DOCSLIB.ORG

Factual Record: Oldman River Ii Submission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Factual Record: Oldman River Ii Submission Factual Record Oldman River II Submission (SEM-97-006) Prepared in Accordance with Article 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary . 7 2. Summary of the Submission . 12 3. Summary of Canada’s Response. 14 4. Scope of the Factual Record . 16 5. Summary of Other Relevant Factual Information and Facts Presented by the Secretariat with Respect to Matters Raised in Council Resolution 01-08 . 18 5.1 Information Gathering Process . 18 5.2 Meaning and Scope of Fisheries Act ss. 35, 37 and 40 . 22 5.2.1 Introduction. 22 5.2.2 The Habitat Protection Provisions of the Fisheries Act . 27 5.3 Federal Policies Regarding Administration and Enforcement of Fisheries Act ss. 35, 37 and 40 . 31 5.3.1 The Habitat Policy . 32 5.3.1.1 Application of the Habitat Policy in Alberta . 33 5.3.2 Fisheries Act Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention Provisions Compliance and Enforcement Policy. 35 5.4 Meaning and Scope of s. 5(1)(d) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and Schedule 1 Part I Item 6 of the Law List Regulations made pursuant to paragraphs 59(f) and (g) of the CEAA . 35 3 4 FACTUAL RECORD: OLDMAN RIVER II SUBMISSION 5.5 The CEAA and the Protection of Fish Habitat under the Fisheries Act . 45 5.6 Planning of the Sunpine Project and Alberta’s Approval of the Sunpine Project . 52 5.7 Canada’s Actions in Regard to Alleged Violations of the Fisheries Act and the CEAA in Connection with the Sunpine Project. 63 5.8 Facts Regarding Whether Canada is Failing to Effectively Enforce the Fisheries Act and the CEAA in Connection with the Sunpine Project. 72 6. Closing Note . 89 Figures Figure 1 DFO Decision Framework for the Determination and Authorization of Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat . 51 Figure 2 Map . 53 Figure 3 Local Watersheds . 57 Appendices Appendix 1 Council Resolution 01-08, dated 16 November 2001 . 91 Appendix 2 Overall Plan to Develop a Factual Record, dated 14 December 2001 . 95 Appendix 3 Comments of Canada and the United States on the Overall Plan to Develop a Factual Record, dated 14 January and 23 January 2002, respectively . 103 Appendix 4 Request for Information, dated January 2002 . 111 Appendix 5 Follow-Up Information Request, dated 10 September 2002 . 119 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 Appendix 6 List of Information Received by the Secretariat for Development of the Factual Record . 127 Appendix 7 Photos . 157 Appendix 8 Acronyms and Defined Terms . 161 Attachments Attachment 1 Council Resolution 03-13 . 165 Attachment 2 Comments of Canada . 169 Attachment 3 Comments of the United States of America . 197 1. Executive Summary Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement on Environmen- tal Cooperation (“NAAEC”) establish a process allowing residents of Canada, Mexico and the US to file submissions alleging that a Party to the NAAEC (Canada, Mexico or the United States) is failing to effec- tively enforce its environmental law. Under the NAAEC, this process can lead to the publication of a factual record. The Secretariat (“Secretar- iat”) of the North American Commission for Environmental Coopera- tion (“CEC”) administers the NAAEC citizen submissions process. On 4 October 1997, The Friends of the Oldman River filed a sub- mission (SEM-97-006 (Oldman River II), the “submission”) with the Secretariat asserting that Canada is failing to effectively enforce the fish habitat protection provisions of the federal Fisheries Act and related provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (“CEAA”). The submission asserts that in regard to projects that may harm fish habitat, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (“DFO”) is issuing letters of advice to project proponents instead of issuing Fisheries Act authoriza- tions and orders that trigger an environmental assessment requirement under the CEAA. The submission also alleges that Canada has abdicated its responsibilities for enforcement of the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions to Canada’s inland provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Mani- toba, Ontario, parts of British Columbia and parts of Quebec), which are not effectively enforcing the Fisheries Act. On 13 July 1998, Canada responded, asserting that compliance with the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions could be achieved on a preventative basis through voluntary, routine communications between DFO and project proponents. Canada states that this approach is consistent with the Fisheries Act, which does not require DFO to review project information or issue Fisheries Act orders and