sixth, the absence of funding would adversely affect the representation of that interest.

Seventh, the intervenor has a proposal that specifies the use to which funding would be put, has the ability to record the expenditure of the funding and has agreed to submit an accounting to the panel for the expenditure and allow the panel to examine its records to verify the accounting. In other words, the funding would be used to help balance the playing field between those with money, with resources, and those without. It would add an element of accountability for government funds.

Intervenor funding is not a new concept in our country. The province of Ontario currently has an intervenor funding project act which has served as the model for this legislation. The Ontario act was in turn modelled on the funding provided for the intervenors before the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry, known as the Berger commission, in the mid-1970s.

This commission, charged with the duty of investigating the appropriateness of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories, determined that many diverse interests in the region should be represented at the hearing. In order to compete with the finances available to the proponents of the pipeline, money had to be provided to the citizens groups.

Environmental groups and native representatives obtained funding in order to present their views on how the pipeline would affect their interests. Without funding it would have been difficult for the intervenors to retain technical and legal experts for the purposes of putting forward testimony on how the public would affect environmental and native interests in the north.

The commission made clear that intervenors would have to show that absence of funding would adversely affect the quality of their presentations. This burden is placed on intervenors in this legislation who must appear before a funding panel for approval.

While funding from the Berger commission was provided by the federal government, Bill C-339 does not call on the Canadian taxpayer to provide funding for intervenors. Instead, the proponent of the project will provide the funding. Clearly if the proponent is required to bear the cost of interventions they are more likely to work with potential intervenors to find a solution before going before the board or agency. The Ontario experience has shown the effectiveness of this method of funding.

This bill is important because it is in the interest of all of us that the public interest be heard. Federal boards and agencies will be able to make better decisions based on a higher level of public access and consultation.

Bill C-339 is designed to assist those bona fide concerns. It is not meant to provide funding for special interest groups. I urge all members to support Bill C-339.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion adopted. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed to call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this late show question refers to a question I put to the Minister of Human Resources Development on Bill C-96, which seeks to give the federal government full control over manpower training.

My question was asked before the referendum. Now that the results are known, I can say that bringing up that question again at this time will give us rather clear indications as to the real desire for change that exists in the federal government, if it agrees to withdraw Bill C-96 or to amend it in such a way that the provinces will have full jurisdiction over manpower training.

This is an opportunity for the federal government to proceed with a meaningful decentralization and to delegate jurisdiction over manpower training. We are frequently asked why both levels of government are so stubbornly determined to keep their involvement in that area. The answer is that one of the two governments, the Government of Quebec, and the governments of all other provinces for that matter, has jurisdiction over education, and that education has a direct impact on manpower, because it includes not only primary, high school and college level education, but also the training of people who are coming back or want to come back on the labour market and want to get better training.

The other level of government got involved in the area of education by using its spending power and misusing, I would say, the unemployment insurance fund. This year, for example, a $5 billion surplus was created in the fund, and the department wants to use that money to meddle in manpower training.

This is a real life situation where useless duplication between governments is very expensive for Quebecers and Canadians and programs that are set up are not always effective. The purpose of

our representations is to ask the minister if he could withdraw Bill C-96 or find a way to give to those provinces who want it complete control over manpower.

This is not only a matter of administrative agreements. Such agreements were offered in the past, notably to the previous Quebec Liberal government which, although a federalist government, turned them down, since, without full delegation, it would be difficult for the Quebec government to take on such a responsibility.

This will have an impact on several areas of activity. In taking action, the Quebec government must be able to take into account the impact on social assistance and on other aspects of training, for instance, and, thus, draw up an action plan for several years to come.

If the delegation is only good for three or five years or is not complete, the Quebec government will not be able to ensure the success of its actions. This is why it is hoped that the federal government will agree to delegate the whole area of manpower to Quebec, in compliance with the request made as a result of the consensus reached by the unions, the Conseil du patronat, as well as by all of the political parties in Quebec. Therefore, in these times when the federal government is again promising us change, will it show at last a real willingness to do so?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously confused as to the intent and scope of Bill C-96.

For example, clause 6 of the bill does not provide the Minister of Human Resources Development with any new powers. These already existed within the predecessor's departments and are simply consolidated to provide a more efficient response to the needs of Canadians.

Clause 20 allows the minister to enter into agreements. Again this is nothing new, as the minister already has similar authority under existing legislation. As the member should know, this authority is very important to serving the needs of Canadians. For example, under the program for older worker adjustment, the minister signs agreements with provinces to set up the program and with financial institutions to buy annuities on behalf of designated unemployed older workers.

