Society Promoting Environmental Conservation

2150 Maple Street ph: 604-736-7732 outreach@spec.bc.ca

Vancouver, BC V6J 3T3 fx: 604-736-7115 www.spec.bc.ca

Since 1969, Environmental Advocacy, Education and Conservation

Appeal of Canadian National Railway Pesticide Use Permit No. 107-123-02/03

BETWEEN:

SOCIETY PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL APPELLANT

CONSERVATION (SPEC)

AND:
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT RESPONDENT

AND:
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY PERMIT HOLDER

STATEMENT OF POINTS
OF
SPEC
 2

ISSUES

The Appellant (SPEC) submits that Pesticide Use Permit No. 107-123-02/03 (the
“Permit”) should be revoked or substantially amended for the following reasons:

A. The Deputy Administrator made a clear error of fact if he determined that the
permit he authorised would have no adverse effects.

B. The Deputy Administrator lacked sufficient information to determine that the

authorisation of the permit would not have any unreasonable adverse effects.

C. The Deputy Administrator erred in determining that no unreasonable adverse

effects would result from authorising the permit.

D. Such other grounds as SPEC may advise.

 3

FACTS
The Deputy Administrator of the Pesticide Control Act [R.SB.C. 1996 c. 360] (“the Act”)
authorised Pesticide Use Permit No. 107-123-02/02. The permit allows Canadian
National Railway (CNR) to spray the herbicides Krovar, Karmex, Arsenal, Dycleer, Telar
and Roundup in its yards and along its right of ways in the Lower Mainland for the
purpose of controlling vegetation that if left unchecked can present a safety hazard.

INTRODUCTION

1. SPEC is one of the oldest environmental organisations in British Columbia,

established in 1969. SPEC initiatives promote environmental well-being in British
Columbia with a focus on issues in the Lower Mainland and Georgia Basin. SPEC
has a long history of interest in issues surrounding pesticide use and has dealt with
Canadian Pacific Railway on herbicide spraying in the Arbutus Corridor. SPEC
chose to appeal CNR’s permit because of significant environmental and health
concerns.

2. The spray area is in close proximity to residential areas, parks, and much of it runs
along the Fraser River – listed in 2002 as the fourth most endangered river ecosystem
in British Columbia by the Outdoor Recreation Council. Several of the active
ingredients of the permitted chemicals have been banned in other countries, and two
have been withdrawn from use in the European Union. One of the active ingredients
is a known endocrine disruptor. Several of the chemical formulations pose threats to
wildlife in the area. Citizens in the communities affected are concerned about the
potential affects of the use of herbicides on the local environment and on human
health. They are especially concerned about particularly sensitive groups, including
children.
 4

A. THE AUTHORISATION OF THE PERMIT WILL CAUSE ADVERSE

EFFECTS.

3. The herbicides listed in Pesticide Use Permit 107-123-02/03 have adverse effects.
This is clear from the CNR Technical Report prepared by Roger Stenvold on July 12,
2002. The CNR Technical Report contains submissions and recommendations for the
proposed permit as well as a brief description of the attributes of the active ingredient
in each of the pesticides. At pages 3 and 4 of this document Mr. Stenvold describes
the toxicity of each of the pesticides, based on information in the “Handbook for
Pesticide Applicators and Dispensers”, on EXTOXNET, and the pesticide labels.
According to this report, all the pesticides in the permit cause some form of irritation.
Canadian National Railway “Technical Report (Major) for PUP Application 107-123-
02/04” July 12, 2002 (“CNR Report”)

4. For example, glyphosate is “corrosive and can be a skin, eye and membrane irritant.”
Bromacil is “an irritant to skin eyes and respiratory tract.” Diuron has “low
mammalian acute toxicity but can be an eye and throat irritant”, with some evidence
of “chronic reproductive effects found in rats”, and is also noted to be “slightly toxic
to birds, moderately toxic to fish, highly toxic to aquatic invertebrate”. Chlorsulfuron
can cause irritation to skin and eyes. Dicamba “can be a serious eye and nasal
irritant” and imazapyr can irritate skin and eyes. The Deputy Administrator, Jeff
Fournier, signed the CNR Report at page 8.