authorizations. Canada asserts that DFO has designated provincial fish and wildlife employees in all provinces for enforcement purposes under the Fisheries Act. Canada asserts that in many cases, actions that violate the Fisheries Act are prosecuted under provincial laws. 7 8 FACTUAL RECORD: OLDMAN RIVER II SUBMISSION On 19 July 1999, the Secretariat recommended preparation of a fac- tual record to gather additional information on the use and success of “letters of advice” in securing compliance with the Fisheries Act, and regarding Canada’s claim that enforcement action is taken when the Fisheries Act is contravened. On 16 November 2001, in Council Resolu- tion 01-08, the Council instructed the Secretariat to prepare a factual record on whether Canada, in the Sunpine Forest Products Access Road case—an example mentioned in the submission—is failing to effectively enforce sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Fisheries Act, Section 5(1)(d) of the CEAA, and Schedule 1 Part 1 Item 6 of the Law List Regulations made pursuant to paragraphs 59(f) and (g) of the CEAA. S. 35(1) of the Fisheries Act provides that no person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disrup- tion, or destruction (“HADD”) of fish habitat. S. 35(2) states that s. 35(1) is not violated if a person causes a HADD of fish habitat by any means or under any conditions authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (“MFO”) or under Fisheries Act regulations (there are no regula- tions at this time). S. 37(1) requires proponents of projects that are likely to result in a HADD to provide information to MFO, in the manner and circumstances prescribed by regulations made under the Fisheries Act (there are no regulations at this time) or on the request of MFO. Under s. 37(2), the MFO may, by order, subject to regulations made under the Fisheries Act, or, if there are no such regulations in force (which is the case at this time) with the approval of the Governor in Council, require changes to plans for a work or undertaking or to an existing work or undertaking, and may restrict its operation. Violation of ss. 35(1), 37(1) or 37(2) is an offense under s. 40 of the Fisheries Act, punishable by fines, or jail time, or both. Before MFO can issue a s. 35(2) authorization or a s. 37(2) order under the Fisheries Act, DFO must ensure that an environ- mental assessment of the project is conducted under the CEAA. A CEAA assessment determines whether a project is likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account any mitigation mea- sures considered appropriate, and if so, whether such effects are justifi- able in the circumstances. If they are not, a federal authority such as MFO cannot take any action, such as issuing an authorization under s. 35(2), that would allow the project to be carried out in whole or in part. The CEAA requires federal authorities such as DFO to ensure that assess- ments are conducted as early as is practicable in the planning stages of a project, and before irrevocable decisions are made. In July 1992, Sunpine Forest Products Ltd. (“Sunpine”) signed a forest management agreement (“FMA”) with the Alberta government EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 giving Sunpine long-term tenure over an area of over 2,500 square miles of forest land in the Rocky Mountain foothills of West Central Alberta. Sunpine’s operations within the FMA area are governed by timber har- vest planning and operating ground rules it negotiated with the Alberta government, including rules on road planning and fish habitat protec- tion. DFO was not involved in developing these ground rules. Under its ground rules, Sunpine is required to use existing roads for its log hauls whenever possible. In 1993, Sunpine presented the provincial govern- ment with a proposal to build a new, permanent, 40 km, all-weather log haul road up the middle of its new FMA area (the “Sunpine Project” or “Mainline Road”). After provincial fisheries, wildlife, and forestry staff recommended requiring Sunpine to use an existing, public road for its log haul to avoid, among other things, creating new impacts on fish habi- tat, the province’s forest service approved the proposed road corridor under Alberta’s Resource Road Planning Guidelines in August 1995. With provincial approval and without DFO involvement, Sunpine built and operated a temporary road within the Mainline Road corridor in the winter of 1995-96. The provincial forest service approved the alignment for the Mainline Road in September 1996, and the Mainline Road was built in 1997. Certain provincial fisheries staff involved with the Sunpine Project had appointments as fishery guardians under the Fisheries Act. Under these appointments, they had the power to lay charges for viola- tions of s. 35(1), but could not issue authorizations under s. 35(2). MFO is accountable to Parliament for the protection of fish and fish habitat in Canada through the administration and enforcement of the Fisheries Act. DFO has developed the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (1986) (the “Habitat Policy”) as a guide to the administration of the Fisheries Act habitat protection provisions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canada, the Us and Cuba
