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.
