With the EDRF's assistance, the Friends Of Responsible Development (FORD) Society appealed amended conditions to a pesticide aerial application service licence.
The Appellant was not opposed to ground spraying of pesticides. The concern regarding aerial spraying related to the potential for drift.
The Appellant's primary objective was to have buffer zones imposed
in order that spraying would not take place within 500 metres
of a residence. A buffer zone was in place for a 500 metre radius
between the proposed treatment areas and schools, parks, playgrounds
and health care facilities. The Appellant, with the assistance
of lawyers from West Coast, had spent over one year attempting
to negotiate with representatives of the Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks in an attempt to have residential buffer zones
imposed.
When the licence for aerial spraying was renewed without a condition requiring residential buffer zones, an appeal was brought along with a request for a stay prohibiting aerial spraying until the appeal had been heard. In preparing for the appeal, a prior decision of the Environmental Appeal Board ("EAB") was discovered.
In relation to the same aerial spraying licence, the Environmental Appeal Board had previously ordered (decision dated June 17, 1992) as follows:
"The Panel orders that this matter be returned to the Deputy Administrator so that the following actions may be taken:
to determine the buffer zone width appropriate to protect residential and environmentally sensitive areas throughout the Lower Mainland region from drift; and
once the buffer zone sizes are determined, for the Deputy Administer to amend ... Licence No. 2430S by ... attaching a new condition reflecting the buffer zone required for residential and environmentally sensitive areas."
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks representatives had not informed the Appellant that the EAB had previously issued an order directing that the Deputy Administrator do exactly what the Appellant was requesting.
On consideration of the stay application, the EAB found no evidence of the Deputy Administrator having complied with the EAB's order regarding the buffer zones to protect residential areas. The Board concluded that the Deputy Administrator, in failing to comply with the Board order addressing the buffer zone, created a situation which tended to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and constituted irreparable harm to the public interest and the fair administration of justice.
The EAB found that a limited stay should be imposed preventing the permit holder from spraying lands adjacent to the land in issue in the appeal until the Deputy Administrator had complied with the Environmental Appeal Board decision 92/02. The result of the EAB's order is that until appropriate buffer zones protecting residential and environmentally sensitive areas are determined, the area in issue cannot be aerial sprayed by the permit holder.
West Coast's Environmental Legal Information Base (ELIB) formed a live link between an environmental workshop and the rest of the world via the Internet at the annual conference of the B.C. Library Association (BCLA) in Victoria last week. Bill Andrews was addressing a meeting of the Environmental Interest Group of the BCLA regarding Government Information and the Internet.
To illustrate the new educational possibilities of the Internet, instead of putting his presentation notes onto transparencies and using an overhead projector, he put his point form notes on ELIB on the Internet. Using a computer with an Internet connection and an overhead projector designed for computers, the notes were then projected onto a screen in the workshop.
At the same time, the notes were accessible to anyone in the world using the Internet, and they will remain there for the use of others in the future. The notes contain links to information elsewhere in ELIB and in other places on the Internet, so people reading the notes on ELIB, and Andrews at the workshop, are able to "jump" to other relevant information.
Also at the workshop, Environment Canada's Les Gallagher and consultant Scott Nelson demonstrated Environment Canada's Pacific Region "Green Lane," which will be functioning on the Internet in early June. Alastair Stewart of B.C. Environment demonstrated his ministry's Internet information resource, which includes a growing compendium of discussion papers, policies and codes of practice. He showed consolidated versions of environmental regulations that are on the system, but he explained that at present only ministry staff have access to them, as the Queen's Printer has not yet approved public access to this information.
The federal Treasury Board Secretariat released proposed amendments to Bill C-62, the proposed Regulatory Efficiency Act, last week, in response to substantial criticism from environmental, health and labour groups (see previous issues of this newsletter). The Bill would allow the government to enter "compliance agreements" (non-compliance agreements) with companies, allowing them to contravene regulatory standards that apply to everyone else.
The proposed amendments, unfortunately, would simply make a bad Bill worse. The government says the Bill's purpose is to address the fact that the process of amending existing regulations is too long and complicated. In fact, however, the Bill does not streamline the regulatory process in any way. On the contrary, the Bill adds a complicated process (for "compliance" agreements) onto the existing, cumbersome regulatory process! This is the basic flaw of the Bill.
Now, the proposed amendments would exacerbate the flaw, by requiring that applications for compliance agreements be sent for review to an "appropriate" Standing Committee of the House of Commons(!), which could then choose, within a complicated set of time limits, to review the application and to issue a report to the responsible Minister recommending rejection, approval or "conditional approval" of the proposed non-compliance plan.
What's wrong with this picture?
First, this just adds another process onto the unnecessary compliance agreement process. This means the Bill would add to what everyone agrees is an already overly-complicated regulatory process.
Second, it would be completely impractical to have elected politicians sitting on a Standing Committee of the House of Commons consider the minutia of issues which are too detailed and case-specific to be dealt with by a change in regulations.
Third, this proposal would put Standing Committees in an unprecedented constitutional position. Standing Committees are formed by the House for the purpose of making recommendations to the House (part of the legislative branch of government), not to Ministers of the Crown (part of the executive branch).
Fourth, the proposed amendments would make the Committee's recommendations binding on the Minister. Thus, the Minister, who is normally officially responsible only to Cabinet, would suddenly be accountable to a Committee that is completely separate from Cabinet.
Bill C-62 is getting curiouser and curiouser!
We wrote to the Bill's sponsor, Treasury Board Minister Art Eggleton, responding to the proposed amendments and recommending that Bill C-62 simply be withdrawn. Tune in next issue, to find out what happens next!
