Summary of the matter addressed in the submission:

While noting that pollution from pulp mills has dropped since adoption of the PPER in 1992, the Submitters have documented over 2,400 documented violations of the PPER at mills in central and eastern Canada from 1995 to 2000 and claim very few were prosecuted. They claim that low numbers of prosecutions correlate with continuing high numbers of violations in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, and they cite ten mills of particular concern. In Ontario, the Submitters claim that there have been more prosecutions and fewer violations, but they list two mills where they claim Canada has failed to effectively enforce the PPER. The Submitters conclude that Canada is failing to meet its stated policy to seek to ensure compliance in the shortest possible time with no re-occurrence of violations, as well as its stated commitment to fair, predictable and consistent enforcement. They assert that for years, certain mills have been "free riders" at the expense of their competitors and the environment.

Summary of the response provided by the Party:

In its response, Canada provides clarifying information on the basis of enforcement decisions taken in respect of mills identified in the submission as of particular concern and describes enforcement decisions regarding specific cases included in the submission. Canada describes how federal Fisheries Act inspectors conduct inspections or investigations to determine if reasonable grounds exist for believing a Fisheries Act offence has been committed and explains that the response to a violation accounts for, among other things, the nature of the violation, the likelihood of achieving compliance in the shortest possible time with no further violations, and consistency in enforcement. Canada then provides detailed information regarding federal and provincial enforcement responses taken from 1995 to 2000 in regard to the four Atlantic Provinces mills, six Quebec mills and two Ontario mills for which the Submitters state they have particular concern.

Names and citations of the environmental laws in question:

Fisheries Act, sections 34, 36, 40, 78 and 78.1; Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (the "PPER"), sections 5 and 6, and Schedules I and II

Submitter(s):

Friends of the Earth, Union Saint-Laurent, Grands Lacs, Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Ecology Action Centre, Environment North. Represented by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF)