Decision Date: May 28, 1998

Panel: Toby Vigod, Elizabeth Keay, Carol Quin

Keywords: Pesticide Control Act-s. 6; Pesticide Control Act Regulation – ss. 16, 17, 18(1), 45; Tordon 22K; Krovar I; Karmex; Arsenal; Telar; Roundup; Dycleer 24; Weed Control Act; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; precautionary principle; Pest Control Products Ac-s. 27; Pest Control Products Regulation-s.18(d)(ii); aboriginal rights

The Shuswap Thompson Organic Producers Association (“STOPA”) appealed two decisions of the Deputy Administrator of Pesticide Management: (1) to issue a Pesticide Use Permit to C.N. Railway for treating its rail ballast and right-of-way, and (2) to issue a permit to B.C. Rail for the same purposes. The two appeals were heard together.

STOPA appealed on the grounds that the notification of the permits was inadequate and the Ministry did not fulfill its fiduciary duty to consult with First Nations. In addition, STOPA argued that there was no notice given of who the pesticide application contractors were or what certification the applicators were required to have. STOPA was also concerned about the environmental, health and economic impacts of the pesticides that were to be used and that alternatives to the use of the proposed pesticides and herbicides had not been adequately considered. In addition, STOPA argued that federal registration of a pesticide does not imply safety because its process and data are inadequate.

The Board was satisfied that the notification requirements of the Pesticide Control Act Regulation (sections 16 and 18(1)) were met. In addition, the Board found that STOPA’s argument that there had been inadequate consultation with the First Nations was not supported by the evidence before the Board. The Board found that section 17(1) of the Pesticide Control Act Regulation does not require a permit to specify the applicator’s name or certificate number where that information is not available at the time the permit is issued. As for the environmental and health impacts of the pesticides, the Board considered (1) whether the uses were consistent with the label and (2) the site specific evidence, to determine whether there would be adverse environmental or health effects. After performing this analysis on the pesticides and herbicides at issue, the Board ordered various amendments to the respective permits. As for alternatives to pesticides, the Board believed that alternatives should be pursued and explored by the parties. The Board also noted that the “inerts” are exempted from release to the public pursuant to the federal Access to Information Act.