Speak Out in Solidarity
Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society

---

Day 1  Day 2  Day 3  Day 4  Day 5  Day 6  Day 7  Day 8  Day 9  Day 10  Day 11  Day 12  Day 13
ORDER OF PRESENTATIONS (Revised 25 June 2007)

June 16, 2007 - Public hearings, Day 1

There was a good crowd on hand for the start of the public hearings. A handful of Bilcon supporters in Bilcon T shirts and Bilcon ball caps. Other than that, the other 60-70 people in the room were mostly stop the quarry types. There was also a handful of government people taking notes. 

The day started with some introductory remarks from Robert Fournier, followed by a power point presentation read by Bilcon’s Paul Buxton. He showed pretty pictures of quarries he’s known and loved, but introduced no new information about the Digby Neck Quarry. He also presented material on mineral policy in Nova Scotia – guess he still hasn’t heard that N.S. declassified basalt as a mineral a decade or more ago.

We were anticipating that the panel would launch into a series of questions about the boring presentation we had just witnessed. Not so.

The panel launched into a series of very tough questions about how Bilcon had approached the EIS process. 

Chairman Robert Fournier informed Bilcon that the panel had found at least 50 places where there were insufficiencies. Noting that the Guidelines has set the minimum requirements, he stated that “Your EIS has many gaps in it”

Bilcon was asked why they didn’t adhere to the guidelines, as required. “We struggled with the guidelines”, Buxton replied. “We didn’t find the guidelines easy to follow.”

The panel then went through a lengthy list of “guiding Principles” for the EIS, things that should have been considered, such as Traditional Knowledge, Public Involvement, Sustainable Development, the Ecosystem approach, and the Precautionary Principle.

Bilcon came under particular scrutiny for its approach to public consultation. While Buxton protested that he couldn’t force people into a room, Dr. Fournier pointed out that it is up to the proponent to make sure that meaningful public consultation takes place.

Dr. Fournier said the panel was also at a loss to explain why Bilcon was reporting so much support for its quarry, when there were literally hundreds of submissions from people who clearly think it’s a bad idea.

Buxton accused people opposed to the quarry as “lacking in goodwill”, so they wouldn’t talk to Bilcon. 

On the issue of Sustainable Development, Dr. Fournier was blunt. “Your project is not sustainable. It will end at some point in the future. How will it encourage sustainability afterward?”

The question wasn’t answered. Paul Buxton did say if jobs are created, it means services would stay in the area. He also said quarry jobs are needed in the Digby area because, “we don’t have the people to do high tech.”

Dr. Fournier mentioned that Bilcon used the term adaptive management some 140 times in the EIS. He asked for examples of how they would use adaptive management. One of the experts went on at length about how they wouldn’t drive a bulldozer over a rare plant.
When the expert was informed that that wasn’t adaptive management, he tried again, this time talking about dust controls, and how if Bilcon found unusual amounts, they would take action.

Dr. Fournier referred to that approach as “trial and error.” When the expert was asked directly in he knew of any other methods of Adaptive Management, he tried again, this time talking about working with DFO on whale research.

Dr. Fournier simply said, “I will take that as no, that you don’t know any other methods of adaptive management.”

The panel had lots of other questions. Through the questioning we learned that nobody from Clayton Concrete, the company that owns Bilcon, will be bothering to come to the hearings. We also learned that Clayton concrete has never run a quarry. We get to be their first science experiment.

Paul Buxton was asked why they didn’t get their rock in Maine. He said it was because Maine has an inferior type of rock. He was asked if it had anything to do with how tough it is to get a permit to blow up the coastline of the Eastern Seaboard. He denied it. Said it never crossed their mind. They were only looking for high class stone, and Nova Scotia had that in spades. Then Jill Grant pulled out the minutes of a CLC meeting, in which John Wall told people that they wanted to start a quarry in Nova Scotia because the regulations were just too tough in the Eastern Seaboard.

Buxton danced, and conceded that yes, no quarry permits had been issued in New Jersey since 1965, but that wasn’t the point. The point was Nova Scotia has better rock than the Eastern Seaboard, and it’s cheaper to get it here than in the backwoods of New York or Pennsylvania.

One other disturbing part of today’s performance by Mr. Buxton. He frequently answered questions that he should have answered with a certainty with some scary qualifiers.

For instance, he was asked about an aquifer. “We certainly believe…” he began his answer. He finished with “We can’t say for sure.” I’d like him to know where the aquifer is, for sure.

Asked about runoff from the sediment ponds during a major storm, his reply was “We believe we can handle this situation.” Mr. Buxton’s beliefs aren’t going to do anyone much good if they prove to be wrong.

There were many other examples where Mr. Buxton could not answer with certainty questions that require concrete answers.

On Monday, June 18th, Bilcon continues with its presentation on the Environmental Impact Statement.

The Panel has promised to continue to pursue Bilcon on all of the many deficiencies it has identified.

It promises to be an interesting day.

June 22, 2007 - Public Hearings, Day 6

It was an emotional day today. We witnessed anger from the panel directed at Bilcon. And many of us were moved to tears by the presentation of Robert Buckland-Nicks.

Let’s get to the anger first, and get it behind us.

