John Finlay

[Woodstock Memorial Forest, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, recently I attended a special event in my riding, the second annual memorial service held outdoors at the Woodstock Memorial Forest. Over 300 people attended.

This memorial forest was established by the city of Woodstock, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and a local funeral home. Twenty-three acres of conservation authority land has been set aside for the forest. The trees planted are chosen from original Carolinian species indigenous to our region. Each tree commemorates the life of a citizen who has died.

The Woodstock Memorial Forest was started in recognition of the depletion of the earth's forests. Trees provide shelter for wildlife, control soil erosion, provide shade, remove carbon dioxide and provide oxygen. The beauty and grace of these trees enhance our environment and stand as living memorials to the memory of our loved ones.

I suggest my colleagues encourage such forests in their ridings.

[The Environment, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last December the government amended the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and recognized the value of participant funding in the environmental assessment process. MPs from all sides of the House supported this effort to give the public greater access to government decision making.

Higher levels of public access and consultation allow the environmental assessment process to be more representative of the Canadian people. 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 to give them the tools to exercise their right.

I agree wholeheartedly with the minister and believe that my Bill C-339 will extend this level of access and participation in the decision making process without increasing government expenditures.

I would ask all members of the House to support Bill C-339 when it comes to the House for a vote in the near future.

[Intervenor Funding Act, November 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. During my speech I asked for unanimous consent to table the document of the hearing held at London, Ontario, on Monday, January 10, 1994, in the matter of applications by Intercoastal Pipe Line Incorporated and Interprovincial Pipe Line Incorporated, pursuant to sections 52 and 58 of the National Energy Board Act.

Madam Speaker, I seek your advice. I thought that received unanimous consent. Perhaps it did not. I am asking again.

[Intervenor Funding Act, November 1st, 1995]

Intervenor funding will assure the public that those with a valid interest will be heard at future hearings. For many years the public has been saying that they want to have an input in government decision making. Intervenor funding guarantees their access.

I am not introducing a new concept to this Parliament. Intervenor funding was granted to environmental and native groups and municipal councils during the Mackenzie River pipeline inquiry, also know as the Berger commission, in the mid-1970s. Mr. Justice Thomas Berger determined that funding would be necessary to ensure that the many diverse interests would be represented at the hearings.

Justice Berger said in announcing the funding: "These groups are sometimes called public interest groups. They represent identifiable interests that should not be ignored. Indeed, it is essential that they should be considered. They do not represent the public interest, but it is in the public interest that they should be heard".

The Ontario government proclaimed the intervenor funding project act in 1989 as a three-year pilot project. This program has been extended through to the spring of 1996. In introducing this legislation to the Ontario legislature the then attorney general Ian Scott, who had served as counsel on the Berger commission, stated that a regularized system for intervenor funding is an essential component of an accessible justice system. My Bill C-339 is modelled after the Ontario act.

It is interesting that members of the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association, who have discussed their situation with landowners who had appeared before the Ontario energy board, found that process to be fairer and more inclusive for both the landowner and the proponent. The success of this act in Ontario augurs well for the success of this legislation I am introducing today.

Further to experience with the Berger commission and the Ontario legislation, the federal government has had experience with intervenor funding through the CRTC and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as well as the Krever inquiry into Canada's blood supply, which is currently funding a number of intervenors.

The federal Liberal Party made a very clear commitment in the red book to provide for intervenor funding within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This commitment was honoured when Bill C-56 was passed last December. At that time the Minister of the Environment and Deputy Prime Minister, the Reform member for Comox-Alberni, and the New Democratic member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake spoke in favour of this type of funding. Today I seek the same consensus of all colleagues in this House to move this legislation forward so that it can be put before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for further study.

I would like to share with the House a statement made by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake during the debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: "Without adequate intervenor funding there cannot be adequate assessment, quite simply because those who wish to challenge the proponent do not have the same access to capital as the proponent does". In effect, what the hon. member is saying is that we have to level the playing field so that both the proponent and the intervenor have the same ability to put forward evidence that will allow the best decision to be made.

In 1992 the province of Ontario conducted a review of the intervenor funding project act. This review, entitled "Access and Impact: An Evaluation of the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988", states this on the need for intervenor funding: "Participation is necessary for reasons of fairness. It also makes for better decisions, as broader information, values, and opinions are canvassed by those required to make decisions in the public interest. But those purposes cannot be achieved if the resources of participants are severely limited in relation to the case they are required to meet".

