No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2009
European Community and Canadian federal environmental laws as they affect the energy sector -oil and gas, and non-nuclear electricity generation- are reviewed and comparatively analyzed. The study concludes that it is appropriate to consider the development of both the Canadian and European environmental law in terms of a federal model and that there are legal federalism lessons to be learned from both sides. While from an energy sector perspective EC and Canadian environmental policy and law have developed in a broadly similar manner, the study shows important differences in timing and pace of implementation. Canadian energy industries were required to respond earlier to strengthening and harmonizing of air quality standards, and to the scientific and public review demands of environmental assessment than their European counterparts. EC air pollution measures targeted the energy sector more directly and explicitly than is the case in Canada. The EC has also been more successful in coordinating and integrating environmental and energy policy, and is closer to implementing economic pollution control instruments such as tradeable permits and taxes. Canada has placed greater emphasis on civil and criminal liability, including personal liability ofcorporate officers and directors, and the energy sector hasresponded with environmental audits and improvements in compliance and corporate environmental planning. The Canadian energy sector has, to a greater extent than the European imdustry, been required to deal with increasingly extensive rights of the public to participate in environmental decisions.
1. See, Miller, S., Why, When and Issues of Confidentiality Surrounding Environmental Audits, in Materials for the Short Course on Environmental Law, Vol. 2, al 852 (1990).Google Scholar
2. Id.; Canadian Petroleum Association, Environmental Code of Practice (1988).
3. International Energy Agency, Energy and The Environment-Policy Overview, OECD/IEA, 9 (1989); hereinafter: ‘I.E.A. Rept.’.
4. US Council on Environmental Quality Twentieth Annual Report 217–219 (1989); hereinafter ‘U.S./ E.P.A.’; Fourth environmental action programme of the EEC (1987–1992), COM (86) 485 Final, Oct. 9, 1986, at 66; adopted by Council Resolution, Oct. 19, 1987, O.J. Eur. Comm.C328/l (1987)-hereinafter ‘Fourth E.A.P.’.
5. See, e.g.. Fourth E.A.P., supra note 4, at 15 referring to emissions from fossil fuel power stations, and Council Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 336/1) 1988.
6. The Fourth E.A.P. supra note 4, at 33, 34 refers to the synergistic effects of air contaminants.
7. Fourth E.A.P., supra note 4, at 26, ‘Multi-Media Pollution Controls’.
8. Fourth E.A.P., supra note 4, at 47–56, ‘Management of Environmental Resources’.
9. The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, ch. 12 (1987) - ‘The Brundtland Report’; U.S./E.P.A., supra note 4, at 259; Fourth E.A.P., supra note 4, at 59–64.
10. Well spacing regulations in Texas date from 1919, while in Alberta, spacing requirements and gas flaring prohibitions were implemented in the 1930s before the industry became fully developed beginning in the 1950s. Harrison, R., Regulation of Well Spacing in Oil and Gas Production, 8 Alta. L. Rev. 357 (1970).Google Scholar
11. See, e.g.. Alberta's natural gas removal permit system under the Gas Resources Preservation Act, S.A. 1984, c. G- 3.1, as amended; Canadian Federal National Energy Program, 1980.
12. Through the establishment of state petroleum and electricity corporations, and by direct state participation in energy resource development; see, Hunt, C. (ed.), Acquisition of Natural Resources Interests by the State, Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, Supplement (December, 1987). Energy security remains a preoccupation. See, I.E.A. Rept., supra note 3, at 55.Google Scholar
13. See, supra note 10.
14. See, e.g., Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. 0–5, purposes s. 4, and Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, Alta. Reg. 151/71, s. 2.120.
15. Tall stack requirements are now generally regarded as obsolete, because of their contribution to long range transport of air pollutants: OECD, Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation 73 (1985).
16. Commission of the EC, Communication to the Council concerning Energy and the Environment, Brussels, Nov. 29, 1989.
17. 1.E.A. Rept., supra note 3, at 25–26.
