Neither the federal fisheries nor environment ministers have yet seen a recommendation on whether Northern Pulp’s proposed effluent treatment plant should undergo a federal environmental assessment.
“I’m not aware of what the recommendation was,” said Jonathan Wilkinson, minister of Fisheries and Oceans, outside a funding announcement in Sherbrooke on Wednesday.
“It would probably be better to ask Sean Fraser, who is the parliamentary secretary to climate and Environment and Climate Change Canada ...”
For his part, Fraser said, “I don’t think the minister has actually seen the recommendation yet.”
Which raises the question: Has a recommendation been made yet?
According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency website, “upon acceptance of a complete project description, the Agency has 45 calendar days, including a 20-day public comment period, to determine whether a federal environmental assessment is required.”
Northern Pulp registered its environmental assessment with the provincial Department of Environment at the end of January. It was published on the provincial Department’s website on Feb. 7.
While the federal agency published the more than $200-million taxpayer-funded provincial proposal to clean up a half century of the mill’s pollution at the existing Boat Harbour facility on its website, it has not posted Northern Pulp’s plan for a replacement effluent treatment site.
That project includes an activated sludge treatment plant beside the mill itself and a pipe that travels over land for 11 kilometres before going out into the Northumberland Strait for 4.1 km.
It will discharge up to 85 million litres of treated effluent a day near the biggest fishing harbour in the Strait (Caribou).
According to the mill’s environmental assessment registered with the province it will have no significant impact on any commercial fishery.
However, a large lobby of fishermen, Pictou Landing First Nation residents, environmentalists and local community leaders argue that the provincial government is in a conflict of interest because not only is it paying to clean up Boat Harbour, it is also contractually obligated to compensate Northern Pulp for ending its lease a decade early.
Heavily redacted documents obtained by The Chronicle Herald last winter through a freedom of information request showed negotiations over how much compensation the province would have to pay were being based partly on the cost of the new facility.
The province still hasn’t released an estimate of how much the taxpayer will be on the hook for with the new facility.
The aforementioned groups are seeking a federal environmental assessment, which takes at least a year and could result in the mill being closed for a longer period of time.
“It seems to me there is political pressure on that office (of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency),” said fisherman John Collins.
“One of the conversations I had with Sean Fraser, he said he thought they’d make a decision prior to the province making a decision so that there are not conflicting (federal and provincial) assessments. He was the one who informed me initially that if they start construction the feds can’t intervene.”
At the end of April the province demanded a focus report from Northern Pulp with 35 pointed questions about its proposed new facility that will need to be answered before the project is given a green light.
However, if the province had instead approved the project and the mill had started construction then it would have been too late for the federal government to step in.
“I can tell you myself and the minister were watching very close to what was happening,” said Fraser when asked about the province’s requirement of a focus report.
“I was sitting by the radio that day.”
He added that regardless of whether a federal assessment is required, there are “at least five or six federal departments that have oversights and steps that have to be cleared (before the project could go ahead).”
The Chronicle Herald is pursuing a freedom of information request with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, seeking a copy of the recommendation, if it exists.
The Agency responded that it would need a 120-day extension on top of the 30 days it already gets to provide the document and may need more time to consult with other federal government departments.
It did not state in its response whether it has the recommendation.
RELATED:
