by Brian Pannell

The names Rafferty/Alameda, Old Man Dam, Kemano Dam, and James Bay II have all made news in the last five years. During that period, Canadians have begun to understand the term 'Environmental Impact Assessment' (EIA). They even agree on its importance. The federal government is now painfully aware that avoiding an EIA is politically unhealthy and legally suspect. However, there remains an inclination among some federal folks to lend a hand to projects favoured by cousin provincial governments. From time to time, this favouritism is evidenced in the details of how a particular EIA is conducted, particularly at the scoping stage.

What the heck is scoping? Scoping is the task of deciding what an EIA is going to look at. What, if any, boundaries (physical, social, jurisdictional, etc.) might help define the inquiry? Is there value in isolating the major environmental concerns? Should alternatives to the project be examined? Should the EIA inquire into whether the project is needed? Environmental assessment law does not provide standard answers to these questions. Rather, the answers are generated case-by-case.

Federal departments can be store-houses of environmental expertise. During past ElAs, federal experts have frequently voiced concern, or caution, and pointed out the frailties and gaps in present knowledge. Such opinions, expounded by acknowledged leaders in the scientific arena, help to create meaningful ElAs.

For example, the verbal testimony of officials from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), seems to have had a profound effect on the scoping hearings for Manitoba's Conawapa hydro-electric dam (estimated capital expenditure $5.7 billion). Federal government scientists at tended in strength and circumvented departmental neutrality by putting their personal views on the record. These officials' views included the belief that the environmental assessment should examine the cumulative effects on Hudson Bay of present and proposed hydroelectric dams in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba. The same officials agreed that the examination of cumulative impacts should include a review of the impacts of hydroelectric related water regulation in Manitoba. In particular, they agreed that the diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson River, completed in the 1970's, should be reviewed during the assessment. In addition, federal scientists agreed that the cumulative impacts assessment of the Churchill River diversion should include consideration of methods for restoring aquatic life to the now barren, lower Churchill River.

The draft scoping document recently released by the panel conducting the scoping hearings in Manitoba, consistently reflects evidence given by officials from the federal government. Following the testimony of federal scientists, Manitoba Hydro officials reversed their position and agreed to review cumulative impacts as part of their environmental impact study.

Clearly, when federal scientists do not show up to play the scoping game, they are helping the proponent. No public good can come from the restraint of important verbal testimony during a major scoping hearing. The effect can only be to help subvert the environmental impact assessment, and reduce its quality control function. Federal officials properly spoke their minds at the Conawapa scoping hearings. For whatever reason they were restrained from doing so at the James Bay 11 scoping hearings. Their absence is inexcusable.

 Brian Pannell is an environmental lawyer with the law firm McJanet Rich, based in Winnipeg.