AnimalsMagazine

“There’s definitely a pressure I put on myself to do my job with care.”

Meet Sandra Nelson, one of our society’s truth seekers.

“I feel like I’m really lucky to do the work that I do because I get to understand so many different perspectives on these big questions that we have about how to live, how to do business, how to grow.”

Sandra is a scientist with the consulting firm Stantec. When decisions need to be made at the intersection of people and nature, Sandra is tasked with gathering the information needed to help different stakeholders use fact to resolve conflicts, ideally before they begin.

“I see my job as collecting accurate data correctly and communicating it clearly so that anybody can read it.”

Which sounds important and is important. But here’s the thing: When it comes to Sandra’s work – the work that goes into a decision made by a regulatory process or government – we rarely stop and ask how it happens. And maybe we should, given how contentious our decisions are becoming.

Sandra offered to pull back the curtain on her work so we can better understand how we make decisions in Canada. It might not be the most exciting story you’ll ever hear, but it might be one of the most important. After all, you can’t argue a position or make a decision without understanding the facts.

Over to Sandra:

“I’ll make up a hypothetical company; I’ll call it ‘Rainbow Mine Corporation’. At the very early stages, Rainbow will say, ‘I think that there’s ore in this place. It’s great when we get called really early in the process because then I get to go out and I’ll complete a one-to-three year baseline study (of the area planned for development). Some regions require a longer dataset; some regions require less data. And I’ll work really closely with my colleagues in all of the water disciplines (to collect that data).”

Sandra continues, “When you’re talking about the ‘Rainbow Mine’, we’d have to start with the geochemistry, which is how is water going to interact with the rock that’s going to be disturbed by the mine. Then we have to talk about groundwater. So, the groundwater people will get out there and they’ll drill their wells and they’ll install their monitoring equipment and they’ll collect samples. And you need a lot of data (with groundwater). We’ll also have surface water specialists, both for surface water quantity and surface water quality.”

With all of that data collected?

“They use that data to develop predictive models by combining climate data with the watershed area data. How much water is going to be falling on this mine site throughout the year? How is that going to interact with the geochemistry data? That data combined together gives us an idea of what the chemistry is going to be in the water running off from mine. You use that data, combined with the groundwater data, to get an idea of how the water chemistry might shift change in the creek where the fish are, which is where I come in.”

And, as you might have guessed, Sandra collects even more data, this time about fish that might live in the area and the importance of the overall habitat to the fish.

While the data is being collected and analyzed, Sandra says, “The mine plan will proceed and you can have multiple iterations of mine plans. And that’s one of the more rewarding parts of my work. Because sometimes I’ll get a draft mine plan that’s in the early stages, (and my data will show), actually, there are fish in this creek that you’ve identified as a potential tailings storage area. Quite often, my clients are highly motivated to move their facilities so that they don’t put their tailings storage in a fish-bearing creek.”

Next up?

“You get to actually writing an environmental assessment. This stage, really, is about communication and storytelling. I get the plan from the client and the mining engineers and (I combine it with) all the data and I have to figure out how those things are going to interact together as the mine is constructed, as it’s operated and then as it’s going through closure.”

Sandra continues, “If some component of the mine is going to interact with fish habitat, then we get into a Fisheries Act Authorization. And if there’s a Fishery Act Authorization, then we’ll have to do what has, in the past, been called compensation. This means we have to find a way to offset the effect on that population of fish through improvements to habitat in other places. We’re talking about a place that’s already been impacted (by development) and cleaning it up (in exchange for ‘Rainbow Mine’ impacting fish habitat that can’t be saved near their mine site). And there’s, unfortunately, quite a bit of opportunity for that in Canada. There’s a lot of older developments that were done under old legislation, and regulatory regimes, that would not be acceptable today.”

Is that trade worth it? Is it worth losing intact habitat in exchange for improving land that has been degraded?

Sandra says it’s “really, really complicated. It’s not a yes/no question. All of those models (she discussed) have assumptions built into them. You can make those assumptions more conservative, which means essentially that they’re going to predict higher levels of the metals that you may be measuring for. Or you can make the models with different assumptions that will result in lower predictions. So, we have to balance those assumptions – and those assumptions get looked at in detail in working groups and in our conversations with regulators. We try to base them on research where available.”

If those assumptions are balanced and the trade is deemed to be worthwhile – for nature, for people – what’s next?

“If the project gets its environmental assessment certificate, and it gets its Fisheries Act authorization, then we get into the monitoring. We work on a project all the way through into long-term monitoring, looking at water quality, fish distribution, fish population, density, all sorts of things.”

And there you have it. That’s one example of Canada’s regulatory decision-making process, where people and nature, science and policy meet.

Sandra says here’s what you have to know:

“When we get into whether a project should proceed, it’s going to be based, hopefully, on science, but it is also going to be based on our values as a society at that time. I have learned to provide the most accurate data that I can so that people who ultimately have that decision to make have the best information that they can get at their fingertips to make that decision.”

Kerrie Blaise is an environmental lawyer and another one of society’s truth seekers. Kerrie argues, “Scientists who work for the license holder, they bring a certain position to the table. And, so, you need that third party expertise so they don’t have a stake in the outcome.”

Sandra Nelson takes serious exception to that perspective.

“If I’m getting pressured to change an answer, that is a huge problem and I don’t do it.”

But Kerrie says it’s about more than one scientist; it’s about how a decision-making body will interpret the science.

“You have to look at what drives the decision maker. If it’s a government body, what is their mandate and what are they after? They will find the science that fits their objective. If they’re a regulator and if they’ve always approved certain energy projects, and they’ve never denied one, that will show an inherent bias within that.”