5. If the Deputy Administrator did find that there would be no adverse effects from
authorizing the permit, his determination is a clear error of fact. The CNR Report
clearly describes at pages 3 and 4 the variety of adverse effects that the chemicals on
the permit cause to humans and the environment. It is clear from this report, which
Mr. Fournier read, that the authorization of this permit would cause an adverse effect.
Once the Deputy Administrator found that there was any adverse effect at all, he had
to undertake a risk-benefit analysis to ascertain whether that adverse effect was
reasonable or unreasonable.
 5

Islands Protection Society v. British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board (1988), 3 C.E.L.R.
(N.S.) 185 (B.C.S.C.)

6. Further, adverse effect means “some risk”. Thus, at this stage the Deputy
Administrator could not have declined to conduct a risk-benefit analysis on the basis,
for example, that the risk posed was negligible.
Canadian Earthcare Society v. Environmental Appeal Board (1988), 3 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 55
(B.C.C.A.) (“Canadian Earthcare Society”)

B. THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR LACKED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION

TO DETERMINE THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PERMIT
WOULD NOT HAVE ANY UNREASONABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS.

7. The fact that a chemical is federally registered is not a sufficient basis for concluding
that authorizing the spraying of that chemical will have no unreasonable adverse
effects. In 1988, the Court of Appeal confirmed the jurisdiction of the Environmental
Appeal Board to consider federally registered pesticides generally safe because it was
common sense that the extensive testing the chemicals underwent before being
registered would have some probative value. In the years between 1988 and 2002 the
accuracy and integrity of the federal registration system have been seriously
undermined and science has improved.
Canadian Earthcare Society, supra

8. The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has

expressed concern that “most regulations and policies are designed to protect adults
and refer to the healthy 70-kilogram male, not the 7-kilogram child” and has
identified certain categories of the population as being especially vulnerable to the
effects of pesticides. These categories include infants, children, women, pregnant
women, seniors and people in poor health. [Report to the House of Commons (2000),
Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for Protection of Health and the Environment at
Section 6.1 quoting from the Canadian Institute of Child Health, Brief to the
Committee and at section 7.1]. The legislation currently governing the registration of
 6

pesticides in Canada does not acknowledge or address the sensitivities of vulnerable

subgroups.
Pest Control Products Act R.S.C. 1985, c. P-9.

9. Moreover, according to the 1999 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development, out of the 500 active ingredients in registered pesticides,
over 300 were approved before 1981 and over 150 before 1960. Scientific
methodology has improved significantly since many of the chemicals on the federal
registry were approved.
Cited in the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development (2000), Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for Protection of Health and the
Environment, at section 10.2 (“Standing Committee Report”)

10. The Standing Committee expressed concern about the toxicity of formulants and
surfactants in federally registered chemicals. The Committee observed that many of
these non-active substances may be toxic, yet they are not disclosed on the product
label. [Standing Committee Report, at section 8.44]. By way of example, POEA (the
“inert” in Roundup) is known to be far more toxic than glyphosate alone.

11. The names and toxicity of the non-active substances in federally registered products
are considered trade secrets and confidential business information under the s. 20 of
the Access to Information Act (R.S. 19885, c. A-1). Therefore, not only do the
formulants' names not appear on the labels, in addition their names and any evidence
of their toxicity are inaccessible to the public under the Access to Information Act.
SPEC attempted to get information on the inert ingredients (formulants) in the
products approved under the permit but was unsuccessful.
Letter from Health Canada to SPEC, dated February 13, 2003

12. All these concerns are reflected in recently passed (but not yet in force) federal
legislation dealing with the registration of pesticides. When reviewing an application
for registration of a pest control product, conducting a special review of the pest
control product, or determining the maximum residue limits of a pest control product,
the Minister of Health will take into the different sensitivities of subgroups including
 7

pregnant women, infants, children, women and seniors. The decision of parliament to
include vulnerable groups for special consideration indicates a gap in the current
legislation with respect to their safety. [Sections 7(b)(ii), 11(2) and 19(2)(ii) of the
Pest Control Products Act R.S.C. 2002, c. 28 (not yet in force) (“new PCPA”)].

