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.