Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to second Bill C-339, a private member's bill dealing with the subject of intervenor funding. This is certainly a subject that deserves the attention of members of this House and of the government. I thank the member for Oxford for bringing it forward.
Intervenor funding is, as he has indicated, not a new concept for governments or for this House. It was last dealt with seriously when we debated the merits of including an intervenor funding program within the Environmental Assessment Act legislation in the previous Parliament. At that time, members will remember that I was a strong advocate of a comprehensive intervenor funding program.
Today, Bill C-339 asks us to approve 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 and it sets out a few guidelines about how this funding program would work.
Specifically, Bill C-339 states that before receiving funding, intervenors need to meet a number of very specific criteria: that the intervenor represents a clearly ascertainable interest that is relevant to the issue; that the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources; that the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources; that the intervenor has established a record of concern; that the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to co-operate with other intervenors; and that the absence of funding would adversely affect the representation of the interest.
The criteria also requires the intervenor to have 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 follow and allow that panel to examine its records and verify its accounting.
According to the mover of the motion, the primary objective of the legislation is to give all those who speak in the public interest the opportunity to be heard before federal boards and agencies. The goal is admirable and the criteria is strict, perhaps too restrictive, but there are a few things that I think should be said in the debate before us today.
First, I want to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. I and my New Democrat colleagues are strong believers in the principle of intervenor funding. We are well aware that when the proponent of a project wants to obtain a permit or a licence to construct something that proponent generally has the funding in place to make the necessary application which may require the inclusion of an environmental assessment.
Obviously the proponent wants that project approved and the information they bring forward will undoubtedly portray that project in a positive light.
On the other hand, there may be others acting in the public interest who want other information considered prior to the proponent's application being approved by the respective board or agency. These others may not have the resources to adequately research, prepare, or deliver this alternative presentation. Therefore, without an adequate intervenor funding program there is no guarantee that the alternative view will ever make it in front of the group considering the licence or the permit that would finally approve the proponent's project.
When Parliament was examining the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act a few years ago, the Canadian Bar Association supported the inclusion of intervenor funding. I quote from the Canadian Bar Association presentation: "Interim funding should be provided to groups or individuals who wish to participate in public hearings and who have demonstrated a sufficient interest in the process and the ability to make a contribution to it. It is a fair and efficient mechanism to level the playing field between parties."
The Canadian Bar Association also said that intervenor costs should be paid. They suggested that a process be established to review and possibly order one party at a hearing to pay the costs of any other party to the same hearing.
Another witness at the same time, the law firm of McJannet Rich, a well-known environmental law firm, argued firmly for an intervenor funding process and set out some rules they thought were important. In their presentation to the parliamentary committee the law firm said: "Intervenor funding is extremely important and should be made available for participants in public reviews in accordance with the following principles: (1) the government has the responsibility for assuring the availability of funding and for its
allocation; (2) whatever the source of funds, the proponent must not exercise any control over the allocation; (3) eligibility criteria for intervenor funding must be developed and made known early; (4) a funding allocation committee independent of the panel should be established; and (5) funding should be made early enough to allow receiving groups sufficient time to organize themselves, prepare submissions, and where appropriate to undertake necessary investigations."
Presentations by two environmental lawyers, Mr. Steven Hazell and Mr. Brian Pannell, also stressed the need for intervenor funding. Again I quote from their presentation to the parliamentary committee: "Public participation in environmental decision-making is essential. A community has a right to participate in decisions affecting its interests. Public involvement is the best way to introduce into the process relevant information and values that would otherwise be excluded. Moreover, the public can provide independent scrutiny of the basis for a proponent's actions. This allows for a full exploration of all alternatives and makes the decision and process better and more credible and ensures greater accountability of decision-makers."
Pannell and Hazell go on to say that the effective participation by the public requires funding. They say: "The disproportion of resources between proponents and the public necessitates the establishment of an independent funding body to provide adequate amounts of funding to allow full and meaningful participation at all steps to committed members of the public." They say intervenor funding should be levied from the proponent and allocated and administered by an independent body.
I cannot stress enough that an adequately funded clear and agreeable participant funding or intervenor funding program must be put in place as soon as possible. With an ever-increasing emphasis being put on resource development, with an ever-increasing number of projects being proposed, and with an ever-increasing lack of public confidence in government programs dealing with environmental issues, this has never been more important. We must be very careful though in what we do.
I do not think we should let the government off too easily. There is a need to establish an adequately funded program that has some certainty to it. Although Bill C-339 requires virtually nothing from the federal government and puts too much onus on the proponents, we should be looking at a program that has a little more onus on the federal government.
Second, we have to be careful that the specific rules about funding the program not totally focus on the proponent. I am concerned, as the previous speaker was, that community and co-operative proponents of smaller more locally based projects may be unable to complete their project applications and otherwise community friendly proposals may never become a reality if in fact the bill goes through as is.
There will be times when the proposal put forward today by my friend from Oxford will actually threaten to increase proponent costs in cases like this one to such a degree that community proponents, especially in rural and northern Canada and perhaps on First Nations communities, will simply give up. I would hate to see that happen.
However I stress to the House that I will support the bill before us today. The member for Oxford has done us a great service in bringing the issue forward and bringing it to the attention of the government. We need a clearer and more defined intervenor funding process that perhaps has more independence to it. I look forward to the opportunity to address the issue more fully in committee.
I commend the member for Oxford for his initiative in this regard. If he is successful in achieving full parliamentary review of the legislation, I urge him to look more carefully at the process and perhaps conclude that the next step would be an amendment to establish an independent funding agency rather than leave the decisions to the boards and agencies that actually have to hear the applications.