There are those who feel that people who would like to intervene before federal boards and agencies should raise the funds themselves in order to make a representation. Some feel that even if the intervenor is clearly representing the public interest, they should pay all costs. Are we then to tell our constituents that only the wealthy have a right to be heard? We cannot tell Canadians to mortgage their homes and their futures in order to make a representation in the public interest.

Am I to say with a straight face that governments make the best decisions after hearing only from those wealthy enough to afford the best lawyers and technical experts? As the member of Parliament for all the people of Oxford, it is my duty to ensure that they have an opportunity to influence government decision making. This bill not only provides that opportunity, but also will result in better decisions being made.

At this point I would like to discuss a number of key sections of this bill. Clause 2 says that the purpose of the act is to require any person proposing a project that would affect the public interest or the environment and that is required by law to be reviewed by a public process before being approved by government or an agency of government to provide funding to assist organizations that represent a relevant public interest and that wish to intervene in the review process to represent that interest.

I have been asked why the proponent should fund the intervenor. The Ontario government review, "Access and Impact", states that more effective monitoring of the costs and benefits of the process will be achieved if those who are the focus of these decisions, the

proponents, are made to bear the cost. It is they who are the centrepiece of the regulated activity.

It should be noted that paragraph 4(3)(f) in my bill calls upon a funding panel to consider any representation the funding proponents make concerning the application of an intervenor. This paragraph allows the proponent to make a presentation about the public interest the intervenor purports to represent and about the proponent's own ability to fund the intervention.

In drafting the funding criteria for intervenors, I have used the criteria set out in the Ontario legislation. The Ontario legislation was in turn developed using the criteria set forth by Justice Berger, which has been the model for intervenor funding at both the federal and provincial government levels.

The member for Comox-Alberni stated during third reading debate on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: "Guidelines for participation should consider whether the applicant represents a clearly ascertainable interest that should be heard at the hearing and whether separate representation of the interest would assist the panel and contribute to the hearing". I believe that the funding criteria within Bill C-339 clearly live up to the standards my hon. colleague set out during the CEAA debate.

Subclause 4(4) of the bill states:

A funding panel shall not order funding to be provided to an intervenor unless it is satisfied that the issues the intervenor intends to present are entirely or mainly issues respecting public interests rather than private interests and that

(a) the intervenor represents a clearly ascertainable interest that is relevant to the issue before the review authority and that should be represented at the hearing;

(b) the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to make the representation without funding;

(c) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources;

(d) the intervenor has an established record of concern for and commitment to the interest;

(e) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to cooperate with other intervenors that represent similar interests;

(f) the absence of funding would adversely affect the representation of the interest; and

(g) the intervenor has 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 allow the panel to examine its records to verify the accounting.

It should be stated that paragraph 4(5)(b) of the bill allows the project proponent to appeal a funding order to the review authority.

I strongly believe that the bill will improve the way government works and makes decisions. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources may feel that some amendments are in order. I and other witnesses who may be called would be happy to work with the committee to improve and then pass this important piece of legislation.

In conclusion, let me say that it is time to tell the people of Canada at this important time in our history that they can have a say and that this federal government believes that their interventions will improve the quality of decisions that must be made.

I ask all members of the House to support the bill and thus give all Canadians a means by which to participate responsibly in our future.

It was some 18 months ago that I stood at the last seat of the fourth row, the farthest I could get from the Chair, to give my maiden speech as a backbencher and as a member of the class of '93. One thing that concerned me the most when I came to Ottawa and to Parliament was how does the backbencher, the individual member of whatever party, influence government policy? How do we have some effect? How do we go back to our constituents and say we did this or we did that or we were able to modify, mediate, change, suggest something that became law because you told me that was what you wanted. I do not pretend to know all the answers. I do suggest and I do feel very proud to be able to present this bill today because it is one way in which the individual MP can influence government decision making.

I suggest to all hon. members that committee work is another way. I appreciate that work. It allows me to work with and learn from my colleagues on all sides of the House on important issues.

Bill C-339 is a votable item and I look forward to further debate.

[Intervenor Funding Act, November 1st, 1995]

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.

