In its essential features, the Canadian political system has not changed since the nineteenth century. However, the social and economic conditions in Canada, and the agenda of the federal government, have changed dramatically (Lyon 1992, 127). In the early 1990s, during a rise in public concern for the health of the natural environment, Canadian governments struggled to strengthen their institutional and legal capacities to protect the environment. Humans and other species depend on the diversity of complex ecosystems. Growing recognition of this has led to the transition of environmental policy from direct exploitation to an increasing environmental conservation focus (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 3). The policy process is gradually moving towards not only addressing the conditions and amounts of resource use, but also the larger biophysical context in which these activities take place. By the 1990s, the Canadian public perception of a global environmental crisis had had a significant influence on national environmental policy development (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 4).
There were, however, constitutional tensions and legislative uncertainties that raised doubts about whether government was able to attain a policy which would support a sustainable environment (Vanderzwaag 1992, 3). The Canadian Constitution makes no direct reference to the environment, and provides no guarantee of a clean, healthy environment (Vanderzwaag 1992, 4). Canada’s Constitution provides no direction as to which level of government oversees environmental responsibility. The sharing of environmental responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments makes the issue of protection very complex. Each level of government maintains various areas of power which potentially touch on the issue of environmental protection.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was added to the Constitution in 1982. It too lacks the explicit reference to a right to a healthy environment (Vanderzwaag 1992, 16). However, the Charter recognizes the rights of individuals' to life, liberty, and the security of person - except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Section 7 of the Charter). As a result, the Charter potentially provides an opening for individuals to contest governmental actions relating to the environment and public health. The breadth of the Charter is limited, however, for it applies only to laws and actions of federal and provincial governments and their public agencies, leaving the private sector largely without liability (Vanderzwaag 1992, 17).
The impact of the Canadian environmental movement on the public consciousness concerning the environmental effects of development has not been matched by equal influence in government policy (Wilson 1992, 110). The direct lobbying attempts of many within the environmental arena to extract firm policy commitments from the various levels of government have met with little success. Participants in favour of strengthened environmental regulations have found that in order to move politicians in the preferred direction, the focus should be on moving public opinion (Wilson 1992, 115).
The first section of this review will focus on the environmental policy process in Canada. First, the actual stages of the environmental policy process will be outlined. The section to follow delves into the various issues regarding development and implementation of environmental policy in Canada. One will notice that the formal structure of the policy process often does not reflect the actual process; some of the reasons will be detailed.
3.1 The Stages of the Policy Process in Canada
There are five stages of the policy process in Canada as outlined by Hessing & Howlett (1997, 218-225). They are 1) agenda setting, 2) policy formulation, 3) decision-making, 4) policy implementation, and 5) policy evaluation. These steps map out the process through which an interest or objective ultimately becomes an implemented rule or policy. What follows is a discussion of each stage.
1st Stage: Agenda-setting
The agenda-setting stage of policy is the preliminary level. Self-identified and motivated groups or interests lobby governments to include their concerns in the consideration of any given matter. At this stage, ideas and interests are politically defined and judged as either appropriate or not appropriate for policy discussion. Government has the choice to either decline the request or to change the policy agenda. As new information comes to light regarding issues pertaining to the natural environment, it is assumed that interested groups, such as producers, labour, consumers, and health representatives, will bring this knowledge to the attention of policy makers so that the agenda can be modified appropriately.
2nd Stage: Policy Formulation
The formulation of policy involves the collection of general actors and interests into specific groups to articulate potential policy options on the part of these groups. Policy formulation begins with the identification of options by an organized set of interests including production-based business organizations, environmental groups, the media, political parties, and other interest groups.
The collection of actors brought together to articulate potential policy options are referred to as "advisory groups" (Filyk & Cote 1992, 60). Advisory groups share common features such as: all exist to serve government; all are institutionalized organizations; all are funded by, and report to, the government; all show organizational continuity and stable membership for varying periods of time, depending on the mandate; all have knowledge of, and access to, relevant members of the environmental policy community; and all hold distinct mandates, objectives, and operating rules (ibid.). The advisory groups’ primary role is to advise: they/it hold little, if any, administrative powers.
3rd Stage: Decision-making
The decision-making stage consists of the production of decisions within formal stages of the policy process, after positions and alternatives have been articulated through the second stage. The Canadian decision-making style reflects the traditional force of productive interests, while other non-economic forces gradually wear away the policy hegemony and impact the decision-making stage.