18. Id.; OECD, Environmental Effects of Electricity Generation, supra note 15, ch. 3.
19. 1.E.A. Rept., at 29; OECD, Environmental Effects of Energy Generation, supra note 15, at 116–117.
20. Rehbinder, E., Stewart, R., Environmental Protection Policy, Integration Through Law Series, Vol. 2 (1985);Google ScholarMcGrory, D., Air Pollution Legislation in the U.S. and The Community, 15 E.L.R. 310–315(1990); Environmental Policy in a Federal System; The United States and the European Community, Report No. 1990/3, Netherlands Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Directoraat-Generaal Milieubeheer, 1990.Google Scholar
21. Rehbinder, E., Stewart, R., supra note 20, at 317.Google Scholar
22. Haigh, N., Baldock, D., Environmental Policy and 1992, at 22–24; Institute of European Environmental Policy, Report Prepared for UK Department of the Environment, H.M.S.O., 1989. The authors use the term ‘federal system’ simply to mean a system in which environmental legislation is made at both the national level and the EC level.Google Scholar
23. Fora broader comparison of the Canadian federal system and the European Community, see, Edward, D., Lane, R., European Union and the Canadian Experience, 5 Yearbook of International Law 1 (1985);.Google Scholar
24. See, Rehbinder, E., Stewart, R., supra note 20, at 320–322.Google Scholar
25. Lucas, A.R., Harmonization ofFederal and Provincial Environmental Policies, in Saunders, J.O. (ed.), Managing Natural Resources in a Federal State 34–35 (1986).Google Scholar
25a. The Meech Lake Accord was a proposed constitutional amendment, designed primarily to remedy the fact that the major 1982 constitutional amendments that ‘patriated’ the Constitution from Great Britain (ended the formal requirement, a remnant of the colonial period, that Canadian constitutional amendments be approved by the UK Parliament), and added to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, had been adopted over the objection of the province of Québec. An interpretation provision was proposed that would recognize Québec as a ‘distinct society’ within Canada. Other changes would provide constitutional authority for federal-Québec arrangements concerning immigration; give provinces the right to opt out of national shared programs and recieve compensation; provide constitutional recognition for the Supreme Court of Canada, including a requirement that at least three judges be from Québec; and increase the list of matters on which a constitutional amendment would require unanimous consent of the federal government and all the provinces. The Accord failed dramatically on June 23, 1990 when two provincial legislators did not endorse it within the time-limit specified by the existing constitutional amending formula. See, Macdonald, R., Meech Lake to the Contrary Notwithstanding (Part I), 29 Osgoode Hall L.J. 253 (1991); P. Hogg, The Meech Lake Accord Annotated (1988).Google Scholar
26. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), S.C. 1988, c.22. See, Lucas, A.R., Jurisdictional Disputes: Is ‘Equivalency’ a Workable Solution ?, in Tingley, D. (ed.), Into the Future: Environmental Law and Policy for the 1990's, at 25 (1990).Google Scholar
27. 155/82, Procureur de la République v. Assn. de Défence des Br/leurs d'Huiles Usagées, ECR 1983, 531.
28. Lucas, A.R., supra note 25, at 39.Google Scholar
29. Regina v. Crown Zellerbach Ltd. 3 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) I, 84 N.R. 1 (1988) (S.C.C.).
30. S.C. 1974–75, 76, c.55, R.S.C. 1985, c.0–2.
31. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention), Dec. 29, 1972 reprinted in 11 I.L.M. 302.
32. Supra note 29, at 36 (CELR).
33. Id., at 34.
34. Id., at 36.
35. Regina v. Crown Zellerbach Ltd., supra note 29.
36. Krämer, L., The Single European Act and Environmental Protection: Reflections on Several New Provisions in Community Law, 24 Common Market L. Rev. 659, 661 (1987).Google Scholar
37. Vandermeersch, D., The Single European Act and the Environmental Policy of the European Community, 12 European L. Rev. 407, 423 (1987).Google Scholar
38. Another example is the determination by the European Council at Stuttgart in 1983, that immediate action on air pollution is required, particularly in view of serious damage to European forests.