    CANADA, THE US AND CUBA CANADA, THE US AND CUBA HELMS-BURTON AND ITS AFTERMATH Edited by Heather N. Nicol Centre for International Relations, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada 1999 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Canada, the US and Cuba : Helms-Burton and its aftermath (Martello papers, ISSN 1183-3661 ; 21) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-88911-884-1 1. United States. Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996. 2. Canada – Foreign relations – Cuba. 3. Cuba – Foreign relations – Canada. 4. Canada – Foreign relations – United States. 5. United States – Foreign relations – Canada. 6. United States – Foreign relations – Cuba. 7. Cuba – Foreign relations – United States. I. Nicol, Heather N. (Heather Nora), 1953- . II. Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.). Centre for International Relations. III. Series. FC602.C335 1999 327.71 C99-932101-3 F1034.2.C318 1999 © Copyright 1999 The Martello Papers The Queen’s University Centre for International Relations (QCIR) is pleased to present the twenty-first in its series of security studies, the Martello Papers. Taking their name from the distinctive towers built during the nineteenth century to de- fend Kingston, Ontario, these papers cover a wide range of topics and issues rele- vant to contemporary international strategic relations. This volume presents a collection of insightful essays on the often uneasy but always interesting United States-Cuba-Canada triangle. Seemingly a relic of the Cold War, it is a topic that, as editor Heather Nicol observes, “is always with us,” and indeed is likely to be of greater concern as the post-Cold War era enters its second decade.
    [Show full text]
  • RURAL ECONOMY Ciecnmiiuationofsiishiaig Activity Uthern All
    RURAL ECONOMY ciEcnmiIuationofsIishiaig Activity uthern All W Adamowicz, P. BoxaIl, D. Watson and T PLtcrs I I Project Report 92-01 PROJECT REPORT Departmnt of Rural [conom F It R \ ,r u1tur o A Socio-Economic Evaluation of Sportsfishing Activity in Southern Alberta W. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, D. Watson and T. Peters Project Report 92-01 The authors are Associate Professor, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton; Forest Economist, Forestry Canada, Edmonton; Research Associate, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton and Research Associate, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton. A Socio-Economic Evaluation of Sportsfishing Activity in Southern Alberta Interim Project Report INTROI)UCTION Recreational fishing is one of the most important recreational activities in Alberta. The report on Sports Fishing in Alberta, 1985, states that over 340,000 angling licences were purchased in the province and the total population of anglers exceeded 430,000. Approximately 5.4 million angler days were spent in Alberta and over $130 million was spent on fishing related activities. Clearly, sportsfishing is an important recreational activity and the fishery resource is the source of significant social benefits. A National Angler Survey is conducted every five years. However, the results of this survey are broad and aggregate in nature insofar that they do not address issues about specific sites. It is the purpose of this study to examine in detail the characteristics of anglers, and angling site choices, in the Southern region of Alberta. Fish and Wildlife agencies have collected considerable amounts of bio-physical information on fish habitat, water quality, biology and ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Quotas Private Property Solutions to Overfishing
