WHITES POINT QUARRY AND MARINE TERMINAL PROJECT 
JOINT REVIEW PANEL 
SCOPING MEETING #1 
____________________________________________________________ 
HEARD BEFORE: Dr. Robert Fournier, Chairperson 
Dr. Jill Grant, Member 
Dr. Gunter Muecke, Member 
PLACE HEARD: Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia 
DATE HEARD: Thursday, January 6, 2005 
SECRETARIAT: Mr. Stephen Chapman, CEAA 
Ms. Lucille Jamault, CEAA 
Mr. Peter Geddes, NSEL 
____________________________________________________________ 

Recorded by: 
Drake Recording Services Limited 
1592 Oxford Street 
Halifax, NS B3H 3Z4 
Per: Mark Aurini, Commissioner of Oaths  

I N D E X 
O F 
P R O C E E D I N G S 

						PAGE NO. 
THE CHAIRPERSON - OPENING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . 3 
MR. TONY KELLY - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
MR. TONY KELLY FOR MS. MARY LYNYAK - SUBMISSIONS . . 26 
MR. ANDY SHARP - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
MR. ASHRAF MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 48 
MS. MARILYN STANTON - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 57 
MR. DON MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 
MR. LAURENCE OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . 77 
MS. PENNY GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 87 
MR. CHRIS TIDD - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 
MR. KEMP STANTON - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 97 
MS. CHERYL DENTON - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 109 
MR. ARTHUR BULL - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 
MR. KEVIN GIDNEY - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 123 
MS. SHERRY PICTOU - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 131 
MR. ROGER OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 139 
MR. JAMES GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 144  

 
page 3
 
1 Sandy Cove, Digby Neck, Nova Scotia 
2 --- Upon commencing on Thursday, January 6, 2005, 
3 at 7:02 p.m. 
4 THE CHAIRPERSON - OPENING REMARKS: 
5 Good evening to you all. Thank 
6 you for coming to this particular meeting. My name 
7 is Robert Fournier, and I'm the Chairman of the 
8 Joint Panel. On my left hand is Gunter Muecke. 
9 He's an earth scientist. On my right is Jill 
10 Grant. She's a planner. And my discipline is 
11 oceanographer. 
12 Also, I'd like to point out that 
13 there is a secretariat that has been established to 
14 support this panel. And over there we have Peter 
15 Geddes from the Department of Environment and 
16 Labour from the Provincial Government, and then 
17 Steve Chapman in the blue shirt, who is with the 
18 Department of the Environment federally, and with 
19 the organization known as the Canadian 
20 Environmental Assessment Agency or CEAA. And 
21 there's also a third person, Lucille Jamault, who's 
22 over there standing up. And so they represent the 
23 secretariat for the moment. They're the support 
24 people that regulate the paper and allow us to 
25 function properly.  

page4
 
OPENING REMARKS 
1 Well, let me just start by saying 
2 who we are. We're a joint panel, and what the 
3 word, "joint," in this case means is it's a panel 
4 that's been assembled that is partially federal, 
5 Department of the Environment of the Federal 
6 Government, and partially provincial from the 
7 Department of the Environment and Labour. So 
8 "joint" means federal/provincial grouping. 
9 What do we do? The question you 
10 may ask is "What do we do?" We have been created 
11 by an agreement between the Federal and Provincial 
12 Governments, and that agreement establishes the 
13 panel. The panel has been given terms of reference 
14 to work within, and those terms of reference are to 
15 ask us to try and review the particular proposal 
16 that is before you to make an impartial review of 
17 the environmental effects that have been proposed 
18 for the development of a basalt quarry here on 
19 Digby Neck, and a marine terminal, specifically at 
20 Whites Point, as you all know. And the Proponent 
21 involved in all of this is Bilcon of Nova Scotia. 
22 Okay? 
23 Now, this is intended to be a 
24 public process, a very public process. All the 

page5
 
OPENING REMARKS 
1 available to you, the public. It's all present in 
2 the Isaiah Wilson Library in Digby and can be 
3 accessed on line for those of you who have computer 
4 facilities as well. So every single document that 
5 we see is available to the public to be seen as 
6 well. 
7 The Secretariat is the 
8 intermediary. They allow -- they process the 
9 paper, but in the end, as I said, once more, to 
10 make it absolutely certain, is that nothing we will 
11 see you won't see as well. 
12 In addition, the public process 
13 involves two public -- two sets of public meetings. 
14 Tonight is the first in the first set. As you all 
15 know, there will be four meetings held over the 
16 next four days. One here, one in Digby tomorrow, 
17 one in Wolfville on Saturday, and then one finally 
18 in Meteghan on Sunday. And the plan is to cover 
19 the area that will be affected or influence by this 
20 particular proposal. These are referred to as 
21 scoping meetings, and I'll come back to that in 
22 just a minute and give you a bit more information. 
23 There is a second set of public 
24 meetings planned as well. After the Proponent, 


page6 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 statement, a statement as to how they see their 
2 proposal impacting on the environment, there will 
3 be a set of public meetings in which the public 
4 will be asked to comment on that particular 
5 document. 
6 So we have meetings here before 
7 the document is written, and there'll be meetings 
8 after the document is written. Both of these 
9 meetings, the scoping meetings and the subsequent 
10 meetings, are put together to assist us, the panel, 
11 to help us reach conclusions. And it's very clear 
12 or should be clear to you that the panel needs the 
13 input from the public at every step of the way. In 
14 other words, your input will have an impact on us 
15 as we draw our conclusions and eventually write a 
16 report that will go to two ministers, a provincial 
17 minister and a federal minister. 
18 Now, let's come back to the 
19 scoping meetings, tonight's meetings. The focus of 
20 this particular meeting tonight is to get your 
21 input on this document. This is the Draft EIS 
22 Guideline. This is the document that -- well, 
23 first of all, let me just say, EIS means 
24 Environmental Impact Statement, and eventually 
 Bilcon will be asked to produce an Environmental 

page7 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 Impact Statement defining their view as to what the 
2 environmental impact will be. These are 
3 guidelines, which means these are instructions 
4 given to the Proponent, to Bilcon, to tell them how 
5 to put together their Environmental Impact 
6 Statement. 
7 And then finally, this is a draft. 
8 It's not complete. It hasn't been finished. So 
9 the reason we are coming to you is to ask you for 
10 your input to help us refine this draft which 
11 eventually will be given to the Proponent. 
12 It's important for you to know 
13 that this document was not drawn up by the three of 
14 us. It was drawn up by both branches of the 
15 government, federal and provincial. It was put 
16 together by a variety of individuals and 
17 specialists who said, based on their experience, 
18 this is what we think you need. But now is the 
19 time for the public to have its input into this, 
20 and then after we have received your input, we will 
21 take the original document and the public input and 
22 fashion a final document which will then go forward 
23 to the Proponent. Okay? This is to allow you to 
24 have a say in the process. 
25 Now, we're seeking your input. We   

page8 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 recognize there are some people in the community 
2 who are positive, who believe that this is a good 
3 thing. We understand that there are people in the 
4 community who believe that this is negative and not 
5 good for the community. We're interested in both 
6 sides. This is not just one side. It's both 
7 sides. We're looking for your help to assist us in 
8 environmental issues and issues related to the 
9 project in general. Another way of saying that 
10 would be we're interested in what you have to say 
11 to help us to refine this document. 
12 The panel will receive the input 
13 from four scoping meetings, and here tonight, your 
14 input will be verbal, oral. But if any of you 
15 prefer -- don't like speaking in public and prefer 
16 to write to us, do it. Send us something written. 
17 The fact that it's presented in person or the fact 
18 that it's presented in writing makes no difference, 
19 equal way. It's the information we want. It's not 
20 the mechanism by which it's been given to us. 
21 And if it's been presented to us 
22 verbally, it'll be transcribed and made public for 
23 everyone to see. If it's sent to us in writing, 
24 it'll be put on the registry for everyone to see, 
25 either way. And in either case, if it's useful 

page9 

OPENING REMARKS
 
1 information that helps us, it'll be included in the 
2 Guidelines. And the Guidelines, once they're 
3 finished, will be made available for you to see as 
4 well. 
5 Okay. Now, there are procedures 
6 that we're going to follow tonight as we've set 
7 aside three hours, from 7:00 to 10:00. And not 
8 only that, it's very tightly scripted. A variety 
9 of people have responded to a request and indicated 
10 that they wanted to speak, and so every minute is 
11 allotted, and we're going to try and keep you to 
12 the schedule. It's not that we want to move you 
13 through and not hear what you have to say. It's 
14 that we'd like to get everything in. 
15 If, by chance, we don't, there are 
16 two possibilities. We could keep this meeting 
17 running longer or we could ask some of you, if 
18 you're interested, to appear at a meeting tomorrow 
19 night in Digby and make a presentation there. 
20 There's no preference one way or the other. I 
21 mean, it's really up to what you would like to do. 
22 There is one advantage for the overflow to go to 
23 Digby, is there'd be more time, more time for 
24 interaction, and you might be able to explain your 
25 concerns greater. It's up to you. We'll respond   

page10 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 to what you think. 
2 There are several categories of 
3 presenters tonight. This list is made up of people 
4 who registered ahead of time, who wrote into the 
5 secretariat and said they wanted to make a 
6 presentation. Some of them are individuals and 
7 some of them represent organizations. The 
8 difference is, if it's an individual, we've asked 
9 them to keep their remarks to 10 minutes. People 
10 representing organizations, we've asked them to 
11 keep their remarks to 15 minutes. That's the only 
12 distinction, simply assuming that somebody 
13 representing an organization might have more to 
14 say. 
15 Also, people could have registered 
16 at the door. They could have registered with 
17 Lucille, and she could have written it down and we 
18 could try to fit you in. If there are people of 
19 that sort, we might try and tack them on at the 
20 end. But as I said, the evening could become 
21 extremely long. And then finally, somebody might 
22 wish to make a comment from the floor. Again, 
23 that's possible too if there's time. 
24 So all we've done is to give 
25 preference or priority to those individuals who   

page11 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 registered ahead, and after that, there's a 
2 sequence that we'll follow. Oh, and the list, by 
3 the way, is a first come, first serve list. 
4 They're going to assign the space on the list based 
5 on first come, first serve. 
6 Okay. Everyone's aware -- we 
7 certainly are aware that there are high emotions 
8 around this particular issue. Consequently, the 
9 reason for the panel being called into place. We 
10 would ask you to try and make your comments through 
11 the chair, through the panel, rather than across 
12 the room. There's nothing to be gained by one 
13 individual here with one viewpoint and an 
14 individual over there with another viewpoint and 
15 this kind of interaction. The reason for saying 
16 that is that the purpose of this meeting is to 
17 inform us. We need your input in order to take the 
18 next step. So the information should flow this way 
19 if at all possible, and so we just urge you to keep 
20 that in mind. I'm sure that the community has 
21 debated many of these issues many times, but this 
22 particular meeting is directed at us. 
23 With regard to questions, if 
24 there's enough time -- if somebody makes a 
25 presentation and we think that there's enough time,   

page12 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 then we might wish to question or we might allow 
2 questions from the floor, which should be directed 
3 through us. The order of the questioning would be 
4 for the panel first, since that's the primary 
5 motive for this particular meeting, and then we 
6 would then defer to others. And as I said, bring 
7 the questions through me. 
8 One final thing, I suppose, or one 
9 almost final thing is that the panel reserves the 
10 right to strongly intervene to keep the meeting on 
11 track. Okay? And by that, I mean is that -- is 
12 that we are here for one specific reason, which is 
13 to get your input to help us to refine this 
14 document, rather than to hear a broadly inclusive 
15 view of the issues which are at hand. So that if 
16 we think somebody is rambling or the subject is a 
17 little irrelevant, we might try and nudge you to 
18 bring you more on line. Again, that should not be 
19 interpreted as an attempt to reduce or stifle or in 
20 any way inhibit the input. Remember, there are two 
21 sets of public meetings. We do want to hear. But 
22 tonight we have a specific purpose that we're going 
23 to try and pursue. 
24 Finally -- we're almost to the end 
25 of these opening remarks -- if anybody makes a   

page13 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 presentation tonight or if they feel that in 
2 addition, they would -- if they don't make a 
3 presentation but they feel there's something that 
4 they want to pass on to the committee, a map, a 
5 document, or they want to go and write something 
6 after the fact, please bring it to us. Not to me 
7 directly. Bring it over to Steve over here, and he 
8 will make sure it's recorded. He'll put a stamp on 
9 it. It'll end up in the public registry. So 
10 written things to accompany a presentation are 
11 welcome as well. If you have it, pass it to us. 
12 If it's important to you, we'll copy it and return 
13 it to you. But nevertheless, we'd like to have it. 
14 Then finally, a couple of 
15 logistical things. I understand there's coffee and 
16 tea over there. We're going to take a break around 
17 8:30 as the schedule unfolds. Anybody wants a cup 
18 of coffee in the meantime, just wander over there. 
19 It's fine. You don't have to wait till the break 
20 if you can't wait for your cup of coffee. Just try 
21 and toddle over. 
22 I want to remind you of something, 
23 and that is that there are recordings under way. 
24 We're recording this whole process. It will be 
25 transcribed and available to you. There's also a   

page14 

OPENING REMARKS 
1 Court Reporter here as well who is transcribing it 
2 in a second version. So there are two versions 
3 under way. 
4 Anybody here from the media who 
5 wants to take pictures or to do interviews and so 
6 forth, we strongly discourage that from happening 
7 while the meeting is under way. You just saw a 
8 picture taken. That was just prior to the meeting. 
9 Please hold any -- any other intervention of that 
10 sort, please wait until the meetings are over. 
11 And then finally the last comment 
12 before we turn it over to the first individual is 
13 to say that when you stand up to make a 
14 presentation, please identify yourself, your name, 
15 and where you're from so the Court Reporter and the 
16 transcript can very clearly identify who is making 
17 that particular remark at that particular time. 
18 Okay? 
19 I think that's all I have to say. 
20 I think that covers all the bits and pieces, and I 
21 think we're right on schedule now. It is now 7:15, 
22 and according to this list which has been drawn up 
23 by the secretariat, Mr. Tony Kelly from the Little 
24 River Citizens Committee is going to make the first 
25 intervention. Mr. Kelly. 
 

