I think it's important to note that “frivolous” and “vexatious” come up a couple of times in various parts of that very short law.
What Bill C-300 lacks, and what I don't know if it can attain, is a way of developing precision about what it does and about what the minister can do. It really does lead to a very....
Somehow a case would have to have a significant merit for the minister to really make a decision. At the end of the day, if it's a complaint brought by a local community member or an NGO or another company--or another government, for that matter--there's no sanction for any of those people. The fact that they've been written up in the Gazette is not a sanction for any of these people. The only group being sanctioned at the end of the day is someone who might inevitably be found guilty of a charge of a human rights violation.
It's a question of the volume of complaints versus the validity of those charges. In my experience in working in small communities and in various countries, the timeframes for these discussions and the timeframes for the debate and the accommodations between a company and a host community are very long; the minister is going to come in with a very short timeframe to give an answer to the public, the complainant, and to make something very concise out of what is a very contorted position.
I don't know how Bill C-300 in its current form accommodates that.