    Beyond Quotas Private Property Solutions to Overfishing ELIZABETH BRUBAKER In March 1996, Glen Clark, the premier of British Columbia, pre- dicted that the Fraser River commercial sockeye fishery would be shut down for the year. “It’s pretty clear from the numbers,” he explained, “that it won’t sustain a commercial fishery” (Cernetig 1996a). The warning followed two nearly disastrous years in Brit- ish Columbia’s salmon fishery. In 1994, several million Fraser Riv- er salmon failed to appear at their spawning grounds. The board reviewing their disappearance concluded that fishermen had come within 12 hours of wiping out the province’s most impor- tant sockeye run. “The resource is now, more than ever before, critically endangered,” it warned. “If something like the 1994 sit- uation happens again, the door to disaster will be wide open” (Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board [FRSPRB] 1995: xii, 12). Academics agreed that a crisis loomed. Biologist Carl Walters cautioned that, in the absence of profound restructuring, the Pa- cific salmon fishery would likely go the way of the Atlantic cod fishery (Walters 1995: 4). The following season again saw salmon shortages. In August 1995, with the returning salmon numbering two-thirds less than pre-season estimates, federal Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin closed the Fraser River sockeye fishery with a grim comment: “As it stands now, we don’t have a fishery. Period. And unless the 151 Fish or Cut Bait! numbers change, we won’t have a fishery in the future” (Damsell 1995). In a news release on November 8, 1995, British Columbia’s fisheries minister, David Zirnhelt, described the year’s salmon returns as “the worst in memory,” noting that harvest volumes had declined 42 percent from recent averages (Valhalla 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Alberta Wild Since 1968 Milner Public Library Suites 628 – 7 Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2V4
    Milner Public Library Suites 628 – 7 Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2V4 February 18, 2021 BRIEFING NOTE: Open-pit coal mining in the North Saskatchewan watershed and impacts to the City of Edmonton Prepared by CPAWS Northern Alberta for Edmonton City Council Executive Summary ● On June 1, 2020 the Government of Alberta rescinded the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (Coal Policy) ● No public consultation was conducted on the removal of the policy ● The recent reinstatement of the coal policy does not eliminate the risk of open pit coal mining and its impacts to Edmonton’s source of drinking water (the Bighorn region) ● While the policy was removed a large number of new leases were granted in the Bighorn ● The Valory Blackstone project was granted exploration permits (meaning they can build roads and drill test pits) that may be allowed to go forward as soon as this spring ● There is still no land-use plan for the North Saskatchewan Region to manage cumulative impacts of overlapping industrial and recreational land uses ● Any replacement of the Coal Policy should include full public and Indigenous consultation and the City of Edmonton should be considered as a major stakeholder ● Several communities have taken a stance against the removal of the Coal Policy and have requested that all exploration and development activities are stopped until robust consultation has been conducted on a replacement for the Policy Overview ● The 1976 Coal Policy, developed over years of work and public consultation, outlined four categories for coal development. Category 1 prohibited mining and Category 2 restricted open-pit coal mines.
    [Show full text]
  • Bighorn Backcountry Public Land Use Zones 2019
    Edson 16 EDMONTON Hinton 47 22 Jasper 39 734 Bighorn Backcountry PLUZs 2 22 National Bighorn The Bighorn Backcountry is managed to ensure the Backcountry Park protection of the environment, while allowing responsible 11 and sustainable recreational use. The area includes more than Rocky 11 5,000 square kilometres (1.2 million acres) of public lands east Mountain House 54 of Banff and Jasper National Parks. 734 27 The Bighorn Backcountry hosts a large variety of recreational Banff National 22 activities including camping, OHV and snow vehicle use, hiking, shing, Park hunting and cycling. CALGARY 1 It is your responsibility to become familiar with the rules and activities allowed in this area before you visit and to be informed of any trail closures. Please refer to the map and chart in this pamphlet for further details. Visitors who do not follow the rules could be ned or charged under provincial legislation. If you have any concerns about the condition of the trails and campsites or their appropriate use, please call Alberta Environment and Parks at the Rocky Mountain House Ofce, 403-845-8250. (Dial 310-0000 for toll-free service.) For current trail conditions and information kiosk locations, please visit the Bighorn Backcountry website at www.alberta.ca Definitions for the Bighorn Backcountry Motorized User ✑ recreational user of both off-highway vehicles and snow vehicles. Equestrian User or ✑ recreational user of both horses and/or mules, used for trail riding, pack Equine horse, buggy/cart, covered wagon or horse-drawn sleigh. Non-Motorized User ✑ recreational user which is non-motorized except equestrian user or equine where specified or restricted.
