Rafe Mair Online

The environmental process in this province is awful. It’s especially awful because it exists in a form that looks fine on paper but is an exercise in futility for anyone who really wants to learn what’s planned and put their two bits in.

I do a weekly little radio spot called the Political Panel with Erin Chutter on the “right”, Moe Sihota, president of the BC NDP on the “left” and me God knows where. Moe and I had a bit of a dustup some weeks ago about the Environmental Assessment Hearings in the province which he, when Environment Minister, set up. He praised them if not to the skies, pretty high and I said, essentially, that they were a farce.

In support of his position (after I’d declared that they hadn’t turned down a single private power project) he retorted the Klenaklini project had been kyboshed whereas in fact that wasn’t so – it had been turned down not for any environmental reason but because their proposed transmission lines and roads went through a park. My point isn’t criticism of Moe – he agreed, upon consideration, that I was right. The reason none have been turned down for environmental reasons is that this is not the purpose of the hearings! The hearings are after the approval has been given in principle and the question becomes the terms of reference for subsequent deliberations by technical people.

Well, you might say, doesn’t that mean that they project could still be turned down?

Technically, yes – but it’s not likely to happen and hasn’t happened yet. It’s now in the realm of politics for the approval is now in cabinet’s hands and all the panel can do is make recommendations and since the man in charge in the process is a Gordon (Pinocchio) Campbell appointment, you feel, even if your can’t prove it, that punches will always be pulled.

The companies that have made applications are also, in most cases, political donors of some importance to the BC Liberal Party. What does happen, if things do get a little dicey, is that the company is asked to go back to the drawing board and come up with a “mitigation” plan. This is what happened with Taseko Mines and Fish Lake. The “mitigation” for destroying a lake and 75,000 trout is that the company would build an artificial lake and throw some trout in it! I need hardly say that this is scarcely mitigation; it’s a cheap cop-out.

It used to be that a municipal body could decide whether or not to zone for a private power project and while that was unsatisfactory, since it didn’t deal with environmental concerns thoroughly, it was something and the one time I know it was used was when, a few years ago, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District held hearings all over the district into the question of zoning for the Ashlu River project. They turned it down and the Campbell government promptly passed legislation taking away from local governments their power to zone for these projects.

(The Ashlu is a good example for it’s a horror story which can be visited by Lower Mainland citizens quite easily. It was billed as a “small project”, genuine run-of river, and “a weir not a dam”. See for yourself, when the plant is running, how much water is left in the river.)

I have attended several of these Environmental Assessment meetings and they are essentially put on by the company which invariably holds them at an inconvenient time and place. One such effort was amusing to say the least. The company wanted to avoid the largest population center in the area, Nelson, so held it in Kaslo where more people showed than there are people who live there!

The meetings are chaired by an employee of the Ministry in conjunction with the company. It may seem a little thing, but appearances are important; the chair and the company person(s)  can often be seen having dinner and/or cocktails together.

Members of the public can speak but only on the questions of what the terms of reference for the technical panel will be. Any questions about the advisability of the project are ruled out of order with two exceptions – the company spokesperson can take as long as they want to extol its virtues as can a First Nations chief if his band has been adequately rewarded.

It’s a demonstrable farce.

It all raises a fundamental question – if the public can make their views known on whether a building should be built, or a certain store chain build a store, why the hell can’t they have a say as to whether of not destruction of their river should take place?

It’s this question that haunts the process, will always haunt the process, and why BC will soon have civil disobedience if the public continue to be denied their say.

Tags: river privatization