|
Wednesday,
May 3, 2000
ON THE RED HILL PAPER TRAIL
Rick Hughes, Environment Reporter
The Hamilton Spectator
Federal
scientists and bureaucrats were considering the need for
a panel hearing into the Red Hill Creek Expressway 11 months
before Sheila Copps asked for one.
Documents obtained under the federal access to information
law show that as early as February 1998, both the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada were discussing
the possibility of making the $200-million project undergo
public hearings before a panel of experts.
Copps
didn't write to fisheries Minister David Anderson asking
for such a panel to be formed until December of that year.
The
early discussion of a panel is significant because it casts
some doubt on Hamilton-Wentworth's key argument about Copps'
role in the creation of the panel and political interference
in the environmental assessment process.
The
region is arguing that Copps has been pulling the strings
behind the scenes to ensure that the project was referred
to a panel hearing, with the ultimate objective of blocking
the proposed expressway.
The
panel was called by Environment Minister Christine Stewart
on May 6, 1999 after a formal request by Anderson.
The
documents can't answer what Copps may have done informally
or outside of official channels.
But
there is no direct paper connection between her and the
creation of the panel.
And
that will make it harder for the region to make that case
in its upcoming legal challenge of the assessment in federal
court.
The
region is furious that the project, which it had hoped to
begin building last spring, has been delayed by the review
and by the broad range of issues the panel has chosen to
examine.
The region has conducted a concerted public relations campaign
blaming the federal government for unreasonable delays,
for going beyond its jurisdiction and for doing a review
motivated by the desire to block the road.
In
April, when it was revealed in Spectator news stories that
Copps had written, regional chairman Terry Cooke said he
was "stunned."
But the documents also reveal that Don McLean, chair of
Friends of Red Hill Valley, knew of the Copps letter the
month it was written. McLean wrote to Copps on Dec. 13 saying,
"I understand that you have written to the Minister and
urged him to ensure that the federal environmental assessment
of the... expressway is full and complete and includes a
panel review. I was very pleased to here this."
The
note goes on to say he hopes her letter will be made public
soon "so the confusion being created that this assessment
can be derailed by political pressure can be ended."
McLean
also thanked her for her "on-going interest in and attention
to the assessment."
The rest of the two-page letter is a form letter that was
also sent to other MPs, outlining Friends' criticisms of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) screening.
Is
McLean's early knowledge of Sheila's letter an indication
of close ties between the Hamilton East MP and expressway
opponents?
McLean
says no. He says he was told by people who had been at Copps's
Christmas open house on Dec. 12 about her letter and decided
to send her a personalized version of a letter he had drafted
for Stoney Creek MP Tony Valeri, who is pro-expressway.
He
said the refence in his letter to her "ongoing attention"
to the issue is phrasing that was part of the form letter
sent to the other MPs and not a suggestion he had been in
regular contact with her.
"I
just haven't had any communication with her. I wasn't aware
of anything specific she had done on this issue other than
writing the letter."
The documents show that Copps was actually one of six MPs
who wrote either Anderson or Stewart.
As
well, internal DFO memos show expressway supporters Valeri
and Hamilton West MP Stan Keyes didn't write, but were in
regular contact with the DFO officials who were doing the
assessment, seeking explanations and updates on the assessment.
The
records make clear that a panel review for the proposed
expressway was an open possibility from the minute the DFO
began preparing for a preliminary assessment of the project,
called a screening, in February, 1998.
"DFO is considering referring the project for panel review
based on public concern and has asked the Agency's (the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency) advice on this
matter," says a Feb. 18 note to the environment minister
by agency official Jonathon Gee.
The
recommendation was to do the screening, include a great
deal of public consultation and then use that as a basis
for "an appraisal of public concern and decision for referral
to a panel."
Privately, however, that same official maintained in email
memos to colleagues that a panel could not be justified
because fisheries issues were not thought to be significant.
The
project will run a four-lane highway through the valley
and will require moving five kilometres of stream and cutting
down 47,000 trees.
The
documents also show:
- DFO
— which controlled the screening of the review —
had concerns during early stages that some people in Environment
Canada were not approaching the assessment in an unbiased
or objective manner.
- While
the region has complained vociferously about how DFO was
conducting the review, the federal department had its
own concerns about what it perceived to be the region's
attempts to meddle in the process.
|