page15 

1 MR. TONY KELLY - SUBMISSIONS: 
2 Good evening. Thank you for such 
3 a clear introduction. And I'm also -- I wear 
4 several hats, I guess, so as the principal of the 
5 school, before I make any other interventions, I'd 
6 just like to welcome people. It's a fine thing to 
7 see a building like this used in a way that 
8 promotes at least a discussion and airing of 
9 understandings across all sectors of the community. 
10 So I'm just saying that as the administrator of the 
11 school. 
12 Take that hat off and throw it 
13 away, I'm really here tonight as the spokesperson 
14 for the residents group in Little River, and my 
15 name is Tony Nelson Kelly, and I've lived in Little 
16 River all my life with the exception of some small 
17 trips away for purposes of study largely. And as 
18 I've said elsewhere at various times, I'm probably 
19 a five/sixth generation member of the community of 
20 Little River. So my family's memories certainly go 
21 a long way back, and we have every intention of 
22 ensuring that they move well into the future. 
23 I'm speaking tonight on the Draft 
24 Guidelines. As much as it's possible to speak on 
25 the Guidelines specifically, I will try and do  

page16 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 that, but at the same time, there are these larger 
2 issues that have been floating in the community for 
3 at least two or more years, so it's difficult to 
4 sometimes separate these things out, and I'm sure 
5 the Chair will draw those things to my attention if 
6 we wander too far. 
7 So I'm basically making six points 
8 around those Guidelines, and the first of them is 
9 that the issues arising from the Guidelines very 
10 much resonate with those contained in our September 
11 2003 response to the draft agreement. That's a 
12 different document and I'm not going to go through 
13 that agreement tonight -- that document tonight, 
14 but it was submitted in writing and it did find its 
15 way somewhere to Ottawa or Halifax and thereabouts, 
16 and it's probably in those document boxes in Digby. 
17 But there is one point that I do 
18 want to draw specifically to your attention 
19 tonight, and that's under the section called 
20 "Mitigation" from that earlier submission on the 
21 draft agreement. 
22 Under that, at that time -- and 
23 we're still saying the same thing -- this question 
24 of mitigation of what to do after the fact or in 
25 the event of problems with this enterprise, we want   

page17 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 to remind the panel as well as citizens that we're 
2 dealing with something that's essentially a non- 
3 renewable resource, and so when we start to think 
4 about mitigation in terms of what it might mean to 
5 remove something and to remove something forever, 
6 it becomes almost an oxymoron to talk about 
7 mitigation in these circumstances. 
8 Certainly aspects of certain 
9 effects of the operation of the project may be 
10 mitigated through such restrictions as hours of 
11 operation, noise and dust controls and so on, but 
12 the fact remains that the removal of the rock is 
13 forever. And as part of that process, we would 
14 expect, and indeed as part of the Environmental 
15 Impact Statement, that we start to see mechanisms 
16 that would show us what is the level of mediation 
17 when it comes to compensation for those things 
18 which we might lose as a result of this process. 
19 And as that kind of thing emerges in the 
20 Environmental Impact Statement, we might at least 
21 expect that the community has the means of 
22 protecting itself from further exploitation in 
23 these circumstances. 
24 So that's a point that we're 
25 bringing forward that's from the earlier document,   

page18
 
MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 but we're also going to resubmit in writing that 
2 entire document for consideration by the panel. 
3 The second point I'd like to make 
4 has to do with the ongoing difficulty in naming the 
5 corporate entity proposing the quarry in terms of 
6 understanding who this is. The residents of the 
7 village do have some difficulty with that. Bilcon 
8 of Nova Scotia has no corporate history here, and 
9 therefore, it is impossible to conduct proper what 
10 we would call social audit of the known effects of 
11 its activities on local communities. 
12 However, we do know or have reason 
13 to believe that Bilcon is the creation of a New 
14 Jersey-based company which does of course have a 
15 corporate track record and history. We believe 
16 that the New Jersey-based company should be 
17 required as part of the Environmental Impact 
18 Statement to produce a full social audit of its 
19 business practices in relation to local 
20 communities. 
21 By social audit, we are especially 
22 concerned that the company be required to 
23 demonstrate how its practices have contributed -- 
24 have contributed to sustainable local economy, how 
25 its practices have impacted on successful   

page19 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 traditional economies and ways of living in 
2 communities, which as in this case, are well over 
3 200 years old. 
4 We expect that the Proponent 
5 should provide as part of the Environmental Impact 
6 Statement a complete list of the locations in North 
7 and South America where equivalent size quarries 
8 have been operational and where the proximity of 
9 such operations is less than one kilometre to the 
10 nearest residence. 
11 This expectation should be 
12 included in the Guidelines in order that the 
13 community, especially the residents of Little 
14 River, have a wider basis upon which to judge the 
15 integrity of the process in regards to this 
16 undertaking. 
17 The third point I'd like to make 
18 this evening is that the time lines for all phases 
19 of the project need greater and more precise 
20 clarification. On the surface, it appears that the 
21 quarry would be nearing its end in maybe 30 years, 
22 but that assumes that activity is limited to the 
23 four hectares per year as opposed to an additional 
24 four hectares per year. Clearly the time frame 
25 could be longer. Time is a measure of the   

page20 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 intensity of the problems posed by this project for 
2 the residents in the sense that a big bang once in 
3 a lifetime could be seen to be a thrill, but daily 
4 for other 30 years and we have something much 
5 larger than a headache. 
6 In this regard, Quarry Creek -- 
7 this notion that this phenomena in Whites Cove may 
8 well move along the edge of the bay remains an 
9 outstanding source of worry for the residents of 
10 Little River. We expect that guidelines should 
11 become much more stringent in terms of expecting 
12 transparency from the Proponent regarding the time 
13 frames for this undertaking. 
14 The fourth point we'd like to make 
15 tonight is regarding the valued environmental 
16 components. And I have to keep saying that because 
17 the VEC thing doesn't ring well in my own 
18 repertoire of acronyms, I guess. 
19 But regarding valued environmental 
20 components, throughout the Guidelines, there is 
21 mention of culture and socioeconomic factors, but 
22 there is no mention of the historical cultural 
23 flows which inform and sustain the local 
24 communities as part of a local and broader 
25 ecosystem. Certified Court Reporters   

page21 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 The word, "spiritual," for 
2 instance, is appropriately used in relation to 
3 aboriginal values and traditional land use, and yet 
4 no word or mention is made of the notion of spirit 
5 in relation to the local residents' spiritual sense 
6 of connection to place. 
7 Elsewhere this is well documented. 
8 For instance, Shamus Heaney has done it in 
9 Scotland. It's been done throughout the Hebrides. 
10 It's done by natives the world over. But when it 
11 comes to the residents of Little River, there is no 
12 reference to the residents' spiritual connection to 
13 place, and we think that has a place. We think it 
14 should have a prominent place in terms of the 
15 Guidelines for this impact statement. 
16 Further, the notion of the commons 
17 and the attendant boundaries the residents' sense 
18 of place imposes on appropriate use of land 
19 receives no mention. As I said the other night, 
20 you know, it's appropriate for me to fence my pony 
21 in so it doesn't destroy someone else's back yard, 
22 but in Little River it's not appropriate for me to 
23 fence the berry picker out. That's not the way we 
24 use land. 
25 We expect that local history and   

page22 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 culture as well as the residents' sense of place 
2 and spiritual values will be included in the 
3 Revised Guidelines for the assessment of the 
4 impacts of this project in these factors. 
5 The fifth point, regarding the 
6 sections dealing with human health, human health, 
7 issues to do with mental health appear to be 
8 understated. It does not need to be said, but this 
9 project has already had impacts on the wellbeing of 
10 the residents of Little River. Specialists in the 
11 area of community mental health should be broadly 
12 consulted in order to ensure residents that 
13 possible additional impacts will in fact be 
14 inventoried and accounted for within the 
15 Environmental Impact Statement. 
16 The sixth point, which is the 
17 final of the six points I'd like to make tonight, 
18 without question Little River is an extraordinary 
19 example of successful local economies. Certainly 
20 there are those of us in Little River who feel at 
21 times we should be punished for that. But without 
22 question Little River is an extraordinary example 
23 of successful local economy. 
24 Those who are not directly engaged 
25 in the various economic enterprises in the village   

page23
 
MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 are often the parents and grandparents of younger 
2 generations. The seniors who live in Little River, 
3 they do so enjoying a quality of life which in many 
4 ways is the envy of much more heavily populated 
5 areas. They are themselves engaged members of the 
6 community. A good many of them are with us 
7 tonight. 
8 The Proponent has an obligation, 
9 an absolute obligation to inventory as part of the 
10 Environmental Impact Statement the particular 
11 benefits, the particular benefits a quarry of the 
12 proposed scale will have on the quality of life 
13 presently enjoyed by the more senior members of the 
14 village. 
15 In closing, we should note that in 
16 the 1830s, a prudent man did not know that tobacco 
17 kills, and he thought that waste had somewhere to 
18 go. Today we know that tobacco kills, we know that 
19 waste has nowhere to go. We also know, and 
20 especially in this hour we know that we did not 
21 create the world and we cannot control it. We must 
22 not allow our activity in this little piece of the 
23 planet to contribute to the destruction of the 
24 world. We know that unsustainable activity of the 
25 kind proposed by Bilcon and the American parent   

page24 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 company lacks prudence, and we are a prudent 
2 people. 
3 Thank you for your time and we'll 
4 follow up with a complete written submission. 
5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very 
6 much, Mr. Kelly. That was very clear and succinct 
7 and it was very helpful to us. Could I ask you one 
8 question? 
9 MR. KELLY: Sure. 
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: In your first 
11 point, you talked about mitigation and then you 
12 talked about the utilization of a nonrenewable 
13 resource, the basalt. And then you used the word, 
14 "compensation," but you used it only once. And I 
15 was wondering, were you in fact saying that were 
16 this to go forward and the resource were to be 
17 removed, that compensation is an issue to the 
18 community? Is that what you were saying? 
19 MR. KELLY: I think compensation 
20 may be an issue as we speak and it may be an issue 
21 as the project -- if the project goes forward. For 
22 instance, we've already experienced a great deal of 
23 anguish and mental stress around this project for 
24 which no resident has received compensation at any 
25 point. And we certainly believe that a company   

page25 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS 
1 with integrity would be willing to come forward 
2 with a process that would guarantee compensation in 
3 all events whether or not this project does go 
4 forward. 
5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I 
6 don't know if my colleagues -- do you have any 
7 questions? No? Well, okay. Any other questions? 
8 Remember I said that questioning would come through 
9 me, and I said that questions would come by the 
10 panel first, but there may be a question from the 
11 floor that could be directed to Mr. Kelly through 
12 me. Are there any questions that anyone wanted to 
13 ask based on that? If not -- no? Thank you very 
14 much, Mr. Kelly. That was very very useful. 
15 MR. KELLY: Thank you. 
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: The next -- 
17 sorry? 
18 MR. KELLY: Well, I think the next 
19 --- 
20 DR. GRANT: It's him again. 
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes. 
22 There's a second Tony Kelly here, but he's -- but 
23 it says here, "Mr. Tony Kelly for Ms. Mary Lynyak." 
24 MR. KELLY: Yes. 
25 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you're   
 

page26 

1 speaking on Ms. Lynyak's behalf. 
2 MR. TONY KELLY (FOR MARY LYNYAK) - SUBMISSIONS: 
3 Yes. And I want to thank the 
4 panel for permitting me to speak on behalf of Mary 
5 Lynyak. I'm literally speaking Mary Lynyak's 
6 words, so I'm not trying to -- I'm not ad-libbing 
7 this. I'm not trying to insert anything into her 
8 words. She spent a considerable bit of time 
9 writing it, and I appreciate the patience of the 
10 panel in at least hearing her out. And it's a 
11 fairly short presentation. 
12 Mrs. Lynyak was not able to be 
13 with us tonight. Mary, by any stretch, is what you 
14 would -- who you would identify as an elder in a 
15 community. Mary is almost 90 years old. She has 
16 been living in Little River for many many years and 
17 has a strong love and connection and conviction 
18 regarding Little River and certainly in terms of 
19 its future. Her wisdom is something we ought, I 
20 think, seriously to pay attention to. Having said 
21 that, I am twice as tall and half as old. 
22 "I am Mary Lynyak, a member of the 
23 Little River residents group. I have previously 
24 studied the possibility of a mammoth quarry plus 
25 wharf or terminal in this area. I am aware of two  

page27 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 special qualities of this area. It is a place of 
2 great natural beauty, undiminished over time. It's 
3 a place of comfortable happy homes, the residents 
4 of which had a presence here for over 250 years. 
5 There is no question in my view 
6 that a quarry in the area will affect both the 
7 beauty and the homes. The damaging factors include 
8 noise, dust, pollution, lack of peace and quiet, 
9 sleep deprivation, all of which are dangerous to 
10 one's mental and physical health. 
11 I have know existing quarries in 
12 Quebec and in Duluth, Minnesota. I've driven 
13 through the miles of shacks in the Teconic Quarry 
14 area just west of Duluth. Eerie and lonesome, 
15 creepy even, is how I would describe the decay 
16 which has set into this part of the USA. For years 
17 I passed by the stone crushers and quarries at 
18 Compton Lake in New Jersey. 
19 I've seen the problems that grow 
20 out of such developments. I attended meetings of 
21 community liaison committee regarding the quarry. 
22 My sister, Marcella Toll, expressed her concerns 
23 regarding forest fire possibilities in the area of 
24 the quarry, only to be given flip responses by 
25 those present. "What's to burn? What's to burn?"   

