Multilateral Agreement on Investment

The MAI is an international treaty about foreign investment that is now being negotiated under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It represents a critical element of a larger strategy to codify the rules upon which a global system of production and trade depend. While this agenda is fundamentally the project of the world's largest corporations, it also enjoys enthusiastic support by the Canadian government.

Our government's support is founded on the faith that sustained market-driven growth will bring wealth and economic stability to the world community. In order to achieve this prosperity, governments need only allow market forces to operate unfettered by regulation or other government "interference."

If this sounds familiar, that's because this global economic model is simply an amplification of the policies that have guided domestic policy for decades. Absent, as always, is any notion of ecological limits, or of the need to address how the proceeds of growth will be distributed.

Also missing is any real evidence to support the grand claims of those promoting liberalized trade and investment rules. In fact, experience is that this grow-now, pay-later paradigm has been disastrous for most of the world's population. Whether measured in terms of wealth distribution, environmental impacts, or economic stability, the globalization of the world's economy has dramatically accelerated our course along a path that appears to be headed for an ecological dead-end.

The most significant milestone in the efforts to establish a global economic order was the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995. In many ways, the WTO represents the culmination of efforts that got underway more than fifty years ago to establish an international trade regime with strong enforceable power. In simple terms, the WTO's agenda is to promote international trade by dramatically curtailing the ability of all governments to regulate corporate activity in the public interest. To accomplish this objective, WTO rules set out a long list of policies, laws and regulations that governments may not adopt or otherwise seek to implement. While ostensibly limited to international trade, WTO rules effectively impose this agenda for deregulation upon virtually all aspects of domestic economic and environmental policy. It is no coincidence that since the advent of free trade, environmentalists spend more time fighting to preserve existing environmental initiatives than they do working to establish new ones.

However, because developing countries maintained a united front, they were able to successfully resist concerted efforts to entrench investment rights in the WTO. For this reason the MAI remains the most important missing piece of the WTO puzzle. Consequently, and in response to continued pressure from corporate lobbyists, developed countries are now pursuing this investment agenda under the auspices of the OECD and APEC. Of these two, the OECD track has proven to be faster, and the current schedule will see an agreement signed next May. Once the MAI becomes a reality among the world's elite countries, its proponents regard inclusion under the WTO as inevitable.

If this strategy succeeds, the MAI will fundamentally undermine the few remaining prerogatives that governments have to regulate corporate activity in the public interest. It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of the challenges posed by this investment regime to environmental and other societal goals, including that of democratic governance.

The following assessment provides an overview of the essential components of this global investment treaty and describes some of the ways MAI rules will undermine our work.

National Treatment: All of the Rights, None of the Responsibility

The first principle of the MAI is that of National Treatment, which prohibits government policies or laws that favour domestic companies or investors. Under this rule, foreign investors and corporations must be given every right, concession or privilege that a government might extend to local companies or communities. National Treatment would, for example, prohibit:

• policies that favour community land tenure or resource management rights;
• citizenship requirements for those seeking fishing or woodlot licenses; or,
• subsidies to support community economic develop.

It is fundamental to sustainable management that the right to exploit a resource comes with the obligation to ensure its long-term stewardship. The principle of National Treatment would permanently sever this fundamental relationship.

Investor Rights: Special Status for Foreign Corporations

Under the heading of Performance Requirements the MAI sets out a lengthy list of government measures that cannot be imposed on foreign corporations, even when these same controls apply to domestic companies and investors. In what represents a distinct departure from the principle of National Treatment, this protection from government "interference" is accorded only to foreign corporations. Thus governments are prohibited from requiring transnational corporations, as a condition of the right to invest in Canada, to:

• achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content, or to purchase goods or services locally;
• transfer environmentally sound technology;
• supply local markets or value-added producers;
• achieve a given level or value of production, investment, employment, or research and development; or,
• hire locally.