Today was a theme day, and the theme was hydrogeology. You may not know it, but every time you talk about the water table, or whether your well went dry last summer, you’re talking about the science of hydrogeology. (For those of you who don’t live in the country, a well is a hole in the ground. It fills with water. You pump it out and drink it. The water doesn’t come in a bottle).

Bilcon made its presentation, most of which I didn’t understand, but I knew it was important. People are concerned about this hydrogeology issue, especially because they fear blasting at the quarry, and removing all that rock, is going to effect their wells. 

So Paul Buxton, the man from Bilcon, talked about how they had done all sorts of tests, and drilled holes, and what not, but the bad vandals came along and filled their holes, so some of their tests didn’t work. The upshot was that they didn’t really have much data. 

But despite the fact that the bad people had put tree stumps down their test holes, they could still accurately predict that there would be no problem. He had pretty coloured slides to prove it. The slides showed upper flow levels, and middle flow levels, and lower flow levels, and water divides, and lots of squiggly lines. 

Now I was watching the slideshow (used to be my favourite part of school), but I was also watching the panel. In particular, I was watching Dr. Gunter Muecke. As mentioned in previous posts, he’s a geologist. Dr. Muecke was clearly agitated by what he was seeing on the screen. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why. Until the slide show was over, and Mr. Buxton sat down.

Dr. Muecke spoke, with anger. He pointed out that there were two critical diagrams that contained material that was substantially different from what had been provided to the panel earlier. He wanted to know why the new material had been withheld from the panel until this late date.

The Bilcon team huddled. Buxton came back and said that Bilcon was only doing its best to provide the panel with its “latest views” on the water issue.

Dr. Muecke didn’t buy it. “You haven’t answered my questions. Why was this information not available to the panel? It wasn’t in your submission. Have the reviewers had a chance to look at this information?”

Bilcon huddled again, and then apologized, saying they’d had some “formatting problems” and had neglected to send the slide to the panel. Dr. Muecke said he wasn’t concerned with Bilcon’s formatting problems. And he pointed out it wasn’t just one missing slide. And he also pointed out that the slides had been “substantially altered” from previous versions.

During questioning, Bilcon took the position that it doesn’t really matter what happens with water tables, because the company would mitigate any damage they caused. They’d drill new wells for people, no questions asked. No litigation. Nothing. At least for the dwellings Bilcon’s own people determined might be at risk. And only if they have drilled wells. For the seven dwellings with dug wells, Bilcon’s position is that it’s not their problem. Also, under questioning, Bilcon refused to say categorically that if they destroyed the water supply for the fish plant that they would replace that well. He said their promise extended only to domestic water supplies.

Dr. Fournier, the panel chair, later expressed his view that the panel’s role is to assess information provided by Bilcon and others, and Bilcon presenting totally new information “5 minutes before…puts us at an unfair disadvantage.” “I’d like to say in the strongest possible terms how disappointed the Panel is in your presentation” He told the company that it presents a constantly shifting target, plans, and diagrams. “It is totally inappropriate…. You have had 2 ½ years.” Your plans should have been settled and defined. 

Quarry opponents were so thrilled with this development that some applause was heard but the panel chair then vented some anger on the audience stating that such displays were inappropriate. And with that, he called a 15 minute break.

Next up on the hydrogeology hit parade was Dr. Miroslav Nastev. He’s a research scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada. That’s Part of Natural Resources Canada. (They like to call themselves NatCan).

Dr. Nastev made me want to go back to school to study hydrogeology, a word I couldn’t spell before today. What a fascinating presentation. For the first time in my life, I think I actually understood what an aquifer is, and how they work, and in particular how they work in “fractured rock”, which is what we newly minted hydrogeologists now call the rock at Whites Point. 

The upshot of Dr. Nastev’s presentation was that Bilcon and its consultants, in his view, used the wrong methodology to find out where the water table is on the North Mountain around Little River. They tried to use bore holes, which are drilled to take out rock samples, to double as test holes for hydrogeological testing. (I’m getting really good at typing that word). Not only did they not use the right type of holes, they didn’t dig enough of them. And the holes that they did dig weren’t necessarily in the right places, or to the right depth. 

Now when Dr. Nastev was asked, point blank, whether any of the data Bilcon provided was of any value, or if any conclusions could be drawn from it, he was far too diplomatic to say it was all bunk (a non-hydrogeological term). He said “the methodology was not appropriate.” He conceded there was an outside chance that Bilcon’s model was correct, but he thought there were many other ways of interpreting their very limited data base. He said the model Bilcon is now using needs substantial work, not just refinement. (As a budding hydrogeologist, I’d put the odds of Bilcon being right at a billion to one. In the interest of peer review, I must acknowledge that I have never won a lottery).

One of the most important points Dr. Nastev made was that Bilcon should stop looking for THE water table, because they are never going to find it. He said in this type of fracture basalt rock formation, there will be many, many different water tables, and many, many different aquifers. He pointed out that predicting impacts without a great deal more work, using the right test holes in the right places, and proper equipment and testing procedures, would be necessary to introduce an acceptable degree of certainty.

Paul Buxton responded by saying that Bilcon planned to drill more holes, once they had security on the site to keep the hole-pluggers away. But, he cautioned the panel, “It is impossible to remove all levels of uncertainty. We could drill holes for 10 years and never reach 100 per cent certainty.” (Want to bet that Dr. Nastev is being nicknamed Dr. Nasty by the Bilcon team?)