39. Krämer, L., supra note 36.Google Scholar
40. Council Regulation for Establishment of a European Environment Agency, May 7, 1990, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 120), Nov. 5, 1990. Art. 19 which opens the Agency to countries which are not members of the European Communities is largely aimed at eastern European states.
41. See, Federal/Provincial LRTAPSteering Committee, Management Plan for Nitrogen Oxides (N08)and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's), First Edition, Final Draft, Oct. 4, 1990. This process parallels efforts at the international level to develop a VOC protocol to the 1979 Geneva Convention on LRTAP, and represents Canadian action to implement the 1989 Sophia Protocol on N08 Emissions.
42. As National Emission Guidelines under the Clean Air Act, repealed and substituted by CEP A, SC, 1988, c. 22.
43. E.g., Agreements between the federal government and the seven easternmost provinces provide for measures to reduce S02 emissions for 50 percent by 1994. The Canada-Ontario element of the 1972 Canada-US Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is another example.
44. Rehbinder, E., Stewart, R., supra note 20, at 327. 45.C.R.C. 1978, c. 828.Google Scholar
46. Established in 1981 to coordinate federal and provincial research and control programmes on long range transport of air pollutants.
47. 0.J. Eur. Comm. (No. C 168/2), July 25, 1975.
48. Directive on Emissions from Large Combustion Plants, Nov. 24, 1988, 88/609/EEC, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L361/1), Dec. 17, 1988.
49. Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment, 85/337 EEC, June 27, 1985, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 175/40), July 7, 1985. Crude oil refineries and thermal power stations are specified in Annex 1 as projects for which assessment is mandatory.
50. End of pipe controls are possible, but unlikely to prove economically feasible: National Economic Research Associates, Market Based Approaches to Managing Air Emissions in Alberta 150 (1991).
51. Commission Communication to the Council on Energy and the Environment, COM (89) 369 final, Feb. 8, 1990.
52. Council Resolution on the Greenhouse Effect, June 9, 1989, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. C 183/03), June 21, 1989.
53. Council Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Natural Gas in Power Stations, 75/404/EEC, February 13, 1975, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 178/24); for abrogation decision, see Europe, No. 5360 (NS) Oct. 29/30, 1990, at 7.
54. Energy and Environmental Councils, Climate Change Policy, Conclusions, Oct. 31, 1990. See, Europe No. 5361 (N.S.) Oct. 31, 1990, at 5. The UK, because of commitments to private investors in the privation of electricity generation, was given until 2005. It was also recognized that this is a global EC commitment, so that some less industrialized member states may actually increase emissions, with offsetting reductions from other states: Europe, No. 5361 (N.S.), Oct. 30/31, 1990 at 5–6.
55. Joint Environment/Energy Council Decision on Stabilization of C02 Emissions, Oct. 30, 1990, Europe, supra note 54, at 6; Commission Communication to Council on the greenhouse effect, COM (90) 469.
56. Guided by the Report of the Working Group of Experts on the Use of Economic and Fiscal Instruments in EC Environmental Policy, XI/185/90 Revised, Sept. 5, 1990.
57. Petroleum Refinery Liquid Effluent Regulations, CRC 1978, c. 811, made under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. I985.C. F-14.
58. Energy and Canadians into the 21st Century - A Report on the Energy Options Process (Minister of Supply and Services, 1988) - hereinafter: ‘The Energy Options Report’.
59. ‘CEPA’, S.C.I 988, c.22.
60. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Bill C-78, 1990, reintroduced as Bill C-13, 1991.
61. Green Paper, A Framework for Discussion on the Environment (Environment Canada, 1990).
62. House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment, No Time to Lose: The Challenge of Global Warming (1990).
