The Keltic hearings

‘The buck stops with me’

Meet the man who’ll decide Keltic’s fate

“In this case, it’s pretty much going to be a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ kind of answer.”

GUYSBOROUGH – Minister of Environment and Labour Mark Parent is a very interesting man.

An ordained but not consistently active Baptist minister, Parent was appointed to Premier Rodney MacDonald’s cabinet after the summer election. The promotion was a long time coming – Parent was elected MLA for Kings North in July 1999.

Some political observers believe Parent’s long stint in the cabinet “wilderness” was at least partly due to his very independent nature. But since accepting the environment portfolio, Parent has quickly become one of MacDonald’s rising stars.

Parent is a very educated man.

The avid skier and former carpenter holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from York University, a Master of Divinity (Acadia Divinity College) and a Doctorate of Philosophy (McGill University). He’s also written two books and authored numerous newspaper columns.

So it’s no surprise to learn that Parent enjoys reading in his spare time – which he says has become very limited since the cabinet appointment. His tastes vary from Spanish mystery novels to tomes on philosophy.

And soon, he’ll have even more to read.

With the Environmental Assessment Board’s (EAB) report and recommendations into the recently held Keltic Petrochemicals public hearings due on Parent’s desk on or before February 21, the minister admits he’s going to be a very busy man. He and his team will have just 21 days to decide whether the multi-billion project will proceed.

Late last week, The Journal called Parent for a chat. Here’s the text of that interview, which has been edited for space:

Journal: You’ve risen up through the ranks and you’re sitting with a key cabinet portfolio. How are you handling the extra responsibilities?

Parent: It’s a fascinating portfolio. It really wasn’t one I’d thought of beforehand but I hadn’t realized the extent of what it covered. There’s really nothing that goes on in government that doesn’t touch on some part of the department. It’s extremely demanding – a lot of reading, a lot of issues to keep up with, but it’s quite fascinating at the same time.

Journal: Looking towards the Keltic decision – when the EAB’s recommendations come back to you, what happens next?

Parent: What usually happens is that the staff takes a look at the review panel’s work and the findings and does an analysis of it. Often times it’s very, very lengthy. I get a copy of it but I often wait for the staff to do an analysis of it. I read it myself as well…and then we get together and talk about what the panel recommends and what our position is going to be. In this case, it’s pretty much going to be a “yes” or “no” kind of answer. The buck stops with me.

On this project there’s actually three Environmental Assessments. There are two Class II assessments – one for petrochemical, because it’s a higher level environmental risk, and one for co-generation – and one Class I, for the LNG. Basically we can accept or reject the project or accept it with the conditions the panel has recommended. We usually follow their advice.

After that there is an industrial approval process, where there is a little more give and take between the government and the proponent. There is more discretion at that stage – not a lot more, but a bit more.

Journal: Some people have described you as somewhat of a maverick – a very strong thinker who takes his own line and isn’t necessarily easily influenced by external forces. What do you say to that?

Parent: (laughs). A kind way to say you’re pig-headed, eh? I guess maybe coming out of my background as a (Baptist) minister, I think more about some of the larger philosophical issues, so that may be why I operate the way I do.

Journal: Keltic is a pretty big decision.

Parent: It is a big decision – it’s not one that one takes lightly. There are concerns on both sides of the issue. People have taken their various positions. On one side there is the concern that without this (project), there won’t be any employment in the area. And then there are others who are very concerned about the environmental impact these types of industry would have on that area.

Journal: So you’re weighing up those kinds of concerns – the economy versus the environment. You have two very polarized positions. How do you try and reconcile that? There’s no question that Guysborough County is in a downturn but there’s also people who say residents don’t understand the scale of the operation and the potential environmental damage. Is this one of the tougher decisions you’ve been faced with?

Parent: We granted, as you know, a 60-day extension, which is rather routine at this stage, simply because the panel had only 21 days after the findings to report back to us. There were 7000 pages they have to wade through. A lot of people I don’t think realize the complexity of this project – the (Sydney) tar ponds…is actually a simpler process than this to analyze because (Keltic) has three elements to it – the LNG plant, the petrochemical aspect and co-generation. And it touches on wetlands in the area and also…there’s an old gold mine there with tailings and things like that. So it really is a very complex process, this one. It’s a very, very big project.

Journal: The 60-day extension – let’s talk about that for a minute. It definitely raised concerns from within Guysborough County. I spoke to several people who were very concerned about it and their line was that the government has said it’s going to specifically avoid having these kinds of situations come about – that projects like Keltic will not be bound in red tape. And now they are saying, “Hang on, it appears to be happening here.” How do you respond to that?

Parent: I guess, in defence of my department…it’s not a question of “No regulations are good” or “A lot of regulations are bad” or vice-versa, depending on where you sit, but that there is appropriate regulations that are needed to safeguard people and that companies respect that what’s needed at that stage is clarity of what those regulations are. And that’s what companies ask me time and time again. They say, “We want clarity. We want to make sure that the decision is based on evidence and science and not based on politics, one way or the other. And if you do that, and we know what the playing field is, we’re content with that.”

The extension was a routine request that we grant all the time. We put a panel in place and the panel reported back to us that it hadn’t had time to do a proper job and in this case, as I said, there were 7000 pages and it was very complex. Christmas is coming as well and these panel members are all volunteers…and so it just seemed like the right thing to do in order to do a proper assessment of the project.

Journal: Once you have the EAB report, you have 21 days to make a final decision on the project. Do you anticipate it taking the full 21 days?

Parent: As I said, it’s a complex report. (If) the panel comes to some very clear decisions without a lot of caveats to it, that makes my job easier and we might be able to do it faster than the 21 days. If the panel comes up with a rather dense report with a number of caveats to it, that makes it much harder.We will try to keep things on time…but we intend to do our duty and to do it to the best of our ability.

Journal: Provincial officials, including the premier, have said the province is 100 per cent behind this project. Will that make it tougher for you if you are considering rejecting this proposal?

Parent: To be honest, it makes it more difficult for me on a personal level but as Minister of the Environment…I have a responsibility above and beyond any sort of political level. And that responsibility is laid down in legislation and so ultimately that’s the responsibility of the minister that I will adhere to.