    [Show full text]
  • North Central Native Trout Recovery Program : North Saskatchewan
    NORTH CENTRAL NATIVE TROUT RECOVERY PROGRAM North Saskatchewan River & Lower Ram River Edmonton N o ³ North r t Saskatchewan Red Deer h Sa River ska tc Study Area h e w a n R i v e r Calgary B ig B ea ve r C reek Ca H ny a Sh on ve un C n da re C Cr ek re ee e k Su k n se ek k D t Cre C e ee r p re e e Gon C st C r ik e Bu a re k h C C e ree k ic y k k a e ek n k re C C n ut r u ro e S T Bighorn R e ive G k k r k a k ee e e r p re e C C r C ine !. k und C c re L o e n J r E k o a P s C h K eR y e oyc i h k l J v u ee o t e i Ro gh Cr Bull Creek i r w t dd li C i C p reek ek L r e r C e C C e a r in k r e ad e e Taw e K iska Creek k k Nort k h Ram e Riv e er r !. C k !.!. o t e e !. n i r C P l O l !. tt a e F !. r C Abraham r ee !. Lake k !. !. !. !. Lynx C !. Roadway Stream Crossing nion C reek O reek Inspection k !.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\CLERK\JOURNALS\Journals Archive\Journals 1997
    JOURNALS FIRST SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA 1997 PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HON. KEN KOWALSKI, SPEAKER VOLUME CV JOURNALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE __________ FROM APRIL 14, 1997 TO JANUARY 26, 1998 (BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE) IN THE FORTY-SIXTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF OUR MOST SOVEREIGN LADY HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II BEING THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA __________ SITTINGS APRIL 14, 1997 TO JUNE 16, 1997 DECEMBER 8, 1997 TO DECEMBER 10, 1997 __________ 1997 __________ PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HON. KEN KOWALSKI, SPEAKER VOLUME CV Title: 24th Legislature, 1st Session Journals (1997) SPRING SITTING APRIL 14, 1997 TO JUNE 16, 1997 JOURNALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FIRST SESSION TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE Monday, April 14, 1997 This being the first Day of the First Session of the Twenty-Fourth Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta, for the despatch of business pursuant to a Proclamation of His Honour the Honourable H.A. "Bud" Olson, Lieutenant Governor, dated the first day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven; The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly read the Proclamation as follows: [GREAT SEAL] CANADA H.A. "BUD" OLSON, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA Lieutenant Governor. ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her Other Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith PROCLAMATION TO OUR FAITHFUL, the MEMBERS elected to serve in the Legislative Assembly of Our Province of Alberta and to each and every one of you, GREETING..
    [Show full text]
  • Friday, November 28, 1997
    CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 040 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, November 28, 1997 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 2425 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, November 28, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. benefits which are paid by the American government to people living in Canada. _______________ The effects of this tax apply basically to about 60,000 Canadians. About one-third of these are low income residents of Canada who Prayers are still in receipt of U.S. social security benefits. _______________ Under the current law the Americans are entitled to withhold 25.5% of these social security payments they make to people living in Canada. Where these recipients, approximately 20,000 of them, GOVERNMENT ORDERS lose out is if they were taxed at ordinary Canadian income tax rates on these benefits, their tax rates, because they are in lower income D (1005) brackets, would be much lower. Therefore, this blanket withhold- ing of 25.5% by the Americans is a detriment to these particular [English] residents of Canada. INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS D (1010) IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997 This is why we have undertaken on their behalf to renegotiate The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, an act to this treaty to ensure that they can be taxed not by the source implement a convention between Canada and Sweden, a conven- country, the United States, by way of withholding, but in Canada tion between Canada and the Republic of Lithuania, a convention where they would be taxed on their net income.