63. Government of Canada, Canada's Green Plan (Minister of Supply and Services, 1991).
64. Id.. at 100.
65. Id., at 109.
66. Id., at 103.
67. Emond, P., The Case for a Greater Federal Role in lite Environmental Protection Field: An Examination of the Pollution Problem and the Constitution, 10 Osgoode Hall L.J. 647 (1972); K. Webb; Pollution Control in Canada: The Regulatory Approach of the 1980's (1988).Google Scholar
68. Supra note 57.
69. See, Abecassis, D., Jarashow, R., Oil Pollution From Ships (1985);Google ScholarYoder, C., The Canadian Regulation of Offshore Installations, Pt. III, at 55–68 (1985).Google Scholar
70. First Action Programme on the Environment, Nov. 22, 1973, 0.J. Eur. Comm. (No. C 112), Dec. 20, I973, ch.5, s.2.
71. Though enforceable national emission standards were set for certain classes of stationary sources, such as secondary lead smelters. Federal competence to enact the latter was upheld in Canada Metal v. R. (1983) 2 W.W.R. 307, 12 C.E.L.R. I (1983, Man. Q.B.).
72. See, Franson, M., Franson, R., Lucas, A., Environmental Standards (1982).Google Scholar
73. July 15, 1980, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 229), Aug. 30, 1980.
74. Directive 76/464/EEC, May 4, 1976, No. O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 129/23), May 18, 1976.
75. Supra note 73.
76. Directive on Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, 85/203/EEC, March 7, 1985, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 87), March 3, 1985.
77. Directive on Combatting Air Pollution From Industrial Plants, June 28, 1984, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 188), July 16, 1984.
78. Particularly, the Sixth Amendment of 1979. 79/831/EEC.
79. Directive 85/337/EEC, June 27, 1985, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 175/40), July 5, 1985.
80. Ambient Air Quality Objectives, No. 1, CRC 1978, c.403; No. 2, CRC 1978, c. 404; No. 3, S.O.R./ 78–74.
81. The Environmental Contaminants Act, S.C. 1974–75-76, c. 72, repealed and substantially substituted by CEPA, supra note 59.
82. Established by Cabinet order in 1974 and codified under the Environmental Assessment Review Process Guidelines Order S.O.R./84 - 467. E.I.A. was implemented in Europe at a later stage: Directive on Assessment of the Effects Public and Private Projects on the Environment, 85/337/EEC, June 27, 1985, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 175/40), July 5, 1985.
83. Framework directive, 76/464/EEC, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 129/23), May 18, 1976.
84. Supra note 59, particularly Part II.
85. Supra note 57.
86. S.C. 1970–71-72, c.47, repealed and partially replaced by CEPA, supra note 59; Secondary Lead Smeller National Emission Standards Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 412; Vinyl Chloride, National Emission Standards Regulations, S.O.R./ 79–299.
87. Supra note 59, particularly Part II.
88. Supra note 57.
89. Supra note 80.
90. Id..
91. Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, Sour Gas Processing in Alberta 4 (1990).
92. Thermal Power Generation emissions. National Guidelines for New Stationary Sources, Canada Gazette Pt. I, May 2, 1981.
93. Jaferi, J., Support Document for Thermal Power Plant Guidelines 7 (1984).Google Scholar
94. Alberta Environment, Emission Guidelines for Fossil Fuel Fired Thermal Generating Plants in Alberta, April 1984, issued in accordance with Part I, s. 4 of the Clean air (General) Regulations, Alta. Reg. 216/75.
95. Jaferi, J., supra note 93, at 3.Google Scholar
96. Geneva, Nov. 13, 1979, 18 I.L.M. 1442.
97. Canada's Green Plan, supra note 63, at 120. Negotiations have begun on a transboundary air quality agreement with the United States; id., at 121.
98. Supra note 48.
99. See supra, at 16.
100. Supra, note 82.
101. Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP), Environmental Assessment Panel Reports on the Port Granby Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. Uranium Refinery Proposal, 1978, and the Eldorado Uranium Refinery, Rural Municipality of Corman Park, Saskatchewan, 1980.
102. EARP, Environmental Assessment Panel Reports on Eastern Arctic Offshore Drilling - South Davis Strait Project, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO), 1978; Lancaster Sound Drilling, FEARO. 1979.
