Federal-Provincial Assessment Review Panel for the Halifax-Dartmouth Wastewater Management System Volume 5, 25 March 1993, (Halifax: Halifax Harbour Cleanup Inc. 1994)
Eastern Passage-Cow Bay, District 6 Fire Department, Eastern Passage, NS, Afternoon session
Introductory Remarks;
HHCI Presentation: Frank Schwartz, ARA Consulting, Analysis “Opportunities Created and enhanced” n.b. This is a report that is part of the HHCI body of literature. à It might be possible to skip this volume if it deals with one of the reports, or do as Alan suggests and skip the reports in favour of the testimony? –. Probably also a more expedient way of getting through the materials as well, particularly with respect to my attention to community voices.
n.b. Recall that Eastern Passage already had a sewerage treatment facility that opened in 1974,
Conover: Opening Remarks
Grant/Allan: HHCI presentation
Frank Schwartz: [On costs and benefits of the HHCI project]: In terms of categorizing project expenditures, we spent several days with a couple of engineers, and went through the project in great detail in terms of the commodities and the goods and services that it would need. […] Once we had a very detailed listing of those inputs, we went through each single one of them and said, you know, they can be produced and supplied here, and that us how we forecast provincial supply; we assess the extent to which the existing economic structures of the province could supply those inputs. […] When we do the business and opportunity analysis, we are basically looking at what can be bought, what the project has to buy. So, we are looking at the input requirements, as I said; commodities, which are goods and services, and labour.i […]
Now, we go from that into a fair bit of analysis in terms of – well, if we need a lot of some good, is it enough that that there would be a business opportunity? So, whereas we said there is a $199 million dollars worth of purchases, and about $91 million would be purchased here, not all of those are significant enough for new businesses to be created […] we came up with – seven potential investment opportunities, in crude stone, concrete, cement, providing some of the boats and transportation required, and metal products. […] Medium potential are – it is kind of interesting when you look at it, is mostly in rental. And one of the reasons that it is medium potential is we already have a fair number of companies that do this, who really would not have to invest much to provide the project, so his does not say they are poor prospects. […] So, we found that there were some potential business opportunities, in terms of expansion.ii
Howard Epstein: I was wondering about the benefits to the local economy if this project involved the same amount of money were built, […] but were not to be located on McNabs Island, whether that would make any difference to what he [Frank Schwartz] is telling us? […] I am asking you to assume that the project you looked at is to be built, that the same amount of money is to be spent on it, but that its configuration changes slightly in that the plant itself is not on McNabs Island, and I am wondering whether that would make any difference to your analysis; that is, are you saying that essentially the same benefits would be there?
Frank Schwartz: No. We did a very detailed analysis, [specific to the Ives Island site] and to answer that question, I would have to do a similar analysis for a different configuration. They might or they might not.
Mr. Epstein: So, you cannot say?
Mr. Schwartz: No.
Mr. Epstein: Okay, but you did not look at other sites [beyond Ives Island]?
Mr. Schwartz: No. iii
***
Donald Blakeley: My name is Donald Blakely, I live in Eastern Passage. […] Can I make a recommendation that if there is any technological, or technological changes made by HHCI, that any interested parties be made aware and given the opportunity to react to those changes? What I am saying is, for example, the diffuser was off George’s Island initially, and now it is off the north end of McNabs, and that sort of came out of left field. Under those circumstances, that is the kind of information I am talking about.iv
Mr. Ruffman: I think it would be prudent, probably, on behalf of the Panel Secretariat to request you – I would, quite frankly, like to hear those Ministers [Minister of Municipal Affairs; Minister of the Environment] come and speak to the public hearings before they close, so that you are aware of where things are headed, and you at least have that as a part of the mix as you are considering[.]v
Donald Grady, resident, Lawrencetown, NS. I’m Associated Professor of Sociology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. My place of work is well back from the water of Halifax but my home is about ten (10) miles east of where we’re sitting today over in Lawrencetown.
[…]
The reason I have asked for an opportunity to speak briefly to the Panel and to talk as well with neighbours and friends from the area is because as a professional social scientist I have thirty (30) years of experience working with decision-making processes. […] I have three (3) things to talk about today. (66) […]
I would like to begin with the third topic: the consequences of any megaproject for communities.
We now have very extensive literature on what happens when governments, agencies, Crown corporations or any other body of political authority attempts to address a problem by using what I call the “Think Big” solution. (67)
We know in Canada and seen in our own region a number of these projects undertaken. Those in the room will recall that just this week the Supreme Court of Canada called a halt to the “F[ixed]-Link Crossing to Prince Edward Island on the grounds that the government and the proponent of the project had failed to conform to reasonable requirements of natural justice – that meand procedures – and had failed to follow the mandate and requirements of exi[s]ting Federal regulations. Now I refer to the Princed Edward Island case only because it’s [an] […] emanation of the same line of thinking, the megathinking, sick solution model of thinking. […] I can’t help reminding you and myself that the really fundamental and inextricable problem with these megaprojects is that they are conceived on the basis of assumptions about solutions which are invalid. […] Many technical experts and consultants will come before the Review Panel to remind the Panel and all of us that there are ways of dealing with the sewage problem in Halifax Harbour which do not involve $400 million projects.(68-69)
[…] What’s astounding is that we should now be at the stage we are in the process of evaluating Halifax Harbour Cleanup and only now have in the public arena presentations by professionals who have, to my mind and to my understanding, proposed very effective solutions to the problem. I recognize this:
We are now at a stage Dr. Grady, in our deliberations where your heartfelt thoughts as a professional social scientist in these issues is welcome and, by some, even tolerated. Dr. Grady we cannot go back in Halifax Harbour Cleanup. We are at a stage in this process where an eminent Review Panel confronted by HHCI’s blind determination to carry out a megaproject now has a responsibility for considering evidence and submissions for a wide variety of people but where at the end of the day – early in June, I believe, — the Review Panel will be called upon to make recommendations to the provincial Department of the Environment, its Minister and the Federal Department of the Environment and its Minister and at this stage, Dr. Grady, we cannot go back. We cannot go back, the die is cast. Its either HHCI or a filthy, corrupt, damaging and dangerous continuation [of] Halifax Harbour’s reception of sewage from the communities of Halifax and Dartmouth ably assisted to the limit of its abilities by the town of Bedford.