Next up was John Drage from the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour.
His most important comment was that, using Bilcon’s calculations, the quarry floor would be 22 metres below Bilcon’s calculated ground water table. That’s going to mean they should throw some pumps into their business plan. (This might be a good place to remind readers about our Buy Bilcon a Calculator fundraiser. So far donations have hit, well, nothing).

Nova Scotia’s Pit and Quarry guidelines state quite specifically that a quarry operation cannot “intersect” the water table, without permission. For any of you under the illusion that the guidelines will protect you, or for that matter, the water table, let me dissuade you. First, they are only guidelines, not regulations. So they don’t mean much to begin with. When asked if Bilcon would be given permission to “intersect” the water table, Bob Petrie of NSDEL said they probably would. (I can’t swear he said this, but the implication certainly was that they would get permission, because those pesky ground water tables would be in the way of the quarry.)

Once again NSDEL was asked if they had enough information to make an informed decision about an approval. They said they would get the details they needed before an Industrial Approval was issued. Mr. Fournier asked if those details were ever available to help a review panel make a decision. “I’ve seen approvals both ways. Sometimes information is available before approval.” 

I personally sure hope more information is available before approval, because quite frankly I don’t know that I would entrust that level of decision making to the people at NSDEL. They may be the finest kind, but many of us fear the level of detail and expertise may be beyond a small and overworked department to deal with adequately.

So what else happened today? An interesting presentation from Arthur MacKay, who talked about a quarry across the Bay. It’s not a basalt quarry. It’s a rock quarry. A fairly new one. The report card: Dust, noise, and a company not willing to listen to the concerns of the community. And it already wants to expand. Mr. MacKay showed some scary looking aerial photos of sediment flowing out into the Bay of Fundy, not from an overflow, but because blasting had caused fractures in the underground rock, which allowed the sediment to flow underground from the holding ponds. Could that happen at White’s Cove? Let’s see. Blasting, sediment ponds within spitting distance (if you’re a really good spitter) of the Bay of Fundy. Oh, probably not.

There were some powerful presentations from real people today as well. Jill Klein showed photos of what the site looks like now (worse than a moonscape), and explained to the panel how long it took to get an inspector down when a sediment bloom was discovered in the Bay of Fundy. (Three days). He couldn’t find any sediment, so he left. I guess he didn’t know that by the time he got there three days later, the tide would have washed through so many times that there wouldn’t be any evidence of sediment.

Danny Mills preached one of the finest sermons I’ve heard in awhile. (Okay, it’s been a long while). “We will not be duped by so flimsy a proposition”, he told the panel. Amen, Danny.

But the presentation that brought me to tears, and I think many others in the room, came from Rob Buckland-Nicks. Mr. Buckland-Nicks is a frequent visitor to the Neck and Islands. He runs a wonderful gift store in Bear River, called Flight of Fancy. You must drop in there. 

I’m going to quote from Rob’s presentation. Not the whole thing, although I wish I had the time and energy to do so tonight. He captured what so many of us have felt out on The Bay.

“The Captain of a whale watching vessel, frustrated by days of thick fog, but otherwise sunny weather, asked a few of us if we would like to venture out and see whether there was some whales around. Everyone on the boat knew each other, and were mostly parents and teenagers, perhaps numbering twenty five. Some of us had been out before and for some, it was going to be their first experience on a whale watching cruise.

“We left the harbour, turning right, with the sun on our backs and blue skies above. We could clearly see the bank of fog, for it started half a mile out and the nearer we came, the more it appeared like glistening architecture – and – then there we were in front of the Walls of Jericho, a hundred fee high, almost a defining line between its base and the calm, blue water.

“The Fundy is rarely glass calm, but this day it was, as we slowly pierce the wall of fog and went inside. There was almost no visibility and everyone strained to make out anything at all. It was akin to hand over hand pulling yourself through clouds. We had been edging forward like this for maybe fine minutes and the Captain, I’m sure, was thinking – this is a lost cause, when we suddenly, without warning, broke in this perfect clearing, a half mile diameter circle, surrounded by shimmering walls and a shimmering roof, as the sun illuminated the mist.

“With the boat engines turned off, we were silent observers of an amazing, unfolding spectacle.

“As far as the eye could see and in every direction, were herring throwing themselves out of the water, an event known to fisherman as ‘herring storm.’

“Millions of pitter- patterings, as glistening bodies fell back in the water where floating pockets of pink krill were everywhere you looked. These were the catches of the day for three trawling fin whales on the perimeter of our circle and three humpbacks that dived and bubble netted time and time again, in the centre.

“Gannets plunged arrowlike from fifty feet, terns from twenty, gulls screamed and bickered. A couple of immature puffins look a little lost, a razor bill shot through and out, shearwaters and petrels skimmed and danced and phalaropes, too small to effectively compete, left early.

“The creatures were mostly oblivious to us, except for one humpback who drove directly at the boat’s side and at the last moment, with everyone hanging on to each other, gently dipped and passed clear under us…

“For my family and all the other groups on the boat that day, it was an experience that enriched our lives and made us even more determined to become caretakers of our environment…

“So here we are, blessed by a naturally occurring world renowned ecosystem , the sort of beauty that some countries have to spend billions of dollars to artificially create, where the surrounding waters offer livelihoods to hundreds in the fisheries and thousands directly and indirectly in tourism. Into this pristine setting, our government has agreed to a process whereby a company will apply to run a fifty year quarry operation. Dynamite will be used regularly and millions of tons of green house gases will be released in the environment, and environment acknowledged finally, to being under siege from pollution. 

