Procedural Fairness and Incentive Programs: Reflections on the Environmental Choice Program
AbstractThis paper explores the application of concepts of procedural fairness to the federal government's Environmental Choice Program's decision-making processes. While Canadian courts have traditionally required public bureaucrats to act "fairly" when implementing command models of regulation, they have only recently been confronted with demands that regulators implementing economic incentive programs also act in accordance with procedural fairness norms. Procedural fairness has been justified through a number of related arguments, all of which focus on the protection of private interests of individuals adversely affected by the exercise of bureaucratic power. The paper argues that procedural fairness should characterize both decision-making categories within the Environmental Choice Program, and within incentive programs generally. However, the paper argues that the justification for the application of fairness norms in government incentive programs should be the promotion and support of program policies. At best, the protection of private interests is the means through which program benefits can be optimally designed, and effectively delivered to the public. The paper describes the Environmental Choice Program's decision-making processes, and divides the program's operations into two categories. CATEGORY 1 decisions involve the development of environmental standards, and the negotiation of the licensing agreement through which private firms are permitted to use the federal government owned ECOLOGO. CATEGORY 2 decisions involve individual licensing, licence termination and renewal decisions. The paper then discusses the ways in which effective participation of a wide range of interest groups is encouraged in both categories of decisions through access to information, representation on decision-making bodies, and appeal and review processes. Finally, the paper describes the environmental benefits associated with effective participation as an example of the public policy
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.