4th Stage: Policy Implementation
The administrative process of policy development is considered to be equally, if not more, important as the third stage of the policy process. Administrative processes include most of the routine activities through which policy is executed: laws, rules, regulations, and standards. These activities determine how policy is implemented by government agencies.
Sabatier and Mazmanian (1980, 542) have identified a number of variables within this stage of the policy process which act as determinants of implementation. Many of these variables are found to be relevant in designing a response to policy problems. It was found that much depends on the 'tractability of the problem', including factors such as the extent and degree of behaviour change required of the target group. 'Non-statutory variables' that can either facilitate or frustrate implementation of a policy include things such as the degree of media attention, public support, and ties to executive support. As well, the 'statutory underpinning' of the process - including such variables as the clarity of policy directives, financial resources, and the degree of hierarchical integration within and among implementing agencies - is also crucial to the successful implementation of a policy.
The degree of public support clearly has an impact on the level of support allotted to a problem by the members of government dealing with the issue. As well, the response by the executive also has an impact. This in turn will impinge on the strength of policy directives and the hierarchical ordering of implementing agencies (Brown 1992, 24). Therefore, ambivalence in public attitudes towards the environment, as seen during downturns in the economy, and the indifference in executive actions translates into ambiguity in policy directives, limited funding, and a peripheral status in government decision-making (Brown 1992a, 40).
5th Stage: Policy Evaluation
Policy evaluation in the environmental sector in Canada has relied to a large extent on formal administrative reviews. As a result, established policy networks continue to exert traditional pressures and the options considered for change tend to be pragmatic considerations about the merits of specific instruments for implementing policy rather than about generalized alternatives to them. The outcome is that the general policy framework tends not to be evaluated. The consequence of this can be the perpetuation of procedures that do not largely address the fundamental issues.
Environmental policy does not end with implementation of policy. Regulation is part of an ongoing policy process, along with evaluation and modification (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 223). However, although modification is part of the policy process following implementation and evaluation, it is often slow in coming and marginal in outcome.
It is clear from the above that new environmental policy emerges in an evolutionary process. The success of this type of process is through the convergence of several interests in the shape of events, authorities, literature, organizational support, and action by various jurisdictions which leads to new public policy (Brown 1992b, 177).
3.2 Issues Regarding the Policy Process in Canada
Canadian environmental policy has been subjected to increasing criticism by the public and by pressure groups concerned with the status of the natural environment due to the inadequacy of existing policy measures (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 7). The shortcoming of existing policy measures is shown in deteriorating environmental conditions and increasing resource scarcity. To date, most policies have been developed without due regard to public interest or ecological concerns (ibid.). As well, special interests, namely business, are given preferential treatment in the policy process. These criticisms of the present policy process have resulted in the legitimizing of many aspects of the existing system of regulation. As well, they have led to demands for new policies and new mechanisms to implement them (ibid.; Stefanick 1996, 230).
In order to address the concerns regarding the present policy process, there is a heightened demand for more public input by the public and various pressure groups throughout Canada. There is also the demand for a review of government responsibility and the legitimacy of public institutions involved in policy development (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 6; Skogstad & Kopas 1992, 43). The review has been hindered due to the complexity and fragmentation of policy issues and jurisdictions; it has also deterred efforts to achieve a comprehensive and unified analysis. The different levels of government, and a range of ministries, administrative arrangements, and statutes, represent a notable barrier to a comprehensive policy analysis (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 7).
Public involvement in the policy process has been driven in large part by the most recent waves of environmental concern generated by the public (Skogstad & Kopas 1992, 49). The late 1960s and early 1970s constituted the first environmental awareness wave in Canada, with the second wave in the late 1980s and early 1990s (ibid.). It was the second wave of concern that has had a notable impact on the policy process in Canada because of the greater role played by environmental groups (Harrison 1996a, 155). This expansion in consultation has had a notable impact on the policy process and its outcomes. Previous to environmental organizations being involved, the absence of public demand for environmental programs, industry’s resistance to regulation, and the provinces’ protectiveness of their jurisdiction, collectively discouraged federal environmental initiatives (ibid.; Stefanick 1996, 230). However, by the late 1980s, the federal government was increasingly caught between hostile provinces and industry on the one hand, and environmental groups providing an effective voice for growing public concern on the other. As a result, the federal government was forced to resist many provincial and industry demands.