If we are to contain and reduce the rapacious rates of resource exploitation that are laying waste to once abundant and diverse ecosystems, we must work to establish more diverse resource economies, promote local economic development, foster environmentally sound technologies, and ensure "just transitions" for workers. MAI rules will make each and every one of these goals far more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

It is a central tenet of BC's natural resources policy that the right to access public resources comes with the obligation to invest in local production and processing — the most recent example being the Jobs and Timber Accord. Moreover, access to public resources is often restricted to Canadian citizens or companies. Now under MAI rules, the obvious conclusion for a Canadian company to draw is that it would be better off carrying on business as the subsidiary of a foreign corporation. In effect, the MAI is a carrot enticing corporations to sever any ties they may have to domestic economies.

Expropriation: Entrenching Private Property Rights in a Global Constitution

Under the heading of Investor Protection, the MAI provides that governments:

shall not expropriate or nationalize directly or indirectly an investment ... or take any measure or measures having equivalent effect (hereinafter referred to as "expropriation") except ... accompanied by payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation.

It has long been the goal of property rights advocates to have these private rights entrenched in Canada's constitution. Their campaign is primarily directed at Canadian law that has consistently asserted that private property rights must give way, in certain instances, to the greater public good. Thus challenges to zoning bylaws and habitat protection laws as representing a "regulatory taking" of private property, have been consistently rebuffed by Canadian courts. But what has been unacceptable to the courts, and unthinkable in the context of Canadian constitutional reform, may now be accomplished by the MAI, and on terms far more expansive than any contemplated by property rights proponents.

Because the MAI defines "expropriation" in the broadest terms, its rules may well prohibit any government regulation that even indirectly reduces the profitability of corporate investments. It would be difficult to identify an environmental or conservation initiative that would not have this effect, at least on some investors. In fact, there is recent evidence that environmental regulations are the most likely target of this prohibition against government "taking".

The case in point is a law suit brought by Ethyl Corporation, a US-based transnational, now seeking $325 million in compensation from the Canadian government because of the government's decision to ban the use of MMT as a fuel additive in Canadian gasoline. The suit is proceeding under the investment rules of NAFTA, which served as the prototype for the MAI. Ethyl claims that Canada's ban represents an expropriation of its business of manufacturing this neuro-toxic fuel additive, and that under NAFTA rules it is entitled to compensation. The case illustrates just how profound the impacts of this "investor protection" may be.

Investor-State Suits: The New Star Chamber

Arguably, the most significant ambition of the MAI is to eliminate the role of national governments as intermediaries when corporations wish to enforce their rights against another government under this multilateral agreement. Conventionally, only national governments have standing to invoke dispute resolution processes under international trade agreements. For this reason, national governments have often acted to constrain the appetite of their domestic corporations to assail the policies and practices of other governments.

But under the MAI, a corporation need no longer persuade any government of the legitimacy of its complaint before seeking enforcement under an agreement which, ironically, it was not even party to. Under MAI rules, foreign investors have an unqualified right to insist that any complaint be resolved under rules of international arbitration, a process so secretive that it would rival those of the Star Chamber Court abolished three centuries ago.

It is precisely this process that Ethyl Corporation is relying on in its suit against the Canadian government. That case is now proceeding behind closed doors — without public notice, without access to the documents filed, and without participatory rights for any other party. To paraphrase a corporate lawyer recently quoted in the Globe & Mail, never before have corporations had a more powerful tool with which to "harass" governments unwilling to heed their lobbying efforts.

Environmental Conditionalities and Other Greenwash

In response to an environmental critique of the MAI, its defenders will quickly point to various provisions that appear to reflect some willingness to accept that investment rights respect some environmental limits. For example, MAI negotiators are presently considering the inclusion of the following provision:

The Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by lowering domestic health, safety or environmental standards or relaxing domestic labour standards.

Taken from language in the Investment chapter of NAFTA, what isn't clear simply from reading this provision is that it is unenforceable and for that reason, virtually meaningless — particularly in the context of a trade agreement that encourages countries to compete for investment by allowing corporations to externalize environmental and other social costs.

Similarly, the performance requirements noted above include an "exception" that would allow governments to regulate where "necessary":

• to protect human, animal or plant life or health; or,
• for the conservation of living or nonliving exhaustible natural resources.

Again, what isn't clear to those unfamiliar with the esoteric rules of trade agreements is that this is identical language to that used in a general exception to WTO rules. In that context it has been given such narrow interpretation as to render it entirely ineffective in defense of a growing list of environmental laws that have been caught in the cross-hairs of international trade dispute resolution — an encounter that not one has survived.

Exceptions and Reservations

When it really matters, governments have been willing to create meaningful exceptions to the MAI rules. For example, a broad and unequivocal exemption has been included, at the insistence of the US, for measures deemed necessary for the "protection of essential security interests". But so far no government has been willing to advance the notion that a similar exception is needed to preserve the authority of governments to assure our ecological security.

Instead, the federal government is offering critics of the MAI its assurance that it will "reserve" various policies and practices from the full application of MAI rules. In fact reservations under NAFTA explain how Canada has sheltered such diverse programs as citizenship requirements for commercial fishing licenses and our public health care system.

There are, however, several reasons to dubious about these assurances. To begin with, the extent of reservations that Canada may claim is a subject for negotiation and compromise. Moreover, environmental reservations aren't even on Canada's priority list. Secondly, MAI "standstill" and "rollback" rules preclude future policy or regulatory innovation even in areas subject to specific reservation, while at the same time ratcheting back the limited protection accorded existing measures.

Finally, reservations which would be broad enough to provide meaningful opportunity for progressive environmental reforms would undo much of what the MAI would accomplish. In seeking to entrench the dominant paradigm of market-driven growth by reducing the role of government's ability to regulate corporate activity in the public interest, the MAI is on a collision course with the bedrock principles upon which our environmental agenda is built.

What You Can Do

The MAI isn't a reality yet, and a growing number of Canadians and citizens in other countries are working hard to ensure that it never will be. Here are a number of ways in which you can make you voice heard:

• Learn more about the MAI — visit our web site at http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel for information and links to other MAI resources and materials. Contact our office for a reading list of materials that you can share with friends and neighbours. Write to the editor of your local paper.
• Let your federal MP know that you are opposed to the MAI and insist that she or he declare their position on it. Encourage your MP to actually read the draft Agreement. We believe that once MPs actually read the Agreement, they will be as opposed to it as you are.
• Make sure that your organization or union is committed to assessing the impacts of the MAI and ensuring they are addressed. Join or organize a local group that can provide a focal point for public education and community action.
• Arrange to meet with your local chamber of commerce and other business groups. Unless you are a large transnational corporation with business primarily based outside Canada, the MAI is very likely to be bad for business.

Promoters of the MAI are counting on your complacence — Don't accommodate them.

— Steven Shrybman

Freedom of Information Law Threatened: We need your help!

In 1992, BC's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was passed, providing this province with the broadest freedom of information law in North America. The Act is useful to anyone fighting to protect the environment by providing public access to documents that establish the existence of problems or potential harms in government environmental protection initiatives.

Critical requirement

The Act also has the potential to be a critical public notification mechanism: it imposes a special requirement on government to disclose information if it is in the public interest to do so, even where the information is not requested. This section makes specific reference to situations where there is a risk of significant harm to the environment or the health and safety of people. Although there are deficiencies in the Act and its administration, we feel it is critical that it be maintained and strengthened.

West Coast and our clients frequently use the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to obtain important information. In situations where access has been denied, West Coast has appealed those decisions. In some of these appeals, West Coast clients have obtained very favourable decisions. For example, in an appeal brought by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Freedom of Information Commissioner decided that while he could not order that digital maps be provided to environmental groups free of charge, he strongly recommended that government be prepared to make the maps available at a reasonable price. A precedent was also set at the BC Supreme Court. Fletcher Challenge had argued that the government should not disclose environmental testing results which it had submitted to the government. The Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society had requested this information. The BC Supreme Court held that the Act required the government to disclose the test results.

Keep up the pressure

One requirement of the Act is that it be reviewed after five years, and this review has recently started. Throughout the review process, it is critical for community groups to pressure the government to maintain the benefits of this important legislation. Many of the commitments made when the Act was passed have not yet been followed through on, and lobbying efforts may be required to have these commitments met. For example, there is a need for regulations requiring the retention of various records. There is also a need for penalties for improper destruction or alteration of records.

