Posted at 5:00 am
Companies that do not comply with environmental laws continue to have their projects reviewed and approved by Quebec. Two years ago, however, Environment Minister Benoit Charette enacted new legislation that enabled him to reject a permit application from a “defaulting” promoter.
In recent years, companies like Rio Tinto, ArcelorMittal and several others have racked up environmental law violations yet managed to win dozens of permits from the Department of Environment, Combating Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP). for different projects.
A situation affecting the Society for Nature and Parks in Quebec (SNAP) and the Quebec Center for Environmental Law (CQDE). These two groups are particularly concerned that the ministry will grant a permit to a company that drained wetlands in the critical habitat of the chorus frog, a threatened species in Quebec and Canada.
The ministry is currently reviewing a regulatory application filed in September 2020 by 9370-2413 Québec Inc. for “wetland intervention and water supply, stormwater management and sewerage upgrades at the Pine Beach Project” in Hudson, Montérégie.
This company is owned by Groupe Shathony and businessman Gaétan Houle, both owners of another company (9413-1547 Québec Inc.) that drained wetlands in Longueuil two years ago.
PHOTO ALAIN ROBERGE, LA PRESS ARCHIVE
Alain Branchaud, Executive Director of CPAWS Quebec
According to Alain Branchaud, general manager of SNAP Québec, the Ministry of the Environment should punish promoters who destroy the natural environment more severely. He believes the Ministry could take inspiration from the law on procurement by public bodies. This stipulates that companies that are guilty of certain criminal offenses are no longer eligible for public contracts for a period of five years.
“To restore confidence in the process of issuing registration certificates, Quebec should explore the possibility of temporarily barring a promoter who has committed a crime that has resulted in the destruction of a natural environment from making a new application,” says Ms Branchaud. This strong gesture would send out a signal that the pause is over and our environmental laws must be respected. »
A fine and a criminal investigation
In November 2020, the company 9413-1547 Québec inc. had several drainage ditches dug to dry up wetlands near Boisé du Tremblay in Longueuil. The sector is officially recognized as a habitat for the chorus frog, an endangered species. A year later, Ottawa also passed an emergency regulation to protect the species in Longueuil.
In 2021, the company received a violation from the department for conducting drainage work in a wetland without a permit and a $10,000 fine for discharging a pollutant into a watercourse.
A criminal investigation was also launched in January 2021. The ministry told La Presse that the investigation “is still ongoing” two years later. “Investigations into a file such as this may require delays of several months to compile the technical and scientific evidence,” specifies the ministry.
For its part, Groupe Shathony declined to comment on the ongoing investigation. “Given that the case is in court, we prefer not to answer your other questions at this time,” his representative Sasha Côté said in an email to La Presse. Gaétan Houle did not answer questions from La Presse.
Groupe Shathony states on its website that its housing project in Hudson is scheduled to begin in 2021. The company also states on its website that it is planning another real estate project in Longueuil in 2022-2023 in the sector covered by an Ottawa Decree of Emergency banning all subdivisions.
This case concerns the CQDE, reports its lawyer Marc Bishai.
It would be important not to authorize certain activities in certain circumstances, in particular where there is a reasonable concern that the legal framework is not being respected, particularly in cases where authorization applicants are or have already been in a situation of non-compliance. This is even more true when it comes to relapses.
Marc Bishai, lawyer at the Center Québécois du droit de l’environnement
It should be noted that since the passage of Law 102 in 2021, the Secretary of the Environment has new powers that allow him, among other things, to reject an application for a permit made by a “defaulting promoter”. At the time of submitting his bill, Minister Benoit Charette expressed his frustration at “offenders” being able to get new permits from his ministry.
PHOTO EDOUARD PLANTE-FRÉCHETTE, LA PRESSE ARCHIVE
Benoit Charette, Quebec Minister of the Environment
La Presse asked Minister Benoit Charette’s office whether these new legal provisions had been enforced since they came into force. We did not get an answer.
Companies accumulate violations
In the past 15 months, Rio Tinto has received nine administrative fines totaling more than $53,000 for environmental violations. During the same period, ArcelorMittal received seven fines totaling $35,000. These two companies have been multiplying environmental crimes for more than 10 years. ArcelorMittal’s Canadian subsidiary was also fined $14.5 million in 2022 for violating Canadian environmental laws.
“Environmental protection and sustainable development are core values in our organization and we have also invested heavily in protecting the environment for several years. We will continue to do so,” says Annie Paré, Communications Director at ArcelorMittal.
“We work closely with our partners and our employees, who are very aware and committed to protecting the environment on a daily basis. […] When an incident occurs, Rio Tinto takes the situation very seriously, implements a rigorous action plan and takes steps to remedy the situation,” said Simon Letendre, Director of Media Relations for Canada and the United States.
Yet, in 10 years, ArcelorMittal and Rio Tinto have received dozens of approvals from Quebec’s Environment Ministry for projects that had to comply with the province’s environmental laws.
Attorney Marc Bishai believes Quebec “could strengthen the environmental regulatory framework to make sanctions more dissuasive, for example by setting fines based on company income.” As an example, he cites the Federal Competition Act, which provides that a sanction can be set at 3% of a company’s gross income.