103. Canadian Wildlife Federation v. Canada (Minister of Environment) 3 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 288 (1989, F.C.T.D.), affd 4C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 1 (1989, F.C.A.);FriendsoftheOldmanRiverSociety v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) 5 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) (1990, F.C.A.) 1. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada was granted on the constitutional issue of federal jurisdiction to establish EARP only.
104. See, National Energy Board, Environmental Information Requirement for Natural Gas Export Applications, 1990.
105. Supra note 60.
106. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Fact Sheets, Federal Environmental Assessment Reform, June, 1990 at 5.2; Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, List of Federal Statutes and Regulations Which Will Trigger the Environmental Assessment Process, Discussion Draft, June, 1991.
107. Webb, K., supra note 67, at 11–13.Google Scholar
108. E.g., civil liability for damage caused by oil spills in marine waters under the Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-9, s. 677; and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-12, s. 6.
109. COM (89) 282 final, Sept. 15, 1989. O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. C 251/3), Oct. 4, 1989.
110. Id., Art. 2. Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, Brussels, Nov. 29, 1969, 91.L.M. 45; Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Damage, Brussels, Dec. 18, 1971, 11 I.L.M. 284.
111. Directive on Waste, Art. 2(b), 74/442/EEC, July 15, 1975, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 194/39), July 25, 1975.
112. Supra note 109, Art. 1(d).
113. M., Art. 4(6).
114. Id., Art. 4(3), 4(4).
115. See, House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Communities, Paying For Pollution: Civil Liability for Damage Caused by Waste, 25th Report, sess. 1989–90 (1990).
116. Sancy, M., Waste Management: The Draft EEC Directive on Civil Liability for Waste, 2 L.M.E.L. Rept. 5 (1990). Sancy concludes that drafting imprecision makes it unlikely that the directive would radically adjust the legal regime governing waste management, but that it may contribute to the solution of liability problems in environmental cases.Google Scholar
117. CEPA, supra note 59, s. 39.
118. Id., s. 136.
119. E.g., Alberta Hazardous Chemicals Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-3, s.6.
120. See, Law Reform Commission of Canada, Crimes Against the Environment, Working Paper 44 (1985): L. Huestis, E. Keyserlingk, Policing Pollution: The Prosecution of Environmental Offences (1984): J. Swaigen, G. Bunt. Sentencing in Environmental Cases (1985).
121. See, Crimes Against the Environment, supra note 120; Rankin, M., Finkle, P., The Enforcement of Environmental Law: Taking the Environment Seriously. 17 U.B.C. L. Rev. 35 (1983).Google Scholar
122. Webb, K., supra note 67.Google Scholar
123. Supra note 59, ss. 134 (ticketing), 113 (basic regulatory offence), 115 (serious crime), 114(fraud), 130 (judicial orders), 122 (corporate officers and directors liability).
124. In fact, these features were added to the Ontario Environmental Protection Act before the enactment of CEPA: Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, S.O. 1986, c. 68. The proposed Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act incorporates similar provisions see, Review Panel on Environmental Law Enforcement, An Action Plan for Environmental Law Enforcement in Alberta (1988).
125. See, Saxe, D., The Impact of Prosecution of Corporations and Their Officers and Directors Upon Regulatory Compliance by Corporations, 1 J. Env't Law and Practice 91(1990);Google ScholarMiller, S., supra note; M. Peters, Developing and Implementing an Effective Compliance Program, in Environmental Law (1988).Google Scholar