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe passionately in this country and its citizens. Whether we belong to one of the three founding realities in Canada, the aboriginal people, the French or the English, or whether we hail from a group that chose to come to Canada to find a nation that provided hope and opportunity, we love our country.

This summer I visited communities in the Gaspe region of Quebec. I did not meet wild eyed separatists with an animosity toward Canada. Instead I met people who deeply respected Canada but were also proud of their distinct culture and traditions.

I will not raise the letter I have on my desk, but I have a letter signed by 65 seniors in my riding asking me to tell Quebecers to stay in Canada so that we may continue to be together in the world's best country.

The only way to do this is to vote no on Monday.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

The B.C. treaty commission will be charged with the task of facilitating treaty negotiations, including the implementation of the inherent right to self-government. The bill will help all of us to understand something of the complexity involved in this process and something of the patience that is required. It will also help us to understand what that elusive phrase "inherent right to self-government" means.

Self-government will be dealt with at the same treaty table as other items such as land and resources. The same principles and practices of openness which currently characterize the B.C. treaty making process will also apply to self-government negotiations.

The federal government will not establish additional processes. These negotiations will be with the aboriginal groups that are involved in the existing treaty process in B.C. As the act outlines, the current chief federal negotiators who work out of the federal treaty negotiation office will represent Canada in self-government negotiations.

The budgets allocated for the B.C. treaty making process and managed by the treaty commission will support self-government negotiations.

It is federal government policy to implement the inherent right of aboriginal people to self-government and it will focus on reaching practical and workable agreements on how self-government will be exercised. Rather than trying to define it in abstract terms or through lengthy and costly litigation, while there are different views about the nature, scope and content of the inherent right, negotiations among governments and aboriginal peoples are preferred over litigation. Consultation and co-operation, not confrontation.

It seems to be without cause for any contradiction that in our modern society, and perhaps because we tend to follow practices from south of the border, that we are becoming less and less able, sometimes in government and civic affairs and interpersonal relationships too, to sit down and solve some of these problems without the help of high priced lawyers and legal experts. We could give many examples of the increasing cost of this sort of thing. Many of us have had first hand experience of that. I applaud the thrust of this bill.

Given the different circumstances of aboriginal peoples, implementation of the inherent right cannot be uniform, nor will it result in a one size fits all form of self-government. There are 625 First Nations in Canada and I am sure we would find at least 450 different interpretations of what the inherent right means, depending on whether these are the Crees of northern Quebec or the members of Walpole Island or the Sechelt in B.C. Therefore, there are 625 negotiations to be completed.

It would do us well to remember that for 200 years we have treated our aboriginal people in a paternalistic way. They see themselves as occupiers of this land before our ancestors arrived. They see themselves as people who agreed in a peaceful way to share that land with us. All too often our answer, when they were outnumbered, was to ignore them completely and push them on to the poorest land we could find and call it a reserve.

Self-government arrangements will be tailored to meet the unique needs of aboriginal groups and will be responsive to their particular political, economic, legal, historical, cultural and social circumstances.

Let me add that the inherent right of self-government immediately does not include a right of sovereignty in the international law sense and will not result in sovereign, independent aboriginal nation states. On the contrary, implementation of self-government should enhance the participation of aboriginal people in Canadian

federation and ensure that aboriginal peoples and their governments do not exist in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of society.

It is envisioned that these agreements about self-government will provide for the aboriginal First Nations a form of government somewhere between municipal government or provincial government where they will have self-government authority over the immediate day to day lives of their people and they will have a continuing relationship with the federal government.

Lest we feel that these things are all going to be done very quickly and expeditiously and that Bill C-107 suddenly outlines the path before us with sign posts that will be met one after the other, it might be wise to summarize some of the subject matter that will be open to negotiation in the first instance, in other words the scope of these negotiations.

They will involve the establishment of governing structures, internal constitutions, elections and leadership selection processes; membership; marriage; adoption and child welfare; aboriginal language, culture and religion; education; health; social services; administration and enforcement of aboriginal laws; policing; property rights; land management; natural resources management; agriculture; hunting, fishing and trapping on aboriginal lands; taxation in respect of direct taxes and property taxes of members; transfer and management of moneys and group assets; management of public works and infrastructure; housing; local transportation; licensing, regulation and operation of businesses located on aboriginal lands. Subject matters beyond those integral to aboriginal culture or strictly internal to an aboriginal group are open to negotiation.

