Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development by Tod Strachan Is the Major Project Review Process (MPRP) an “arms-length" process? According to Dave Mer- cier, Minister of Environment and co-chairman of the Cabinet Com- mittee on Sustainable Development (CCSD), "That’s an_ interesting question." To that he adds, "It’s really a philosophical question," and, "I guess we would have to define what you mean by arms- length." Mercier sums it up this way: In an arms-length process, he says, "You would tend to climinate anybody who’s directly connected, and then you have people that don’t have enough background in the area." For this reason, then, Mercier describes the MPRP as "a balancing act", not necessarily arms-length, but adds, "I believe its purpose is served by the input mechanisms." These answers may leave room for speculation. How does the process work? Who makes the ultimate decision... The MPRP or the CCSD? And, if it’s the cabinet committee that makes the final decision, what is the MPRP for? Mercier answers these questions in this way: the MPRP is a public process developed by the govern- ment to bring together all inter- ested parties and ministries in a manner that will expedite the review process in an efficient manner. The public has two avenues of input. First, by written or oral presentations to the Major Process Steering Committee (MPSC). And second, through their MLA. The steering committee then reviews public, private and govern- ment agency input and makes a recommendation to the CCSD. The CCSD critiques the MPSC recom- mendation and then cither redirects ihe conimitiee or makes a recom- mendation of their own to Cabinet. Cabinet then makes a decision based on the CCSD recommenda- tion. There you have it. The MPRP works independently, under the scrutiny of the CCSD, and Cabinet makes the final decision. So where is the "arms-length"? In any par- ticular riding, the MLA can be a proponent for a project not sup- ported or questioned by many of his constituents, and some might wonder if his motives are political. Not so, says Mercier. And this takes us back to his original state- ment, “I believe it’s purpose is served by the input mechanisms." He explains: "One member on any committee can be a proponent and be non-arms-length to the: project. But because there are other mem- bers on the committee, that bal- ances the situation. And then the committee has to go through the Cabinet process which is a further check and balance, and then ulti- mately the legislature governs." He adds: "You could have a totally non-accountable group set. up which may make it more arms- length... But I’m not sure it would make it any more effective." And this is where the philosophi- cal part comes in, says Mercier. "The ultimate check is the elected member," he says. "But in the decision-making process it’s a fine balance between giving enough leeway to help projects go through the process and having it tightly enough controlled that the general objective can be reached... Which is a decision to go or not go ona particular project. "That's what you're — really addressing. How light or how loose do you want that process? And I think that could be debated from issue to issue. Sometimes it appears to be too tight... Some- times it appears to be too loose." Mercier was in town with a few other CCSD members on Aug. 22 to talk to a number of Northwest groups about issucs of local con- ccm. Included in these groups |. Howard Dirks, ‘were representatives of the City of Terrace, the District of Kitimat, the Regional District of Kitimat-Stik- ine, the Northwest Loggers Associ- ation, Skeena Sawmills, the Dis- trict of Stewart and the Hazeltons. In the area with Mercier were CCSD co-chairman and Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism Minister of For- Terrace Review —— Wednesday, September 4, 1991 A9 Somewhat less than arm’s ae How a Cabinet Minister and elected official, and a top level — bureaucrat view the province 's Major Project Review Process — Dave Mercier: Minister of Environment, co-chairman, ests Claude Richmond, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Graham Bruce and Minis- ter of Lands and Parks Dave Parker. Thursday afternoon, Mer- cier and Dirks took a helicopter tour of Lakelse Lake, Mount Lay- ton Hot Springs, the Dubose Indus- trial Site and the Kitimat industrial area including the site of the pro- posed port. A senior government official from the ministry of development, trade and tourism came to Terrace the following week to discuss the MPRP from a bureaucrat’s point of view. He is Frank Blasseti, co- chairman of the Major Project Review Process Steering Commit- F fa Nn k B | asseti: a Co-chairman, 2, Major Project Review Process Steering Committee, director of regional planning and infrastructure, Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism by Tod Strachan Process an arms-length pro- cess? Dave Mercier, a co- chairman of the Cabinet Commit- tee on Sustainable Development, says it’s not. And Frank Blasetti, co-chairman of the MPRP Steering Committee, agrees. The steering committee reviews submissions and makes a recom- mendation, and the CCSD makes a decision based on the committee’s recommendation. But neither man thinks this is bad. The process, they say, is such that politics do not become a part of the decision- making process. One form of’ protection, says Blasetti, is that all public and ministry submissions, as well as the committee