This program has been of particular importance to Quebec where in 1994-95, the federal government spent $35.4 million, representing 66 per cent of total expenditures nation-wide to buy annuities on behalf of 1,255 older Quebec men and women. By the end of 1994-95, 4,260 Quebecers were benefiting from annuities purchased under the authority of POWA.

Of course, the federal government will continue to seek out the co-operation of its partners in establishing flexible programs and efficient arrangements. The government has continuously acted in this spirit since its election in October 1993.

For example, the Canada student loans program provides grants to women and persons with disabilities. Quebec has chosen to opt out and runs its own student loans program. In 1994-95, Quebec received a federal payment of over $92 million to do so.

The new Canada health and social transfer will provide block funding to provinces for post-secondary education, health and social assistance. The CHST will enhance provincial flexibility in allocating federal resources according to each province's priorities.

The strategic initiatives program funds innovative projects based on provincial priorities. We were all pleased when the minister announced on August 29 that he had come to an agreement on this important initiative with his Quebec colleague. As a result, an estimated 29,000 additional Quebecers will be receiving assistance over the next three years under the APPORT and Formation professionelle au secondaire programs.

It is clear that the hon. member is more interested in ideology than ideas. This bill is another step forward in the reform process leading to a more efficient and effective government. I urge him to support Bill C-96.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the remarks made by the Minister of Human Resources Development in answering a question on child poverty. Today, I would like to get a better answer than the one the minister then gave me.

When I asked him if he would agree that cuts to the unemployment insurance program and the transfers to provinces would force more women and children to join the ranks of the poorest citizens, the minister simply answered this, and I quote: "One of the real purposes for undertaking a major modernization of our social programs is to tackle the whole problem of poverty faced by women and children".

Those are fine principles. But reality is another matter altogether. Moreover, in conclusion, the minister even had the nerve to recall that the fight against poverty requires efforts by all levels of government, employers, unions, social groups and women's associations.

That is really showing a lack of responsibility. How can we not be totally disconcerted by a government that casually offloads its burden onto all the others, while pretending that it has good intentions?

I want to remind the government, and especially the Minister of Human Resources Development, to whom history will attribute the indecent increase in the number of poor women and children in Canada and in Quebec, that the massive cuts and the shameless manipulation of the unemployment insurance fund have a direct and unavoidable consequence: they increase the number of welfare recipients.

It is not hard to understand. In Quebec alone, last July, 477,771 households were on welfare. In Quebec alone, as a direct consequence of the current government's ineptitude, there are almost 50,000 new social welfare recipients since it came to power. In Quebec alone, 249,567 children count on welfare benefits for their very survival and are suffering the consequences. That is more than a quarter of a million children. And the minister has the gall to tell us that women's associations must do their share. He has the gall to tell us that social groups must also do their share.

This government must review all the cuts it wants to make. It must look at them through its gender analysis prism it has been boasting so much about on the international scene. The social program reform so dear to the minister would not stand up to such an analysis very long, and that is why his government is waiting so long to implement it. The conclusion is obvious: the reform will clearly penalize women and children the most.

This government must work to reduce poverty among women and children, and not to increase it, as is currently the case.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is very concerned with poverty among Canadian children. Of particular concern are the six out of ten lone-parent families headed by women who live in low-income situations.

The best security for children is for their parents to have jobs. Consequently, the government is working diligently to establish conditions that create full-time employment. As a result of these efforts, women now occupy more than half of the 505,000 new full-time jobs that have been created across Canada since October 1993, as well as the 142,000 jobs created in Quebec.

For those who have not yet found employment we have introduced a higher benefit rate for unemployed poor families. This benefit rate is now providing up to $1,000 more in benefits for these UI claims. As of July 1995 over 383,000 Canadians have benefited from the 60 per cent benefit rate, including nearly 300,000 women. In Quebec over 110,000 claimants have received the 60 per cent benefit rate, including over 85,000 women.

The government intends to present shortly a new program of employment insurance, which will better help unemployed Canadians find jobs. As the Prime Minister stated in a speech on November 1, "We have to change the focus because we want to give a dependable security for the people who are raising families on low incomes".

Beyond these changes the Department of Human Resources Development has launched a series of strategic initiatives with provincial and territorial governments. In Quebec the federal government is supporting a major initiative to help over 25,000 parents make the transition from social assistance to work. Federal support of up to $54 million will be provided for the wage supplementation program in the next four years.

In the member's own riding of Quebec there are several human resources development projects under way involving approximately 400 women, which are aimed at helping them overcome the difficulties in order to enter the labour force.

The federal government continues to take serious and concrete actions to improve the well-being of Canada's children. Through reform of social programs at both the federal and provincial levels more can be done to tackle the serious issue of child poverty.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.)