How is fracking and water protection affected by eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission?
[ http://canadians.org/blog/?p=18503 ]
December 14, 2012
This morning the Senate approved Bill C-45, Harper’s second omnibudget bill of the year, and Governor General David Johnston will give Royal Assent once more to this troubling trend of the Harper government.
There is widespread concern about the sweeping changes to environmental legislation and removal of critical safeguards for water protection. Bill C-38, the spring omnibudget bill, repealed and replaced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with a new act that eliminated 3000 federal environmental assessments.
[ http://o.canada.com/2012/08/23/harper-g ... -projects/ ]
The Harper government also gutted protections for fish habitat with amendments to the Fisheries Act. With C-45, the Harper government is abdicating their responsibility on 99% of lakes and rivers through the overhaul of the Navigable Waters Protection Act leaving “protections” for 97 lakes, 62 rivers and three oceans.
Tucked away in the changes of over 60 pieces of legislation, this second budget bill eliminates the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission (HMIRC). Bill C-45 eliminates the Commission by transferring its powers and responsibilities to the Minister of Health. Although this has failed to garner any in-depth media coverage, this change could have significant effects on fracking, tar sands development and the multiplicity of industries that deal with hazardous materials.
What does the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission do?
In general, the HMIRC safeguards worker safety by assessing compliance with the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), and plays a key role in educating workers on health and safety risks, safe handling, proper storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous materials. They also register claims for trade-secret exemptions on disclosing information on hazardous materials.
Industry must provide adequate information on hazardous materials on labels and more importantly on Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) with requirements outlined in the Hazardous Products Act and the Controlled Product Regulations. According to the HMIRC’s 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities, the Commission’s responsibility includes ensuring that MSDSs for “products with trade secrets used by workers in Canada disclose complete and accurate information to reduce workplace-related illness and injury.”
[ http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2011-2012/ ... hi-eng.pdf ]
The report goes on to say “MSDSs must fully disclose all hazardous ingredients in the product, its toxicological properties, the safety precautions workers need to take when using the product, treatment required in the case of injury, and other pertinent information.”
To see the nine categories of information that must be outlined on an MSDS, click here:
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/msdss.html
The MSDSs provide information on the potential hazards including health, fire, reactivity and environmental hazards and how to work safely with chemical products. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety says the MSDS are important to the “development of a complete health and safety program.”
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/msdss.html
A recent study in the journal of Environmental Health detailed the health risks of women in manufacturing and other industries handling chemical products which highlights the need for an independent body to effectively regulate and monitor industry.
[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le5411115/ ]
What kind of claims does the Commission receive?
The Commission receives requests for exemptions from a wide range of industry players including oil and gas, chemical and electronics companies. According to the List of active claims as at December 06, 2012, DOW chemicals as well as fracking companies such as Baker Petrolite Corp., Calfrac, Schlumberger Canada Limited and Trican Well Service Ltd. have applied for trade-secret exemptions.
[ http://www.hmirc-ccrmd.gc.ca/active/index-eng.shtml ]
Any company dealing with hazardous materials in fracking, tar sands development or other industries would be regulated by the HMIRC.
Has industry been in compliance?
As mentioned, the HMIRC assesses claims for exempting disclosure of chemicals and ensuring whether MSDSs are compliant with WHMIS. The HMIRC website provides details on how many decisions they made in the last year and how many decisions were out of compliance with WHMIS requirements:
[ http://www.hmirc-ccrmd.gc.ca/data-donne ... -eng.shtml ]
- In 2011-2012, 90% were not compliant
- In 2010-2011, 83% were not compliant
- In 2009-2010, 77% were not compliant
The MSDSs contains much more information about the material than the label. Clearly, the number of MSDSs out of compliance pose not only a threat to worker safety but also water and environmental protection.
Concerns about the elimination of the Commission
The Commission is an independent and arm’s length agency and with the transfer of its powers directly to the Minister of Health, there are concerns that the Commission will lose its independence.
With a budget of $4.5 million the Commission has 25 staff including four screening officers. The budget bill changes will get rid of the Commission’s four screening officers with only a Chief Screening officer remaining. Based on the numbers of industry MSDSs that were found to be out of compliance with WHMIS requirements, there is a significant need for staff to regulate industries found to be out of compliance.
Is Health Canada able to take on the work of the Commission?
In April, 840 Health Canada employees were told their positions would be cut, and the federal government announced plans for Health Canada’s budget to be slashed by $416.5 million by 2014-2015, with cuts of $200.6 million annually after that. The transfer of the Commission to the Minister of Health raises serious concerns about Health Canada’s ability to adequately fund and carry out the Commissions responsibilities.
