Public Participation

The purpose of public consultation in the EIA process is to inform and engage individuals, interests groups, local residents, government and other stakeholders. Additionally, public involvement seeks to engage the affected public in meaningful discussion as well as ensure that they are well informed of the “nature and extent of environmental effects attributable to the proposed project prior to the government’s decisions.” In this case, the general public, regulators, stakeholders, and First Nations were consulted in order to discuss potential issues and concerns regarding the project. More simply, public involvement is a mechanism used in order to make sure that the values and concerns of the public are incorporated and addressed in the EIS. The process of public involvement usually begins during the scoping phase of the EIA.

In the case of this project, there were two reports put together concerning public participation. One of these was found within the body of the EIS itself which was put together by consultant firms on behalf of Irving. The other record of public involvement was compiled by the New Brunswick Minister of the Environment and the Local Government. Both offer different accounts of the ways in which the public was engaged in the EIA process.

According to the EIS

Prior to publically announcing the intention to proceed with the project, Irving “initiated a comprehensive program of public communication and consultation.” This began with door-to-door meetings with the closest residents of Canaport. Prior to even announcing the project, Irving representatives visited approximately twenty residents living nearest to Canaport in order to discuss the potential project. If the residents were not at home, the representatives left them information kits including ways to contact Irving. They did not, however, mention how many people they were successful in meeting and how many were only left information packages.

As soon as the project was officially registered in July 2001, letters were sent to other Canaport neighbours and changes and developments were communicated to this group first. Moreover, in the case of “material development or change” to the project, Irving made public announcements in news media in order to inform the public of the amendments. Generally, they also included follow-up interviews on the subject.

Open houses/public meetings were also held in Saint-John in order to allow for another venue of discussion about the project. These meetings, according to the EIS, were advertised one week prior in the Saint-John Telegraph Journal (owned by Irving) as well as one day prior to the meeting. Posters announcing the meetings were also placed in prominent locations in community stores. Letters of invitation were given to Canaport facility neighbours, key stakeholders and members of the Technical Review Committee. Generally, the open houses included an overview of the project, guided tours of display panels, presentations by consultants and specialists, and an opportunity for questions and answers. According to the report, they were held on December 11, 2001. April 17th, 2002 and October 7, 2003; 58 people, 48 people, and 130 people attended, respectively.

In this assessment, key stakeholders were defined as any individual or group who possesses information relevant to the environmental assessment. This includes a wide range of people from local residents to recognized experts in environmental, technical, and/or economic fields deemed relevant to the project. Consultations with individual key stakeholders were held on an ongoing basis beginning when the project was first proposed. One specific group that was mentioned was the Fundy North Fisherman’s Association (FNFA). They met with Irving representatives in order to discuss mainly how the project would affect boating routes. In response to the concerns raised by this group, specific protocols and procedures were developed. Key government officials and regulators were also consulted throughout the planning and environmental assessment of the project.

The mechanisms for feedback that were established as part of the process included having feedback forms available at public meetings, having question and answer periods at these meetings, having responses to telephone inquiries and the formation of a community liaison committee. Input received through these mechanisms was communicated to the project managers, engineers and environmental consultants. The Community Liaison Committee was established as an ongoing link between the community and representatives of Irving. The purpose of the committee was to provide information to stakeholders, discuss issues and concerns and explore ways of alleviating or addressing concerns about the project. It was composed of a maximum of 12 members consisting of Canaport facility area residents, local interest groups, and two members of “Irving’s Project team.”

During the process of public consultations the primary concerns that were raised were regarding LNG safety and traffic safety. Additionally, central concerns included the fisheries within the zone influenced by the project, future uses of the pier, site security and current site construction activities. One response to these concerns was the establishment of a traffic committee consisting of representatives of Irving, Fluor, and Gulf Operators. The purpose of the traffic committee was to ensure that all Orimulsion tank related traffic was managed effectively. In looking over the records public consultation, on the requests of the public in terms of traffic safety was ensuring that an alternative route existed in case of emergency. Many other solutions were proposed such as mechanisms for ensuring that all loads would conform within load and speed limit restrictions.

According to the New Brunswick Government

Initial public consultation began on January 23, 2002. This is approximately six months after the project was officially registered for screening. This initial consultation consisted of the release of the Draft Guidelines and a 30 day period for public comment. The final guidelines, including public input, were issued to Irving on March 25, 2002. After this there was a self-imposed break in the EIA process in order to complete a feasibility study. Subsequently, the scope of the project was changed in order to allow for the offloading of Orimulsion at the pier. Due to this change, new terms of reference were drafted and presented to the public in October 2003. The first draft of the EIS was available for review by the Technical Review Committee on November 4, 2003. Copies of the complete EIS, a summary of the EIS and the TRC’s general review-statement were distributed throughout Saint-John and made available online. A news release was issued and paid advertisements were taken out in order to inform the public that this information was available.

According to the Government report, a public meeting/open house was held on June 19th, 2004, this marked the second phase of the public consultation process. The meeting was publically announced one month prior to its actual occurrence. The process of the public meeting was described similarly as in the previous report. However, in this report it was stated that an independent EIA panel was appointed by the Minister of the Environment and the Local Government to preside over the public meetings. According to the report, approximately 60 people attended this meeting. A period of 15 days after the meeting was allocated for the submission of any written comments on the project. A report reflecting the feedback received at the public meeting was prepared by the Panel and submitted to the Minister of the Environment as well as the Local Government. The primary issues of concern point out in this account were that too much was being left until after the decision had already been officially made. Specifically, concerns were raised in regards to many of the further studies that were to be conducted in the area.

Assessment of Public Participation

In reviewing these reports, it seemed as though there was a concerted effort to inform the public of the project. Many different methods for disseminated information were utilized. It was clear that at least some of the concerns raised were mitigated and addressed. To what extent public participation actually served to inform changes throughout the project is somewhat unclear. While there were mixed feelings concerning the project, many residents expressed positive sentiments concerning the economic prospects that would become available through the project.

Some major issues do arise when reviewing the reports on public consultation. For one, there are huge discrepancies between the two reports. Some of this may be accounted for by the fact the EIS report was published a few months prior to the government report. This may explain the inconsistencies in the dates of the public meetings. However, many aspects are simply missing from both accounts. While neither seemed to be intentionally misleading, assuming that both are factually correct, each report failed to include important information. Developing an accurate sense of what was actually entailed in the public participation process is very difficult due to these incongruities.

In terms of process, there are also a few notable problems. According to the Government account there seemed to be very little time between periods of public consultation and when final decisions were rendered. The extremely limited amount of time, makes it seem unlikely that public concerns and issues could properly have been incorporated or addressed. For example, the Government account states that the new Terms of Reference were made available for public comment in October 2003 and that the first draft of the EIS was submitted on November 4, 2003. No specific date in October was given, this means that at the most one month was given between the official release of the Terms of Reference and the submission of the entire EIS report. It seems highly unlikely that in this time period the public responses to the Terms of Reference could have been submitted, taken into account, and addressed, as this easily could have resulted in notable changes to the overall EIA process and the EIS.

Another important factor was the ways in which the public was informed of changes and public meetings. Both reports mentioned making media announcements, but all of specific sources mentioned were English-language based. While public announcements may have been made in French, this was not made clear. If bilingual announcements were not made this would be particularly problematic as New Brunswick is Canada’s only officially bilingual province. Finally, there was also extremely poor consultation of First Nations groups in the area. This will be further addressed in geo-social impacts.