page28 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 was the reply. And this is not recorded in the 
2 record of the October meeting, but I was there. I 
3 heard those words, "What's to burn?" 
4 Newspaper articles have quoted 
5 quarry representatives suggesting the residents of 
6 Little River are stupid, undereducated and old. Of 
7 course as the world's population ages, we do too. 
8 I'd rather -- it's rather a compliment to our way 
9 of life that we often achieve a very old age. As 
10 for stupid, we're not. I have for many years had 
11 experience as an educator. I am in a position to 
12 state that the residents of Little River have 
13 achieved a relatively high level of both formal and 
14 informal education. Stupid, we're not. 
15 I have questions. Why would a 
16 reputable company employ people to suggest we're 
17 stupid? Why would the owners tolerate such a 
18 thing? Do they really think we're incapable of 
19 reading those things in the press? 
20 Some of us are old. On a good 
21 day, I'm nearly 90 years young. But some of us are 
22 much younger. One family has just given birth to 
23 their third child, a member of a sixth or seventh 
24 generation of that family. The fact that our 
25 residents can count the generations in such numbers   

page29 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 is to be honoured, not scorned. 
2 Do the quarry owners approve of 
3 such scorn, and should the anguish that such scorn 
4 brings to the residents not be considered an impact 
5 of this project? 
6 I have many questions about the 
7 ownership and financial interest driving this 
8 project. Will the panel review and bring 
9 transparency to this problem? Why have the owners 
10 not made a serious attempt to talk actively and 
11 directly with the residents of the village, or do 
12 they not realize that Little River is the village 
13 that contains Whites Cove? 
14 We have all kinds of questions, 
15 but so far we have no answers, at least not answers 
16 from the company itself. This is a business 
17 situation. We have to ask questions. We have to 
18 get answers, and I hope this review process will 
19 begin to bring clear answers. 
20 In closing, I should like to speak 
21 to one thing we have to be grateful for if it's 
22 true. It seems that Monsieur Dion, the Federal 
23 Environment Minister, has said that this 
24 investigation is about the effects of the quarry on 
25 the environment and the community. This is a plus.   

page30
 
MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 Common law, natural law, does exist in Canada and 
2 in Nova Scotia and in Little River. Under such 
3 laws, when anyone buys a piece of property, he 
4 cannot fundamentally change a way of life in the 
5 surrounding community. If this is so -- and it is 
6 a big "if" -- the law, the natural law, is on our 
7 side. 
8 In closing, some years ago when we 
9 were battling another American quarry initiative, 
10 one of the property owners in Little River made a 
11 poster. The poster visually expresses our way of 
12 life. The man who had the poster made is a son of 
13 another property owner and long-time resident of 
14 Little River, Marcella and Dick Toll. The poster 
15 shows Little River and its surroundings as it was, 
16 as it is, and as it will continue to be. Michael, 
17 the man who brought us the poster, is my nephew. 
18 His mother, my sister, died yesterday, and Marcella 
19 was an active member of our community. Marcella 
20 knew, as we all know, that Little River is a very 
21 special place, and she felt very strongly that we 
22 should care for our home. 
23 Thank you for allowing this 
24 submission. Mary Lynyak." 
Certified Co 25 Thank you. urt Reporters   

page31
 
MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you a 
2 second time, Mr. Kelly. Don't go. Remember my 
3 comments at the beginning. The document we're 
4 trying to revise -- now, those comments were useful 
5 and very insightful. Is there anything in those 
6 comments that you would understand that we should 
7 accept as input -- let me put it in a slightly 
8 different way. 
9 Based on what you just read and 
10 your understanding of Ms. Lynyak's viewpoint, is 
11 there anything that we should modify or adjust this 
12 document so as to ask Bilcon when they produce 
13 their Final Environmental Impact Statement that 
14 would reflect the concerns or interests in those 
15 comments? 
16 MR. KELLY: I think --- 
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: In other words 
18 -- one further thing is that I interpreted what she 
19 said as a quality of environment comment. "I've 
20 lived here. I understand it." It's a very warm 
21 and special place for her. But how would -- how 
22 would we take that information, transfer it to 
23 Bilcon, so that they can reflect that and -- is 
24 there any way? 
25 MR. KELLY: I think there are ways   

page32
 
MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 that it would reflect back, and I think a fair bit 
2 of what Mary's saying there -- and I'm not going to 
3 speak for Mary. Mary is a very independent and 
4 able person who will speak, of course, in writing 
5 to the panel herself. 
6 But the overlap between her 
7 position on having lived there and having lived of 
8 course throughout New England and having observed 
9 her surroundings is quite tight in terms of the 
10 village presentation, the residents group 
11 presentation where we're asking for greater clarity 
12 around a number of issues. One of them is the 
13 corporate entity issue. 
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have been 
15 made --- 
16 MR. KELLY: Mary has alluded to 
17 that. The issues to do with human health are also 
18 -- can be extracted from Mary's presentation. And 
19 I think also the notion which you sense very 
20 strongly in Mary's words, that even for a person -- 
21 I think that Mary's probably lived there 30 years 
22 or more -- that there is a kind of spiritual 
23 connection to place that deserves front and center 
24 considerations as the panel goes through its 
25 deliberations. Certified Court Reporters   

page33 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 
2 MR. KELLY: That's how I would 
3 link those things if I were making those decisions. 
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that's 
5 helpful. Well let me -- any comment from my 
6 colleagues? 
7 DR. GRANT: I just wondered 
8 whether you were also suggesting that maybe she was 
9 asking that there be more consultation of the local 
10 community as a part of the process. 
11 MR. KELLY: I think more 
12 transparency in terms of who the community is 
13 actually dealing with, that there be more full 
14 frontal presentation by the corporate entity in 
15 Lakewood, New Jersey, rather than spokespeople on 
16 the ground in Digby, Annapolis. 
17 DR. MUECKE: And she refers to 
18 unanswered questions. 
19 MR. KELLY: Yes. 
20 DR. MUECKE: Could you -- I mean, 
21 corporate transparency was one of them obviously. 
22 Are there others which we should know about that 
23 she is particularly concerned about? 
24 MR. KELLY: I think she may -- in 
25 terms of corporate transparency, that is, the   

page34 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 identification, the naming, the clear naming of the 
2 Proponent is one issue. And beyond that, the track 
3 record, the history that comes with businesses that 
4 we may or may not want to associate with in the 
5 long term. Everyone has a history. 
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Thibault? 
7 MR. THIBAULT: [inaudible]. 
8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We 
9 received from both presentations, yours, Mr. Kelly, 
10 and Ms. Lynyak's, that -- I mean, yours you 
11 mentioned things like cultural flow and the 
12 spirituality and -- which again are very non- 
13 quantitative and very culturally related -- so 
14 we've received that information very clearly. Is 
15 there anything -- any other further comment? 
16 There's one here, yes. 
17 MR. HAYNES-PATAN: Yes. In the 
18 document, she raised the issue of common law or 
19 natural law, and I would wonder if she's not asking 
20 that the Guideline --- 
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you 
22 identify yourself, please? 
23 MR. HAYNES-PATAN: I'm Tom Haynes- 
24 Patan. I'm wondering if she is emphasizing the 
25 importance of that, and I'm wondering if she's not   

page35 

MR. KELLY - SUBMISSIONS FOR MS. LYNYAK 
1 asking that in the Guidelines the Proponents 
2 acknowledge the importance of common law and 
3 natural law in addition to what we would call legal 
4 law in deciding what is legal and what is not. 
5 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 
6 Thank you. That's very useful, yes. Anyone else? 
7 Well it looks like we're right on time then. Thank 
8 you, Mr. Kelly. That was very useful. Both your 
9 presentations were. 
10 MR. KELLY: Thank you. 
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That 
12 brings us now -- 7:40. It brings us to Lisa 
13 Mitchell, the Partnership for Sustainable 
14 Development of Digby. Ms. Mitchell? Ah. Yes. 
15 And Mr. Kelly -- I understand Mr. 
16 Kelly is going to provide us with a written 
17 summary, I believe, at some point. Are you or --- 
18 MR. KELLY: By the deadline. 
19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good. Thank you 
20 very much. 
21 MR. ANDY SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS: 
22 Good evening. I'm Andy Sharpe. 
23 I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Partnership 
24 for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck & Islands 
25 Society. Certified Court Reporters   

page36 

MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 My comments tonight are based on 
2 the views of a number of experts that the Society 
3 has brought together to review the Draft 
4 Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines. I've 
5 provided you a one-page summary of my presentation 
6 for this evening. We'll be following my comments 
7 tonight with a more detailed written submission in 
8 the weeks to come. 
9 Before launching into the 
10 presentation, I just wanted to take the opportunity 
11 to thank you for coming here, thank you for coming 
12 and taking the time to listen to the community and 
13 their views tonight and subsequent nights. 
14 I think it's important to start 
15 off with a brief introduction to the Partnership 
16 for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck & Islands 
17 Society. At its core, the Society seeks to enhance 
18 and promote the sustainable development and the 
19 quality of life of the Digby Neck & Islands. The 
20 Society has been active for the past two years and 
21 has played a central role in bringing together and 
22 raising public awareness about the proposed quarry 
23 and marine terminal. 
24 The Society has also been at the 
25 center of a growing coalition of local, provincial   

page37
 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 and national organizations that have concerns with 
2 the proposal. One example of this role has been in 
3 recent months, the Society has facilitated a 
4 dialogue between these organizations in the lead-up 
5 to the applications for participant funding. The 
6 purpose of this was to ensure that the available 
7 funds were used most effectively. 
8 With its more than 250 members, 
9 the Society brings together a diverse range of 
10 views and opinions. This broad membership includes 
11 long-time residents of the area that can trace 
12 their ancestry back to the original loyalist 
13 settlers. It also includes long-time fishers of 
14 the coastal waters. The membership also includes 
15 school teachers, home makers, shop keepers, 
16 business owners, students and many others. 
17 The Society is keen to work with 
18 the panel through this environmental assessment 
19 over the coming months, and it's the intention of 
20 the Society's comments to assist the panel in 
21 understanding the local context for this 
22 environmental assessment and hopefully improve the 
23 quality of the Environmental Impact Statement. 
24 So our comments tonight. We 
25 understand and you mentioned earlier that the Draft   

page38 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 EIS Guidelines represent components drawn together 
2 from national guidance, from provincial guidance 
3 and materials from previous panel reviews, but we 
4 feel there's considerable room for improvement with 
5 these Guidelines. From this point forward in the 
6 process, we encourage the panel members to take 
7 ownership of these Guidelines and revise the 
8 Guidelines to reflect their considerable expertise 
9 and experience with environmental assessments. 
10 The Society believes that 
11 sustainable development and the fundamental 
12 principles of sustainability, particularly the 
13 precautionary principle, are missing or absent from 
14 the Draft Guidelines at present. Previous panel 
15 reviews, particularly the panel review for the 
16 Voisey's Bay mine and the panel review for the Red 
17 Hill Creek Expressway, have explicitly recognized 
18 the importance of sustainable development in the 
19 environmental assessment and provided their own 
20 interpretation of the role of sustainable 
21 development and some of its key principles. 
22 The approach that these panel 
23 reviews have taken -- has taken have helped provide 
24 clear direction to the Proponent on what the panel 
25 expected and how the environmental assessment   

page39 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 should be undertaken. I think it's important to 
2 note that both the Canadian Environmental 
3 Assessment Act and the Nova Scotia Environmental 
4 Assessment Regulations include explicit reference 
5 to sustainable development, and I think it 
6 therefore falls within the remit of this panel to 
7 ensure that the Final EIS Guidelines reflect the 
8 central nature of sustainable development to this 
9 environmental assessment. 
10 We'd further ask that the panel 
11 consider inclusion of the precautionary principle 
12 within the Final Guidelines. The precautionary 
13 principle again has been incorporated into previous 
14 panel reviews, and we think it provides an 
15 important context of how the Proponent should deal 
16 with scientific uncertainty. 
17 Section 2 of the Draft EIS 
18 Guidelines provides a list of information that the 
19 Proponent must provide or include in the EIS 
20 Guidelines. Item "B" of that list is the need for 
21 the project. 
22 We have reviewed the guidance, the 
23 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 
24 Operational Policy Statement that addresses the 
25 need for the project and found this guidance to be   

page40 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 somewhat vague. The need for the project in this 
2 Guideline is defined as the problem or the 
3 opportunity that the project is intending to solve 
4 or satisfy. It's unclear, though, from this 
5 guidance, from this definition, what is the 
6 geographic scope that's implied by this definition 
7 and also to whom it's referring to. 
8 We believe that this issue is 
9 crucial and should really be clarified, because 
10 from this definition of need for the project also 
11 flows the question of the purpose of the project 
12 and alternatives to the project. So there's a need 
13 up front to clarify this for both the community's 
14 behalf and for the Proponent's behalf. 
15 We understand that the reason for 
16 an environmental assessment is to ensure that the 
17 environmental impacts of the project are fully 
18 considered before they become irreversible. The 
19 panel review is the highest level assessment 
20 available, and I think it's recognized by all of us 
21 that the only way to have a successful review is to 
22 ensure that all of the relevant information is 
23 brought forward to the panel. The role of the 
24 public and the role of the Proponent are equally 
25 important in meeting this goal. The EIS Guidelines   

