Intervenor funding will assure the public that those with a valid interest will be heard at future hearings. For many years the public has been saying that they want to have an input in government decision making. Intervenor funding guarantees their access.
I am not introducing a new concept to this Parliament. Intervenor funding was granted to environmental and native groups and municipal councils during the Mackenzie River pipeline inquiry, also know as the Berger commission, in the mid-1970s. Mr. Justice Thomas Berger determined that funding would be necessary to ensure that the many diverse interests would be represented at the hearings.
Justice Berger said in announcing the funding: "These groups are sometimes called public interest groups. They represent identifiable interests that should not be ignored. Indeed, it is essential that they should be considered. They do not represent the public interest, but it is in the public interest that they should be heard".
The Ontario government proclaimed the intervenor funding project act in 1989 as a three-year pilot project. This program has been extended through to the spring of 1996. In introducing this legislation to the Ontario legislature the then attorney general Ian Scott, who had served as counsel on the Berger commission, stated that a regularized system for intervenor funding is an essential component of an accessible justice system. My Bill C-339 is modelled after the Ontario act.
It is interesting that members of the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association, who have discussed their situation with landowners who had appeared before the Ontario energy board, found that process to be fairer and more inclusive for both the landowner and the proponent. The success of this act in Ontario augurs well for the success of this legislation I am introducing today.
Further to experience with the Berger commission and the Ontario legislation, the federal government has had experience with intervenor funding through the CRTC and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Krever inquiry into Canada's blood supply, which is currently funding a number of intervenors.
The federal Liberal Party made a very clear commitment in the red book to provide for intervenor funding within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This commitment was honoured when Bill C-56 was passed last December. At that time the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister, the Reform member for Comox-Alberni, and the New Democratic member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake spoke in favour of this type of funding. Today I seek the same consensus of all colleagues in this House to move this legislation forward so that it can be put before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for further study.
I would like to share with the House a statement made by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake during the debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: "Without adequate intervenor funding there cannot be adequate assessment, quite simply because those who wish to challenge the proponent do not have the same access to capital as the proponent does". In effect, what the hon. member is saying is that we have to level the playing field so that both the proponent and the intervenor have the same ability to put forward evidence that will allow the best decision to be made.
In 1992 the province of Ontario conducted a review of the intervenor funding project act. This review, entitled "Access and Impact: An Evaluation of the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988", states this on the need for intervenor funding: "Participation is necessary for reasons of fairness. It also makes for better decisions, as broader information, values, and opinions are canvassed by those required to make decisions in the public interest. But those purposes cannot be achieved if the resources of participants are severely limited in relation to the case they are required to meet".
There are those who feel that people who would like to intervene before federal boards and agencies should raise the funds themselves in order to make a representation. Some feel that even if the intervenor is clearly representing the public interest, they should pay all costs. Are we then to tell our constituents that only the wealthy have a right to be heard? We cannot tell Canadians to mortgage their homes and their futures in order to make a representation in the public interest.
Am I to say with a straight face that governments make the best decisions after hearing only from those wealthy enough to afford the best lawyers and technical experts? As the member of Parliament for all the people of Oxford, it is my duty to ensure that they have an opportunity to influence government decision making. This bill not only provides that opportunity, but also will result in better decisions being made.
At this point I would like to discuss a number of key sections of this bill. Clause 2 says that the purpose of the act is to require any person proposing a project that would affect the public interest or the environment and that is required by law to be reviewed by a public process before being approved by government or an agency of government to provide funding to assist organizations that represent a relevant public interest and that wish to intervene in the review process to represent that interest.
I have been asked why the proponent should fund the intervenor. The Ontario government review, "Access and Impact", states that more effective monitoring of the costs and benefits of the process will be achieved if those who are the focus of these decisions, the
proponents, are made to bear the cost. It is they who are the centrepiece of the regulated activity.
It should be noted that paragraph 4(3)(f) in my bill calls upon a funding panel to consider any representation the funding proponents make concerning the application of an intervenor. This paragraph allows the proponent to make a presentation about the public interest the intervenor purports to represent and about the proponent's own ability to fund the intervention.
In drafting the funding criteria for intervenors, I have used the criteria set out in the Ontario legislation. The Ontario legislation was in turn developed using the criteria set forth by Justice Berger, which has been the model for intervenor funding at both the federal and provincial government levels.
The member for Comox-Alberni stated during third reading debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: "Guidelines for participation should consider whether the applicant represents a clearly ascertainable interest that should be heard at the hearing and whether separate representation of the interest would assist the panel and contribute to the hearing". I believe that the funding criteria within Bill C-339 clearly live up to the standards my hon. colleague set out during the CEAA debate.
Subclause 4(4) of the bill states:
A funding panel shall not order funding to be provided to an intervenor unless it is satisfied that the issues the intervenor intends to present are entirely or mainly issues respecting public interests rather than private interests and that
(a) 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;
(b) the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to make the representation without funding;
(c) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources;
(d) the intervenor has an established record of concern for and commitment to the interest;
(e) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to cooperate with other intervenors that represent similar interests;
(f) the absence of funding would adversely affect the representation of the interest; and
(g) 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.
It should be stated that paragraph 4(5)(b) of the bill allows the project proponent to appeal a funding order to the review authority.
I strongly believe that the bill will improve the way government works and makes decisions. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources may feel that some amendments are in order. I and other witnesses who may be called would be happy to work with the committee to improve and then pass this important piece of legislation.
In conclusion, let me say that it is time to tell the people of Canada at this important time in our history that they can have a say and that this federal government believes that their interventions will improve the quality of decisions that must be made.
I ask all members of the House to support the bill and thus give all Canadians a means by which to participate responsibly in our future.
It was some 18 months ago that I stood at the last seat of the fourth row, the farthest I could get from the Chair, to give my maiden speech as a backbencher and as a member of the class of '93. One thing that concerned me the most when I came to Ottawa and to Parliament was how does the backbencher, the individual member of whatever party, influence government policy? How do we have some effect? How do we go back to our constituents and say we did this or we did that or we were able to modify, mediate, change, suggest something that became law because you told me that was what you wanted. I do not pretend to know all the answers. I do suggest and I do feel very proud to be able to present this bill today because it is one way in which the individual MP can influence government decision making.
I suggest to all hon. members that committee work is another way. I appreciate that work. It allows me to work with and learn from my colleagues on all sides of the House on important issues.
Bill C-339 is a votable item and I look forward to further debate.