126. Saxe, D., supra note 125.Google Scholar
127. Endorsed in the First Community Action Programme on the Environment, supra note 70, Title II, Para. 5.
128. Council Resolution 77 (28), Sep. 28, 1977.
129. Canada Water Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 11, s. 15(2.c.iv).
130. See. The Energy Options Report, supra note 58.
131. Supra note 61.
132. Clean Air Acl Amendments. Pub. Law 101–549 [s.1630] November 15. 1990. United States experience with emissions trading and charges includes Environmental Protection Agency Programs under the Clean Air Act that permit trading of air contaminant emission reduction credits (created by reducing emissions below relevant standards), using such techniques as netting, offsets bubbles and banking: EPA, Final Trading Policy. 51 Fed. Reg. 43814, 1986. Other programs that incorporate trading are regulation of lead in gasoline, ozone depleting chemicals (51 Fed. Reg. 43814) and acid rain control. The latter, under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments involves allocation of tradeable S02 and NO2, emission ‘allowances’ to electric utilities based on historical emissions, with allowances to be reduced in two stages in 1995 and 2000. The success of these programs has been mixed, with the greatest success achieved by wholly new and integral systems such as those for gasoline and GFC's, rather than add-ons to pre-existing regulatory systems: Hahn., R.Lester, G., Marketable Permits: Lessons for Theory and Practice. 16 Ecology L.Q. 361 (1989); National Economic Research Associates, supra note 50, at 37–62.Google Scholar
133. National Economic Research Associates, supra note 50, at 37–62.
134. Supra note 63, at 157.
135. Supra note 41. The Green Plan, supra note 63. at 55, commits the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces, to pursue emissions trading as part of its implementation of the overall smog control program, with a view to incorporating such programs into federal-provincial agreements for those areas where it is considered a feasible approach.
136. Commission of the European Communities, Report of the Working Group of Experts From the Member States on the Use of Economic and Fiscal Instruments in EC Environmental Policy, Directorate-General XI, Sept. 5, 1990.
137. Europe, No. 5361 (N.S.), Oct. 31, 1990, at 6.
138. Supra note 136.
139. Europe, No. 5361 (N.S.), Oct. 31, 1990, at 5.
140. Europe, No. 5397 (N.S.), Dec. 21, 1990, at 5.
141. Neuman, K., Public Opinion on the Environment, in Tingley, D. (ed.). supra note 26, at 3.Google Scholar
142. Supra note 58.
143. Supra note 61.
144. CEPA, supra note 59, s. 12(4.5).
145. Id., s. 48(2). 146.W..S.91. 147.W., ss. 108–109.
148. Supra note 59.
149. Swanson, E., Reforming Environmental Assessment Law, 5 Env't. L. Cent. Newsletter 1, 4 (1990).Google Scholar
150. UN World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987).
151. Report to the Minister of the Environment, Oct. 23, 1990.152. See, Roman, A., Pikkov, M., Public Interest Litigation in Canada, in Tingley, D. (ed.), supra note 26, at 165.Google Scholar
153. Minister of Finance v. Finlay, 2 S.C.R. 607 (1986).
154. Eg. Energy Probe v. A.-G. Canada, 68 O.R. (2d) 449 (1989, Ont. C.A.) (nuclear facilities); Canadian Wildlife Federation v. Minister of the Environment, supra note 103 (major dam); Energy Probe v. A.-G. Canada, 3 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 262 (1989 Ont. C.A.), (nuclear power station); Friends of the Oldman River Society v.MinisterofTransport and Ministerof Fisheries and Oceans,. wpranote 103 (majordam, including future hydro electricity potential).
155. I.e., Canadian Wildlife Federation, and Friends of the Oldman River Society, supra note 103 (The EARP Cases').
156. Id..
157. Edmonton Friends of the Northand the Dene Nation v. Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Federal Court of Canada Action No. T440-90 (1990); Edmonton Friends of the North and the Dene Nation v. Alberta Director of Standards and Approvals, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Action No. 9003-12161 (1990).
158. Following threatened action by environmental groups the Province of Quebec now plans to challenge the jurisdiction of the federal National Energy Board to require EARP assessment as a condition of electricity export licences issued Sep. 27: BNA, Int. Env't Reporter, Nov. 7, 1990, at 470.
159. See, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources Information Request Form, Feb. 19, 1990.
160. See, Alberta-Pacific Environmental Impact Assessment Review Board, The Proposed Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill: Report of the E.I.A. Review Board (1990).