“Dynamite is dynamite, dust is dust, crushing rock is what it is and a sanctuary is a sanctuary, and my hope is that all the small peaceful fishing communities on Digby Neck and the Islands whole lives and livelihoods are directly connected to this area of the Fundy Bay, will be rewarded for their magnificent efforts to stop the quarry.”

Thanks Rob, and thanks to all the people who take the time to read this.

Thanks to Don Mullin, as well, who somehow has the energy to take a look at these postings every night before I send them out

Have a good night.

Andy M. 

June 23, 2007 - Public Hearings, Day 7

This may end up being a shorter post than the previous six, not because what was said today wasn’t of great importance. It was. It has more to do with being emotionally drained after so many eloquent presentations today by real human beings. I honestly don’t have a whole lot of energy left at the moment.

However, before I get to the day’s activities, I must announce the first (and so far only) contribution to my popular Buy Bilcon a Calculator fundraiser. Mary and John Scott dug deep and came up with $200 in Monopoly money. Way to go Mary and John. 

So let’s begin.

Sue Davis did a pretty brave thing this morning. She sat down in front of a panel of three scientists, and told them that we can’t depend on science to be accurate, or to protect us. She rattled off a long list of cases where leading edge science (for its time) turned out to be completely wrong – and in some cases extremely harmful. One of the examples Ms. Davis used was thalidomide. There were several others. The point she was making to the panel is that there is so much uncertainty about the “science” Bilcon is putting forward, that there is no reason at all to feel comfortable that the impacts of the quarry will be anything like what they are saying. 

Nora Robichaud is an artist from Clare. She spoke eloquently about the importance of the beauty of the whole area, to artists, to tourists, and to the people who live here. 

She talked of the many risks involved in this project, which would see the Nova Scotia coastline blown up to supply aggregate to a New Jersey concrete company. “Why should this community assume this risk?” she wanted to know. 

Mary McCarthy and Doreen Evenden did a magnificent job in showing how faulty two components of Bilcon’s research had been on the history of White’s Cove, and the so-called traditional knowledge study done by Elgin Consulting (read Kristy Herron, former EA to Gordon “Basalt” Balser, former employee of Bilcon, and consultant to Bilcon).

Ms. Evenden had submitted a very detailed analysis dissecting the many, many faults of the Elgin Consulting study. Bilcon’s only response to her four or five page analysis was that it was “noted.” 

What does “noted” mean, Ms. Evenden demanded to know today. She went through her list of faults again today, explaining to the Panel that the Elgin Consulting’s “interview” technique was nothing more than a “thinly veiled excuse to promote the quarry.”

(As an aside, Ms. Herron will be at the hearings on Monday, when the theme for the day is Socio-Economic Issues. We certainly hope Ms.Evenden will return to put her questions directly to her. She sure got no satisfaction from Paul Buxton. Every time Mr. Buxton opens his mouth, it reminds me of a quote I read once: “He is the kind of speaker who makes deep sounds from the chest sound like important messages from the brain”.)


Mary McCarthy went through Chapter and Verse of the historical reports prepared for Bilcon. By the end of her presentation, it was evident to everyone in the room (scratch that. Everyone but Paul Buxton), that the hired help had only done a cursory examination of some of the records available in establishing the historical and archaeological significance of Whites Cove.

June Swift was up next. June lives in Westport. She’s a self-taught naturalist who has published a book on the wildflowers of Brier Island. She’s worked on whale boats, and she understands the Bay of Fundy ecosystem. She went through all the threats this quarry poses to that ecosystem, but when she got to the threat it posed to her family, she broke down in tears. Her husband is a lobster fisherman. “If something happens to this Bay, we will be devastated.” She understands as much as anyone that a whole way of life, the lobster fishery, is at risk from this project, and with it the very security of her family.

When she finished, Panel Chair Robert Fournier asked, gently, why people from the Neck and Islands who oppose this quarry are so emotional about it. 
“Because it’s the environment. It’s where we come from, it’s who we are.” June replied. 

Paul Buxton went on the attack, demanding to know why, if June was so committed to the environment, she wasn’t opposed to the quarry in Tiverton. June explained that she had concerns about it, but that the quarry had a very short lifespan, providing rock for a badly needed breakwater for the fishermen in Tiverton.

Mr. Buxton seems to have a hard time understanding that there is no comparison to the quarry in Tiverton and his mega-quarry on The Neck. The Tiverton quarry had a short life span. The rock was used for a local, one-time project. There was a direct benefit to the people in the village. His quarry will go on for 50 years, blow away millions of tons of basalt every year, and it’s all going to New Jersey. How hard can it be for someone to understand the fundamental differences between these two projects? Honestly, how hard can it be?

Next we heard from Joan Boutilier, Eva Holzwarth, and Helen Whidden, all from the Valley. The first speaker spoke of her fear that a quarry started on the Neck will lead to quarries up and down the North Mountain. She gave a little geology lesson, explaining how the North Mountain took 200 million years to form, but how modern blasting techniques could level it in 200 years.