13. The new PCPA will also provide for a review of federally registered chemicals every
fifteen years as well as mandatory reviews. Pursuant to ss. 43 and 44 of the new
PCPA, the Minister of Health will make available to the public information that the
Minister considers of health or environmental concern, which might otherwise be
protected as confidential information. The Minister will also be able to make any
information available to certain people, such as medical professionals, for the
purposes of protecting human health and the environment.

14. The Deputy Administrator could not make a proper assessment of the toxicity of the
chemicals he authorised to be sprayed as the toxicological information he reviewed
did not contain any information about toxicity of the formulants in the chemical.

15. A common sense attitude prompted the acceptance of federal registration as

indicative of the general safety of chemicals and product labels as benchmarks for
proper use of those chemicals in 1988. In 2002, the same common sense attitude
dictates that Deputy Administrator regard federally registered chemicals with
considerably caution, particularly when there is a strong likelihood that permit
authorization will expose vulnerable groups to chemicals.
Canadian Earthcare Society, supra

16. The Deputy Administrator lacked sufficient information to make a proper

determination as to the reasonableness of issuing a permit. There was no information
in the application dealing with the possible impact of the chemicals on vulnerable
groups such as infants, children, women and seniors, or on biologically sensitive
areas adjacent to the spray area. Recent government reports and scientific research
clearly demonstrate the inadequacies of the federal registry and the need for the
 8

Deputy Administrator to make enquiries about a permit application that extent

beyond the potential effects of a product set out on its label.

C. THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT NO

UNREASONABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS WOULD RESULT FROM
AUTHORISING THE PERMIT.

17. The second stage in the two-stage enquiry into whether the adverse effects of
authorising a permit are unreasonable is the risk-benefit analysis. In conducting the
risk-benefit analysis, the Deputy Administrator erred in determining that the adverse
effects of granting the permit were not unreasonable.
Canadian Earthcare Society, supra

The Risk-Benefit Analysis Necessitates a Thorough Consideration of the Chemical

in Question, and Not Merely a Determination of whether the Permit Applicant Will
Comply with the Conditions of Use on a Product’s Label

18. The test for unreasonable adverse effect is site-specific and application specific. This
test should not be interpreted to mean that unless the applicant is unable to comply
with the conditions of use set out on the chemical’s label, the application of the
chemical will not cause any unreasonable adverse effects.
Josette Wier v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (Environmental Appeal
Board, Appeal No. 2001PES-003(a), September 21, 2001) (unreported) (“Wier”)

19. As the Panel in Wier observed, the “Act and PCPA have different but complimentary
objectives and means.” In response to the Standing Committee Report, the
government of Canada, discussed the different roles of federal and provincial
pesticide legislation.
The federal role in pest management regulation is primarily to ensure that pest control
products do not pose unacceptable risks contribute to effective pest management and to
establish mandatory conditions of use. The PCPA regulates the import, manufacture,
sale and use of pesticides at the national level. Provincial/territorial legislation
compliments the PCPA to ensure safe transportation, sale, storage, use and disposal of
pest control products.
 9

Government of Canada (undated) Government Response to the Report of the House of

Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for Protection of Health and the Environment at p.
19, section 4.3.

20. A chemical will be refused registration under the PMPA regulations if its use in
Canada would pose an unacceptable risk. [Section 18(d) (ii) of the Pest Control
Products Regulations C.R.C., c. 1253]. This provision stands in contrast with the
corresponding provision in the provincial Act, which allows the Deputy Administrator
to issue a permit, only if he is satisfied that issuing the permit will not cause any
unreasonable adverse effects. [Section 6(3)(a)(ii)]. The provincial standard of no
“unreasonable adverse effects”, which involves a weighing of risks and benefits, is
clearly a much higher one than the federal requirement that a pesticide not be
“unacceptable”. The difference in the language used reinforces the proposition that
federal registration is of little probative value for the purposes of determining whether
the authorisation of a permit will cause unreasonable adverse effects. An analysis of
whether a permit authorisation will cause unreasonable adverse effects must go
beyond merely ascertaining that the permit applicant will be able to comply with the
conditions of use on the chemical’s label.