page41 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 need to provide the Proponent with clear direction 
2 on the panel's expectations for public involvement 
3 and for the inclusion of community knowledge. 
4 Based on an examination of 
5 previous panel reviews, members of the public 
6 typically have approximately 60 days to review and 
7 comment on the Environmental Impact Statement. 
8 Given the size and complexity of these documents, 
9 we believe that this period is inadequate. We 
10 believe it's inadequate for community groups in 
11 particular to marshall the necessary experts and to 
12 fully consider and adequately comment on this 
13 document. 
14 Therefore, we think that the only 
15 way to ensure that members of the public are 
16 adequately prepared to comment on the EIS and to 
17 provide the Review Panel with the best possible 
18 information is to require the Proponent to prepare 
19 an interim report. We are suggesting that this 
20 interim report would identify priority valued 
21 ecosystem components, the priority effects that the 
22 Proponent will be studying, and how they will be 
23 studying those -- essentially the methodology that 
24 the Proponent intends to use. 
25 We feel that this preparation of   

page42 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 such an interim report would not only aid the 
2 public to be better prepared for the Final EIS when 
3 it is prepared and also the subsequent hearings, 
4 but we believe that it would also assist members of 
5 the panel to better understand the approach that 
6 the Proponent was taking. 
7 And a final comment on the 
8 transparency of the process. The members of the 
9 panel may or may not be aware, but over the life of 
10 this project to date, there's been considerable 
11 public mistrust of the process. Through the work 
12 of Steve Chapman and Peter Geddes with the 
13 Department of Environment and Labour, the situation 
14 has recently improved somewhat with improved public 
15 perception of transparency. 
16 We recognize that not every 
17 comment made tonight or in subsequent nights or in 
18 the written submissions will be incorporated into 
19 the Final Guidelines, but we believe that the 
20 rationale that the panel uses to decide what is 
21 included and what is not included in those Final 
22 Guidelines would be very beneficial to improving 
23 the transparency of the process. 
24 In essence, what we're asking is 
25 we're not -- we're not asking the panel to   

page43 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 apologize or justify for its eventual decisions, 
2 only to provide a rationale as to how those 
3 decisions were made. And we believe this would be 
4 a very important step in improving the public trust 
5 and the transparency of the process. 
6 That concludes my comments for 
7 this evening, and as I indicated earlier, we'll be 
8 elaborating on these and other issues in a written 
9 submission. Thank you very much. 
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 
11 Sharpe. Let's see, where are we? Oh, yes. We 
12 have a few minutes. I have a question, and it has 
13 to do with your suggestion for an interim report. 
14 What you're really suggesting is a heads up. Is 
15 that what it is? 
16 MR. SHARPE: Essentially, yes. 
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: You're saying 
18 that the final report will emerge, there'll be 60 
19 days to deal with it, but you're -- if I gather 
20 correctly, what you're saying is before the 
21 submission of the final report, or the EIS, there 
22 would be a heads up that would say -- dealing with 
23 the VECs and perhaps one or two other things that 
24 would say, "This is what we're going to do. This 
25 is what's important. This is how we'll do it."   

page44 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 And that would get the community up and running, if 
2 you will, so that within the 60 days remaining to 
3 deal with the report, they would have a heads up. 
4 Is that --- 
5 MR. SHARPE: Essentially, yes. 
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- essentially 
7 what your thinking is? 
8 MR. SHARPE: Yes. There's going 
9 to be a window of months or a year between the 
10 issuing of the Final EIS Guidelines and --- 
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 
12 MR. SHARPE: --- the preparation 
13 publicly of the Final Environmental Impact 
14 Statement. Somewhere in that, we'll say, one year, 
15 it would be very beneficial maybe in the earlier 
16 portion of that year to, yes, for the Proponent to  
17 say, "Based on a screening exercise, we think these 
18 valued ecosystem components are most important and 
19 this is how we're going to investigate them." And 
20 then make that a public document for both the panel 
21 to understand where the Proponent's going and for 
22 members of the public to better able prepare when 
23 that eventual document, that EIS gets prepared. 
24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand 
25 now. Thank you very much. Jill? Anything?  

page45 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 DR. GRANT: No, no questions. 
2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Gunter? 
3 DR. MUECKE: In what form do you 
4 envision -- you said you would like to better 
5 understand the rationale that the panel is going to 
6 use in preparing this document. In what form do 
7 you see this explanation? As working together with 
8 the panel? A statement from us as to how we 
9 approached --- 
10 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a 
11 little difficult to hear back here. 
12 DR. MUECKE: Oh, sorry. Is this 
13 better? 
14 MR. SHARPE: Yes. 
15 DR. MUECKE: Okay. 
16 MR. SHARPE: Sorry, I didn't quite 
17 catch all the question as well. Would you mind 
18 repeating it, please? 
19 DR. MUECKE: Okay. I'll try. You 
20 asked for the panel to make the process more 
21 transparent by explaining the rationale of what is 
22 included and what is not included in the 
23 Guidelines. 
24 MR. SHARPE: Um-hmm. 
25 DR. MUECKE: How do you visualize   

page46 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 this process? 
2 MR. SHARPE: It could be one small 
3 section or an appendix to the Guidelines. It could 
4 be a secondary document essentially saying, "We 
5 received comments on this range of issues and this 
6 is how we chose to accept -- incorporate some and 
7 why, and why others were not felt to be reasonable, 
8 valid, acceptable." 
9 DR. MUECKE: Okay, that makes it 
10 clearer. Thanks. 
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Is there 
12 any comment or question from the floor? No? Well, 
13 thank you, Mr. Sharpe. 
14 MR. SHARPE: Thank you. 
15 MR. FARNSWORTH: I have something. 
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry. Yes, 
17 please. 
18 MR. FARNSWORTH: Do you mean how 
19 do we -- what we based our decision upon -- what 
20 process we used to make our decision? 
21 MR. SHARPE: In relation to the 
22 last question, what we're asking is for the panel 
23 to tell members of the public how they made their 
24 decisions, what was the rationale, what was the 
25 basis for deciding what to incorporate to include   

page47 
MR. SHARPE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 in those Final EIS Guidelines. 
2 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr. 
3 Sharpe said was that in the interest of public 
4 clarity, it's a step in the process that would be 
5 done by us in private. And he's saying -- I'll 
6 paraphrase -- I think he's saying it would be more 
7 useful if the public were fully aware of how the 
8 decisions were made which led to the Guidelines 
9 which then led to the EIS. So it's a step which is 
10 not public, and he's urging us to make it public. 
11 That's what he's saying, I think. 
12 MR. SHARPE: Or at least a portion 
13 of that private process, how it worked. 
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 
15 MR. SHARPE: Thank you. 
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay? Good. 
17 Okay, that then now takes us to, I think -- we'll 
18 see who turns up -- who stands up here -- Ashraf 
19 Mahtab? Ashraf Mahtab. Oh, here he is. 
20 MR. MAHTAB: I'm sorry I was not 
21 ready because I saw the list and my name was after 
22 the break, but that's okay. 
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, that must 
24 have been an earlier list, I guess. You're 
25 scheduled for 7:55 here. urt Reporters   
 

page48 
1 MR. ASHRAF MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS: 
2 Members of the panel and ladies 
3 and gentlemen attending this session, my name is 
4 Ashraf Mahtab. I'm a resident of Sandy Cove. Our 
5 home has been in the name of the family for about 
6 50 years. It's only about five kilometres from the 
7 boundary of the proposed project. 
8 I would like to thank the panel 
9 for the opportunity to make comments on the EIS 
10 Draft Guidelines. I have relied on my professional 
11 background as a mining and geological engineer in 
12 preparing my oral and written presentations. For 
13 each comment, I shall give reference to the 
14 specific section of the Draft Guidelines. 
15 First, Section 5.2 titled "The 
16 Project." The project should contain the entire 
17 project proposal that was received by the Federal 
18 Department of Fisheries and Oceans on March 24, 
19 2003, which triggered this panel review. Reference 
20 can then be made to the relevant section of the 
21 proposal when discussing a specific element of the 
22 project. 
23 In Section 5.3, the Proponent 
24 needs to introduce its background by giving an 
25 account of the relationship between the owners of  

page49 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 Bilcon of Nova Scotia, Nova Stone Exporters Inc., 
2 and Global Quarry Products, which is agent for both 
3 Bilcon and Nova Stone. This will remove the 
4 confusion for the community and allow clear 
5 references to be made to previous undertakings 
6 around Whites Cove. 
7 Section 7.2.1, "Purpose and Need 
8 for the Project." This should provide the 
9 rationale for deciding to quarry the basalt from 
10 Whites Cove along North Mountain in Nova Scotia 
11 instead of mining it from other potential locations 
12 around the globe, for example, in the States of New 
13 Jersey, Washington and Hawaii. The rationale 
14 should give reference to the following criteria: 
15 (1) cost of mining and shipping, (2) severity of 
16 the local environmental regulations, (3) royalties 
17 imposed by the governments, (4) quality of the 
18 basalt, (5) potential for expansion of the project, 
19 and (6) net profit per tonne of the aggregate, at 
20 least as a percent of the unit cost. 
21 In Section 7.2.3, alternative 
22 means of carrying out the project should include 
23 the following elements: (1) A cost/benefit 
24 analysis performed for the options of transporting 
25 the aggregate by a combination of a marine   

page50 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 terminal, tunnels, conveyor belts and trucks. (2) 
2 Results of examination of other potential quarry 
3 sites and marine terminal locations along the Bay 
4 of Fundy and St. Mary's Bay. (3) Analysis of the 
5 economic feasibility of operating a 3.9 hectare 
6 quarry without access to a marine terminal. (4) 
7 Rationale for the partners of Bilcon of Nova Scotia 
8 in applying for a 3.9-hectare project in April 
9 2002, and then applying for a 120-hectare project 
10 in March 2003. (5) Identification and 
11 implementation of a solution for the continuing 
12 environmental concerns associated with the 
13 abandoned 3.9-hectare project as identified by the 
14 community in its application for an investigation 
15 regarding Whites Cove quarry site pursuant to 
16 Section 115 of the Nova Scotia Environment Act. 
17 This application was dated April 20, 2004. (6) The 
18 Nova Scotia Department of Environment in its letter 
19 of October 26, 2004, confirms the cancellation of 
20 the 3.9-hectare project and states that, quote: 
21 "Bilcon is assuming ongoing 
22 responsibility for on-site 
23 maintenance including pollution 
24 controls, water management and 
25 erosion and siltation controls."   

page51 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 The Proponent needs to state its 
2 plans for reclamation of the disturbed ground on 
3 the site for the proposed project. 
4 In Section 8.1.11, "Blasting 
5 Design," the Proponent should provide an 
6 introductory description of the excavation design 
7 of the quarry, including the following components: 
8 (1) Blast geometry. (2) Type of explosive. (3) 
9 The explosive charge weight per delay. (4) 
10 Expected results of blasting in terms of peak 
11 particulate velocity, shot pressure in water, and 
12 levels of sound loudness in decibels at the project 
13 boundaries. (5) Conformance of the expected 
14 results of blasting with the regulations for ground 
15 vibration and noise resulting from use of 
16 explosives. 
17 And the last section of my oral 
18 presentation, the following aspects need to be 
19 included in Section 9.1.3, Ground Water: (1) 
20 Quantify the cumulative magnitude of draw-down of 
21 water from the neighbouring lands as a result of 
22 the sequential excavation of 10-acre quarries over 
23 the life of the project. (2) Determine the change 
24 in elevation of the water table and extent of the 
25 aquifers over the life of the project. (3) Perform   

page52 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 water flow analysis using statistically meaningful 
2 input data and employing a well-recognized 
3 analytical or numerical solution. (4) Develop and 
4 describe a scheme for monitoring the draw down of 
5 water. And last, (5) Identify if there are any 
6 mitigation measures in reference to the water draw 
7 down. 
8 I thank you for your attention, 
9 members of the panel. I shall hand over to you a 
10 copy of my presentations together with the material 
11 referenced in my presentation. 
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Before you do 
13 that, Mr. Mahtab, the paper document is very 
14 important because it is so detailed. We would very 
15 much like to get that. But you made a comment 
16 right at the beginning which I didn't entirely 
17 understand. You said you would like to have as 
18 part of the -- I think -- I think what you said 
19 was, "I would like to have as part of the EIS the 
20 entire proposal that was submitted in March of 
21 2003." Is that what you said? 
22 MR. MAHTAB: Yes. 
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you give 
24 me the rationale behind that, why you want that? 
25 MR. MAHTAB: Unless there is the   

page53 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 proposal included in the statement, you cannot make 
2 reference to one point or the other. Suppose 
3 you're talking about blasting, you'll have to say, 
4 "Well, in the proposal in Section such and such, 
5 blasting is..." Now you can go and proceed and 
6 give details. The public will not understand what 
7 the Proponent is talking about unless they know 
8 what the project is. 
9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. 
10 You're suggesting that the EIS all by itself is 
11 kind of disembodied, and that it refers to 
12 something, and you want the something it refers to 
13 present with the EIS so they can be linked 
14 together. 
15 MR. MAHTAB: In that section -- 
16 say the project. 
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. 
18 MR. MAHTAB: And also I am 
19 referring to the proposal which was submitted in 
20 March 2003 as the one which in fact triggered the 
21 panel review. 
22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 
23 MR. MAHTAB: So this is the 
24 proposal which should be put in in that section. 
25 Otherwise, we are not talking about -- we are   

page54 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 talking about something different. 
2 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's very 
3 clear to me now. Thank you very much. Now, Jill? 
4 DR. GRANT: Yeah, I have a couple 
5 of questions. At one point, you suggested that 
6 there should be cost/benefit analysis of options 
7 for transportation, and you said something about a 
8 tunnel. Can you please clarify what you meant by 
9 the options including the terminal, a tunnel and 
10 trucking? 
11 MR. MAHTAB: If I am hired as an 
12 engineer to work on a project, I would be first 
13 doing the feasibility study. In doing the 
14 feasibility study of a project, I would do cost/ 
15 benefit analysis. I would look at all the options, 
16 blasting design, transportation, quality, all these 
17 things which I mentioned. And without having done 
18 this analysis, you cannot arrive at the conclusion 
19 that Whites Point is the right spot for mining this 
20 basalt and shipping well. You have to consider all 
21 the costs involved in the project. If we don't 
22 know what the rationale is, we are going to miss 
23 out. 
24 DR. GRANT: Yes. I understand 
25 that. But there was some comment you made about a   