The next speaker talked of the awful gash in Parker’s Mountain she has to look at every day. Tourists ask her how it could have happened. She warned if the Digby Neck quarry starts, tourists won’t come to the Neck and Islands.

The third spoke forcefully about why she and her husband returned to Nova Scotia to retire. They came back because of the natural beauty. “Now we have a growing sense of unease – our heritage is up for sale.”

Thanks for coming, and thanks for telling the panel that this isn’t a Digby Neck issue. 

The lunch break was a welcome relief. It’s hard sitting in a room where so many people are pleading so eloquently to spare the life of a loved one – in this case the loved one being the Bay, the coastline… the planet. And you ask yourself. What is going on here? Why are we pleading the case to save this place. Why are we going through this anguish? I guess because it’s a company, and we will never see the faces of its principals in New Jersey. To them it’s not an ecosystem, or anyone’s home. To them it’s just a pile of rock that has a landed value per ton at a New Jersey port. And Mr. Buxton’s job is to deliver it. 

I’m afraid the afternoon was a bit of a blur. There was a presentation by the Council of Canadians. Maude Barlow couldn’t make it to the hearings, so her presentation was read for her. 
Maxine McQuaig talked about how if this were to happen at her end of the Valley, thousands of people would be up in arms. “I wonder if Bilcon focused on Digby Neck because of its small population?”
If I were a betting man, Ms. McQuaig, I would bet you are probably right. 

William Lang, representing the Green Party of Nova Scotia, presented a number of concerns pertaining to the health of the environment, the health of the population, and our duty to future generations. One of his main points was that allowing this project to proceed would be unethical. (A point disputed by Panel Chair Robert Fournier. The gist of Dr. Fournier’s question: Are we at the point where the ethos of the province is that only green projects should be approved? If we’re not at that ethical point, then this is not unethical. Dr. Fournier was clearly testing this young man from the Green Party. I personally was delighted to hear from someone, anyone, under the age of 40 taking this issue seriously).

Mary and John Scott spoke. (They are the couple who gave so generously to the Bilcon Calculator fundraiser). John keeps weather records, which he sends out frequently via short wave. And he pointed out what an incredibly unpredictable microclimate there is on the Neck, especially around Whites Cove. He said Bilcon used weather data from reporting stations that would not give them much useful information about what things are really like on the coast off Whites Cove. He told the panel how quickly high winds can develop…in a matter of minutes. And the winds are gusty, one of the biggest threats to large vessels close to shore.

He said the marine terminal as proposed by Bilcon is simply foolhardy. The Structure does not appear to be strong enough.”

Maybe one of these days Bilcon will pay attention to local knowledge, rather than pissing away all that money on high-priced help that hasn’t any useful knowledge of the shoreline and weather conditions.

Mary Scott told the panel of the asthma she has suffered from for years. How they escaped from the heat and smog of Ontario to retire to the tranquility and solitude of Sandy Cove. And now she has to live in fear again of dust from a quarry. 

My old friend Calum MacKenzie from Middleton held no punches in his economic analysis of this project in the great scheme of globalization and NAFTA. Calum’s entire presentation is available on the public registry (as will they all be soon). My favourite line: “Nova Scotia has become chopped liver.” 

Of course the hands-down, show-stopping, presentation of the day came from Christine Callaghan, who, I must admit in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, is my wife.
I should, I expect, reproduce every word uttered by Chris, but I won’t. But I will put some of it in. 
(Note from Chris: I think he’s trying to score points because I’ve seen him a total of seventeen minutes or so in the past month!!!)

“I’m going to begin my presentation with a short quote from a poem by a Cape Breton poet named Joyce Rankin, in her book “At My Mother’s Door”.

“In the hayfields that slope to the ocean
trimmed by the dark green and burning pink of wild-rose bushes
and ponds where cattails grew and wild ducks rested,
you almost expected to find a 
flattened swathe where 
God Himself had lain His shoulders,
looked at the sky, and slept content.”

When I first read that passage, I felt that surely the writer had been to my back yard! I live in Freeport, on Long Island, and most days I feel that I live in heaven.”

Henry Bradford of Wolfville made a short presentation. His message: This project should have never gone to the Environmental Impact Statement stage before the people of the Neck and Islands had a chance to say whether they wanted it or not. He said we could have saved a lot of time and money if the politicians asked the people first whether it was a good or bad idea. 

And finally came Tony Kelly and Kevin Gidney of Little River. Little River, of course, is ground zero for this quarry. And I must say Tony and Kevin were a bit like the odd couple. Tony is only a sixth generation Digby Necker. Kevin is seventh. Tony is a teacher, and (please forgive me Tony) is prone to use words with five or six syllable when one with two might suffice. Kevin, on the other hand, would probably have much preferred to have been out on the water rather than sitting uncomfortably in front of the Panel. But jeez, did they acquit themselves well.

Tony countered the looped message that Bilcon has been playing ad nauseum for the last year or so: That Digby Neck is a dying community. Tony recounted the number of businesses, jobs and population statistics for his village. By the end of it, you got a picture of a pretty active workforce not desperate to see the other side of the mountain blown away so they could get a job.