There Are Lower Risk and Risk-Free Alternatives to Chemicals that Can Achieve
CNR’s Safety Obligations and Objectives

21. Evidence of alternative measures is relevant to the issue of reasonableness. If the

same benefits can be achieved by an alternative risk free method then the use of the
risk method is unreasonable.
Canadian Earthcare Society, supra

22. Economically viable alternatives to herbicide usage exist, which are not referred to in
the application or the permit, for example the use of steam, hand removal, and
constructional barrier methods. There is no mention in the application of an
Integrated Pest Management Plan. The method of application (boom sprayer) does
not minimize the amount of herbicide reaching the environment. There is no mention
 10

in the application or permit of the use of technology that can reduce the amount of
product used when applying it

The Precautionary Approach Requires the Use of Cost Effective Alternatives in this
Situation

23. In Shuswap Thompson Organic Producers Assn. v. British Columbia (Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks the Board found that the precautionary approach is
taken into account in the Act, adopting the definition of the precautionary approach
espoused in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). This
definition provides that:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied
by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Shuswap Thompson Organic Producers Assn. v. British Columbia (Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks, British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal
Nos. 97-PES-04/05 & 06, May 28, 1998 (unreported)]

24. Given that adverse effect is described in section 1 of the Act as “an effect that results
in damage to humans or the environment”, the definition of the precautionary
approach adopted by the Environmental Appeal Board as being the definition
appropriate within the scope of the Act should also encompass damage to humans.
Such a definition of the precautionary approach has been included in the new PCPA
at s. 20(2):
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent adverse
health impact or environmental degradation.

25. Much of the track runs directly adjacent to the Fraser River, an endangered ecosystem
and an important fish habitat. The Bull Trout, a blue-listed species, inhabits the
Fraser River, and is known to be particularly sensitive to toxins. Three species of rare
birds inhabit the Lower Mainland (the Great Blue Heron, the Sandhill Crane and the
American Bittern); all are known to be sensitive to pesticides. Two species of
threatened mammals inhabit the Lower Mainland (the Pacific Water Shrew and the
 11

Long-Tailed Weasel), in habitat types that the track runs through. Research
demonstrates that glyphosate and dicamba have adverse affects on rodents, raising
serious questions about the potential impact of these chemicals on the Pacific Water
Shrew and the Long-Tailed Weasel as well as threatened birds and aquatic life. There
is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to rare and threatened animals. The
precautionary approach, as part of the Board’s analysis of the reasonableness of the
adverse effects, militates in favour of the permit being revoked, or amended to protect
ecologically sensitive areas near the rail tracks.

26. As well as posing a danger to listed species living in or near the Fraser River and
CNR railway tracks, the use of chemicals under the permit will likely have a
significant and unreasonable impact on other wildlife. Amphibian populations are
declining around the world. Eight species of frogs inhabit the lower mainland,
several of which live in habitat types through which CNR’s tracks run. Research has
shown that pesticides can cause developmental deformities in amphibians and may be
a significant factor in their decline, this research includes specific links to pesticides
used by CNR.

27. Bromacil has the potential to contaminate groundwater, can be a hazard to

endangered species, is listed in California as a chemical known to cause reproductive
toxicity, is banned in Sweden (as a suspected carcinogen), Germany, Slovenia, and as
of July 2003 will be withdrawn from use in the European Union. Under s. 17(2) of
the new PCPA, there will be a mandatory special review of any chemical an OECD
country bans for health or environmental reasons. The gap in the current PCPA with
respect to reviews of chemicals withdrawn in other OECD countries underscores the
fact that it is unreasonable to consider bromacil safe and the need to take a
precautionary approach. The proximity of the spraying to humans, threatened species
and an ecologically sensitive area means that the use of bromacil cannot be
considered reasonable in this case.
 12

28. Chlorsulfuron is listed in California as a chemical known to cause reproductive

toxicity and as a known groundwater contaminate, and is banned in Norway.
Dicamba can leach in to ground water and is toxic to many non-target plants. Diuron
is a known endocrine disruptor, is listed in California as a chemical known to cause
cancer, is banned in Sweden and Angola, has been linked to numerous adverse affects
on wildlife and has been shown to have detrimental affects on soil microbial
communities. Glyphosate can be a hazard to endangered species if applied where
they live and has been linked to detrimental affects on amphibians and fish. Imazapyr
is banned in Norway due to risk of groundwater contamination and as of July 2003
will be withdrawn from use in the European Union. Again, the precautionary
approach must prevail, and in the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to permit
the use of this product.

