Release
11/3/02                                                                                                         

Northern Watchdog Demands Clear Process Rules, Meaningful Public Participation
in Reviewing Massive Pipeline Project

The proposed framework for reviewing a Mackenzie Valley pipeline project lacks clarity and does not ensure meaningful public participation. Those are some of the conclusions reached by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (CARC) in its analysis of the Draft Cooperation Plan put forward by the various Boards and Agencies that would be responsible for reviewing a new pipeline proposal.

“We must not forget that this is the biggest industrial development ever proposed for the Northwest Territories,” says Kevin O’Reilly, CARC’s Research Director. “We must get the review right or generations of northerners will live with the legacy of the mistakes made now.”

While CARC is not opposed to a plan by the Boards and Agencies to submit a pipeline proposal to a coordinated assessment, it demands that such a review should be clear, ensure effective public participation, and capture all the effects of a pipeline and related development. The framework put forward in the Draft Cooperation Plan does not do that.

A major flaw in the Draft Cooperation Plan is that it is not clear enough in specifying how it would lead to “enhanced public participation”. The plan does suggest that participant funding be made available so the public can present their “views” as part of the assessment process, but it does not specify amounts or criteria for accessing those funds.

“It is absolutely essential that significant participant funding be made available as early as possible in the process and continue through the regulatory process for effective public participation,” says O’Reilly. “Participants need to be able to effectively scrutinize industry and government evidence, and prepare and present independent expert testimony. We cannot rely on government to do this.”

Other shortcomings identified by CARC in the Draft Cooperation Plan include:

• Need for a broad definition of the project to include all of the activities that will go into keeping a pipeline filled for its life. Pipelines typically spawn oil and gas exploration and development along their length, greatly increasing the impact of the development.
• A lack of clarity in defining the role of the National Energy Board in a joint panel assessment with the potential for a separate process that will likely result in overlap, duplication and inefficiency.
• A process to develop panel procedures has not been articulated and further public participation and comment on these would be in order to ensure an adequate cumulative effects assessment;

CARC hopes to be able to further discuss its proposed improvements to the Draft Cooperation Plan with representatives from the Boards and Agencies.