page55 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 tunnel, so I wasn't sure if there was something 
2 specific you had in mind. 
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think what 
4 she's saying is that the word, "tunnel," hasn't 
5 come up any place in our reading --- 
6 DR. GRANT: Yes. 
7 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- and all of a 
8 sudden the tunnels appeared. 
9 MR. MAHTAB: Tunnel hasn't come up 
10 in the draft because a tunnel is an option for the 
11 Proponent. 
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. 
13 MR. MAHTAB: For instance, if I 
14 wanted to not disturb the area, I want to make less 
15 noise, I will drive a tunnel and then I will put a 
16 conveyor belt and I will haul the oar or the rock 
17 into the tunnel. 
18 DR. GRANT: To some kind of a 
19 delivery outside. 
20 MR. MAHTAB: To some terminal, to 
21 some place from where it can be trucked. 
22 DR. GRANT: Okay. Thank you. 
23 Thank you for that. And the other question was 
24 about you said something about you wanted to have 
25 the Guidelines require some rationale about the   

page56 
MR. MAHTAB - SUBMISSIONS 
1 switch from April 2002 for a 3.9-hectare quarry to 
2 March 2003 to a --- 
3 MR. MAHTAB: Yes. Well, this is a 
4 very simple-minded question, but it's very clear 
5 that if I'm the Proponent and I want to mine 
6 something, why should I apply for a 3.9-hectare 
7 project when I really want to have a 50-year 
8 project and when I want to have a marine terminal? 
9 Why should I apply for a small project? I must 
10 apply for the large one. This is my real design to 
11 have a mega quarry. It doesn't make sense to apply 
12 for a small project first. 
13 The only reason -- this is off my 
14 submission -- is that for a 3.9-hectare quarry, 
15 there is no requirement by the Province for an 
16 environmental assessment. Therefore, if I want to 
17 try and put a door, then I can do that. 
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank 
19 you. 
20 DR. GRANT: Thanks. 
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Any other 
22 comment or question? Okay. Thank you. We went 
23 over a little bit, but thank you for that detail. 
24 And you will provide us with a copy of that. Yes? 
25 The next speaker is Marilyn Stanton. Ms. Stanton?   

page57 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 MS. MARILYN STANTON - SUBMISSIONS: 
2 My name is Marilyn Stanton and I'm 
3 a resident of Sandy Cove, and I wanted to point out 
4 that I am speaking as an individual and the views 
5 are my own and not necessarily representative of 
6 any group to which I belong. And then I find that 
7 that really wasn't so because the first half of my 
8 speech has been more than adequately covered by 
9 Andy Sharpe when he talked about the panel and the 
10 terms of reference and some of the build-up to why 
11 there is lack of trust. So what I'd like to do is 
12 just read one sentence out of my first half, and 
13 then I will pass this in after I'm through. Okay? 
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank 
15 you. 
16 MS. STANTON: I say in the middle 
17 of this first point, although I accept that the 
18 panel has expertise with environmental reviews and 
19 could well have very specific and valid rationale 
20 for rejecting any request for change in these 
21 Guidelines by a member of the public, I would feel 
22 much more secure if there was a process of overview 
23 and identification of these requests and their 
24 acceptance and/or incorporation into the eventual 
25 EIS Guidelines or the rationale for rejection.   

page58 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 Some type of transparency would be required to 
2 generate the level of public trust that will make 
3 this panel review a success and a process in which 
4 we can all believe. 
5 Then I'd like to go to my second 
6 point. My second major area of concern lays in the 
7 fact that the Draft EIS Guidelines in Section 4.2, 
8 "Study Strategy and Methodology," and again in 
9 Section 8.0, "Existing Environment," the Proponent 
10 is directed to identify VECs or valued 
11 environmental components and describe the methods 
12 used to predict and assess the environmental 
13 effects of the project on these components. In 
14 Section 9.0, "Effects Prediction, Mitigation 
15 Measures and Significance of Residual Effects," it 
16 states the Proponent must explain how valued 
17 environmental components or VECs were chosen. 
18 I believe there is an inherent 
19 conflict of interest in allowing the Proponent the 
20 scope of setting the standards for the Guidelines 
21 and then meeting them. This is akin to having the 
22 bookkeeper audit the books. This is not acceptable 
23 in accounting practices for very good and easily 
24 understood reasons which would apply in this case 
25 as well. Certified Court Reporters   

page59 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 I strongly feel that the public 
2 should have a role in preparing and finalizing the 
3 list of valued environmental components to be 
4 addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. 
5 Otherwise, it appears to be a flawed process as any 
6 proponent could exclude or simply not recognize a 
7 valued environmental component that is inherent in 
8 the culture and way of life of the area. For 
9 instance, the Proponent could hardly recognize or 
10 appreciate the value to the communities to be able 
11 to promote a non-industrialized area. 
12 Nobody is naive enough surely to 
13 believe that we are not establishing the path for 
14 the future of this area and many areas along the 
15 North Mountain, and reportedly even under the Bay 
16 of Fundy. Already we hear reports of industry 
17 awaiting the outcome of this project to ascertain 
18 whether the area and/or the governments are 
19 receptive to further development and resource 
20 extraction. 
21 To many community members, 
22 industry's impact and subsequent changes would be 
23 an intangible valued environmental component that 
24 must be addressed during the process but probably 
25 could not be recognized by any Proponent as a   

page60 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 significant and high priority VEC or value 
2 environmental component if they could recognize it 
3 at all. Most industrial proponents would feel that 
4 as long as the operation was not visible to 
5 tourists travelling route 217, there should be not 
6 a real problem on the part of reasonable people 
7 with accepting the project. 
8 I would like to remind panel 
9 members that local residents consider the Bay of 
10 Fundy to be a highway as well, one that is used 
11 more by some members of our community than Highway 
12 217. 
13 I trust these two points will be 
14 accepted in the spirit in which they are presented, 
15 not specific to any members of the panel or the 
16 Proponent, but a desire to be engaged in a process 
17 in which we can all believe with a feeling that 
18 democracy is at work. I am sorry to state that the 
19 government to this point has not generated this 
20 feeling. 
21 Thank you for the opportunity to 
22 be heard. 
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mrs. 
24 Stanton. I'm puzzled a little bit by your comment 
25 about the valued environmental components because   

page61 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 what this meeting is doing is saying if there are 
2 valued environmental components that you think are 
3 critical and you wanted to provide us with a list, 
4 please do. 
5 In other words, this is a public 
6 input session to help us drive this process, so 
7 that between now and the cutoff date that we've set 
8 for ourselves, the 21st of January, if you and your 
9 colleagues wanted to provide some of those things 
10 which you believed were the valued environmental 
11 components, feel free to do so. Provide us with a 
12 list. 
13 I mean, if there was a community 
14 consensus that the right whale or certain seals or 
15 environmental intertidal organisms or land -- 
16 whatever -- whatever it happened to be -- please 
17 feel free to do that before that closure date. 
18 You're not being -- you haven't been excluded from 
19 doing that. 
20 I mean, I -- what I think I read 
21 in that was somehow it wasn't an option for you. 
22 It is an option for you. 
23 MS. STANTON: I just didn't get 
24 the assurance in reading the documents that that 
Certified Co 25 was part of our role --- urt Reporters   

page62 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes. 
2 MS. STANTON: --- that they really 
3 would be included. 
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: We want public 
5 input, and if you think that that's important 
6 public input from your standpoint, by all means, 
7 bring it forward to us. 
8 MS. STANTON: Wonderful. 
9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Try and keep it 
10 within that 21st because we're on a tight schedule. 
11 MS. STANTON: I understand. 
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: But that gives 
13 you two and a half weeks, I think, something like 
14 that. 
15 MS. STANTON: Yes. Thank you. 
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 
17 DR. MUECKE: I would sort of 
18 comment along those same lines, because if I 
19 understood you right, you were saying the 
20 Proponents set the standard for the Guidelines. I 
21 think we as a panel feel, with your input, we set 
22 the standard for the Guidelines. 
23 MS. STANTON: Good. 
24 DR. MUECKE: Not the Proponent. 
25 MS. STANTON: Wonderful.   

page63 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Jill? 
2 Anything? 
3 DR. GRANT: I just wanted to 
4 follow up a little bit on your comment about seeing 
5 the Bay of Fundy as a highway. Did you want to 
6 elaborate a little bit on that, whether there's 
7 anything in the Guidelines that -- anything that 
8 needs to be in the Guidelines to recognize that 
9 that needs to be evaluated in some way? 
10 MS. STANTON: I hadn't thought of 
11 it in those terms. I had only thought of it in 
12 terms of the fact that the fishermen are up and 
13 down that area all the time. Many of us, it's just 
14 a delight to -- you know, any opportunity we get to 
15 go in a boat and enjoy the shoreline and be taken 
16 up and down. Tourists love it. I mean, it's just 
17 -- we have been reassured so many times about you 
18 won't see this quarry from 217. And I guess that's 
19 what was in my mind, and never any mention that, 
20 hey, all this other activity that goes on, it's 
21 going to be like a scar -- you know, well --- 
22 DR. GRANT: Thank you. 
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Yes? 
24 MS. THIBAULT: The list that was 
25 submitted by individuals or groups, would that   

page64 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 automatically mean that it would be included in the 
2 Guidelines? 
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: No. What it 
4 means is that you would be submitting it to us and 
5 the final decision as to the finalization of those 
6 Guidelines will be done by this panel. The earlier 
7 comment made by Mr. Sharpe and reinforced by Mrs. 
8 Stanton, if I understood them correctly, was if 
9 you're going to do that, to make a judgement about 
10 something you've been given, we think that you 
11 ought to make it public in order to increase the 
12 public clarity of this whole process. So that's 
13 their suggestion. 
14 So in a sense, there is a certain 
15 amount of responsibility that resides in the panel 
16 as impartial observers trying to bring this all to 
17 a fair and just conclusion. So on the one hand, 
18 you could say the panel's been chosen, they make 
19 that decision and that's it. These other -- these 
20 last two speakers have essentially said you could 
21 improve the clarity by making the process by which 
22 you do this open. 
23 Having said all of that, we still 
24 think that if the valued environmental component 
25 list is important to you, bring it to us.   

page65 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 MS. THIBAULT: Okay. Thank you. 
2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Yes. 
3 First and then second. Yes. 
4 MR. THIBAULT: [inaudible]. It's 
5 my understanding that when an environmental 
6 assessment of this type is undertaken, that the 
7 Proponents -- the onus is on the Proponent to 
8 provide that list. If any of those valued 
9 environmental components are missed, then that will 
10 be critiqued and that could be a reason why it's 
11 delayed or they have to answer in the future. 
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 
13 MR. THIBAULT: But it's not 
14 because one is missing off that list that they 
15 don't have to answer to it. You know, the 
16 Guidelines don't have to list each and every 
17 barnacle and each and every environmentally 
18 sensitive component. The onus is on the Proponent. 
19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're 
20 quite correct. I think -- what I interpreted the 
21 speaker as saying is that there is something -- we 
22 want to be assured that at a very minimum, these 
23 things would be in that list. Over and above that, 
24 there are other things that can be added to it, 
25 yes, certainly. And there was a question here, I   

page66 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 believe. 
2 MS. PICTOU: Sherry Pictou, Bear 
3 River First Nation, on behalf of Chief Frank Muise 
4 and the Bear River First Nation community. We've 
5 been excluded from this process from day one, and I 
6 don't know if we'll have an opportunity to address 
7 some of the issues, and particularly with the 
8 Guidelines. 
9 But having said that, I was just 
10 wondering what would be the criteria or the basis 
11 for the panel to decide what some of those valued 
12 environmental components would be or would not be, 
13 and would there be a rationale. If we submitted -- 
14 I guess what I'm saying, if we submitted a list, 
15 would there be some transparency to why that list 
16 was excluded and to the reasons why or even better 
17 yet why were they included. Like, what would be 
18 the criteria or the reference point of including or 
19 excluding those valued environmental components? 
20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I honestly don't 
21 think I can answer that question right now because 
22 you're asking me to project myself three weeks or a 
23 month ahead into a time when having had all the 
24 public meetings and all the data in front of us, 
25 we're going to sit down and revise the Draft   

page67 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 Guidelines. I don't know what the process will -- 
2 like any of these processes, it's a give and take 
3 interactive thing, but as I said to Mr. Thibault 
4 over here, I said, look, if organisms were 
5 presented by the community as valued ecological 
6 components, then my sense is that they would be 
7 offered to us because the community would want some 
8 assurance that at the very least, those things 
9 would be considered. You see? 
10 In other words, it's a bottom line 
11 from which you go up from. You just want to be 
12 sure they're there to begin with. You're not -- 
13 we're not trying to be definitive. We're just 
14 trying to ensure that the instructions given to the 
15 Proponent are as clear as possible and reflect your 
16 interests and everyone else's interests to make 
17 sure that the document when it's produced --- 
18 But keep in mind, too, when the 
19 document has finally been produced, there's 
20 probably going to be a list of things that we're 
21 going to go back to them and say, "Clarify this and 
22 modify that," and so that process kind of goes in 
23 an iterative fashion like that. You see? And when 
24 the document comes forward, as I said at the 
25 beginning, you will still have a chance in a public   

page68 
MS. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 meeting to say, "They missed this and they missed 
2 this and we want this added," and we can go back to 
3 them again. 
4 See, that's the public process is 
5 to make sure that the public's say is front and 
6 center. Okay? Thank you, Mrs. Stanton. 
7 MRS. STANTON: Thank you. 
8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That 
9 takes us now to Don Mullin. Thank you very much. 
10 MR. DON MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS: 
11 Good evening, Chair and other 
12 members of the panel, and welcome to the beautiful 
13 area of Digby Neck & Islands. I'm Don Mullin of 
14 Freeport on Long Island. The focus of my 
15 presentation this evening is on the socioeconomic 
16 aspects of environmental effects. 
17 I would like to begin my 
18 presentation with a general discussion of 
19 socioeconomic effects before I proceed to concerns 
20 with the Draft EIS Guidelines. 
21 Socioeconomic is a term coined by 
22 Sociology to capture a person's standing in a 
23 community -- as in socioeconomic status. Such 
24 status is determined by one or more of a host of 
25 factors such as education, occupation or   