Two things occur to me on this third point, the connection between megaprojects and communities; we have now seen that individual communities can respond to the imperative, […] of the megaproject by raising salient questions. I’ve heard and seen that done. All of you have a copy of that little blue flyer that is circulating from the Halifax Harbour Cleanup Coalition? (69-70).
[…] All of us are aware that individuals and small groups of citizens can, even at this late stage in the process, begin to raise devastating and fundamental questions. May recommendation to the Panel and to those of you who are in the room today is that the only way to effectively deal with the monstrosity like the Halifax Harbour Cleanup Incorporated’s proposals it to stop them dead, re-think them, break the bonds of megaproject thinking and work out community responsive reasonable environmentally respectful ways of dealing with raw sewage. (70-71)
The second thing I wanted to talk about to you today was the very important issue of how this process of review can be effectively related to the solution of the problem at hand.
My feeling is based on my experience over the last thirty (30) years that the most effective way to deal with the problem represented by this large amorphous concrete immovable megasolution is for us not only to understand that such a solution can be set aside as being disruptive and irresponsible but also to understand that we have within our power as individual citizens and as groups of interested citizens to bring this entire project to a blinding halt. (71)
I’m not here suggesting that today is the day for us in the public to rise up in arms, march on Province House and bus to Ottawa in order to confront the authorities with the necessity that they change their course of action.
I’m referring to a process that is much more available to us as a democratic right and much more effective when exercised and that is using these hearings as an opportunity for – be careful Don, don’t say it the wrong way – using these hearing as an opportunity for us to see less of the suits and more of the people from the communities who are concerned. Everything about the hearing process itself is well intended and I think demonstrates the very sincere commitment to the idea of hearing comments, suggestions, observations and recommendations.
Very little in the hearings is organized in order to respond to legitimate demands by the people of Eastern Passage to have the rights of their community respected in the scope and implications of the Halifax Harbour Cleanup megaproject. (72)vi
[…] I can tell you one thing from where the diffuser is located and from where the plant is scheduled to be sited, Eastern Passage is going to have a hell of a future. Now the Panel goes to places like this room and listens to people like you and people like me but there is nothing in the process of decision making on this issue; nothing in the activities of the Halifax Harbour Cleanup; nothing in the activities of its consultants; nothing in the activities of its public relations experts; nothing in the activities of the industrial organization who will benefit immensely from this projects. There is nothing in the activities of those bodies, essential bodies in this process which is subject to your control and my control. (73-74)
[…] Do you know the peculiar thing about the process which has lead us to today and that is that most of the fundamental decisions about the technology to be used and the sit[e]ing of the facility and the orchestration and the construction of the megaproject, all of those activities have been undertaken behind closed doors. I have spoken to several members of the Halifax County council and they have told me that they have made strenuous efforts to get minutes of the meetings of HHCI and have been unable to get them. […] Halifax Harbour Cleanup is essentially a closed society and it’s made up of the business interests who surround Mr. Calda and the other city managers. There isn’t any place for citizens to play an effective role in the process of arriving at a solution. (74-75)
Pg. 75. Grady on Blakely: I heard on[e] member, Mr. Blakely, from the Passage get up and ask I thought and I thought he did it very decently and very very politely, he said: “Well, when will we in the Eastern Passage be allowed to participate in any monitoring of stack emissions that will be coming out of the facility once it’s built? And unless I misunderstood the answer he was given, he was given the answer that: “Don’t worry, you’ll be or someone from the Passage will be invited to sit on an advisory committee which will monitor emissions.”
Let me tell you, Mr. Blakely, don’t buy that one. There is a long and sad history for citizen advisory committees. […] They had no effective independent ability to monitor the operation of these facilities and they had no bi-regulation and bi-terms of practice right to submit any material that they received from the proponent of the project to independent scrutiny. (76-77)
Grady: If you are relying, however, on the Province of Nova Scotia to fulfill its obligation on the statute and as a former democratic government to keep the citizenry informed and to do the kind of process that you’ve described, let me suggest to you that if it happens, it will be the first time in Nova Scotia history.vii
Dr. Dan Thirumurthi: Dr. Grady do you mind summarizing in your opinion the newest additions of alternatives to the proposal made by HHCI given that most of us here would agree that we want to minimize or reduce pollution of the Halifax Harbour?
Grady: When it comes to a process like this. My experience over the past fifteen (15) years has suggested to me that when a project solution process has been undertaken which meaningfully involves the people of the communities concerned then the answers in terms of solutions are clearer, more reliable and more likely to succeed than a process like the one we’re currently engaged in.
[…] Given the reality of fiscal restraint and limitations under which we’re all living in this country, I find it mildly amusing that all of the hn money that has been invested in this process would have been invested in a project so illusory in its scope.
[…] Now Pat Lane and Associates [Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup] have been before you and have put forward what I regard to be a very sensible and pragmatic and practicable way of approaching the problem of soling our difficulty with the sewage in the Harbour. (90-93)