    [Show full text]
  • Friday, April 29, 1994
    VOLUME 133 NUMBER 060 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, April 29, 1994 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, April 29, 1994 The House met at 10 a.m. showed that Canadians had lost complete faith in its approach to the situation. _______________ Because of the magnitude of Pearson airport and because it was the only profitable airport in the country, the Conservatives Prayers decided they would take a different approach. They entered into negotiations which were behind the scenes and not public tender _______________ to lease, sell and give away property belonging to the taxpayers. It seems ironic they would choose their friends and those of GOVERNMENT ORDERS other political parties to come forth and negotiate with the government behind the scenes. The agreement would allow them to take charge of one of the prime federal assets in this [English] country, hundreds of acres of property close to downtown Toronto. They would have a sweetheart lease on it for many PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AGREEMENTS years which guaranteed them income, all at the taxpayers’ ACT expense. The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion When the situation blew up in their faces during the last that Bill C–22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning election this government decided it was time to do something the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester about it and said to stop the deal from going forward. Of course B. Pearson International airport, be read the second time and the government did not heed the cries and concerns of the referred to a committee; and of the amendment; and of the electorate and the last government in its dying days signed a amendment to the amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Recycling Issues Explored
    September 10, 2007 Recycling Issues Explored Edmonton... Having received over 100 written submissions on the Beverage Container Recycling Regulation, the Legislative Assembly’s all-party Standing Committee on Resources and Environment has scheduled public hearings in both Edmonton and Calgary. “Recycling is an issue that affects all Albertans,” said Denis Ducharme, MLA for Bonnyville-Cold Lake and Chair of the Standing Committee on Resources and Environment. “People have a lot to say about the issues, and we want to hear about it.” The public hearing in Edmonton is scheduled to take place at the Legislature Annex (4th Floor, 9718 - 107 Street) on September 18 beginning at 9:30 a.m. In Calgary the hearing is scheduled to take place at the Carriage House Inn (9030 MacLeod Trail South) on September 20 beginning at 1 p.m. People are asked to contact the Committee Clerk before the end of the day on September 12 if they wish to make a presentation. The length of the hearings will be determined by the number of scheduled presentations. The Standing Committee on Resources and Environment is one of four all-party committees established by the Assembly this spring. Among other responsibilities this 11-Member committee is holding public hearings into issues surrounding the Beverage Container Recycling Regulation. These issues include Beverage Container Collection System Is the number of existing bottle depots in Alberta sufficient? Should additional collection options be considered? Exemption of Milk Containers Should milk containers be included in the deposit refund system? Deposit Levels Should the existing deposit levels be raised? Should there be only one deposit level for all containers? Should large or oversize containers (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Resources and Environment Following Its Deliberations on the Beverage Container Recycling Regulation
    Standing Committee on Twenty-Sixth Legislature Third Session StandingResources Committee and Environment on NOVEMBER 2007 Government Services Recommendations upon Review of Key Issues Pertaining to the Beverage Container Recycling Regulation COMMITTEES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Standing Committee on Resources and Environment 801 Legislature Annex Edmonton, AB T5K 1E4 (780) 644-8621 [email protected] November, 2007 To the Honourable Ken Kowalski Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta The Standing Committee on Resources and Environment has the honour to submit its report and recommendations on issues concerning the Beverage Container Recycling Regulation to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Denis Ducharme, MLA Bonnyville-Cold Lake Chair Standing Committee on Resources and Environment Dr. David Swann, MLA Calgary-Mountain View Deputy Chair Standing Committee on Resources and Environment Contents Members, Standing Committee on Resources and Environment 1 1.0 Introduction 2 Executive Summary – Recommendations 3 2.0 Operation and Management of the Beverage Container System 2.1 The Issue 4 2.2 Public Consultation 4 2.3 Recommendations 6 2.4 Rationale 7 3.0 Exemption of Milk Containers 3.1 The Issue 8 3.2 Public Consultation 9 3.3 Recommendations 9 3.4 Rationale 9 Appendix A: List of Presenters 10 MEMBERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 26th Legislature, Third Session Denis Ducharme, MLA Chair Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Dr. David Swann, MLA Deputy Chair Calgary-Mountain View (L) Pearl Calahasen,
    [Show full text]
  • Wednesday, May 1, 1996
    CANADA 2nd SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT VOLUME 135 NUMBER 13 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 1, 1996 THE HONOURABLE GILDAS L. MOLGAT SPEAKER This issue contains the latest listing of Officers of the Senate, the Ministry and Senators. CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.) Debates: Victoria Building, Room 407, Tel. 996-0397 Published by the Senate Available from Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa K1A 0S9, at $1.75 per copy or $158 per year. Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca 257 THE SENATE Wednesday, May 1, 1996 The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair. Someone once asked what Mr. du Plessis’ favourite day of the year was, and he responded, Boxing Day, because on that day he Prayers. could put his feet up, sit back and reflect on all that has gone on in the past year. Now, Mr. du Plessis, you may put your feet up every day and reflect not only on one year but on 20 remarkable SENATORS’ STATEMENTS years of a distinguished career in the Senate of Canada. We will miss not just your wisdom but your friendship and RAYMOND L. DU PLESSIS, Q.C. your wonderful sense of humour. We wish you well in all your future activities, be they badminton, tennis or dancing. We know TRIBUTES ON RETIREMENT AS LAW CLERK that your family will be delighted as well to be able to claim AND PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL more of your time, your attention and your very good spirits.
    [Show full text]