The elimination of the HMIRC raises significant concerns particularly within the context of Harper’s broader trend to strip away environmental and water protections through budget cuts and changes to other pieces of environmental legislation.
While the omnibudget bills are a significant violation of democratic principles and a threat to our water sources, Harper seems to be stoking the fires of dissent and solidarity particularly with indigenous communities as seen with the recent surge in strength of the Idle No More movement. [ http://www.hmirc-ccrmd.gc.ca/data-donne ... -eng.shtml ]
This movement is encouraging and provides hope that – despite the abdication of the Harper government’s responsibilities on water and environmental protection - people are rising up to take up the challenge themselves.
Emma Lui
Water Campaigner
Council of Canadians
Tel: 613-233-4487 Ext. 239
Fax: 613-233-6776
Email: elui@canadians.org
http://www.canadians.org/water
= = = = = =
Changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act impacts First Nations Treaty rights and paves the way for more pipelines
[ http://canadians.org/node/3672 ]
October 30, 2012 - 6:00 pm
Since 2009, the Harper government has slowly clawed back protections from the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) with a final fatal blow in Bill C-45 [ http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -2012.html ], the most recent omnibudget bill. Aside from removing the word ‘waters’ from the title of the Act and renaming the legislation the Navigation
Protection Act (NPA), Bill C-45 strips protections from 99% of lakes and rivers leaving only 3 oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers under the purview of the NWPA. According to Natural Resources Canada, there are 31,752 lakes in Canada alone. The list of oceans, lakes and rivers kept under the NWPA, set out in Schedule2 of the budget bill, does not include some of the provinces largest lakes.
Ecojustice recently released the legal backgrounder Bill C-45 and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Dating back to 1882, the NWP is one of Canada’s oldest pieces of legislation. Originally the NWPA prohibited any ‘work’ constructed or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water without Minister’s approval and if the project would substantially interfere with navigable waters, it automatically triggered an environmental assessment under the Canada Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).
The NWPA was weakened in the 2009 budget when the federal government created a tiered classification system that allowed certain projects to be exempted from federal scrutiny. According to Ecojustice, some strengths stemming from the 2009 budget included the increase of some enforcement powers, the ability of the Minister of Transportation to implement injunctions and an
increase in fines.
Bill C-38, the spring omnibudget bill, scrapped the old CEAA and replaced it with one where approvals required under the NWPA will not trigger environmental assessments.
Key changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act
Ecojustice’s legal backgrounder highlights the intimate link between navigation and environmental protection. According to the backgrounder, Bill C-45 legislates several significant changes to the NWPA:
- Companies will not have to notify the federal government that they are building a ‘work’ that interferes with navigation and will not need to get the Minister of Transport’s approval.
- The Minister will no longer have authority under the Navigation Protection Act to remove obstructions or request that they be removed. This could have serious environmental consequence. Sunken vessels and other obstructions may release harmful substances.
- The changes removes all automatic public consultation requirements squelching the public’s democratic right to provide input on projects that could potentially interfere with navigation and consequently the environment.
First Nations Treaty Rights
The changes in Bill C-45 could seriously hamper aboriginal rights. Ecojustice states, “Although the Crown has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate aboriginal peoples where the Crown is contemplating conduct that could adversely impact aboriginal rights, no such duty lies on private entities.” The federal government is not only washing their hands of protecting lakes and rivers, they are also washing their hands of their constitutional duty to consult with First Nations. The Athabasca Chipewyan
First Nation decried the changes to the NWPA and the violation of First Nations treaty rights: “’I am seriously concerned. We have seen the erosion of our people’s Treaty rights throughout various forms of legislation over the past decade. The new proposed amendments in Bill C-45 are proof to us that the government hold little stock in our rights and title and are creating more loop holes for industry to continue annihilating our lands,’ stated Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. ‘We hope
there will be a public outcry that echoes our sentiment. After all, we all share the responsibility to protect mother earth.’”
Tearing down critical regulations for future pipeline projects
Through legislative changes, particularly the two omnibudget bills, the Harper government has greased the wheels for industry to ram through projects that could have serious implications on water quality, ecosystems, climate change and public health. The Ecojustice legal backgrounder highlights that significant rivers in British Columbia, such as Kitimat and Upper Fraser rivers which lie along Northern Gateway pipeline, are not included in the Schedule of ‘protected waters.’