Tony also played a video shot and edited by Bear River filmmaker Tim Wilson. It featured Kemp Stanton, a Digby Neck fisherman, talking about what the quarry would do to the fishing grounds. It is a beautiful piece of work, and you should try to find a copy. 
Maybe somebody reading this can send me an email where it can be downloaded.

Kevin Gidney spoke for about three minutes, and probably told the Panel more about the life of a lobster fisherman in those three minutes then they could gain by reading a bookcase full of DFO reports.

First, Kevin explained how important those fishing grounds are to so many boats. In fact, 35 of them use the grounds most or part of the time. If the quarry hurts the lobster stock, if the catches go down, well, “each of the boats has a three man crew. They’d have to lay off someone. There’s 35 jobs lost right there. It’s a real important piece of bottom.”
“The vibrations from the blasts, it will drive them out. The lobster won’t stay there.”

He explained what a mess a big bulk carrier would make of their gear. Compensation for traps is one thing, but Bilcon doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it is to get new tags from DFO. That can take days. And it’s no easy matter to go out and just move the traps, as Bilcon says they could do. During the winter fishery we have here on the Bay, “I’ve seen it go 20 days when we couldn’t get out on the water.” 

He was asked how he’d feel about a buy out, or compensation, so he could just sit home and watch television.

“I like the water. I was 17 when I started fishing. I was 24 when I run my first boat. Hopefully my boy can fish my boat if he wants.” I don’t think Mr. Gidney is interested in Bilcon’s compensation plan.

The day ended with a bit of a disappointment. Janet Eaton of the Sierra Club was there to talk about NAFTA. Unfortunately, the laptop computer wouldn’t talk to the projector, so her presentation had to be postponed. It’s been rescheduled for next week.

So there you have it. Day 7 is over. It’s getting late on Saturday night.

But I don’t want to quit until I relate a rather astute observation Don Mullin made as we were driving home to the Island today.

Don asked if I noticed that the ranks at the Bilcon table were pretty deleted today. The only people there were Paul Buxton, John Wall (who has uttered a total of three words through seven days of hearings) and the woman who spends most of her day trying to find documents on the computer screen that the guy behind her, with the big box of papers, generally finds quicker.

None of the experts were there. They were there when the government experts were making their presentations. But not today. Today it was just ordinary people. People from the Neck and Islands who call that place home. People from the Valley who fear their backyard will be next. 

Clearly Bilcon was saying, “nobody of any consequence is going to say anything today. Let’s give our important people the day off.”

Your message wasn’t missed. By us, or I expect the Panel. 

How do I feel after a seven days? I think the panel is getting the message that Bilcon’s science is suspect. Incomplete. Lazy. I think the panel knows that Bilcon has tried to put one (or more) over on them. And they’ve been caught many, many times. I also think Bilcon has exposed, through its ham-handed questioning of ordinary people, that they don’t really care about us. We have to be tolerated through this process, more or less. But if they ever get the approval, watch out. I think the Panel is watching this. They’re hearing how Bilcon browbeats people. It gives a pretty good indication of why the Community Liaison Committee failed in the past, and is bound to fail in the future.

So I guess I’m feeling a bit, and just a bit, hopeful. 

Have a good night and weekend. Thanks to Don and Chris for all their help in getting these little posts out each day.

Andy M.

June 25, 2007 - Public Hearings, Day 8

There are times when you feel good about democracy. I guess today was one of them. I have two very positive images in my head from today. The first is of 81-year-old Clytie Foster, giving Bilcon living hell for even thinking about desecrating her beloved Digby Neck with a quarry.

The second was of Jim Thurber, Warden of the Municipality of Digby, John Kinsella, Mayor of Annapolis Royal, and Peter Newton, Warden of the County of Annapolis, sitting at the table like the three amigos, telling the panel that the people of this area don’t want the quarry. They fear it, and they fear more quarries springing up along the North Mountain.

Yes, I thought to myself. The message is getting through to our politicians. More on Clytie, God bless her, later. But first, Don Mullin has taken on writing a summary of the first part of the day, which was Bilcon’s presentation on Socio Economic Issues, followed by the Department of Tourism’s take on how this quarry will make it tough to market our pristine coastline, if a good part of it has been blown up and shipped to New Jersey. (Maybe we could start a new tourism campaign. See Nova Scotia. Drive on a New Jersey highway). I’ll be back later, but first, Don’s report:

Following some housekeeping items, today’s session began with Panel member Dr. Jill Grant following up on a comment made by Bilcon about diverting freshwater from above the quarry to the Bay of Fundy during heavy storms. Nothing gets the attention juices flowing like a conflict early in the day. Dr. Grant indicated that there had been no previous discussion of this strategy and Bilcon’s diagrams did not have any reference to this diversion. Then began some hair-splitting about whether Bilcon needed to discuss this because the 64Ha source was not on the quarry site. To and fro the discussion went without much progress until it was finally abandoned before a now fully awake audience.

