Wheatland County questions lack of access to GFL site

By Sharon McLeay Times Contributor

Wheatland County Reeve Amber Link had many questions for GFL legal counsel, Stephen Roberts, on Aug. 20 in Wheatland County chambers.
After Roberts presented his case and interpretation of interactions of Wheatland County and GFL, Link asked why GFL repeatedly prevented county officials’ access to the site to obtain monitoring samples that would provide council supporting evidence that operations were not a threat to the health and welfare of county residents.
Bylaws authorized for municipalities under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) state that municipal councils are responsible for their residents’ health and well-being, and provide authorization for the drafting of bylaws to protect their citizens.
“The reason for resistance on that issue is a preference (by GFL) to be governed by Alberta Environment because they are an expert in that field,” said Roberts. “GFL’s view of the kind of detailed inspection that is proposed in these orders, and for the purposes that it is proposed in these orders, appears to be to determine if GFL is in compliance with its registration. The county is not an environmental expert.”
Roberts did not indicate he knew the expert the county retained is Dr. Daryl McCartney, waste management and compost engineer in Alberta, who is considered to be an expert in the field. McCartney was not allowed access to the GFL site.
Link cited sections of the MGA that provide authorization for municipal CAOs and the municipal officers under their authority to access properties in their jurisdiction in the performance of their duties. She said Wheatland County has concurrent jurisdiction in matters that relate to nuisance complaints and assurance of the health and welfare of its residents.
Legal counsel for Wheatland County administration corroborated these facts.
Link cited the obstruction, impediment or hindrance rules listed as an infraction under the MGA. Roberts questioned whether Alberta Environment oversight trumped Wheatland County’s jurisdiction.
Link emphasized the resistance for site inspections and subsequent delays to address community concerns generated distrust in GFL’s transparency with residents, Wheatland staff and council. Roberts did not respond to this. He did, however, says county officials should have applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench under section 543 of the MGA to register denial of access.
“If the court declines that application, they are not allowed on the property. That is what happened here,” said Roberts in his interpretation of the remedial order.
The court approved the stop order but stayed the county access to the property.
There had been previous requests from the county to inspect the facility, but the county CAO was not allowed onsite to do an inspection; so on June 27, Wheatland County CAO Brian Henderson conducted observations from the road and noted several violations to the unsightly property and nuisance bylaw.
Deputy Reeve Scott Klassen asked GFL for documentation about the removal of the sulphur piles. Roberts indicated that it would be provided to council.
Roberts stated that GFL and the county needed clarity on actions mandated under the ruling. He said his understanding of the ruling left questions and he asked if GFL was required to stop work and the county could not enter the site, how would the nuisance materials be cleaned up? He based his request for adjournment of the review until the question was answered by the court.