Well, I think I've been quite forthright that this is exactly what it's about.
It's important, Mr. McGuinty, to clarify that intervenor funding has to do with, say, environmental assessment proceedings or tribunals. That's to do with administrative review. We're talking here about the cost of proceeding with a prosecution. We're talking about the occasion where a prosecution proceeds, is successful, and convicts an accused--so therefore the information was valid in the case where the private prosecutor is proceeding--and the crown, who has complete discretion to intervene to stop that, has chosen not to. In other words, they found it was in the public interest to allow the private prosecution to proceed.
It's simply a case of reasonableness. Where the government has chosen not to proceed with the case, therefore private persons have had to incur the costs of a prosecution. That would include bringing forward expert witnesses, simply paying for the prosecutor.
If you look at the potential scale of the penalties that are under these statutes, and that are being raised by the government, we're not talking in the order of $6 million. We're talking about very reasonable amounts of money for a criminal proceeding and to cover the costs.
So it's very much related to cost; it would not otherwise be available. It in no way takes away from the creation of the environmental damages fund. It in no way takes away from the potential for contributions to the environmental damages fund. But if you look to the experience in the courts, what is happening more and more is that instead of awarding a monetary penalty, particularly in the case where a crown agency or a government department is being prosecuted, which the federal government does regularly, it doesn't make sense to impose a penalty. What they're doing instead is imposing the requirement to train, or the requirement to buy additional equipment, or the requirement to invest in cleanup and so forth. In fact, the monetary penalty is in many cases much less significant than the additional costs incurred by the accused to repair, or to avoid, into the future.
I appreciate the provisions that were raised. I've gone through the statute to see if it's accommodated otherwise. But in many cases, the person who does the prosecution does not necessarily live in the vicinity. They would be excluded by that provision.
We're not talking about an award of costs to a group that has worked to save the lake or the river, or to prevent oil pollution and so forth. We're talking, very discretely, about the power of the court to award, in their discretion, costs for proceeding with the prosecution. That is specifically what it is about.
It's regrettable that the government has not chosen to issue any regulations under section 278, which previous governments have done under the federal Fisheries Act. Those regulations, as far as I'm aware, have not ever been issued under CEPA.
So we need certainty and we need consistency. That is why I'm bringing forth this provision.