Next followed a horribly boring presentation by Ms. Susan Sherk of AMEC, the consulting firm hired by Bilcon to carry out the socio-economic impact study. But it ended up with little or no socio- and lots of economics, all big numbers and wonderful news. Or was it? Seems like the big Operating budget of $20 million actually shrinks quite a bit when you pay the $13 million in shipping costs, and spend $3.7 Million on costs outside Digby County. How about 225 person years of work during construction that under questioning suddenly shrunk to 45 person years for people from Digby County (the remainder going to workers in other parts of the province or elsewhere. But we were told that there would be 65-80 workers employed for approx. 18 months during construction (and by old math that would be 98 to 120 person years). Give me a call if you understand that new math because the Buy Bilcon a Calculator Fund remains fixed at $100 in Monopoly money.

We were led on a worthless chase for meaning in the results of the attitude study carried out for Bilcon by AMEC’s subcontractor (the idea being that if you hide the players well enough you don’t know who to blame for the amateur survey). Other than telling us that about half those surveyed indicated very good or excellent quality of life with only about 20% reporting fair to poor and that belonging to community, attachment to place, and distrust of projects run by people from away, we learned nothing. How is the quarry going to increase or decrease quality of life? How is it going to change attachment to place or any other factor? I guess that was a quiz question and we will get the answers later.

In the question session, Bilcon was asked where the information was on relations between different community groups (older vs. younger, those in favour of vs. opposed to the quarry, etc.) the skates came on. We were told that Market Quest had done the study and that the answers to the questions asked were hard to get at (that’s different from the previous answer to the question which was that these kinds of questions don’t lend themselves to scientific study). Thank goodness that consistency is a hobgobblin of little minds because we didn’t get it here.

There were dozens of additional questions about the survey results but it didn’t get any better. Dr.Grant couldn’t understand why numbers in different tables weren’t the same and I couldn’t make any sense out of the explanation. Ms. Sherk was asked by Dr. Muecke whether a cross-tabulation analysis was done on the results and it seemed to me that she had no idea what he was talking about. He helped her some here by giving her an example but couldn’t help her enough to make her look like she understood.

On a question concerning what, if any, role Elgin Consulting’s report on Community Knowledge had played in Bilcon’s conclusions regarding environmental effects, no answer was provided. When asked whether the report remains part of the EIS (by a person who obviously thinks it doesn’t belong), we were told it is still part of the report. Why not? After all, the fact that it’s poorly done doesn’t earn it special distinctiveness.

Some other brief lowlights were the continued argument that since seismic testing on snow crabs didn’t show resulting crab mortality, then in the absence of research data, it seems reasonable to conclude that blasting won’t have mortal effects on lobsters. If you think that’s bad logic, you may have the talent to become a good scientist.

This is getting too depressing so I’m switching to another topic. Good news came from Darleen MacDonald from the Department of Tourism and Culture. After some numbers, she told us that Digby Neck has been identified as one of the top three birding areas as well as an important whale watching tourist destination. We knew that but it became better when she discussed tourism branding for the province. She said “the key to tourism in Nova Scotia is the integrity of our natural environment, in particular our coastal assets. She went on to say that the department has concerns with the project on tourist’s perceptions (because coastal scenery is very important to tourists). Repeating the same message, she later said that the project has the potential to significantly (and negatively) impact on tourism brand (the “brand” is that Nova Scotia is the foremost seacoast vacation destination that offers authentic experience for body and soul better than anywhere else… (writer’s cramp set in here and I didn’t get the rest of this flowery phrase).

We also heard from the Culture side of the department but I kind of zoned out when he said he wasn’t aware of any of the criticisms that have been levied on Dr. Wattrell’s methodology, report, and unwillingness to deal with community members and, besides, I don’t want to spoil my warm and fuzzy feeling from what Tourism said.

Thanks Don. Now over to me. 

Now, I have to admit to being a bit proud when the Warden of the Municipality got up and told the panel that the 34 jobs being offered up by Bilcon wouldn’t compensate for the risks run by the communities. “What may at first glance have a positive impact may have a devastating impact,” Jim told the panel. “This project is at odds with Digby Neck and Islands as a tourism destination.” Warden Thurber said it’s hard to say “no” to economic development in an area that needs jobs. “But we, as a council, support our citizens who do not want this to proceed.”

Mayor Kinsella, of Annapolis Royal, told the Panel that they’ve managed to stop a quarry at Victoria Beach – for the moment. But he thinks that if the Digby Neck Quarry goes ahead, the developer of the Victoria Beach one will take heart, and renew the application.

And Warden Newton asked the simple question, “Why not do it where the demand exists?” Like in New Jersey’s back yard, not ours. He also pointed out to the panel that the Municipalities have no power to stop quarries, because they are a provincial jurisdiction. A quarry can be opened up, and we wouldn’t even know it was going to happen, because we have no say.

Bilcon has been touting the $400,000 a year in taxes the quarry will generate for Municipal coffers. But Warden Thurber said “there is no way I can substantiate it.” He told the panel he’s made inquiries from the Department of Municipal Affairs, and has been told the figure might be closer to $130,000, or less. 

In a world where we don’t often see politicians stand up for what is right, in was kind of energizing to see these three men say “no” to this quarry development. I’d like to congratulate them and their councils. 

A chap named Michael Hayden spoke next. He’s from Digby. Retired. He’s been away, and is now home. He had done some research, and had some interesting things to say about how much Clayton Concrete stands to gain from this quarry deal. By his calculations, about a billion dollars by the end of the 50 years of blasting, given the price and demand for basalt. And what does Nova Scotia get. 34 jobs. (Half the number of employees of the Sobey’s in Digby). “This is not an equitable trade off.” Of course, Bilcon’s Paul Buxton disputed the figures. But, I noticed, not very hard. Bilcon hasn’t actually presented the panel with any figures of its own, even though it was told to do so. So having nothing to compare to, I guess Mr. Harden’s will do for now. 