A Permit that Causes No Unreasonable Adverse Effects Will Ensure Ecologically

Sensitive Areas Are Given Special Protection

29. Condition F (at page 2) of the Permit provides that:

Prior to pesticide use, the permittee shall provide pesticide applicators with maps
(1:10,000 scale or sufficient detail) that accurately describe the location of water wells,
water intakes and other water bodies or wetland areas that could be potentially be
impacted by pesticide use. These maps shall accurately show the areas where pesticide
use is permitted to occur and shall show the location of all foreseeable pesticide free
zones or buffers that may be necessary to protect sensitive features. These maps shall be
made available on an area-specific basis to the Ministry or other interested parties upon
request.

30. Actual (as opposed to “potential”) Pesticide-Free Zones (PFZs) were not detailed on
spray maps provided by CNR. SPEC therefore assumes that there are no actual PFZs.
There are no Non-treatment Zones (NTZs) allocated for sensitive areas. The lack of
such designations places unreasonable pressure on already sensitive areas of the
Fraser River that CNR rails run through. The Fraser River was listed in 2002 as the
fourth most endangered river ecosystem in British Columbia by the Outdoor
Recreation Council. As previously mentioned in these submissions several rare
species of birds and fish are found in and around the Fraser River.
 13

31. The lack of NTZs is also troubling given the proximity of spraying areas to
playgrounds and high-density residential and recreational areas. Clearly, there has
been an unreasonable lack of consideration of the vulnerabilities of special subgroups
such as infants, children, women and seniors.

There has been a fundamental shift in public opinion with respect to the use of
pesticides that must be considered in analysing the risks and benefits of the
chemicals

32. British Columbians’ perspective on the value of pesticide use must surely have a
bearing on the weight given to specific risks and benefits in the risk-benefit analysis.
Letters of concern from the Mayor of New Westminster, Sapperton Fish & Game
Club, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, several residents associations and the
Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, demonstrate that many people in communities
impacted the permit would like to see pesticides used as a last resort and that the use
of chemicals is unreasonable when alternative risk-free methods are available and
lower levels of chemicals could be used as part of an integrated pest management
plan.

33. On July 23, 2002, Port Moody councillors passed a motion to start a three-year
campaign geared at ending the use of cosmetic pesticides. At the end of the three-year
period the municipality intends to impose a total ban on the use of pesticides. This
initiative is part of a growing opposition in Canadian society against the use of
unnecessary pesticides. This broad shift in public opinion is reflected in total bans on
the use of pesticides in the Quebec municipalities of Hudson and Chelsea.
Standing Committee Report, at section 12.2.

34. The new PMPA at the federal level, as well as the proposed changes to the provincial
legislation also point to a heightened public awareness of the risks of pesticides. The
Ministry for Water, Land and Air Protection expressed concern in the "Proposed
Pesticide Control Act and Regulation Amendments: Discussion Document" over the
failure to amend the Regulation to set out the requirements for integrated pest
management plans. Under an integrated pest management plan, pesticides are only
 14

used as a last resort. The proposed changes to the Act reflect a desire for the
increased vigilance on the part of public officials in ensuring that only necessary
releases of the least harmful pesticides are permitted. This desire should be reflected
in the determination under the current Act as to whether the authorisation of a permit
would cause unreasonable adverse effects.
British Columbia Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, "Proposed Pesticide Control Act and
Regulation Amendments: Discussion Document"
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/pestact/pca_discussion.pdf

REMEDY SOUGHT

35. That the permit be amended to require CNR to adopt an Integrated Pesticide
Management (IPM) strategy which includes:
• the recognition that pesticides should be utilized only as a last resort
• research into alternative methods of vegetation management
• meaningful public consultation;

36. That the PFZ allocated in the permit for Roundup be amended from the current 5m to
at least 10m as required for other pesticides in this PUP and as dictated by past EAB
decisions and federal guidelines;