It’s why, Kerrie argues, that her role as an environmental lawyer is essential.

“A huge part of it is a right to participate in decision-making, if those decisions can impact the environment.”

Think about it this way, Kerrie says:

“If there is a company who is operating and they’re looking to skirt environmental compliance approvals for air emissions – or they don’t want to have the best groundwater monitoring programs that they could have – that will affect the community and will affect the workers who live in the community.”

Kerrie believes that lawyers are a key cog in the decision-making process because they ensure everyone has an equal say.

“I purposely represent non-profits or low-income vulnerable individuals for the purpose that those are the ones who lack access to justice. We know this; it’s well tracked. So those who can’t afford legal representation usually aren’t represented in the courts and the tribunals.”

That matters, Kerrie argues, when we ask ourselves, “Who can afford the experts? Who can afford ten experts versus one or two? And that can make a decision truncated one way or another.”

Yet the combination of the scientific investigation and the legal process is a big problem for business. Right, Hal Kvisle?

“So, I have no objection to us meeting the highest environmental standards and every job we do, doing it right. What a lot of us are objecting to these days is the grinding regulatory process that we have to go through before we can even begin the project.”

Hal is the former CEO of TransCanada Pipelines, now known as TC Energy, and is one of Canada’s leading energy executives.

“Companies like TransCanada and Enbridge are the best pipeline builders in the world and yet somehow Canadians appear to have lost confidence in the pipeline industry. We have terrific track records. We’ve led the world in technical developments in the pipeline industry. And, yet, we make these companies go through the horrific regulatory process.”

Hal’s right. Many Canadians have lost faith in pipeline companies, but also the regulatory process itself, believing it’s rigged for business or the environment, depending on your worldview.

Hal says the public assumes, “and I don’t blame them for assuming, that the corporation is solely focused on making money and making as much money as they can right away. But that’s not actually the case. Most corporate directors today understand that environmental sustainability for the long-term is essential if the company’s going to stay in business.”

That’s why Hal believes, “The first step is really, how pristine, how valuable, how important are the environmental attributes of this particular piece of land? And if they’re critically important, then that should outweigh everything else.”

But if we decide a development project can proceed? Then Hal argues we need to let it.

“We can clean-up the regulatory process by leaving more of the construction decision-making in the hands of the proponent, of the pipeline company, but significantly increase the penalties for any sort of environmental degradation or problems that are caused.”

That proposal would lessen what’s known as red tape – the government rules and regulations that slowdown business. But environmental lawyer Kerrie Blaise doesn’t think red tape is a real problem.

“I don’t like the phrase red tape. It misconstrues it as something that works against us when it’s actually the flip. What we might call a red tape is actually a set of rules, or a set of guidelines, for what everyone has to meet so we’re all equal players in the decision.”

Kerrie says regulations only become an issue for business if they’re not proactive with their public consultations.

“Time and time again we’re seeing that when there hasn’t been adequate public consultation, that becomes a huge influence in whether or not the decision will go through or the final approval will be given for a project.”

Scientist Sandra Nelson explains, in her experience, “When you have a project that exists in its own little silo for all of those early planning stages – perhaps the company that’s trying to develop that project is talking to their consultants and they’re talking to the government – and none of the players are talking to each other and they may or may not have anybody doing extensive communication with the public? Those projects? They get really delayed. They really do.”

Energy executive Hal Kvisle agrees businesses need to invest more time in public consultation.

“That’s the level of effort and community engagement that the industry has not traditionally done. We’ve got to do a lot more of that and it needs to be more than just going through the motions.”

Kerrie Blaise believes when that happens, there are no regulatory delays. It’s why Kerrie argues we need more, not fewer, environmental regulations.

But wouldn’t more regulations impact our economy? Kerrie says, “No, I don’t think so. Because if you have regulations in place where the air can be protected, and there’s monitoring programs and there’s oversight, projects will move ahead and we can at least see on what basis they’re moving ahead.”

Business leader Hal Kvisle says strongly disagrees.

“(Regulations) cause companies to spend $800 million to get through a regulatory process and then go out and build the pipeline exactly the same way, as if they have never been subjected to that regulatory process.”

But scientist Sandra Nelson says, “I don’t think the problem is always with the legislation itself. I think it’s with the way that it can be implemented.”

Hal says the answer is: “We need to reduce the amount of bureaucracy, and the paper exercise, that proceeds actual construction.”

Sandra has a slightly different take.

“What we need for our legislation to work the way that we want it to, without changing anything, is more staff at all of those levels of government and more involvement and group planning in the early stages of our projects.”

Look: Science, law, economics? They all help us separate fact from opinion. But even though a science study or a court case or a financial report will give us clear facts on an issue, it’s equally clear that different stakeholders can interpret truth in different ways.

Indeed, there can be multiple truths – multiple realities – and there is almost always someone who can and will poke holes in a set of facts, especially if it helps prove their point.

Which is why science can help us understand problems and stakeholder concerns, but to find policy solutions that meet the needs of all stakeholders, we must weigh different facts –the wholeness of facts; the real or perceived bias that goes into uncovering facts – in order to determine the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

It’s also why we must heed this advice from Sandra Nelson:

“I think it’s important to remember that the world has a lot of people in it. And every person has basic needs. So, it doesn’t help the situation to say, ‘We’ve got to have jobs; we have to build this project so that my dad can have a job’. It also doesn’t help us if we say, ‘We can’t build this project because it’s going to pollute that stream’. It doesn’t create any dialogue or progress. It just creates a combative atmosphere. So, learning to listen is probably the biggest thing that anyone at any age can do.”