Richmond - The Editor, Re: "Jet fuel protesters mount legal challenge," News, Dec. 18.The recent environmental assessment and approval of the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery project draws attention to what seems to be a glaring flaw in the process.
Richmond - The Editor, Re: "Jet fuel protesters mount legal challenge," News, Dec. 18.The recent environmental assessment and approval of the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery project draws attention to what seems to be a glaring flaw in the process.I naively thought environmental assessment was a 180-day process designed to assess "the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects" as stated on the B.C. government's website.And after 180 days, a project is approved or rejected as presented. Unfortunately, the experience with this project indicates that the process starts with the notion that the project will be approved.In other words, through the environmental assessment process the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) works with the proponent to fine tune and massage the project until it is ready to be approved. How else can you explain suspending the process as and when needed? Recently, a proponent used the courts to successfully overturn the provincial government's rejection of a proposed mine based on the environmental review process.The folks at the BCEAO worked with the proponent to help them modify their proposal to make it more acceptable as a part of the assessment process.In the end, the project was turned down by the environment minister of the day.The proponent successfully argued that, as they did not have access to the report to the minister from the BCEAO, the project cannot be rejected as they did not have an opportunity for input into the report.It would seem to be far more appropriate for the BCEAO to reject a proposal as presented with an explanation rather than dragging out the process by cozying up to a proponent to modify a proposal to make it more palatable.It makes the BCEAO a proposal stakeholder, not "a neutral agency that manages the review of proposed major projects in British Columbia" and leaves it open to this kind of challenge.This suggests the public and the City of Richmond should be able to mount a successful court challenge of the approval of this project.Frank SutoRichmond
