moved that Bill C-339, an act to provide for funding for intervenors in hearings before certain boards and agencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand here today and speak in support of my private member's bill, C-339, an act to provide for funding for intervenors in hearings before certain boards and agencies.
Intervenor funding, also known as participant funding in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, seeks to fund those that speak in the public interest at hearings held before government agencies or appointed boards.
As politicians we often wax eloquent about the need to consult our constituents. We encourage citizens to stand up and be counted to make sure their voices are heard. I ask this House as I have asked myself: What have we done to make sure Canadians are heard by their legislators and by those who govern them?
As the Minister of the Environment said during debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is one thing to say that people have a say, it is another thing to give them the tools to exercise their right. I believe the bill before us today will give the average citizen, regardless of his or her financial assets, the tools needed for them to be heard in the decision-making process.
Intervenor funding has been known to me for years because of my interest in conservation and he environment. However, it became particularly relevant after a number of my constituents who are members of the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association, the OPLA, told me of their difficulties in wanting to appear before the National Energy Board.
These landowners were faced with the prospect of having to raise a large amount of money in order to hire experts to oppose a change in the lease agreement of the pipeline crossing their land. Faced with evidence that the pipeline could contaminate the soil, could pose a safety risk, and could saddle them with clean-up costs if the line were ever abandoned, they wanted to make sure the NEB heard their concerns.
To make a convincing case, the landowners needed the assistance of lawyers and experts to appear as witnesses on their behalf before the National Energy Board. Such qualified professionals must be paid. The executives of the OPLA appeared on their own time, but they had to mortgage their future returns to pay the lawyers and engineers who appeared on their behalf and on behalf of the other signatories to the leases.
What would have happened if they were not able to raise the money to make an adequate representation? The National Energy Board would have had to make a decision without the input of those who faced the most risk, in this case the landowners.
It is my contention that the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association was speaking out in the public interest. If the pipeline posed an environmental or health risk it would be to the public as a whole, and they would be the ones who suffered.
In a recent article sent to me by Mr. Stuart O'Neil, president of the OPLA, a pipeline explosion is documented in the rural community near Williamstown, Ontario. Is it not in the public interest for these concerns to be heard by the National Energy Board?
As can be seen by looking at the National Energy Board's finding in this case, the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association presented valid concerns. I have that finding here, and I would seek unanimous consent to table this document during the hours of this debate.