A woman named Betty MacAlpine was supposed to speak next. She used to work in Bilcon’s office in Digby. She didn’t show up.

Jan Hermiston did. She lives down the valley, and has a brother who lives, part time, in a camp on Long Island’s Fundy shore.

She said the world has changed since this quarry idea came up five years ago. People are waking up to climate change. Global warming is being taken seriously, even by politicians. (I don’t know if they take it seriously. They talk like were supposed to believe they take it seriously). She said rather than embracing a possible environmental nightmare, the panel should recommend the Neck and Islands be turned into a National Park.

Phyllis Nixon and Kim Grimard were there representing the Paradise Women’s Institute. Paradise, for those who don’t know, is in the Valley, on the old road. They got interested in the quarry issue when they discovered that their local eatery, Pearls of Paradise (best fish and chips in Nova Scotia, they claim), got its fish from Little River, the very area Bilcon was planning to blow up. My god, what if they blew up the fish? What would happen to Pearl? Ms. Nixon and Ms. Grimard did a wonderful job reminding the panel of a long list of problems with this quarry (including, of course, the danger to the very existence of Pearl). They talked about water quality, and noise, and dust, and the danger to marine mammals, and the fish (some of them bound for Pearl’s). But most importantly, they reminded the panel that this is not an issue to be fought by the people from the Neck and Islands alone. It is an issue for everyone who considers Nova Scotia part of their neighbourhood. Because that’s what the Women’s Institute does. Look after its neighbourhood. Thank you ladies. 

Clytie Foster was next. But I’m not going to tell you what she said yet. I’m saving the best for last. I can do that because I’m writing this, and you aren’t. I can’t stop you from scrolling down, of course, but if you do, you’d miss what lobsterman Chris Hudson had to say.

Chris Hudson, speaks for the Fundy Fixed Gear Council. He has a way with words, as so many fishermen do. More accurately, it’s a way with very few words. The few that he did use, he used well. He told the panel the ecosystem is everything to a fisherman, and he strongly recommended it would be best if Bilcon, the panel, and anyone else not mess with it.

He told the panel about how lobster move up and down the bay, following the feed. How the feed would be scared off by the blasting and vibrations. And if the feed is gone, so are the lobster, followed shortly thereafter by the lobster boats. And all the jobs on those boats. Lots more jobs than are being offered up by Bilcon. His understanding of the connectiveness of events is very strong. I like watching the panel when fishermen speak. If I could read their minds, I bet I would hear something like, “You know, these guys know what’s going on out there. They have to, because that’s how they make their living.” I think they’re also thinking, “Damn, I wish I had a student who could figure this stuff out.” Of course, I could be totally wet on this. They may just be straining to cut through the Digby Neck accent. 

Laura Hussey of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society made this pitch to the panel: The Neck and Islands would be an ideal place for a Marine Conservation Area. Sort of like a National Park, only on water, and fishermen would still be able to fish, and other stuff would still happen, but you couldn’t have a quarry. (And it would be much better than Banff). And if the panel allows the quarry to go ahead, you couldn’t have a Marine Conservation Area. So what would you rather have? A quarry or a MCA? Hum. Sounds like a toughie.

So now, finally, to Clytie. I’m smitten. I’m sort of hoping I can still turn the television on by myself when, and if I reach 81. So here she is, in front of a crowd of people, facing a Review Panel, and not phizzed by it one little bit.

“I am proud to be a Digby Necker”, Ms. Foster told the Panel. “I have loved Digby Neck since my earliest memories of living there. I have loved that narrow strip of land with its two Islands lying between beautiful St. Mary’s Bay and the awesomely majestic Bay of Fundy. I was always so aware of their water surrounding me. The love of Digby Neck and the sea is in my blood, my very being. To walk the beaches there’re, at Timpany, Seawall, or Gulliver’s, is to me a spiritual experience. My heart is full of gratitude to the Great Creator for these beautiful places.”

Ms. Foster spoke of growing up on the Neck, poor. “But we were millionaires in those things that really matter.”

She talked of her family home, and those of her ancestors. All Digby Neckers. And she told the panel of her horror when she heard of the quarry.

“With such a heritage behind us, how can we do otherwise than raise our voices in protest against the quarry on behalf of our ancestors? They struggled to establish their homes on Digby Neck. They helped make it what it is today. Those previous generations passed in to us basically intact and as beautiful as when they lived there. We should pass it on to future generations undamaged, not a wounded strip of land, with holes in its sides. Stop this quarry and let our ancestors rest in peace, especially those who were so rudely awakened.”

This, of course, is just a short excerpt of Ms. Foster’s wonderful prose. I stopped writing notes, and just listened. I could see the Panel was listening. I hope Bilcon was listening. But I doubt it.


It’s late, (actually early), and I’m going to send this off. Thanks Don, for writing a big chunk of this. If there are typos or grammatical errors, don’t blame Chris, who normally proofreads. She’s a sensible woman who went to bed hours ago.

Have a good day.

Andy M.