- Bill Andrews
I live next door to an environmentally sensitive area. How can I stop a residential development - or logging, pesticide spraying, degradation of fish habitat... ?
How can I make sure that my land doesn't get logged after my death?
How do I get intervenor status?
What policies are in place
to protect wetlands?
These are some of the questions that our three summer students, Jesssica Clogg, Ted Lewko and Lisa McBain, will help answer to provide WCEL staff and the public with ready access to relevant law in these areas.
Over the last twenty years, WCEL's staff lawyers have answered thousands of environmental legal questions. This summer our students will study the summary advice files - records of legal advice given by our lawyers - and draft a list of frequently asked questions and clear, easy to understand answers.
When complete, the questions and answers will be put on the Internet.
While this resource can never replace legal advice, it will provide information on these recurring questions for laypeople and public interest groups.
The Internet allows easy public access and enables us to keep the questions and answers up to date as public focus and legislation changes.
We are all very excited about the project and our summer employment at WCEL.
- Lisa McBain
The Earth Summit was an unprecedented event in focusing world attention on the twin issues of environment and development. More heads of state, journalists, and NGOs met in Rio than had ever met at one time before.
Yet the issues that received such prominent attention then have now faded from the public eye. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) works to keep up the momentum to move the world to a sustainable path.
The Commission, which met at the United Nations in New York in
April, was created to oversee progress in implementing the programs
drafted at the Rio Earth Summit: Agenda 21, the blueprint for
achieving sustainability by the 21st century; the Rio Declaration
on Environment and Development; and a statement of principles
guiding sustainable development of forests.
Canada's official delegation included Environment Ambassador John Fraser, officials from the Canadian Forest Service, diplomats, and for the final "high level" meeting, Environment Minister Sheila Copps and Forest Minister Andrew Petter from B.C. The official Canadian delegation also included one environmental NGO representative (this year this job was shared between Martin von Mirbach of Newfoundland and Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club of Canada based in Ottawa), and one development NGO representative (Peter Padbury of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation). Six delegates were sent from the Canadian Environmental Network including WCELA staff lawyer Linda Nowlan.
The meeting was fascinating on a number of fronts:
The unparalleled opportunity to meet and network with other NGOs from both Canada and around the world. Each day while the official sessions droned on in the United Nations rooms, environmental activists from around the world met to discuss issues ranging from changing harmful patterns of consumption to creating a new intergovernmental panel on forests. There were sessions on the environmental rights of indigenous peoples, electronic communication for the environmental community, case studies on wood consumption in Great Britain, the ecological footprint of the Netherlands and the shipment of plutonium to Japan.
Watching the UN at work. While the official sessions which
argued over minute points were not too inspiring, the end result
of watching delegations mingle and lobby and take action on new
proposals was fascinating. Negotiations over the official text
to be released at the end of the Commission session took many,
many hours of work, sometimes lasting until the early hours of
the morning. Negotiating positions followed a North/South split:
industrialized countries were intent on strengthening some environmental
protection measures by requiring all countries to take action,
while developing countries argued that they should receive more
money and laxer standards since, in their view, the chief cause
of environmental destruction was the harmful consumption and production
patterns of industrialized countries.
Access to Canadian decisionmakers. Environmentalists spent more time with key Canadian policymakers in New York than they usually do at home! The NGOs met daily with John Fraser, Canada's Ambassador for the Environment, and also met frequently with the other officials involved in the negotiations. When Minister Copps and Minister Petter arrived, they both gave generously of their time to hear NGO concerns.
Outcome of the sessions - Forests Panel. One break-through development occurred this year: the creation of an intergovernmental panel on forests. The panel will identify underlying causes of deforestation, encourage countries to consider ways and means for effective protection of forests under international law, propose actions to support reforestation, encourage the national application of indicators for sustainable forest management, and examine relevant factors affecting trade and forest products. The panel will submit a progress report to the next session of the CSD in 1996 and a final report in 1997. Canada unsuccessfully pressed for an international Convention on forests at the Earth Summit, and continued its work on international sustainable forest management by playing a lead role in the bargaining which resulted in this Panel. Many observers see the Panel as a step toward an international treaty on forests.
Governments and the public are not paying as much attention to sustainability as during the heady days of the Rio Earth Summit. The CSD requires countries to prepare national reports detailing their progress toward meeting the Agenda 21 goals each year, a valuable process of self-examination. This year, Canada's report was congratulatory, conveniently ignoring recent budget cuts which eliminated many programs cited in the report. Canada takes pride in its international reputation and environmentalists should encourage the government to continue its lead role in the CSD and in the promotion of sustainability worldwide, as well as at home.
WCELRF, 1001 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, B.C., V6B 1H7, Canada. Phone (604) 6847378; fax (604) 6841312; email wcelrf@unixg.ubc.ca. Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked).
WCELRF Newsletter (ISSN #0715-4275), copyright 1995, is
published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation.
Subscription information is above. West Coast Environmental Law
Research Foundation does research and education and maintains
an environmental law library. West Coast Environmental Law Association
provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The mission
of West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and West Coast
Environmental Law Association is to provide legal services to
protect the environment and to foster public participation in
environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation
of British Columbia for core funding of West Coast Environmental
Law Association and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation.
Donations to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation
are tax creditable.
This issue was produced by Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Jessica Clogg, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Patricia Houlihan, Ted Lewko, Catherine Ludgate, Lisa McBain, Alexandra Melnyk, and Linda Nowlan.