161. E.g., The Natural Resources Conservation Board Act, Alberta Bill 52 (1990).
162. I.e., the legislatively confirmed land settlement agreement with the Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic. See, Griffiths, G., Environmental Review Under the IFA: The Kiillnk Drilling Programme in Jeopardy, 31 Resources 1 (1990).Google Scholar
163. Roman, A., Pikkov, M., supra note 152.Google Scholar
164. Parkins, R.Google Scholar, Environmental Issues Facing the Energy Industries: The European Industry Perspective, in Energy Law '90, Changing Energy Markets - The Legal Consequences 446 (1990). At the Community level, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a coalition of over a hundred non-governmental organizations from the twelve member states, lobbys the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament on environmental policy issues. See, I. Klatte, in T. Smith, P. Kromarek, Understanding U.S. and European Environmental Law 79 (1989).
165. Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment 85/337/EEC, June 27,1985,0.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 175/40), July 5,1985, Art. 6.
166. June 7, 1990, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 158), July 6, 1990.
167. Established by Council Regulation, May 7, 1990, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 120), May 11, 1990.
168. Sands, P.Google Scholar, EC Environmental Law: Legislation and the European Court of Justice, paper presented to Europe 1992, I.B.A. Regional Seminar, New York, September, 1990, at 15.
169. Supra note 109, Art. 4.
170. Sands, P.Google Scholar, supra note 168, at 20.
171. As in the case of the UK, see Sands, P.Google Scholar, supra note 168, at 32.
172. See, Rehbinder, E., Stewart, R.Google Scholar, supra note 20, at 324, 338. A Committee of Inquiry has been established by the European Parliament to study member slate compliance with EC environmental legislation: B.N.A. Int. Env't Reporter, August, 1990, at 320.
173. See, Curtin, D., The Province of Government: Delimiting the Direct Effect of Directives in the Common Law Context, European L. Rev. 195 (1990).Google ScholarGeddes, A., Environmental Directives and Direct Effect in U.K. National Law, 6 Law Soc. Gazette 27 (Feb. 14, 1990). Geddes suggests at 28 that a member of the public would have locus standi to seek judicial review of the adequacy of public consultation required by the EC directive on environmental assessment.Google Scholar
174. Under Art. 169 of the EEC Treaty.
175. Johnson, S., Corcelle, G., The Environmental Policy of the European Communities 340 (1989).Google Scholar
176. Under Art. 170 EEC.
177. Arts. 173, 175 EEC.
178. Art. 177 EEC.
179. See, 96/81 and 97/81, Commission v. The Netherlands, ECR 1982, 1791, 1819
180. Sands, P., supra note 168, at 24–25.Google Scholar
181. Supra, at 25.
182. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Enforcement and Compliance Policy (1988).
183. Thompson, A., Environmental Regulation in Canada (1980).Google Scholar
184. Lucas, A., supra note 26, at 32.Google Scholar
185. Duncan, L., Trends in Enforcement, in Tingley, D. (ed.), supra note 26, at 50, 53.Google Scholar
186. Id., at 51.
187. Miller, S., supra note 1. In the CEPA Enforcement and Compliance Policy, supra note 179, at 29, Environmental Canada stated that it “recognizes the power and effectiveness of environmental audits as a management tool for companies and governmental agencies, and intends to promote their use by industry and others”.Google Scholar
188. Fourth Action Programme on the Environment, supra note 4, at 33, Para. 4.14. 189.Id., at 15, Para. 2.3.21.
190. Id., at 15, Para. 2.3.20.
191. March 3, 1975, O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. C/68/2), July 25, 1975.
192. Second Ministerial Conference of EFT A and EC on the Environment, Joint Presidents Conclusions, Geneva, Doc. 1435m, Nov. 5, 1990.
193. Environment Canada, Environment and Development: A Canadian Perspective (1987).
194. Supra note 58.
195. Supra note 63.
196. Supra note 59.
197. Supra note 60.
198. Id..