Editor:
Louise Menard, principal, chief operating officer for Golder in Canada wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Thursday April 18, 2013 edition of the Rocky Mountain Outlook.
In this letter she referred to Mr. Jim Pissot’s previous letter relating to bias by Golder Associates. This is an open letter in response to that discussion.
Ms. Menard talked about the integrity and professionalism of her Golder team in her letter of April 18. There are at least two areas where the report and process were inadequate, where in my view, an organization described by Ms. Menard would have acted differently.
In the terms of reference for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by Golder Associates and accepted by the Town of Canmore, Golder had planned to “present options to the proposed development pattern(s).” This is referenced on page 5, 5.0 Reporting, bullet No. 4. Golder presented only one option. When the Golder representative was questioned by Town council, the response indicated that Golder decided this was the only reasonable solution so there was no point in presenting more than one option. Clearly, Golder did not complete what they had included in their own terms of reference.
In the framework agreement between PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Town of Canmore, dated Nov. 20, 2012, Golder was identified as the consultant responsible for the preparation of the EIS. In section 1.2, (i), (ii) the of the agreement, the Town “will appoint its own consultant to work collaboratively with Golder on preparation of the EIS.” Then in the following point (iii) collaboratively was defined as “sharing information and communicating throughout the process.”
However, it became clear that Golder did not share the wildlife data with the Town’s consultant. This worked against an effective response from the Town’s wildlife consultant, MSES. If she believes that “we all want a solution that will allow both the people and the wildlife that make this valley their home to coexist in safety and harmony” (see Ms. Menard’s letter of April 18), then it seems to me that a professional organization with integrity would have ensured this sharing would have happened. And, we could get closer to the solution suggested by Ms. Menard and needed by the Town of Canmore.
Therefore, it is clear that Golder did not act like the organization described by Ms. Menard in preparation of the EIS.
David Eaket,
Canmore