recommendation, become part of a public document. But "arms-length" is only one of several public concerns that have been voiced in recent weeks. Ata city-council meeting in carly July, one protester said the only source of information available on the Orenda paper mill proposal is Orenda themselves. This isn’t necessarily true, there are other sources of information, but it is true that Orenda will host their own public information mectings and describe the project in words of their own choice. But this too, isn’t bad, says Biasetti. In fact, the process is designed this way in order to allow less controversial projects with few environmental concerns to proceed through the process quickly. The public information meeting, explains Blasetti, takes place early in the process and is designed for the sole purpose of allowing the proponent an opportunity to explain the proposal and answer any public concerns. The company, he adds, is not required to release any technical or engineering I s the Major Project Review studies. The public information meeting is then followed by a period of several weeks during which any- one with concerns can send written submissions to the MPRP. And, says Blasetti, every submission, as well as information coming from the public meeting, is read: and considered. The value of public submissions, he adds, is weighed by the content of the individual letters and not by the sheer number of letters. And often, he says, these public submissions raise issues or concems no one had thought of before. So in the final analysis, says Blasetti: "I think the process is such that the proponent does not control the flow of information. ‘The proponent is required to sub- mit a prospectus, the public is asked to submit comments, and the stecring committee publishes those comments. "The proponent may not wish to provide more information than is provided in the prospectus, and that’s his prerogative at this point. At this point in time, we don’t have any requirement to go beyond pretty basic information in the prospectus. "But again, we don’t ask for comprehensive, detailed, in-depth analysis at the prospectus stage necessarily, because we don’t know if the project warrants it. You don’t want to put a relatively benign project through a very expensive process." Biasetti continues: "Public com- ments often raise questions which either have to be addressed by the proponent in his prospectus or have to be addressed by the gov- emment review agencies. And if these are substantial issues, major issues, and they are not addressed, that’s a signal that says this thing should go to the next step. "Sometimes, if they are issues, but they are judged not to be major issues, they become conditions upon which an approval in prin- ciple is let. In other words, that the approval in principle is granted subject you following through with this research study... or you under- take this mitigative work so that this issue does not become a prob- lem." There is another matter of public concer with the review process. Who is on the steering committee and why do they hold their meet- ings behind closed doors hundreds of miles from the affected com- ‘munity? "There’s a core group of mem- bers from the province and the federal government," says Blasetti. "Those include the Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism, the B.C. Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests, the Minis- try of Energy, Mines and Petro- eum Resources, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. "The two permanent federal members are Environment Canada and the FEARO office. (The Fed- cral Environmental Assessment Review Office, which oversees the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process). "Those are the permanent mem- bers, and then for each project there are automatic requests made to local municipalities and/or regional districts, if they want to appoint a member. These local members only attend the parts of the meeting which deal with the project in their area." In addition to this core group of committee members, says Blasetti, other federal and provincial agencies are asked to sit on the committee if the nature of the proposal involves their area of authority. As in the case of the Kitimat port proposal, for example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Indian Affairs and the provincial Ministry of Native Affairs sit on the Steering Com- mitiee. And regarding public concern over the location of the Steering Committee meetings: "I’m sym- pathetic to those views," says Blasetti. "But those steering com- mittee meetings are not public meetings. They’re mectings of the committee, and in principle I have | people in committee who would have a problem with meeting in Terrace. "It’s a matter of convenience. Where is it easiest to get everyone together? Like most committecs, getting people together is one of the problems you face." He adds, "My understanding is that we will try to have a meeting in Terrace if at all possible." What is the track record of the MPRP? According to Blasetti, in the two-year history of the MPRP no proposal has been turned down. Six proposals have been through the process so far, and of the six, four are now under construction but with specific conditions. The other two, while approval in principle was not denied, will probably not proceed. Conditions placed on the proposals were severe enough that the proponents have questioned the wisdom of paying the additional cost.