8:30 a.m., Feb. 3)
watchdog to keep an eye on next phase of interprovincial
By Fred Sherwin
National Capital Commission plans to appoint an independent
auditor to look out for the public's interest during the
next phase of the interprovincial bridge study.
decision was announced at the Jan. 23 meeting of the NCC's
board of directors.
to the NCC CEO Marie Lemay, the auditor will monitor the
public consultation process during Phase 2B and ensure
that the public is kept informed in a timely and thorough
auditor will work with an as-yet-to-be-named evaluation
is the last stretch and we are doing everything we can.
And honestly, I think we are going overboard with this
thing, but this way when it's done, (the public) can not
say they didn't get a chance to participate, or the process
was not followed," said Lemay.
decision to appoint a fairness auditor was made to address
a number of concerns that came out of the most recent
round of public consultations. A number of community association
observers felt the public wasn't given sufficient notice
of the public meetings and that the final report coming
out of those meetings didn't reflect many of the comments
that were made. In essence, they felt that the outcome
has already been determined.
has vehemently denied the fix is in and is hoping the
decision to appoint a public watchdog will address the
public's concerns as the Environmental Assessment study
fairness auditor should bring them comfort," said
Glen North resident Hugh Carter has been following the
process from the beginning as a member of Common Sense
Crossings and Sustainable Solutions.
thinks the appointment of a fairness auditor is a step
in the right direction in trying to address some of the
concerns brought up by a number of community groups coming
out of the last phase. However, he is much more concerned
about the study's guidelines and the lack of clearly defined
specifically, he says the study lacks several key Critical
Success Factors (CSF), or a proper Risk Management Plan.
the CSFs Carter feels need to be defined before the next
phase can begin are:
the number of trucks which would be diverted from the
King Edward corridor;
the acceptable minimum level of disruption to wildlife;
the maximum acceptable noise level permitted in surrounding
residences, businesses and public institutions;
the acceptable maximum level of traffic density on the
trunk roads leading to the bridge.
a list of clearly defined CSFs, it is impossible to establish
a proper Risk Management Plan that could address whatever
mitigation would have to be implemented should the CSFs
not be met.
instance, if you put a number on the minimum percentage
of trucks you want to divert from the King Edward corridor
and the final recommened site fails to hit that target,
what can be done to narrow that gap? Are the residents
in Lowertown and Sandy Hill willing to live with that
number? Does another crossing need to be built?
Plan B," asks Carter, who sent a letter outlining
his concerns to Lemay last month and is expecting a response
story was made possible thanks to the generous support
of our local business partners.)
to Front Page