37. That the permit be amended to remove Krovar completely from the list of pesticides
permitted for use;

38. That No Treatment Zones be put in place to protect sensitive areas specifically:
• from the Queensborough Bridge to the Pattullo Bridge in New
Westminster, where the high density of residential development and the
presence of playgrounds and walkways in close proximity to the railroad
dictates the need to halt pesticide usage in this area
• East of the Pattullo Bridge in Surrey, where the track runs adjacent to the
Fraser River in an area considered moderate to highly productive shoreline
habitat
 15

• from Bridgeport Rd. to Westminster Highway in Richmond where the

presence of a nature area and walking trail in close proximity to the
railroad dictates the need to halt pesticide usage in this area
• where the track runs along Dyke Rd. in Richmond, given the close
proximity to the Fraser River and a park/public trail
• where the track runs past the Fraser Foreshore Park and Bog Forest in
Burnaby (to ensure the protection of wildlife in those areas)
• where the track runs adjacent to the Burrard Inlet, on both the North and
South Shores, this area has both a dense residential population and on the
North Shore very steep slopes and a high density of streams, increase the
possibility for contamination of the aquatic environment

39. That the permit be amended to require CNR to utilise application technologies that
reduce the amount of herbicide product entering the environment;

40. That the permit be amended to require observers from the Ministry of Water Land
and Air Protection be present during spraying of herbicides to ensure that the permit
is complied with.
 16

The Appellant Society Promoting Environmental Conservation Relies on the Following

Materials:

Material in Possession of the Parties:

1. Pesticide Use Permit

2. Pesticide Use Application
3. Maps of treatment area

Material Provided in the Book of Materials:

See attached “Book of Materials Table of Contents”

CD: Site photos from Richmond and New Westminster

Map of site photo locations

Materials Not Provided in the Book of Materials*:

Canadian Earthcare Society v. Environmental Appeal Board (1988), 3 C.E.L.R. (N.S.)

55

City of Port Moody et al v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (Environmental

Appeal Board, Appeal 98-PES-05 (b), January 13, 1999) (unreported)

Ingmar Lee v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (University of Victoria, Third
Party) (Environmental Appeal Board Appeal No. 2002PES-003(b), October 18, 2002)
(unreported)
 17

Ingmar Lee v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (University of Victoria, Third
Party) (Environmental Appeal Board, Appeal No. 2002PES-003(a), May 17, 2002)
(unreported)

Islands Protection Society v. British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board (1988), 3

C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 185 (B.C. Supreme Court)

Josette Wier v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (Environmental Appeal

Board, Appeal No. 2001PES-003(a), September 21, 2001) (unreported)

Kwicksutaineuk /Ah-kwa-mish Tribes v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act

(International Forest Products Limited, Third Party) (Environmental Appeal Board
Appeal No. 2001PES-009(b), May 8, 2002) (unreported)

Office of the Wet'suwet'en v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (Canadian

Forest Products Ltd., Permit Holder) (Environmental Appeal Board Appeal No.
2002PES-005(a), August 22, 2002) (unreported)

Rianne Matz & Lindy LeBlanc v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act
(Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, doing business as Northwest Hardwoods Delta, Permit
Holders) (Environmental Appeal Board Appeal No. 2001PES-005/06/07/11 and
2001PES-010, May 29, 2002) (unreported)

Sunshine Coast Regional District v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act (British
Columbia Power and Hydro Authority, Permit Holders) (Environmental Appeal Board
Appeal No. 2001PES-012, June 11, 2002) (unreported)
 18

Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of the

House of Commons) (2000) "Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of
Health and the Environment" Available online at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/04-toc-e.html

Pesticide Control Act Regulation B.C. Reg. 319/81, as amended

Pest Control Products Act S.C. 2002, c. 28

Pest Control Products Act R.S.C. 1985, c. P-9

Pest Control Products Regulations C.R.C., c. 1253

Pesticide Control Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 360

* It has been assumed that the Board and the respondent have access to these documents.
If copies are required please notify SPEC and they will be made available.
 19

The Book of Materials will be forwarded shortly.

SPEC will provide any new evidence to the parties and the Environmental Appeal Board
as it becomes available. SPEC will provide more detailed written submissions to the
parties and the Environmental Appeal Board on the day of the hearing.

Dated at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 5th day of March, 2003.

__________________
Kyla Tienhaara
SPEC Researcher

_________________
Louise Kenworthy
Law Student