Northern Pulp tells BC court about community consultation – but neglects to inform community

Community Featured

PICTOU — Friends of the Northumberland Strait (FONS) and the Northumberland Fishermen’s Association(NFA) say they were surprised to discover documents showing that Northern Pulp told a BC court it was establishing a community liaison committee to find solutions for their proposed new effluent treatment facility.

According to a July 28 affidavit from Bruce Chapman, the mill’s general manager, presented to a BC court under Creditor Protection proceedings, the committee was to have started meeting several weeks ago. Neither group has heard anything from Northern Pulp about it, although one member from FONS and one member from the fishing industry are listed as proposed committee members.

“This committee is not about consultation,” says Allan MacCarthy of the NFA. “Northern Pulp is setting up a process where they write the rules, pick the players, decide who can be consulted, and set the timelines. It looks like they want to pass responsibility and blame for their failures to other groups.”

“In four short weeks, Northern Pulp expects their hand-picked committee of 12 to identify all community environmental problems, prioritize them, and reach consensus on solutions,” says Jill Graham-Scanlan, FONS president. “In five years, Northern Pulp has not been able to do this in a way that meets environmental standards.”

“For two years Northern Pulp has ignored the facts and the expert scientific evidence we presented,” says MacCarthy. “Why would we think things would be different now?”

Graham-Scanlan is concerned that the committee would pit one section of the community against another. “Northern Pulp wants committee members to “prioritize” community concerns. There is no need to prioritize between human health, air quality, protection of a town’s watershed, protection of the complex ecosystem of the Northumberland Strait, protection of the fishing industry, protection of wetlands or other factors. The law requires they all be protected,” she explains.

The groups note that Northern Pulp claims to have ‘paused’ participation in the legislated EA process, although there is no legal way to do that. The clock is still ticking. Meanwhile, the company wants to set up their own process, where the goal is not environmental protection, but the re-opening of Northern Pulp.

“This committee has nothing to do with science,” says MacCarthy. “In two years and two rounds of environmental assessment, Northern Pulp still has not provided the full composition of the effluent they plan to release into the Strait. A committee that is set up to find solutions without science or facts, except those provided by Northern Pulp or their hand-picked experts, has no legitimacy.”

The groups note that the company did not appear interested in consultation during the EA process.

“Northern Pulp cannot earn social license through a hand-picked committee that meets for a few weeks and comes to conclusions. Instead of healing wounds, this proposal will only create more division in our communities,” says Graham-Scanlan. Both groups say if they are contacted, they will not participate.

“If Northern Pulp really wants to address community concerns, we are curious whether the company has submitted all the required information about their October 2018 effluent leak — how it happened without the company’s knowledge when they were required to monitor effluent discharge 24/7, how much effluent leaked, and what it contained,” adds Graham-Scanlan.

“The company needs to address all the issues which have been raised in the first two rounds of the EA process, and come up with a solution that meets federal and provincial standards for protecting health and the environment. The place to address this complex combination of issues is through the legislated environmental assessment process,” she notes.