There were, however, many environmental groups suspicious of consultative policy processes. Traditionally, environmental groups operated in the peripheral zones of the policy communities (Wilson 1992, 120). Instead of participating, they would intentionally engage in organizational strategies that were contrary to the status quo (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 123). Direct action and media coverage are perceived by some groups to be more effective vehicles for influencing the policy process than inclusion on various boards, commissions, or tribunals (i.e. groups like Greenpeace, Earth First!, and Friends of Clayoquot Sound). The use of direct action and media by pressure groups serves to alert and educate the public, who then apply political pressure to influence the policy process (Stefanick 1996, 301).
There are groups, however, that choose to participate in the formal policy-making channels. This route has proven to be no less complicated and difficult than the routes chosen by other groups. Groups and individuals who choose to participate in institutional processes face numerous hurdles in attaining their ends; these hurdles may serve to postpone or divert public attention from the issue (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 124; Stefanick 1996, 244). For example, appointments to consultative bodies are short term, and the results often only provide general direction. As a result, the establishment of a commission may therefore serve to postpone or divert public attention. As well, the goals of environmental groups (public education, land protection and conservation, species protection, etc.) are often found to be too general, diffuse, radical, or philosophical to incorporate into specific policy agendas. Instead, members of environmental groups find themselves co-opted by the terms of reference, the influence of other board members, or the procedures themselves (Stefanick 1996, 235).
There is also often a lack of resources (i.e. money, staff, expertise) to support public involvement in the policy process (Stefanick 1996, 233). There are few Canadian environmental groups that have the resources adequate enough to consult with all of the government officials who play significant roles in the policy process (Wilson 1992, 116). Finally, the appointed body typically lacks substantive power to implement decisions, thus restricting their impact on the policy process.
The policy process is currently unable to adequately integrate a wide range of environmental interests (Stefanick 1996, 234). Who speaks for what interest? The present discretionary character of practices of public involvement may be inadequate to ensure the inclusion of all interests (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 124). There is yet to be a mechanism for ensuring that a range of environmental perspectives are represented, and their relative importance to the natural environment properly assessed. In light of the barriers within the environmental policy process and to public involvement, these interests , although an increasing force in the policy process, remain secondary to traditional state and industry influences (Hessing & Howlett 1997, 134).
There is a complexity of biophysical processes that complicates the policy process. The predictability of biophysical processes is essential to environmental policy-making in order to attempt to establish sustainable levels of exploitation, and acceptable levels of pollution (Rogers 1997, 3). However, the increasing recognition of the unpredictability of the natural environment undermines this policy goal, thus making the policy process very difficult, if not impossible. In spite of this, policy-making attempts are in progress to link regulatory frameworks that, in the past, have operated separately (i.e. forestry, transportation, urban planning, etc). In doing so, this effort can potentially create an integrated policy that may be able to address the multiple aspects of an issue (Rogers 1997, 3).
This attempt at integrated policy-making is complicated by the wide range of participants all of whom have a stake in the issues. There are considerable increases in the time and resources required to adequately integrate all participants and their interests in the policy process. In spite of the need for policies to be efficiently developed in order to ensure that the policy process is successful, these interests need to be consulted. The challenge is amplified when there is typically a profound difference in the political and economic power of participants, as well as difference in point of view (Rogers 1997, 3). Creating a workable environmental policy will involve contesting these unequal power relations.
3.3 Public Participation and the Policy Process
Public participation, environmental groups included, is required within the policy process from the primary stage to the final stage. Public participation not only requires consultation and interdisciplinary approaches to policy-making, but also a challenge to the interests and power relations that typically generated the perceived environmental problem in the first place. Environmental policy-making needs to address the complexity of the historical policy process if it is to challenge the difficulties in managing and governing the many environmental problems Canada is faced with.
With recent significant changes to the policy process in Canada, and with the accommodation of some public participation, environmental interests have been able to increase their influence. In doing so, there has been an expansion in the scope of issues. In the late 1980s, the scope of consideration in Canadian environmental policy was dramatically expanded when consultation mechanisms, traditionally limited to federal and provincial governments and regulated industries, were opened up to include environmental groups. Environmental organizations are now able to provide a voice for diffuse public concerns, and to some extent, are able to limit the federal government’s ability to substitute symbolism for substance.