Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
The decision by Quebec’s environment minister to close a solid waste landfill in Cantley in September 2006 was politically motivated and without valid legal grounds, the dump’s lawyer told a tribunal yesterday.
The landfill owners are contesting the decision to revoke their certificate of authorization in front of the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. Closing arguments began yesterday, after five days of hearings in early June.
Jean Pietre, representing the dump—which remains open on appeal—argued that Claude Bechard’s decision was excessive and that the decision-making process that led to it was fraught with irregularities.
Cantley’s solid-waste landfill, owned by Denzel Thom and Gilles Proulx, was the scene of a fire that burned for months in early 2005. In July 2005, an official order from the environment minister compelled the dump to install a membrane and a network of pipes to channel, treat and monitor noxious gases. The operators also had to dig wells to sample and test water under the dump.
That was all completed by January 2006, said Mr. Pietre. Until Aug. 3, the Ministry of the Environment repeatedly said the landfill was not breaching any laws.
“In July, the ministry was preparing a press conference for August, praising the landfill’s efficiency in capturing and treating gases, as well as the quality of the water in a nearby stream,” said Mr. Pietre.
But earlier that year, the department’s regional director met with political staff of Benoit Pelletier, the minister responsible for the Outaouais. The topic was an analysis of the impacts of shutting down the landfill. According to evidence presented at the tribunal, the regional official said during the meeting that a “revocation of the certificate of authorization must be founded on solid ground.”
Mr. Pietre said the bureaucrats were informed that, regardless of their investigation, a decision had already been made in Quebec City to shut the dump.
In an e-mail on Aug. 18 last year—about a month before the decision to close the dump was announced—a ministry official in Quebec City sent specific instructions to the regional director and his lead investigator.
“The inspections must be detailed and establish the elements that show the landfill is not conforming to its certificate,” wrote the official, urging his Outaouais colleagues to “be discreet.”
“The decision was made even before the results were in,” said Mr. Pietre. The motive was political, he said, for 33 of 67 complaints against the dump were sent to politicians. “The dice were loaded.”
The lawyer also said in his closing arguments that the minister could have chosen from other tools to fix the environmental issues that concerned him. But revoking a certificate of authorization is, for a business like a dump, akin to the death penalty, he added.
But Marie-Andree Thomas, representing the government, said the minister had to shut the dump because other avenues had been exhausted.
She said the compliance Mr. Pietre spoke about, in which the company took some measures to fix problems at the site by January 2006, didn’t happen without a fight.
“It took an injunction, a court order, over a ministerial order to have that order complied with,” she said. The dump operators were not left on their own, as there were numerous meetings and exchanges with departmental officials, she said.
“They were coddled by people from the ministry, people helping them meet their obligations under the certificate of authorization.”
Ms. Thomas argued the minister used the most appropriate tool, the revocation order.
“The dice were not loaded,” she told the tribunal. “Someone had to take the decision—that person is the minister.”
By the time the decision came, on Sept. 20, seven of the eight issues had been addressed by the operators. But Ms. Thomas argued the eighth, wells that were not adequate, was reasonable grounds to revoke the dump’s official permit.
The closing arguments resume today with representations from two interveners. The town of Cantley and Bob McLelland, president of a citizen’s committee, will address the two-member tribunal.
A ruling is not expected until the fall.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007….straight to the source