Archive for May, 2010
We are working hard to get our activity and aspects-impacts registers in line. The site’s functionality, originally born out of legal registers was long overdue for an overhaul. We have not completed the transition just yet, but it is coming along. Here is a screenshot of an activity. More information to come in the next few weeks.
A very good expose on 60 minutes was just aired. A former rig-man who ran the electrical systems on the ship outlines the systematic failures and continual push to go faster that may have brought about the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Take a look here:
A flurry of activity from Ontario, which continues to push forward with its environmental agenda.
With Bill 68, Ontario is taking serious stab at approval reform by bringing changes to over 50 pieces of provincial legislation, including the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The existing environmental approvals process will be replaced with a streamlined system and online registry.
Also, by introducing the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, the province is now positioning itself as a leader in water conservation and efficiency solutions. The act aims to encourage innovation and job creation (not unlike the Green Energy Act) and would ultimately require municipalities to develop water conservation plans.
Some critics are already saying that it doesn’t go far enough, given that a successful water conservation strategy requires serious money to upgrade crumbling water mains around the province.
But if passed, the act would also introduce measures to reduce water consumption. And Ontario seems intent on moving towards fixing water rates for users. That could end up financing much needed investment in infrastructure.
Also in the plans is the establishment of the Water Technologies Acceleration Project (a.k.a. WaterTAP), essentially a non-Crown corporation, described by the MOE as “a technology hub bringing together industry, academics and government to develop the sector and promote it abroad.”
Below is my interview (in French) with Hervé Pageot, of Daigneault Avocats Inc., who discusses Quebec’s proposed regulations that would impose fees for water use in the province. The fees, two to three times higher than similar fees in Ontario, would apply to use of both ground water and water from municipal distribution systems. Interestingly, actions that result in the decrease or diversion of underground water would also be subject to the fees. Targeted industries are the water-bottling sector, mineral and oil & gas extraction, as well as 21 other types of manufacturers, including food and beverages producers, the tobacco industry, textile manufacturers, producers of wood, paper, chemical, plastic, metal and electronic products, and producers of transportation material.
The regulations would apply to anyone using an average volume of water equal to or exceeding 75 cubic meters per day, calculated on a monthly basis with fees determined based on annual usage. The regulations will come into force in 2011. The fees are generally set at $0.0025 per cubic meter used, although certain activities are charged a significantly higher rate of $0.07 per cubic meter used. The more modest fee is intended for industries that return most the water used back to the ecosystem. The chemical products and beverage industry (including water bottlers) will be the hardest hit.
A 60-day comment period was opened on the date of publication of the notice. Any interested person or parties are invited to submit their comments during this time.
To see the proposed regulations (in French only), click here.
In a split 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last week that a mining project may not proceed without undergoing a federal environmental assessment. The decision turned on the EA of a mining project in the territory covered by the James Bay Treaty, signed in 1975 by the Cree and Inuit communities with the governments of Quebec and Canada.
Interestingly, the Treaty was groundbreaking at the time in its recognition of Aboriginal participation rights, but this time it was the federal government arguing that it was being shut out of the process.
Indeed, the top court had to rule on whether a conflict existed between the Treaty, which recognizes the province’s jurisdiction over environmental assessments, and federal law, which governs fisheries.
Quebec’s position was that Fisheries Canada could not refuse to issue a permit pending an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project on fish habitat.
The Court held that, under the Treaty, the potentially harmful disruption or destruction of fish habitat could not escape scrutiny by the federal Fisheries Minister. The Court wrote:
“While there is no doubt that this project, considered in isolation, falls within provincial jurisdiction, a mining project anywhere in Canada that puts at risk fish habitat cannot proceed without a permit from the federal Fisheries Minister, which he or she cannot issue except after compliance with the CEAA.”
The ruling underlines some of the limits of streamlining the environmental assessment process.
