|
September
1998 Newsletter
Progress
on Federal Environmental Assessment
The
efforts to obtain a full and complete federal environmental
assessment (EA) of the expressway are moving steadily forward.
On September 2nd, Friends received a letter asking us to
provide formal input into the scoping (terms of reference)
of the assessment. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) is not required to do this, but informs us that it
has decided to allow public input "given the level of public
interest in the Red Hill Expressway project".
Other
positive news has been received over the summer. In early
July a major federal court decision ordered the federal
government to reopen an Alberta EA because "it failed to
link together different parts of the project and examine
them as a whole." They also failed to "take into account
the cumulative environmental effects from the project".
The
decision was described in the Globe and Mail as "one of
the most important victories environmentalists have ever
won in environmental case law". It means "that federal environmental
assessments will have to become much broader, and will intrude
into areas currently considered the jurisdiction of the
provinces." This appears to have major implications for
our demands that the federal EA on Red Hill be as complete
as possible.
The
Globe also reported: "The case before Judge Gibson involved
a road and two bridges built over two rivers in Alberta
as part of a forestry project by Sunpine Forest Products...
Because the road needed to cross two waterways...the company
needed approval from the federal Department of Fisheries
and Oceans. But the department looked only at the impact
the two bridges would have on the waterways, not at how
the entire project would affect the environment. The federal
government granted approval for the bridges, and therefore
the road, based on that limited assessment. Environmentalists
argued the federal government was obliged, under the provisions
of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to look at
the effect on other systems of the road, bridges and the
rest of the project, despite the fact that these are under
provincial control. The court agreed."
On
July 30, two NDP members of the federal parliament sent
a letter to all other Members of Parliament explaining the
Red Hill case in detail and strongly supporting our request
for a full and fair federal assessment. The letter pointed
to "the return of environment issues as a key concern for
most Canadians. Climate change, severe weather systems,
water and air quality, ozone holes, lax regulatory enforcement
and habitat destruction have created a shared sense of urgency
for environmental protection."
After
detailing the problems with the expressway, the letter urged
all MPs "to ask the Hon. David Anderson, in his capacity
as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to conduct a full
environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, to initiate a formal process to receive
public input into the terms of reference for the screening
stage, and refer the environmental assessment to a panel
hearing. We believe this will address community concerns
that all steps available in the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act are followed according to the letter of the law."
As
far back as March 1996, the region was notified in a letter
from Environment Canada that there would be a federal assessment
of the entire expressway project. The assessment was launched
in May of this year, but it is moving slowly because the
Region has failed to provide the necessary documents explaining
what they intend to do in the valley, especially with regards
to the stream re-alignment. This appears to be part of a
deliberate strategy by the Region to delay the assessment
as long as possible and then to launch a political campaign
against it.
The
strategy appears to work like this. Delay the federal assessment
until all other pre-construction steps are completed, then
publicly attack the federal assessment as 'the only obstacle
in the way of progress' and wage a political campaign to
have the assessment cancelled, short-circuited or disregarded.
This
is similar to the approach used by the Region when threatened
with a new provincial environmental assessment of the expressway
in the mid-1990s. In that case, the Region demanded an exemption
from the provincial requirements and issued public threats
that they would build the expressway 'as approved in 1985'
as far as Brampton Street and leave it incomplete as "a
monument to broken provincial government promises". The
provincial government caved under the pressure (which one
provincial bureaucrat described as "blackmail") and granted
the exemption.
The
contempt of the Region for the federal process was revealed
this past May when a regional representative brazenly complained
to the federal Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
that the federal assessment was 'too late' and would 'duplicate'
other assessment work.
The
Region has continuously resisted any attempt to have the
expressway project reviewed by an independent body. However,
there are strong indications that the federal authorities
will finally make this happen.
|
