A Very Public Process
 

POLITICAL BOUNDARIES HAVE long served to bedevil both industrialists and environmentalists. Whereas the former may bristle at the prospect of red tape across multiple jurisdictions, the latter often decry the fact that purely artificial divisions obscure the interplay and interdependence of natural processes.

In the past decade, the issues of transboundary pollution and environmental security have introduced a new dimension to international affairs, but it is only recently that the same concerns have emerged on the domestic front. In this issue of Northern Perspectives, we examine a case that may put to the test Ottawa's resolve-and its ability-to make environmental assessment the cornerstone of a comprehensive, national sustainable development policy. At issue is the potential environmental impact of a proposed bleached-kraft pulp mill on the Athabasca River in northern Alberta. To be built by Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (AlPac) and slated to begin operation in late 1991, the mill would be the largest in the province, with a daily capacity of between 1500 and 1800 tonnes. Effluents from the mill would be discharged into the Athabasca River, a north-flowing tributary of the Slave River, and part of the vast Mackenzie River Basin.

But the larger question concerns the pulp and paper industry as a whole. Many in Alberta see the AlPac plan and other mills currently on the drawing board as a much-needed alternative to the unpredictability of the oil patch, and the provincial government has indeed signaled its commitment to an economic development policy marked by diversification. Environmentalists, on the other hand, argue that economic considerations cannot be allowed to override the fact that plant emissions will have a deleterious effect on water quality, not only in the immediate area, but throughout the Athabasca and Slave river drainage basins which extend into the Northwest Territories (N.W.T.).

Concern over the downstream effects of such pollution prompted calls for a federal review of the AlPac proposal from N.W.T. native organizations and conservation groups such as the Slave River Coalition and the Denedeh Conservation Board. The Government of the Northwest Territories also expressed fears that the long-range effects of the AlPac mill might not be adequately evaluated, and called on Ottawa to appoint a board under the auspices of the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO).

In July 1989, federal Environment Minister Lucien Bouchard announced that he and his Alberta counterpart, Ralph Klein, had reached agreement on the establishment of a joint federal-provincial review board under the chairmanship of Gerry De Sorcy, chairman of the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). Although not mandated under FEARO, the board was charged with responsibility for assessing the cumulative impacts from AlPac and other mills on downstream interests.

Almost from the outset, the review process has been very much a public event. In September, Klein's department issued a scathing critique of AlPac's environmental impact statement, and the minister declared that the project would be scaled down or rejected entirely if environmental concerns were not adequately addressed. The following month, Dene and Métis leader Gary Bohnet was harsh in his criticism of the time limit imposed on intervenor participation: "This whole thing has been shoved down our throats and we're not happy and we're not going to accept it."

The federal Department of the Environment entered the fray a short time later when spokesman Robert Lane told the board that Ottawa considered the AlPac proposal "unacceptable" and would move to shut the operation down if federal regulations were found to have been violated.

But perhaps the most controversial actions were those of the project's proponent, Alberta-Pacific, which questioned the accuracy of a technical submission presented by the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), but chose to air its concerns by way of a press release rather than before the review board. The AlPac release condemned the GNWT presentation as "highly unprofessional and lacking in integrity" and suggested" possible actions against the N.W.T. government for what might be false and malicious representations." Responding in a 15 December letter to De Sorcy, GNWT Minister of Renewable Resources Jim Bourque suggested that "the integrity of the environmental review process has been undermined by the activities of the proponent, AlPac, outside the hearing room." Bourque termed the AlPac release "intimidation tactics" and urged the board to make it clear that such actions would not affect its final decision.

"Decisive action by the Board will reaffirm to the public that the discussions and technical information which are part of the environmental assessment and review process must be presented and evaluated within the hearing sessions and not outside them," he stated.

The board is expected to release its report by mid-February.

On the following pages, we present the position paper of the Government of the Northwest Territories, along with a selection of materials concerning the GNWT's submission to the review board. The thrust of the GNWT submission is that a system of water management based on political jurisdictions is doomed to failure: only by adopting a watershed, or basin, approach can policy makers properly determine the potential impacts of projects such as AlPac; and only by examining the cumulative effects of toxic pollution throughout a particular watershed can the environmental risk be assessed.