page69 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 profession, position or income, to name some. 
2 In this sense, the term, 
3 socioeconomic, is a sociological construct and a 
4 useful one in studying social phenomena such as 
5 inter-generational occupational mobility, health, 
6 educational aspirations, smoking, gambling, crime, 
7 and a wide variety of behaviours of societal 
8 importance. 
9 However, socioeconomic effects, as 
10 presently interpreted in federal and provincial 
11 legislation, is inappropriate to an environmental 
12 assessment. In the context of an environmental 
13 assessment, socioeconomic is merely a contraction 
14 of social and economic effects. An examination of 
15 the Draft Guidelines reveals that while they do a 
16 reasonable job of capturing economic effects such 
17 as employment rates, property taxes and values, 
18 potential loss of fishing grounds and gear or 
19 vessels, the Guidelines do a completely inadequate 
20 job of requiring an examination of social effects 
21 or impacts. 
22 To illustrate this point, let's 
23 consider the construction of the 100 series of 
24 highways across Nova Scotia. If we focused 
25 strictly on the economic effects, we would examine   

page70 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 such things as lost employment in bypassed towns 
2 and villages, changes in property values, impacts 
3 on community infrastructure and so forth. If we 
4 looked at social effects, however, a very different 
5 set of variables would be examined. For example, 
6 we'd look at the impact of commuting time on time 
7 available to families, increased access to 
8 recreation or social opportunities, reduced time to 
9 obtain health or emergency services, increased 
10 safety due to reduced vehicular traffic, improved 
11 quality of life due to reduced noise and vehicle 
12 emissions. 
13 We might also look at altered 
14 family relationships due to changed transportation 
15 patterns, changes in crime rates, opportunities for 
16 religious worship and innumerable other changes 
17 that might occur. Even these, however, in the 
18 language of science, remain independent variables 
19 in terms of social effects. 
20 Social impacts include such things 
21 as norms and values held by a community. It 
22 includes mores, traditions, relationships, and in 
23 the broadest sense, a way of life. 
24 If you have any doubts that 
25 development can have a profound impact on way of   

page71 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 life, ask cod fishers in Newfoundland, coal miners 
2 in Cape Breton, or residents in small communities 
3 such as Wentworth that is now bypassed by the 
4 Cobequid Pass. 
5 As reinforcement of this point, on 
6 Tuesday of this week, CBC Radio aired an interview 
7 with Anita Price of the Dartmouth Heritage Museum. 
8 Ms. Price stated that the construction of the Sir 
9 John A. MacDonald Bridge from Dartmouth to Halifax 
10 had a profound effect on Dartmouth. From a close- 
11 knit community with a substantial agricultural 
12 presence, it has been transformed into a largely 
13 commuter community with a significant industrial 
14 presence. All this in roughly the same time period 
15 the proposed quarry would operate in this 
16 community. 
17 Now for the slide. While a 
18 comparison of federal legislation and provincial 
19 legislation reveals few differences, there have 
20 been differences in interpretation and application. 
21 Historically, environmental -- I'm not going to the 
22 slide just yet. Historically, environmental 
23 assessments carried out under federal legislation 
24 have examined only socioeconomic impacts that are 
25 the direct result of a biophysical change.   

page72 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 However, under Nova Scotia's provincial 
2 legislation, the interpretation has been less 
3 restrictive in allowing the examination of indirect 
4 effects. 
5 To illustrate, adverse impacts on 
6 tourism would only be considered under federal 
7 legislation if a cause and effect link between the 
8 project's effect on, say, whale watching could be 
9 proven to be caused by the sound or some other 
10 effect created by project activities. Under 
11 provincial legislation, examination could be 
12 extended to impacts on tourism due to changes in 
13 the perception of the location as a tourist 
14 destination as a consequence of industrial 
15 development. 
16 And this slide. Additionally, the 
17 Nova Scotia Environment Act includes a provision 
18 for the reasonable enjoyment of life or property. 
19 Part I, 3(s) of the act defines an 
20 environmental assessment as a process by which the 
21 environmental effects of an undertaking are 
22 predicted and evaluated and a subsequent decision 
23 is made on the acceptability of the undertaking. 
24 An undertaking, according to para 
25 (az) of the same section states, in part, that it   

page73 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 is an enterprise, activity, structure, work or 
2 proposal...that has an adverse effect or an 
3 environmental effect. 
4 Adverse effect is defined as an 
5 effect that impairs or damages the environment, 
6 including an adverse effect respecting the health 
7 of humans or, underlined, the reasonable enjoyment 
8 of life or property. 
9 While the reasonable enjoyment of 
10 life or property is only one element of social 
11 wellbeing, it is at least a recognition of social 
12 effects outside the economic perspective. An 
13 examination of the Draft Guidelines (Sections 8.2 
14 and 9.2) indicates a strong emphasis on economic 
15 impacts with virtually no attention to social 
16 effects. Even recreation is described in terms of 
17 its economic value, and cultural effects are 
18 subsumed under human health considerations. No 
19 mention whatever is made of quality of life 
20 considerations or enjoyment of life or property. 
21 No definitions have been provided 
22 in the Draft EIS Guidelines. It is impossible, 
23 therefore, to determine whether the provincial or 
24 federal definitions and interpretations of 
25 socioeconomic effects will be used by the panel.   

page74 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 Without an explicit definition, it appears possible 
2 that the environmental effects of the project (vis- 
3 a-vis socioeconomic effects) may be deemed 
4 acceptable from a federal vantage but unacceptable 
5 from a provincial point of view. 
6 This would appear to make it 
7 difficult for the provincial and federal government 
8 to reach a consensus and issue a joint statement 
9 concerning the project at the completion of the 
10 environmental assessment. 
11 This panel needs to consider 
12 taking a new, more appropriate and valid approach 
13 to the study of social impacts of the proposed 
14 project. It needs to identify appropriate social 
15 measures (including but not limited to way of life 
16 and enjoyment of life or property, and encompassing 
17 various elements that comprise quality of life and 
18 the social fabric of affected communities). The 
19 Proponent must then be required to examine the 
20 potential impacts on those measures. 
21 (The work of Dr. Colman of 
22 Dalhousie University in developing Social Progress 
23 Indicators that identify approximately 20 variables 
24 related to social impacts might be a good starting 
25 point for the panel's deliberation).    

page75 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 If the panel is unwilling to 
2 examine the social effects in their true meaning, 
3 at an absolute minimum, the EIS Guidelines need to 
4 adopt the provincial definition of environmental 
5 effects with regard to socioeconomic effects and 
6 address enjoyment of life or property. It needs 
7 also to consider indirect effects caused by the 
8 project in the spirit of the provincial 
9 legislation. 
10 Finally, the EIS Guidelines need 
11 to contain key definitions (particularly those that 
12 differ between the two jurisdictions) to facilitate 
13 understanding of how the panel will deal with 
14 different definitions, interpretations and scope of 
15 environmental impact across federal and provincial 
16 legislation. 
17 Without studying potential social 
18 impacts, vitally important and real impacts on the 
19 quality and way of life of members in affected 
20 communities, how can a full determination of the 
21 effects and a subsequent informed decision on the 
22 proposed project be made? 
23 I leave you with this thought. 
24 While mitigation is possible for most, if not all 
25 biophysical effects, and some economic effects,   

page76 
MR. MULLIN - SUBMISSIONS 
1 social effects rarely, if ever, lend themselves to 
2 remedy. Like eggs, damaged communities can't be 
3 restored. 
4 Thank you for this opportunity and 
5 I wish you every success in your efforts. 
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, 
7 Mr. Mullin. Mr. Mullin, would it be fair to 
8 paraphrase what you said is that you're asking us 
9 to consider the possibility of urging some 
10 quantitative measure of social indicators as a 
11 reflection of quality of life, and it would be 
12 quantified in order to be able to monitor and 
13 assess change? 
14 MR. MULLIN: Correct. Or to 
15 predict impact. 
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 
17 MR. MULLIN: Yes. 
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very 
19 much. Yes. Jill? Anything? 
20 DR. GRANT: No. I don't have any 
21 questions. Thanks. 
22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Gunter? Thank 
23 you very much, Mr. Mullin. The last speaker prior 
24 to taking a break is Laurence Outhouse. Mr. 
25 Outhouse.    
 

page77 
1 MR. OUTHOUSE: Looking at my 
2 watch, I think we're running a bit behind time. 
3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr. 
4 Outhouse, you have 10 minutes. Use it fully. 
5 MR. LAURENCE OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS: 
6 I want to talk about -- I first of 
7 all thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. 
8 I want to talk about the Section 3 of your 
9 Guidelines, "Traditional Knowledge." And it has 
10 been mentioned briefly earlier by Tony Kelly. 
11 The Draft Guideline gives a brief 
12 description of traditional knowledge and its need 
13 to be considered in preparing the EIS. As 
14 presented, this refers only to the traditional 
15 knowledge of aboriginal people of the area. I do 
16 not wish to take anything away from the knowledge 
17 of the Mi'kmaq, who have lived in this area much 
18 longer than any of the European settlers. 
19 However, the families of these 
20 European settlers must now be considered to be 
21 indigenous to the area. To ensure the traditional 
22 knowledge available in this area is used, it is 
23 essential that the knowledge of these indigenous 
24 residents be utilized in the environmental 
25 assessment, and I would assume that the failure to  

page78 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 include the families of the Acadians and the 
2 families of the English Colonial and Loyalist 
3 settlers was an oversight that will be corrected in 
4 the Final Guidelines. 
5 To support this argument, I just 
6 today received an e-mail from the -- a statement 
7 from the Bio-Diversity Convention office, and I'm 
8 including that with my submission, but I won't go 
9 into detail on that. 
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 
11 Thank you. 
12 MR. OUTHOUSE: I just wanted to 
13 expand a bit on the usefulness of traditional 
14 knowledge from all of the above sources and some 
15 things that need to be taken into consideration 
16 when either using or ignoring such knowledge. 
17 First and foremost, we as a 
18 nation, as a group, seem to take the attitude that 
19 once the white man -- and I'll use it, you know, 
20 just as a term -- takes up residence in an area, 
21 everything of importance is recorded in some form 
22 or another, in written documentation, and the oral 
23 tradition of the white settlers is ignored. 
24 Well, this is certainly -- in 
25 areas such as Digby Neck & Isles, this is certainly   

page79 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 not the case. Everything is not written down. We 
2 have an oral tradition here as strong as the 
3 Mi'kmaq people, and I'm sure Sherry would agree 
4 with me on this. For example -- I'll give -- I 
5 want to give a couple examples now. For example, 
6 the only way to determine the historical 
7 significance of a settlement such as existed at 
8 Whites Cove is through local traditional knowledge. 
9 We now have before our courts in 
10 Nova Scotia a libel suit, which I don't think would 
11 have been there if the traditional knowledge of the 
12 local people in this area were taken into account 
13 at the start of this quarry development. Had the 
14 Proponents of the original four-hectare quarry 
15 sought out local knowledge rather than using a 
16 professional expert to determine if there had been 
17 significant settlement at Whites Cove, they may 
18 have taken a completely different approach in 
19 dealing with the problem of a potential burial site 
20 in the area and thus avoided the negative publicity 
21 they have received. 
22 Now, history of the site is not 
23 the only way that traditional knowledge can 
24 contribute to the EIS. Nobody knows the details of 
25 the local fisheries and how this project might   

page80 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 impact it better than the fishermen whose families 
2 have worked these waters for hundreds of years. 
3 What happens when the knowledge of our indigenous 
4 fishermen is ignored can be easily seen with 
5 respect to the traditional ground fishery in our 
6 area. 
7 DFO's decisions over the past 50 
8 years have been made based on, quote, "scientific 
9 knowledge," ignoring warnings from those with the 
10 collective experience of hundreds of years, the 
11 result of which is there is effectively no longer a 
12 traditional hook and line fishery in this area. 
13 Our only remaining inshore fisheries, lobster and 
14 herring, as well as the newly developed whale 
15 watching industry, may be put in jeopardy by the 
16 operation of this quarry. To ensure this does not 
17 happen, it is essential that the knowledge of our 
18 traditional fishermen be given full recognition by 
19 the EIS. 
20 There's more oceanographic 
21 knowledge -- and Bob, I address you on this one -- 
22 with respect to tide sea states and wind conditions 
23 along this portion of the Bay of Fundy shore 
24 available from the collective knowledge of those 
25 families who have worked these waters for   

page81 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 generations than will ever be collected in the 
2 short period of the Environmental Impact Study. 
3 To determine the viability of a 
4 marine terminal as proposed by the Proponents 
5 without considering this knowledge seems to me to 
6 be unthinkable. However, to get this knowledge in 
7 a form that could be analyzed by engineers is next 
8 to impossible. You sort of have a dilemma, and you 
9 can't ignore the knowledge, but you can do with 
10 that knowledge what the traditional fishermen do 
11 with it, apply common sense, and using the 
12 precautionary principle. 
13 An example of the unpredictability 
14 of the Bay of Fundy is last year's tragedy that 
15 occurred in East Ferry when a sea condition 
16 occurred that swept a lobster boat from its mooring 
17 resulting in the destruction of a halibut nursery. 
18 I was able to witness these seas from my home in 
19 Tiverton, and I had never seen anything like it in 
20 Petite Passage before. However, talking with this 
21 and the older fishermen, one fisherman in Tiverton 
22 remembered similar conditions at one time in the 
23 past. The result of the unusual sea state resulted 
24 in the loss of possibly millions of dollars in 
25 investment in what promised to be a viable industry   

