|
May
1999 Newsletter
The
Federal Environmental Assessment
The
regional chairman and other members of council as well as
some other pro-expressway interests are creating confusion
about the federal environmental assessment. The following
facts should be kept in mind.
1.
Federal assessment is a Canadian law. It has been in place
since 1974. The current legislation was passed in 1992 and
put into full force in 1995. There are about 3000 federal
environmental assessments conducted every year in Canada.
Whether an assessment takes place is determined by the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). No Member of Parliament
can cause an assessment to start or prevent one from occurring.
Assessments are automatically required whenever a federal
permit for a project is needed.
2.
The regional government has been aware since at least 1996
that a federal assessment would be required for the expressway.
In February 1996, they published a 100-page document called
a "Proposed Assessment Process" for the expressway. On page
13 it states: "The following lists the federal and provincial
legislation, policies and guidelines that the Region anticipates
to be applicable to this project even if no changes to the
Expressway approved in 1985 are made." The list begins with
"Federal Legislation (to be confirmed)" and that section
starts with "Fisheries Act - for authorization and compensation
to fish habitat". The next one is "Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act".
3.
In response to this document, Environment Canada staff wrote
to the Region on March 4, 1996. This letter is published
in the Exemption Order request document which the Region
submitted to the provincial government in May 1996. The
letter notes that "the proposed assessment process illustrated
in Figure 2 implies that only impacts of the proposed changes
to the 'approved design' will be assessed through this study.
A federal CEAA screening will ultimately require
an assessment of all potential environmental impacts of
the project, the scope of which will be determined by the
Responsible Authority [identified as the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans], but which would likely include the entire N-S
expressway project."
4.
In the fall of 1997, Friends of Red Hill became concerned
about regional plans which indicated that construction of
the upper third of the expressway [which doesn't cross the
creek] would begin first. It appeared that the Region intended
to carry out this construction before it asked for a permit
under the federal Fisheries Act [the request would automatically
force the federal assessment to begin]. In January 1998
we asked the federal government to begin the assessment
immediately. They did so in early June 1998, six weeks before
the regional government finally made an application for
a permit. Despite this request, the Regional government
has not yet provided the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
with any detailed information on their plans for moving
and reconstructing five kilometres of Red Hill Creek. DFO
asked the Region last fall for 17 items related to this
matter. The region has not provided this information. Obviously,
until such information is provided, it is impossible for
the federal assessment to be completed. This is the main
cause of the delay of the process.
5.
There is also a second reason for the delay. Last August,
the Region released a "Draft Summary Report" summarizing
their internal assessment of the expressway. They also released
a number of background consultant studies. They asked for
comments in response to these documents, and imposed an
October 19 deadline. An individual who asked for an extension
of one week on this deadline was told he could have only
two days. Regional staff promised to respond to comments
on these documents by January 1999. In December, public
revelations in the Spectator about the air pollution
impacts on human health led the region to issue a press
release again promising to provide answers by January. These
have still not appeared. None of the draft documents have
been finalized and released. This means that the federal
authorities are being asked to make decisions based on draft
reports. The region is now claiming that it can't finalize
these documents because it is waiting for comments on them
from two federal departments. Leaving aside the fact that
the deadline for such comments was last October, federal
officials are not required to make comments about an assessment
process which is taking place under the terms of a provincial
exemption order. Federal officials are conducting their
own environmental assessment, which is being unreasonably
delayed by the Region. The Region appears to want to get
federal comments so it can change its documents and improve
its chances of winning approval of the project in the federal
assessment. This is like a student wanting to be provided
with the answers before he hands in his examination paper.
6.
Until last week, the region was continuing to claim that
construction on the expressway would start this summer.
This schedule has been in place since early last year. Before
that, the schedule called for a 1998 construction start,
and the Exemption Order document of May 1996 scheduled construction
in late 1997. However, today, they have still not provided
any details of their plans for the stream relocation and
reconstruction. Since this is information required for even
the most limited type of federal review of impacts on fisheries,
it now strongly appears that the Region had intended to
begin construction of the expressway BEFORE it requested
a fisheries permit, and had hoped that this tactic would
delay the start of the federal environmental assessment
until after the beginning of construction in the valley.
They had apparently hoped this would make the federal assessment
pointless and ensure that it could not stop the expressway.
7.
At least some council members appear to have been misled
into believing that a federal assesment would either not
take place, or was not particularly relevant. Misinformation
as to what regional reports have been provided to the federal
assessment is continuing to this day. At the April 20 council
meeting, for example, the mayor of Hamilton asked if all
reports had been provided to DFO. The regional chairman
said that they had, which is not true.
8.
It is entirely appropriate for Members of Parliament to
express their views on whether an assessment should be bumped
up to a full panel review. Any citizen also has this right.
In fact this is the only way that the Minister of the Environment
and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can possibly know
if there is sufficient "public concern" to warrant such
a panel review. Indeed, on March 29, regional chairman Cooke
moved a motion in the Transportation Services Committee
asking for a full panel review. This was adopted unanimously,
but was tabled when it got to council the following week.
Instead, Mr. Cooke and his cronies launched a campaign to
attack federal Members of Parliament. The "crime" these
Members were accused of was exactly the same as Mr. Cooke
had already "committed" -- asking for a full panel review!
While Mr. Cooke falsely claims that certain Members have
"interfered" in the assessment process, he seems to have
forgotten that in January he was boasting that HE had successfully
interfered in the process to have the scope of the assessment
narrowed.
Pro-expressway
elements are continuing to try to disrupt, delay or derail
the federal assessment process. They are also trying to
impose a political penalty on anyone who does not do their
bidding. Some elements have resorted to calling people names
and becoming quite abusive in hopes of creating more trouble.
Friends of the valley should continue to patiently explain
the facts of the assessment, and the reasons why the expressway
is a mistake. Whenever possible, you should try to provide
this information to council members. It is also important
to continue to educate the public, through letters to the
newspaper, phone calls to talk shows, or just chats with
your neighbours and acquaintances. Many individuals have
abandoned the expressway after being presented with reasoned
arguments. Only a tiny handful stand to gain financially
from this project.
|
