• Heiltsuk Tribal Council v. Deputy Administrator, Pesticide Control Act

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    International Forest Products Ltd., Permit Holder


    Panel: Christina Mayall, Sheila Bull, Laurie Nowakowski

    Decision Date: February 25, 1997

    Keywords: Pesticide Control Act – s.12(2)(a); Pesticide Control Act Regulation – s.2(1)(a); Constitution Act, 1982 – s.35(1); “Procedures for Enhanced Native Consultation”; Canadian Earthcare Society v. Environmental Appeal Board; R. v. Sparrow; R. v. Sampson; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia; VISION™; glyphosate; Pesticide Use Permits: PUP 215-145-95/07 and 215-146-95/97

    On June 26, 1996, the Board issued an interim decision 95/33(a) canceling PUP 215-146-95/97 (the ‘Permit’). The Board stated that it would provide detailed written reasons for the decision in due course. The following are the written reasons for the Panel’s decision. The Heiltsuk Tribal Council appealed the issuance of the Permit which authorized Interfor to apply VISION™ (active ingredient glyphosate) by backpack on selected cutblocks on King Island for the purpose of conifer release. The grounds of appeal were that the Heiltsuk have consistently asked for a restriction on pesticide use in their territory; there is a concern regarding the safety of glyphosate, and the testing it has undergone; glyphosate affects staple foods of the Heiltsuk and staple foods of the wildlife that the Heiltsuk hunt, and the long term effects on the Heiltsuk people are unknown; the Tailed Frog is an endangered species which lives in the area; the impact of pesticide use on cultural and ecological tourism is unknown; and an impact assessment should be carried out to determine the effects of pesticides on the Heiltsuk people.

    On the evidence presented, the Board found that the berries and wild foods traditionally gathered by the Heiltsuk would be negatively affected in the spray areas for a period of time. The board further found that the Heiltsuk were not appropriately consulted regarding the proposed spraying. All other grounds of appeal were rejected. After considering all the circumstances, the Board decided that it was appropriate to cancel the Permit and return the matter to the parties for further discussion. The appeal was allowed.