One of the major criticisms of the Act will likely be the costs to government of answering requests for access government information. While the costs are quite high, those who have used the Act have identified ways in which it could be administered more cost effectively. There may also be an issue as to how the statistics regarding the costs are compiled. Information which arguably should have been released without a freedom of information request is now sometimes denied. In such cases it is necessary to make a freedom of information request. The cost of filling these requests is then calculated into the overall cost of administering the Act, inflating the true costs attributable to the Act. It is likely that there will be a strong push from government to charge more to process requests for freedom of information. Suggestions from the public about how to improve the Act's administration will be used to counter this criticism.

Patricia Houlihan at West Coast is participating in a committee of representatives of various public interest groups concerned with changes to the Act. The government will be requesting public submissions on issues of concern in the Act. West Coast is currently compiling information regarding the experiences of community and environmental groups in using freedom of information legislation or attempting to obtain information which would have otherwise have been available prior to the Act.

What you can do

We encourage you to submit any comments or criticisms regarding your experiences with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to West Coast Environmental Law by fax to (604) 684-1312, or by email to phoulihan@wcel.org. For more information about the review, please contact the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association at (604) 739-9788.

Our Man in Kyoto

Staff counsel Chris Rolfe was recently chosen by the federal government to participate as the environmental non-government representative in the Canadian delegation to the climate change conference in Kyoto.

Officially known as the Third Conference of Parties and the Special Session of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate, this international gathering took place in Kyoto, Japan, from December 1 to 10, 1997.

Chris is a leading expert on climate change issues, and is the author of the forthcoming publication "Turning Down the Heat: Strategic Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions."

In our next issue of WCEL News, Chris will share some of his experiences at and insights into this historic conference.

EDRF Update

Environmental Watch

Howe Sound Pulp and Paper has been out of compliance with its air pollution permit on many occasions over the years. Recently, the Ministry of Environment approved an application by Howe Sound Pulp and Paper to amend its emissions permit to allow for even greater air emissions, including a 300% increase in sulphur dioxide emission levels and an 80% increase in nitrogen oxide emissions.

With EDRF funding, Environmental Watch commenced a private prosecution in an attempt to bring the mill into compliance with its original permit, and the Crown subsequently took over the prosecution. Unfortunately, the Crown decided to stay the charges. The mill's request for an amended permit was granted, allowing the higher emission levels. Environmental Watch is now arguing for standing to appeal the amended permit.

Fraser River Coalition

With EDRF assistance, the Coalition is now developing a strategy to deal with the Lafarge Cement proposal. Lafarge is seeking a permit which will grant it the right to remove sediment in the lower Fraser Basin. This area is an important spawning ground for salmon and oolichan, and the sediment in the Basin is a critical part of this habitat. The Coalition's legal counsel is now researching legal tools to protect the spawning grounds and preserve habitat.

Valhalla Society

The New Denver Flats watershed provides both primary and backup drinking water for the villages of New Denver and Silverton in the West Kootenays. The Valhalla Society received EDRF funding to commission an expert's report on the likely effects of logging in the watershed, and to retain legal counsel to apply for an injunction to halt the proposed logging.

The hydrologist's report clearly indicated that logging would have serious environmental and other consequences (including landslides from roadbuilding), but the BC government persisted in its plans to allow logging in the Flats. With the help of an EDRF-funded lawyer, the Valhalla Society issued a petition in the British Columbia Supreme Court challenging road and cutting permits issued in certain cut blocks. The Society was arguing two issues: the first was that the Society had a legitimate expectation of a public process prior to permits being issued; the second was based on documents obtained from the BC government indicating that watershed reserves were placed over all watersheds serving communities in the early 1970s.

The court accepted the fact that under the provisions of the Land Act, watershed reserves had been placed but, as the land was within a provincial forest, the Forest Act superseded the reserves, allowing the Ministry of Forests to control and allow logging even within these watershed reserves. The court ruled against Valhalla, but did not award costs for the defendant against the Valhalla Society. In a separate but related case, the Supreme Court has recently set aside an injunction granted to the Ministry of Forests in its attempts to keep protesters out of a proposed logging area in neighbouring Perry Ridge. The court relied extensively on the hydrologist's work commissioned through the EDRF, and soundly criticized the Ministry of Forests for withholding information from the court.

Nechako Environmental Coalition

Last year, with EDRF assistance, the Coalition appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board about an air emissions permit amendment for Canfor's medium density fibreboard plant in Prince George. The subsequent EAB decision substantially amended the permit by increasing monitoring standards, allowing public access to the monitoring results, and generally, increasing safety mechanisms to protect public health. However, a November 1996 Order-in-Council varied and weakened the Board decision.

The decision was made without notice to either the Coalition the EAB. The Coalition's EDRF-funded lawyer then applied for a judicial review of the Order-in-Council seeking to have it quashed and the original ruling of the EAB restored. At a hearing held November 5, 1997, the judge decided in favour of upholding the Order-in-Council. Oral reasons were given, and the Coalition is now considering its next steps.

Lifeforce Society

Lifeforce is an ecology organization that was registered as a charity in 1981. Recently Revenue Canada threatened to revoke the organization's charitable status. Counsel for Lifeforce has presented the Society with an opinion regarding legal options available to them. The Society is considering voluntary annulment of its charitable status, and continuing as a provincially registered non-profit society.

Fairfield Citizens for Safe Air

The concerns of the Fairfield Citizens for Safe Air arose from the practices used to fill holding tanks at an urban Victoria gas station. Gasoline vapour was escaping through vents which were close to an apartment building and drifting into the building through open windows. The vapours were causing respiratory and other health problems. With EDRF support, the group obtained expert and legal advice to negotiate with their municipal officials and the gas company. After negotiations with the station management and the gasoline company, the vents were moved about 30 metres from their original location. These negotiations, and subsequent move, have helped to improved the air quality and health conditions of residents.

The diversity of these EDRF-funded groups and the range of issues addressed reaffirm the critical role that the EDRF continues to play in the resolution of environmental disputes in BC. As the federal and provincial governments continue to cut support for their respective environmental ministries, including enforcement officers, the responsibility for monitoring and addressing environmental offences is falling more and more often to local community groups, and the EDRF is here to help. If your group needs assistance to protect the environment, please contact Patricia Houlihan at (604) 601-2508 or toll free at 1 800 330-WCEL.

Update on Recent Cases

Land Claims `encumber' Tree Farm Licences

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that First Nations' land claims qualify as "an encumbrance" for the purposes of the BC Forest Act. The ruling came down November 7, 1997, on this preliminary issue to the Haida's main application for judicial review.

The case arises from the provincial government's initial grant of tree farm license (TFL) 39 in 1961, for 25 years, to MacMillan Bloedel. In 1981 and again on March 1, 1995, the TFL was "replaced" for a further 25 years. The Haida in their petition for judicial review are asking the court to set aside the 1981 and 1995 decisions of the Minister of Forests.

On a preliminary motion, MacMillan Bloedel had initially succeeded in chambers in having the court rule that the aboriginal title claimed by the Haida did not "encumber" its TFL as that term is used in section 28 of the Forest Act. The section read:

s.28[...] a tree farm licence entered into under this Act shall [...] (b) subject to sections 27, 27.1, 33 and 33.1, describe a tree farm licence area composed of (i) an area of Crown land, the timber on which is not otherwise encumbered, determined by the minister. [emphasis added]

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Haida.

First, the Court assumed that it could examine whether aboriginal title was an "encumbrance" although the word itself does not appear in the Act.

Although MacMillan Bloedel agreed that if you take the plain meaning of "encumbrance," aboriginal title would qualify, the company argued that the word had a limited meaning for the purposes of section 28. The Court rejected this submission.

Much of the decision is a review of methods of statutory interpretation, describing the "plain language" school of interpretation as opposed to the "modern contextual" approach which the company said supported its argument. The majority of the Court held that the principle to be followed was the "plain language principle," that this applied in the case at bar and that, therefore, the aboriginal title was "an encumbrance" for the purposes of this section of the Forest Act. One of the three judges deviated from the majority ruling only to the extent that she held that the applicable principles for construction of statutes would depend on the case at hand.

The ruling is a victory for the Haida to the extent that it allows them now to continue with the judicial review application.

Supreme Court of Canada Upholds CEPA Toxics Substances List

In a 5:4 decision released September 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld sections 34 and 35 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as intra vires the federal government under the criminal law power in section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Hydro Quebec had succeeded at all previous levels of Quebec courts in having these parts of the legislation declared ultra vires the Parliament of Canada. The facts stem from early 1990 when Hydro Quebec allegedly dumped PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) into a river and was subsequently charged under an Interim Order issued by then-Environment Minister Lucien Bouchard. The Interim Order was authorized by virtue of s.35 of the Act, which is ancillary to the Toxic Substances List established in s.34.