In these instances, primary law making authority would remain with the federal or provincial governments as the case may be and would prevail in the event of a conflict with aboriginal laws.

These matters need to be understood and negotiated. They would include such things as divorce; labour and training; administration of justice issues, including matters related to the administration and enforcement of laws of other jurisdictions which might include certain criminal laws; penitentiaries and parole; environmental protection, assessment and pollution prevention; fisheries co-management; migratory birds co-management; gaming; and emergency preparedness.

The third heading is subject matters where it is essential for the federal government to retain its law making authority. These are grouped under two headings in the act: the powers related to Canadian sovereignty, defence and external relations, international-diplomatic relations in foreign policy, national defence and security, security of national borders and international treaty making; immigration, naturalization and aliens; international trade, including tariffs and import-export controls.

Other national interest powers involve the management and regulation of the national economy, the maintenance of national law and order, the protection of health and safety of all Canadians, federal undertakings and other powers including broadcasting and telecommunications, aeronautics, navigation and shipping, maintenance of national transportation systems, postal service, the census and statistics. While law making power in these areas will not be the subject of negotiations, the federal government is prepared to consider administrative arrangements where feasible and appropriate.

The policy principles on which self-government negotiations will be based are the following: the inherent right is an existing aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution. Self-government will be exercised within the existing Canadian Constitution. It should enhance the participation of aboriginal peoples in Canadian society. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply fully to aboriginal governments as it does to other governments in Canada.

Due to federal fiscal constraints, all federal funding for self-government will be achieved through the reallocation of existing resources as outlined in the 1995 budget. Where all parties agree, rights in self-government agreements may be protected in new treaties under section 35 of the Constitution as additions to existing treaties or as part of comprehensive land claims agreements. Federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal laws must work in harmony. Laws of overriding federal and provincial importance such as the Criminal Code will prevail and the interests of all Canadians will be taken into account as agreements are negotiated.

Members have spoken previously about respect and trust which are absolutely essential. I suggest another essential element if Bill C-107 is going to fulfil its promise and if we are going to get land claims on the road to settlement will be patience.

[The Environment, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all of us have a role to play in protecting our environment. The federal government is in a position to create policy which will protect the Canadian environment and the environment of our neighbours.

This past July the Minister of the Environment introduced measures to protect the environment of lakes, rivers and wetlands across North America by banning lead shot under the authority of the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Lead shot, which can be fatal when ingested by water fowl, is released into the Canadian environment by water fowl hunters at between 1,500 and 2,000 tonnes per year. This action taken by the minister will end the poisoning of our waters and will protect important species in our ecosystem. This measure will not only save our environment, it is one small step toward maintaining biodiversity and giving future generations an environment they can live with.

[The Environment, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as amended by the House last year, the Minister of the Environment is charged with the duty of creating a participant funding program.

Can the minister tell us what she has done so that Canadians with a serious interest in an environmental assessment can have access to funding in order to participate?

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to correct one thing I said.

Canada is the greatest per capita user of energy in the modern world. My hon. friend has corrected me. We are second in the per capita production of waste. The U.S. is first in the production of waste, second in the per capita use of energy. These are not figures I made up in my head. They are well recognized all over the globe. They come out of the Brundtland commission study. There is not any great secret about it. It is one of those things we have to keep in mind when we look at other countries and worry about population.

We sometimes say we have our population under control. We are pretty well at a zero base population except we receive a lot of immigrants which is fine. However India and China are not zero base populations.

The fact is that one Canadian uses something between 20 to 100 times as much of this earth's resources as one Indian or one Central American or one African. It depends on which country we are talking about, how developed and how undeveloped.

Concerning global warming, someone said the rivers were going to boil in five years. That is science fiction. The fact that the breast milk of Inuit mothers has 20 times-far more-dioxins in it than the breast milk of mothers in Montreal is not science fiction. It is fact.

Just as we have deplored for some years the attitude of American presidents that acid rain was some figment of the scientist's imagination or that the accumulation of toxins in the St. Lawrence River was some figment of a naturalist's imagination, we find of course that it is not, that the beluga whales are diseased, that acid rain kills the lakes in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, Lapland and so on. We are not dealing with science fiction. We are dealing with facts.