page82 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 for our area. 
2 My point is that traditional 
3 knowledge tells us the Bay of Fundy is 
4 unpredictable. How does the EIS ensure that 
5 allowance is made for this uncertainty. What would 
6 traditional common sense have to say about the 
7 viability of a marine terminal on the open shore of 
8 the Bay of Fundy at Whites Cove? How can we assure 
9 -- how can we be assured that this traditional 
10 common sense will be part of the EIS? 
11 These are a few of my concerns. I 
12 will be making a written submission beyond this. 
13 And I guess I didn't introduce myself at the start. 
14 I'm Laurence Outhouse of Tiverton, Nova Scotia. 
15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very 
16 much, Mr. Outhouse. That was very useful. 
17 Questions from the panel? 
18 DR. GRANT: No. 
19 DR. MUECKE: No. 
20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Question. 
21 MS. PICTOU: Yes, I do agree, 
22 Laurence, and I just wanted to add that the Bear 
23 River Nation has learned from people like Marilyn 
24 Stanton and Mary Anne Lynyak and Laurence Outhouse 
25 himself of our traditional patterns, our fishing   

page83 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 and our traditional fishing camps, and I find it 
2 ironic that in this day and age that we're 
3 researching our history and culture and we have to 
4 go to non-native elders for that. I just wanted to 
5 make that statement to support what he was saying. 
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That's a 
7 valuable comment. Thank you very much. 
8 MR. OUTHOUSE: If I can make a 
9 comment to Sherry, I think if she looks at the EIS, 
10 there are specific -- you know, you fellas aren't 
11 gonna be left out. 
12 MS. PICTOU: Well, this is the 
13 first I've seen it. 
14 MR. OUTHOUSE: Yeah. 
15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I mean, I 
16 think what you're saying is the -- I think you're 
17 suggesting that traditional -- there's an important 
18 place for traditional knowledge, and you're 
19 broadening traditional knowledge to include all the 
20 residents here, not only native and non-native. 
21 MR. OUTHOUSE: But I believe this 
22 is not something new to this. 
23 THE CHAIRPERSON: No. 
24 MR. OUTHOUSE: This has been 
25 recognized and the real contention has been   

page84 
MR. OUTHOUSE - SUBMISSIONS 
1 recognized in many other things, but for some 
2 reason or another, it wasn't recognized in the EIS 
3 statement. 
4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you 
5 very much. Were there any other comments? Yes. 
6 MS. PICTOU: I'm wondering if you 
7 could also consider current knowledge by including 
8 some comment about [inaudible] tsunami truth in the 
9 light of the [inaudible]. 
10 THE CHAIRPERSON: That one may be 
11 more difficult. Okay. Now, we're at the point 
12 where we're supposed to take a break. Ten minutes. 
13 We still have eight presenters to go and we're 
14 trying to finish by 10:00. So I urge you, 10 
15 minutes, and I'm going to call you back to order in 
16 10 minutes. Thank you. 
17 (15-MINUTE BREAK) 
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and 
19 gentlemen, could we resume, please. All right. 
20 Ladies and gentlemen. I was approached -- I was 
21 approached at the break by someone who mentioned 
22 the weather, and apparently some individuals have 
23 already left because of the weather, because they 
24 have some distance to drive. And I would like to 
25 raise the issue once again of possible deferment of   
 

page85 
1 some presentation -- if people are concerned, 
2 deferring a presentation until tomorrow, if that's 
3 at all possible, to Digby. If people are not 
4 concerned and want to continue, that's fine. But 
5 if there is a concern about the weather of any sort 
6 and you wanted to defer, as I said, the one 
7 advantage of doing that is that -- you can see how 
8 the presentation works. A presentation is made, 
9 there's some interaction. If there's more time -- 
10 and I think there will be more time in Digby -- it 
11 would allow for greater interaction. That's all. 
12 So if there's someone who would find it 
13 inconvenient to defer, they can stay. We'll stay 
14 as long as they want. But if anyone would like to 
15 defer to tomorrow, that would be welcome as well, I 
16 think. So --- 
17 MR. FARNSWORTH: [inaudible]. 
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: I beg your 
19 pardon? 
20 MR. FARNSWORTH: [inaudible]. 
21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes. What 
22 we would avoid is repetition -- the same person 
23 speaking at multiple meetings. But if anybody 
24 wants to meet in any one of those -- at -- well, 
25 Meteghan would be fine with us. Just because  
 

page86 
1 people are speaking here doesn't mean they can't 
2 speak anywhere else. As long as they're only 
3 speaking once, we don't care where it is. So yes, 
4 Meteghan would be perfectly good. 
5 MR. FARNSWORTH: [inaudible]. 
6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So if 
7 there is anyone who feels that they don't want -- 
8 or for whatever reason they would prefer to defer 
9 until tomorrow, could you just go over and talk to 
10 Steve Chapman, and then he will keep a record of 
11 that while we're moving forward. And unless we 
12 hear from any of you, we'll just keep moving down 
13 this list and continue with the agenda as we have 
14 it for the evening. 
15 There is one comment I wanted to 
16 make before we open the floor once again, and that 
17 is to say that the panel has in fact visited the 
18 site. On December the 10th, we made a special trip 
19 down here and we went in and walked in the road 
20 down to the -- down to the exact site, and we 
21 walked over and had a good look at it. So we do 
22 have personal familiarity from that standpoint. We 
23 spent a couple of hours doing this. So just 
24 thought this might be of some interest to 
25 individuals.  
 24 We do that out in the Bay of Fundy. Briar Island 


9 Briar Island is a mile and a half 
10 wide and four miles long. It is part of the North 
11 Mountain and the island is made of basalt rock, and 
12 of course, basalt rock dates back to the Triassic 
13 Period, 200,000,000 years ago. 
14 I don't have a written submission. 
15 I'm actually going to speak from the heart and I'm 
16 going to speak about my cultural roots and about 
17 our heritage. 
18 All my life, I have been involved 
19 in the fishing industry. I've split my share of 
20 fish, I have boned by share of cod, and I most 
21 certainly have also baited by share of trawl. The 
22 last 10 years, I've also been involved in eco- 
23 tourism destination pertaining to whale watching. 
25 is the gateway to the Bay of Fundy. We are also 

page87 
1 Okay. So we should now resume the 
2 process, and the person next on the list is Penny 
3 Graham. 
4 MS. PENNY GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS: 
5 Good evening. Thank you for 
6 giving me this opportunity to speak. My name is 
7 Penny Graham. I was born and brought up on Briar 
8 Island.  

page88 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 known as Nova Scotia's eco-tourism destination and 
2 whale watching capital. 
3 Having spent the last 10 years 
4 every day from June the 12th until the middle of 
5 October on the Bay, I do question, and in my mind, 
6 I'm not so sure that a marine terminal on the Bay 
7 of Fundy side will be feasible. We've had good 
8 days out on the Bay and we've had bad days, and I'd 
9 like to tell you that no man or ship can actually 
10 have any affect on what the Bay of Fundy is going 
11 to do. Mother Nature has a way of doing its own, 
12 and I can tell you, when you're caught in a strong 
13 wind, and if it's a westerly wind or nor'west and 
14 it's beating in on the shore, I have no idea what 
15 will ever become of a marine terminal on that side. 
16 As we know, captains are well- 
17 versed in their manoeuvring of a ship. There's a 
18 lot of people that are book smart, but like Mr. 
19 Laurence Outhouse said, you also have to take into 
20 consideration people that have been on the Bay all 
21 their life, and they have respect for the Bay and 
22 -- there's been over 60 different ships gone down 
23 in the Bay of Fundy, and that's not to say that 
24 there won't be more go down. And unless you have 
25 lived in this area and you've had some common   

page89 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 knowledge as to the tides and the current of the 
2 tides and respect for the tides and the wind -- I 
3 think all these things should be taken into 
4 consideration. 
5 Another thing I'd like to point on 
6 is whales don't have any communication with humans. 
7 We're out on the Bay of Fundy every day. We 
8 interact with the whales. There's days when I 
9 wonder who's looking at who and who is trying to 
10 figure out what each is thinking about. I shudder 
11 to think that more traffic in the Bay of Fundy -- 
12 and I'm not -- I'm not sure if you're aware that 
13 the traffic lane has been positioned farther on 
14 this side of our coast. 
15 We actually see whales just a very 
16 few feet from shore. It's amazing how close they 
17 will go into shore, and it makes you wonder why 
18 they do go in that close, but they do actually go 
19 in very close to shore days, and they don't seem to 
20 even fear us or fear a boat. Like, we can be 
21 sitting right there and the whales actually 
22 approach us. We don't approach them. We can shut 
23 our engine off and just lay there and the whales 
24 approach us. And I think that they're a very 
25 trusting mammal, and I don't think that with extra   

page90 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 traffic in the Bay -- my own personal opinion is 
2 that I fear for our marine life. I fear for the 
3 fact that these whales are sociable and that it may 
4 have a detrimental affect on our numbers. 
5 As you know, the North Atlantic 
6 right whale is the most -- the largest endangered 
7 whale in the world, and that whale most certainly 
8 does frequent our bay as well. 
9 Also, we are home to two species 
10 of seals, our harbour seals and our grey seals, and 
11 for the last two seasons, we've been seeing a lot 
12 of white-beaked dolphins, which are very -- that's 
13 very unusual for us to observe white-beaked 
14 dolphins in our bay, but we've been seeing them 
15 frequently for the last two years. Also, white- 
16 sided dolphins. 
17 Harbour porpoise are on the 
18 endangered species list, and we also review them 
19 every day as well. 
20 I'd like to say that Briar Island 
21 actually was inhabited in the early 1600s by 
22 Indians, and then along came the Loyalists. 
23 I guess my biggest fear is, over 
24 the last few days, I've actually sat down and sort 
25 of let my mind wander, and I've discovered that   

page91 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 "if" is the biggest word in the dictionary for me 
2 for the last few days. If my way of life is in 
3 jeopardy because of the fact that we're going to 
4 build a marine terminal, there's going to be more 
5 ship traffic -- as we know, there'll be bilge 
6 pumped -- if foreign species are actually 
7 introduced in our waters, will the lobster fishery 
8 be in jeopardy? Will the scallop fishery be in 
9 jeopardy? Will the fish dragging sector be in 
10 jeopardy? Will people that harvest periwinkles on 
11 the shore -- will that be in jeopardy? People that 
12 actually dig clams and harvest mussels. All these 
13 things have to be taken into consideration. 
14 I know that there are a lot of 
15 scientific parts of this panel review that will be 
16 taken into consideration, but I also feel that you 
17 have to take into consideration our way of life. 
18 Years and years ago, we all know that our 
19 aboriginal people have actually been misused by 
20 society, and they're just starting now to actually 
21 try to rebuild their lives and be accepted in our 
22 social circles. 
23 And I guess my biggest fear is am 
24 I going to become a displaced member of society. 
25 What's going to happen to me when my way of life --   

page92 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 if it gets destroyed and I no longer can depend on 
2 the Bay of Fundy for my living? Who's going to 
3 look after me? I don't have a college education. 
4 I chose to live on Briar Island, and I've lived 
5 there all my life. And when something happens and 
6 my way of life is in jeopardy, is the opponent 
7 going to actually give me compensation when I no 
8 longer can go out on the Bay of Fundy and watch 
9 whales, when I no longer can take part in the 
10 fishery, when my children and my grandchildren can 
11 no longer live on Briar Island because of the fact 
12 that something has gone amiss? 
13 None of us can stand here and say 
14 it can never happen. No one can guarantee me from 
15 this day forward that my way of life will not be in 
16 jeopardy, and I'm asking you as a panel, when you 
17 sit down and review all your facts, can you just 
18 take into consideration that there are some of us 
19 that chose our way of life because that's what we 
20 wanted to do, and I am one of them? And I do not 
21 want to have to leave my island home, and I do not 
22 want to have to have the worry or the anxiety that 
23 because my sons both have chosen to settle on the 
24 island and live there, and they depend on the sea 
25 as well for their way of life, that in the future   

page93 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 that they will not be able to live the life that 
2 they want to live. 
3 City life isn't for everyone. We 
4 all chose and do choose to live our life the way we 
5 want to, and I feel that I have the right to have 
6 the confidence in our government, which we haven't 
7 had for quite some time, to do the best by me. As 
8 a taxpayer and a citizen of Canada, I feel I have 
9 the right to be protected. I feel I have the right 
10 to have my family heritage protected. I am part of 
11 the heritage on Little River. My ancestors were 
12 buried at Whites Cove. My mother has passed on, 
13 but she most certainly conveyed stories to me. 
14 And not only do we have to take 
15 into consideration those sort of things, we have to 
16 take into consideration our future generation, and 
17 I am asking you to not only rely on facts on paper. 
18 Please take into consideration that I date back to 
19 third generation of families involved in fishing, 
20 and I also am hoping to be able to carry on my 
21 knowledge onto my grandchildren and my great 
22 grandchildren what we have learned. 
23 Everything I've learned about the 
24 Bay of Fundy and what we experience in the Bay of 
25 Fundy has been learned firsthand. I haven't   

page94 
MS. GRAHAM - SUBMISSIONS 
1 learned it from a book. When people come aboard my 
2 boat, they say, "Are you -- where did you study?" 
3 I have studied nowhere. What I have learned, I 
4 have learned from the sea and learned from the 
5 things that I experience at the sea. I've learned 
6 from the whales, the dolphins, the seals. 
7 Our natural wonders and our 
8 heritage are part of me, and I'm only hoping that 
9 you'll take all this into consideration when you 
10 make your decision pertaining to this quarry. 
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very 
12 much, Ms. Graham. Thank you. 
13 MS. GRAHAM: Thank you. 
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Jill? Anything? 
15 Gunter? No? Thank you, Ms. Graham. The next 
16 person is Fred Trask. If Mr. Trask is still here? 
17 MR. TRASK: I don't have anything. 
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank 
19 you, Mr. Trask. Chris Tidd. 
20 MR. CHRIS TIDD - SUBMISSIONS: 
21 Good evening. My name is Chris 
22 Tidd. I'm from Little River. What I would like to 
23 stress in this is the importance that the fishing 
24 around Whites Cove has provided to my community. 
25 Less than 10 years ago, out of the   