The constitutional question put to the Court asked whether the impugned sections of CEPA fell within either the federal criminal law power, or the peace, order and good government (POGG) power.

Hydro Quebec argued that, first, the prohibitions were not an exercise of the criminal law power, but rather a regulatory regime containing some provisions which were criminal in nature. The argument was that although the protection of the environment was a legitimate public purpose for the federal government to pursue, the provisions of the Act were
more an attempt to regulate environmental pollution than to prohibit it.

Second, Hydro Quebec argued that the legislation could not be upheld as valid under the POGG power because the legislation was too broadly worded to qualify as "single, distinctive and indivisible" and that the POGG power was therefore not to be invoked.

The majority decision of the Court was written by Mr. Justice LaForest (who has since retired). In his opening paragraph, he stated:

Whether viewed positively as strategies for maintaining a clean environment, or negatively as measures to combat the evils of pollution, there can be no doubt that these measures [for environmental protection] relate to a public purpose of superordinate importance, and one in which all levels of government and numerous organs of the international community have become increasingly engaged.

After considering the decisions of the courts below, Mr. Justice LaForest reviewed the preamble of CEPA which states among other things that the presence of toxic substances is a matter of national concern and which also refers to Canada's international environmental obligations.

The majority decision acknowledges that "the environment" does not belong to the jurisdiction of either the provinces or federal government but rather cuts across many different areas of constitutional responsibility.

Interestingly, Mr. Justice LaForest highlighted in his decision that not only was protecting the environment for human health a legitimate public purpose, but so was protecting the environment for its own sake. He said:

[...] I entertain no doubt that the protection of a clean environment is a public purpose within Rand J's formulation in the Margarine Reference cited supra, sufficient to support a criminal prohibition. It is surely an "interest threatened" which Parliament can legitimately "safeguard", or to put it another way, pollution is an "evil" that Parliament can legitimately seek to suppress. Indeed, as I indicated at the outset of these reasons, it is a public purpose of superordinate importance; it constitutes one of the major challenges of our time. It would be surprising indeed if Parliament could not exercise its plenary power over criminal law to protect this interest and to suppress the evils associated with it by appropriate penal prohibitions.

His Lordship went on to cite the Brundtland Commission Report Our Common Future and United Nations environmental documents in support of this general theme that protection of the environment is a legitimate public objective where Parliament seeks to exercise its criminal law power.

The scope of the legislation was not the broader goal of "protection of the environment," but rather the more limited prohibition on certain uses of listed toxic substances. This, the majority held, was in keeping with a properly-enacted federal environmental law.

Having found the sections to be valid under the criminal law power, the majority did not need to consider the arguments concerning peace, order and good government.

The tenor of support for the federal government's power to enact legislation preventing environmental pollution comes at an interesting time. The Act underwent a five year review which led to federal Bill C-74.

While this died on the Order Paper in December 1996, it is not clear whether, or when, the revisions it contained might be again brought forward.

— Andrea Finch

Need help with a conservation covenant? Call us!

If you are working to preserve some environmental value of a piece of private land, and are considering drafting and registering a conservation covenant in the Land Title Office, we can help you. Starting now, groups or individuals who need legal assistance to draft conservation covenants can apply for financial assistance to help pay the costs of legal drafting fees, from the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.

Because the drafting of the conservation covenants is often tied to the resolution of an environmental dispute, the EDRF management committee has set aside a pool of funds to assist citizens with this type of project. If your group is involved in establishing a covenant, you can apply for money to hire a lawyer to work on a partially pro bono basis to draft land protection covenants which will be registered against the title to the property. This will allow the land to be protected in perpetuity, according to the terms set out in the particular covenant.

West Coast continues to offer a series of handbooks on private land protection, including Here Today, Here Tomorrow and Leaving a Living Legacy. Both of these publications are available on our web site at http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel. We also continue to offer, with the assistance of the Real Estate Foundation, public workshops on the use and application of conservation covenants. Contact our office for more information at 1 800 330-WCEL.