The NPA definition of works astonishingly does not include pipelines and power lines. The protection of navigable waters therefore falls to the National Energy Board (NEB). While the NEB is required to look into impacts on navigable waters based on the National Energy Board Act and Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act, Ecojustice warns that the process under these acts “are not environmental assessments, and the degree to which the NEB is competent to assess the navigation impacts of pipelines is open to serious debate.”
Will oil and gas companies opt-in?
Section 318 (4) of the NPA will outline an opt-in clause. For waters not listed in the schedule, private companies can request that the NPA apply to their project. According to Ecojustice, “The NPA would allow the owner of a work to opt into the regulatory process, if the Minister deems it justified in the circumstances.” Key to this section is that this opt-in process is voluntary and there is no legal requirement for the Minister or the proponent to request this. Ecojustice adds that: “This provision inappropriately places the decision of applying the regulatory regime in the hands of the proponent.”
Harper government offloads responsibility to individuals and organizations
The federal government is evading their responsibility to protect navigable waters and dumping it onto individuals, groups and businesses to bring a court case forward. The Ecojustice backgrounder highlights that the onus of protecting navigable waters now falls on common law and onto “private citizens, public interest groups and businesses (ie. outdoor adventure companies) with a vested interest in preserving navigable waters as a public and economic resource.” Individuals, groups or businesses may not have the resources to bring forward a court case nor is it even their responsibility to regulate pipeline construction, building of dams or other private companies’ projects.
Dumping prohibition retained
The prohibition on dumping is kept intact and applies to all waters, not just those in Schedule 2 of the budget bill. The changes in Bill C-45 close a loophole and prohibit the dewatering of any navigable waters. However, this is little consolation given that protections have been stripped from 99% of the lakes and rivers in Canada and First Nations territory.
Lakes, rivers and other waters are a commons meaning that communities not only have rights to use them sustainably but they also have a responsibility to protect them. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, governments have the legal obligation to protect commons prioritizing community interests over private interests. The changes to the NWPA highlight a larger problem – that the Harper government is shirking responsibility in several critical areas including respect for First Nations Treaty rights, developing a long term
energy strategy and water protection. The fights against the pipelines in B.C. have been inspirational, with First Nations playing a leading role. As governments continue to fail in their obligation to protect the environment, First Nations, progressive groups and social movements may be the only hope in safeguarding lakes, rivers and other waters.
Tags: Omnibudget
[ http://canadians.org/tags/omnibudget ]
Emma Lui
Water Campaigner for the council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/tags/omnibudget ]
= = = = = =
RMs 'ecstatic' with water law changes opposed by Idle No More
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.1388588 ]
By Kathy Fitzpatrick, CBC News Posted: Jan 07, 2013 7:29 AM CT Last Updated: Jan 07, 2013 7:27 AM CT
The Idle No More movement and Saskatchewan’s rural municipalities are on opposite sides of the fence regarding protection for navigable water.
Members of Idle No More have been in the headlines recently with flash mobs and road blockades across Canada in protest of a budget bill that they say affects First Nations rights.
Idle No More concerned about water
Among their concerns is the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act, which protesters say takes away their right to consultation on construction projects that could affect water bodies.
The chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Perry Bellegarde says indigenous rights over land bordering water were never given up in the treaties.
"And so we need to be involved with the whole issue of water, and the monitoring, and the control, and the review, and the regulation and everything else," he said.
SARM declared victory
But members of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) are claiming a victory with the change to navigable water legislation.
'We’re ecstatic about that.' — SARM president David Marit reacts to new navigable waters legislation
"We’re ecstatic about that," president David Marit told delegates to SARM’s mid-term convention back in November.
"It’s a long fight that we’ve had to deal with and we finally got what we wanted."
Under the omnibus Bill C-45, the law has been renamed the Navigation Protection Act.
Small streams are no longer under federal scrutiny. In fact, in Saskatchewan, only three bodies of water remain under Transport Canada’s oversight: the South Saskatchewan River, the North Saskatchewan River and Lake Athabasca.
Less bureaucracy the result, RMs say
Marit said the change is the result of a 10-year battle waged by Saskatchewan RMs.
"We were the leading advocate across Canada on this issue and we got it," he said.
He said it means streams that only run during the spring season no longer come under the Act. And there’s "one less bureaucracy that we have to go through for approvals on either bridge or culvert replacements."
Under the old Act, RMs had to submit a project description and plans to Transport Canada, and wait for approval. Some smaller projects and water bodies were exempted under an earlier round of amendments in 2009.
Marit says "what was left in and what was left out, nobody really knew so you had to get it clarified", adding bureaucratic delay.
MORE:
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.1388588 ]