page95 
MR. TIDD - SUBMISSIONS 
1 13 boats in my harbour, we fished in St. Mary's 
2 Bay, none of them fished Bay of Fundy. As of 
3 today, there's 11 out of 13 fish in that area. So 
4 it's becoming quite a viable place for us too to 
5 make a living. 
6 So not only do we feel that we'll 
7 go out there and lose gear with the shipping 
8 because you got to do something with a 700-foot 
9 long ship, but then we get to come home and put up 
10 with the noise, the dust and other things 
11 associated with a rock quarry in your back yard. I 
12 live less than a mile away from the quarry, so I'll 
13 have concerns about it, but I also have concerns 
14 about my living too and gear loss and places you 
15 cannot set your traps no more. Just as simple as 
16 that. 
17 THE CHAIRPERSON: So if we were to 
18 add something to the Guidelines or refine the 
19 Guidelines, what you would be asking us to do is to 
20 make sure that the -- the Proponent made it very 
21 clear about the relationship between the project 
22 and the fishing industry. 
23 MR. TIDD: Oh, definitely. Like, 
24 one of my concerns is when you bring a 700-foot 
25 ship up in the Bay at night or in the daytime, and   

page96 
MR. TIDD - SUBMISSIONS 
1 it airs up like, say, 25 -- I don't see anything 
2 over 25 knots you'll ever lay there -- what do you 
3 do with that ship in the meantime while you're 
4 waiting for the weather to drop out. We have 
5 balloons out there, 15 traps, two balloons. Do you 
6 just cruise around slowly with a 700-foot ship? 
7 It's going to take a lot of gear. And certain 
8 stuff like that. 
9 And that's -- like I say, that's 
10 just on my living part. On my home part, I have a 
11 home that I put a lot of money into, and my 
12 community. And what do you do? The value of that 
13 gone probably to half what it should be now. 
14 THE CHAIRPERSON: So I mean, you 
15 just made another point, which is more specific 
16 than the first one. What you're really saying is 
17 that that ship -- in flat calm weather, the ship 
18 comes in and ties up. Right? But what you're 
19 saying is that under this westerly or northwesterly 
20 breeze blowing on shore, the ship comes along, it's 
21 too intense, it can't tie up, it can't park itself, 
22 so it's got to do something. 
23 MR. TIDD: You got to take it 
24 somewhere, and most generally you'll just go around 
25 the Bay with it or just cruise and wait for the   

page97 
MR. TIDD - SUBMISSIONS 
1 weather to abide. But it's -- you can't predict 
2 the weather out there as much as you can with the 
3 forecast. They may say 20. You may get 25 or 30. 
4 And it's just -- it's such an unpredictable place 
5 on that straight shore like that, and it's a rough 
6 place. Thank you. 
7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 
8 Gunter? Jill? No? Anyone else? No? Thank you, 
9 Mr. Tidd. Kemp Stanton. 
10 MR. KEMP STANTON - SUBMISSIONS: 
11 Well, I'm a fisherman, Kemp 
12 Stanton. I fish and live in Whale Cove, the 
13 closest fishing village on the Bay of Fundy side to 
14 this quarry project. 
15 When I refer to the Bay, I mean 
16 the water around it, not necessarily St. Mary's Bay 
17 or Bay of Fundy. It's just the Bay. 
18 The Bay and the Neck define what I 
19 am, who I am, how I live and what I think. It's my 
20 family's thing for the last 250 years. It's my 
21 thing for the last 57 years. I have the view of a 
22 little bit older fisherman. I've got a few more 
23 years in the industry. I've seen quite a lot. The 
24 Bay dictates my job. It is my job. It dictates my 
25 culture. When I talk, I talk in nautical terms. I   

page98 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 don't notice that I do. 
2 My entertainment. When I do 
3 something, I don't go to Disney World. I go for a 
4 walk along the Bay of Fundy shore. A hell of a lot 
5 more interesting, more beautiful and more relevant. 
6 The Bay is my past, as I've said. It's my present. 
7 It's where I make my living. If I have any 
8 relatives living in a few years, it's my future. 
9 It's all connected to the Bay. I think the Bay. I 
10 feel the Bay. I am essentially the Bay. I'm 
11 talking as a fisherman. 
12 And it isn't only the fishermen. 
13 It's the families. You've got to consider no 
14 fisherman fishes on his own. He has to have the 
15 support of the family, and he supports the family. 
16 So you're not just talking one man. 
17 The Bay is my place of business. 
18 I use my boat on the Bay, but the Bay itself is my 
19 place of business. When I set traps, when I am 
20 trying to make a living, it isn't exactly -- I am 
21 doing it in the boat, but I have to go to different 
22 places in the Bay or I cannot make my living. 
23 The footprint, I call it, the 
24 operations of this quarry, the shipping from it -- 
25 sorry about the whistle -- the shipping from it,   

page99 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 the lights, the noise, the concussion, the 
2 explosion, I will be close to that at all times 
3 pretty well during my work. It'll be -- 80 percent 
4 of the area I fish will be strongly affected by 
5 these things. But I am not considered as a normal 
6 person. I am a fisherman. We are in a different 
7 category -- considered in a different category than 
8 most humans. 
9 Take an example. If I had a boat 
10 repair yard within 200 yards of Whites Cove, this 
11 company could not quarry rock that because they 
12 can't blast that close to the foundation of my 
13 business. I fish traps within 50 feet of the shore 
14 at Whites Cove, but there is absolutely no 
15 protection for me or my boat. There's no setback 
16 that they've got to stay clear of the area I work 
17 in. 
18 The governments here do not 
19 recognize us as businesses. When I want the road 
20 ploughed over in my village, the municipal 
21 government tells me that there are no businesses in 
22 Whale Cove, so it's one of the last places they 
23 plough. But five fishing boats fish from that 
24 wharf. We pay taxes like everybody else, but when 
25 I put down the address of my business, I have to   

page100 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 put my house address. But I don't do my business 
2 at the house. I do my business at the water. 
3 So try looking at it from this -- 
4 Digby Neck amounts to access to the sea. When 
5 we're talking land values on Digby Neck, you are 
6 talking access to the sea. When somebody comes 
7 here from British Columbia and wants a house, they 
8 don't come here to stick in a little valley. They 
9 want a view of the ocean. That's what makes it 
10 valuable for them. As a fisherman, my house on 
11 Digby Neck has no value at all if I haven't got 
12 access to the bay and the creatures in it. 
13 We are quite willing to make 
14 sacrifices for the good of the Bay. We did not 
15 fight having the shipping lanes moved four miles 
16 towards Digby Neck from the other side of the Bay 
17 because it was for the purpose of protecting our 
18 whales, our environment. We agree with 
19 conservation. We won't make a whole lot of 
20 sacrifices for some company in the States to make 
21 big profits. Sorry, it's not in the cards. 
22 No mention is made in these 
23 Guidelines of stand-off distances for my business. 
24 And there's not even -- as far as I can gather, 
25 there's no laws in this country that does that   

page101 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 either. 
2 When you think of -- I'm looking 
3 at the fisherman's point of view. My end on Digby 
4 Neck is secondary. Everything -- our weather, 
5 fishing, tourism, residence -- is the ocean. You 
6 can go almost anywhere on Digby Neck and you'll 
7 seldom be out of sight, sound, smell or feel of the 
8 influence of the ocean. It's just there. It 
9 permeates everything on Digby Neck. It's the soul 
10 of Digby Neck, and it's the health of the Bay that 
11 gives any land its value. Without the Bay, without 
12 it being healthy, it's just no-good rock that they 
13 could probably take away. And if they ruin the 
14 environment on the Bay, it makes it a lot easier 
15 for them to quarry rock here, from our point of 
16 view. 
17 The Guidelines don't seem to 
18 reflect the reality of our total and absolute 
19 dependence on the Bay more than the land. It talks 
20 a lot about land values. It talks nothing about 
21 sea values. 
22 Now, Whites Cove in particular. 
23 Our ancestors -- my relatives were there from the 
24 1700s to pretty well the end of the 1900s. In the 
25 1990s, we had access, unchallenged, unchanged. The   

page102 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 purpose of that village was to give those people 
2 access to and from the sea. The slipway that was 
3 there -- you may have seen a few remains of it when 
4 you were over there -- that was to give those 
5 people access to the bay, and from it, because at 
6 the early stage, any supplies that were brought in 
7 were brought in by boat. They depended entirely -- 
8 the haul-out was there. There was never a 
9 challenge with anybody. Anybody could come there 
10 and use that at anytime. It was -- you didn't ask 
11 permission. It was and still is understood by us, 
12 even in the deeds from the area. At earlier times, 
13 it was mentioned as a fisherman's privilege. In 
14 other words, you couldn't kick the fella off. He 
15 was a fisherman. He had the right. He used that. 
16 That was what that was for. It's what it was set 
17 up for. 
18 When we lost this right, we had no 
19 -- we just don't understand how we lost it, because 
20 I was present and I helped haul the last major boat 
21 that was hauled up there. That was hauled up there 
22 by a government winch in the 1960s, mid-1960s. The 
23 name of the boat was the "Twilla & Ethan." It was 
24 a 40-footer. After that, the gear there 
25 deteriorated, and there were a few smaller boats   

page103 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 hauled up there and some dories, but nothing major 
2 afterwards. But we could go over at anytime and 
3 salvage our gear from off the shore. We asked no 
4 permission from anybody. If we wanted to go 
5 collect periwinkles or Irish moss, we did. We 
6 needed no permission from anybody. 
7 Now it seems that we need 
8 permission from the owners suddenly. Why, I don't 
9 know. After that many years, I thought, according 
10 to Canadian law, once you had maintained access for 
11 200 years, you had a right. It don't seem so. 
12 Why an American company would have 
13 precedence over Canadian residents, I have no idea. 
14 But the Guidelines don't seem to have even 
15 questioned whether the company has the right or has 
16 the total ownership of that small piece of land 
17 that was once and we still claim as the fisherman's 
18 privilege. 
19 Now, I have been ordered off it by 
20 employees of this company. I didn't leave, but he 
21 got extremely upset and went and called the police 
22 and the police wouldn't do anything. 
23 But anyway, now, local people, 
24 especially fishermen, Digby Neckers, are by far the 
25 best source of experts on the complete and   

page104 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 interconnected nature of the areas and its many 
2 unique components. Yes, you can go get an expert 
3 from Alberta and he can tell you the name of the 
4 fish and he can tell you how long it lives, but 
5 probably the fishermen in the area can tell ya what 
6 needs it. It may not be a species that we call or 
7 you would call important because we don't catch it. 
8 But maybe what we catch and sell eats it. You can 
9 never consider the Bay in isolation. Everything 
10 into it interacts with everything else into it. 
11 And they'll say, "We're gonna consult experts." 
12 But they don't consider me an expert, even though 
13 collectively I have talked to my great grandfather, 
14 which gives me over 125 years of knowledge of the 
15 area. 
16 And since we are the experts, and 
17 I think -- I have no doubt of it -- and we will be 
18 the one to live with the future consequences of 
19 anything that goes wrong, and somebody else 
20 somewhere else gets 95 percent of the benefits, we 
21 should be the experts that are paid most attention 
22 to, Ph.D.s or not. 
23 Just a sec. I got mixed up here. 
24 Oh. It would have -- this project would have to 
25 deal over a potentially 50-year period. So you've   

page105 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 got -- anything you're talking about has to take 
2 into consideration the storm of the century, what 
3 the sea level is likely to do over the next 50 
4 years. And when they talk benefits, you've got to 
5 think about what machinery is going to look like in 
6 50 years. They talk about 25/30 jobs now, but 
7 machines are getting bigger, they're getting more 
8 automated, and when you get a big automated machine 
9 in there, you need much more volume of material to 
10 make that machine work efficiently, and you need a 
11 lot less workers to run it. 
12 So the company has got to convince 
13 us that they aren't going to need to double, 
14 triple, quadruple the size of this quarry in the 
15 50-year period and half or less the number of 
16 workers because of technological advances. I think 
17 that's reasonable. 
18 These realities and the lack of 
19 royalties to be paid on this must be dealt with 
20 more fully. We must defend our next generation. 
21 You know, we can't just think of what's going to go 
22 on in the next two years. And if there's gonna be 
23 no real benefits in 20 years or 25 years, I'm gonna 
24 be dead, but I hope some of my relatives are there. 
25 And any decisions you make now are gonna serious   

page106 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 affect those people. And from what we've been able 
2 to do so far, our experts and our government has 
3 been some piss poor at predicting what conditions 
4 will be in the future. They have almost always 
5 been wrong, and they have never quite managed to 
6 err on the side of caution. Take that into 
7 consideration. Just --- 
8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Stanton, 
9 you're over time now and every --- 
10 MR. STANTON: Yeah. Oh, I just 
11 --- 
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- everything 
13 you're saying --- 
14 MR. STANTON: If I can just say 
15 two more things quick. 
16 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm listening to 
17 every word you're saying, but the other people are 
18 going to be delayed getting home and so forth, so 
19 I'm concerned about them as well. So --- 
20 MR. STANTON: Yeah. If I can just 
21 --- 
22 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- can you 
23 bring it together? 
24 MR. STANTON: One minute. 
25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great.   

page107 
MR. STANTON - SUBMISSIONS 
1 MR. STANTON: Okay. The project 
2 will have the lowest priority in the Bay for help 
3 if anything goes wrong. Supertankers, LNG tankers, 
4 everythin