Money's Mushrooms Guilty: Surrey/Langley Residents Breathe Easier!

The Surrey/Langley Environmental Protection Society is now victorious after a long battle to have local air quality improved. On December 8, 1997, Money's Mushrooms was convicted of severely polluting the air around its composting plant.

The Surrey/Langley Environmental Protection Society contacted West Coast for help back in the summer of 1994. Our Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund (EDRF) liaison lawyer began working with the group in an attempt to negotiate a solution with Money's. When it became clear this was not a viable option, our EDRF lawyer and the group worked to persuade the GVRD to use its powers to force Money's to stop polluting the air. The slowness of the process was frustrating for the residents, and the group started to consider privately prosecuting Mon
ey's. Fortunately this step was unnecessary; after several months of failed negotiations with Money's, the GVRD finally took action. The GVRD issued an order requiring Money's to take various steps to address the air pollution issue.

The residents subsequently thought the GVRD order against Money's did not go far enough to improve the local air quality. With funding from West Coast's EDRF, the group appealed the GVRD order to the Environmental Appeal Board. The appeal was unsuccessful, but in the meantime, Money's failed to comply with the original GVRD order and charges were laid against the company. The December 8th conviction arose out of those charges.

Money's Mushrooms now faces sentencing in January; the company faces up to $24 million in fines.

Holiday Giving — what to get for the person who has everything (almost)

Made your list and checked it twice? Wondering just what to get for that hard-to-buy-for friend or relative? Consider the possibilities offered by West Coast! We have a variety of ways that you can gifts that give more than once:

• For an annual fee of $20, you can give a gift subscription to WCEL News, our bimonthly review of hot environmental legal issues, campaign updates and case reviews.

• For $18 (postage and taxes included), we will send you a beautiful T-shirt featuring original artwork by Robert Bateman. Proceeds from these T-shirts directly support the work of an ongoing WCEL project, the BC Endangered Species Coalition.

• For $20 a year, you can give a gift membership in WCEL, which entitles the member to receive special updates and join us at our general meetings. A membership also shows support for our ongoing work.

• A small monthly donation to our West Coast Protectors' Fund (we'll slip $10 a month out of your bank account — the most painless way to give) provides essential operating funds for us
• to keep working on such critical issues as climate change, biodiversity and the effects of trade agreements on the environment.

• A one-time donation of any amount to our Research Foundation will help support our public library and website, as well as our program of publishing Citizen's Guides to various aspects of environmental law.

• A one-time gift to our Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund will provide critical legal and expert assistance to a community group struggling to solve a pressing environmental issue. See the EDRF Update elsewhere in this Newsletter for the range of issues the EDRF supports.

• If you are a past director of WCEL, consider contributing to the newly established Director's Endowment, a legacy program that is working to ensure the long-term stability and success of WCEL!

WCEL Closes for the Holidays

The West Coast Environmental Law offices will close for year-end holidays from Wednesday, December 24^th, 1997, and will reopen on Monday, January 5^th, 1998. If you must speak to a lawyer during the office closure, please leave a voice-mail message on our main line at (604) 684-7378 or 1 800 330-WCEL, and someone will get back to you as soon as possible. Our next issue of the newsletter will come to you in mid January. Thanks for your support over the past year; have a great holiday season! See you next year!

We're counting on you! West Coast relies on your support to continue our important work. Together, we are a strong and active voice for environmental protection in BC. And now there are two new ways to make it easier for you to give us that support, and they're both tax-creditable. We are now able to accept your donations by VISA. Call our office for details. And we're pleased to announce our new West Coast Protector's program of monthly donations. Each month, you can make a small automatic donation of $10 or $25 to our work. The amount of your donation will be automatically withdrawn once a month from your VISA or chequing account, on the day of your choice. This type of regular support contributes to our ongoing campaigns. If you would like to be a charter member of our West Coast Protector's program, call us now! We're counting on you!

____ Yes! I want to be a member and receive NEWS           from West Coast Environmental Law. Here's $20. ____ Yes! I want to make a tax-creditable donation.           Here's my cheque for:           ___ $50 ___ $75 ___ $100 Name: ___________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City, Prov: ________________________________ Phone/Email: ______________________________ Postal Code: ______________________________