Thanks Boyd Allen, for this response to the recent IRAC Review interim report release and Premier Lantz’ response to it. What do you think?
Lipstick & Tummy Tuck
There were some positive recommendations in the interim report on IRAC review released last week by Commissioner Rory Francis: Splitting Land and Energy; Breaking out the Residential Tenancy Office: Attaching the Boards to the Legislative Assembly through Justice and Public Safety; Stressing necessity and role of Land Use Plan; Thorough review of Section 98-1 of the LPA; “Enhanced” Conflict of Interest provisions; Merit based selection of Commissioners; Independent performance reviews; appointment of a Consumer Advocate position under the Energy Board banner.
The language in the report referred to it being ” a shared agenda for modernization”. There was nothing critical of IRAC staff members past or present. It was focussed on restructuring to make their jobs easier and more efficient. Though considered “inadequate” it was inferred that the current conflict-of-interest policy was never breached. It was more about “the appearance” of non-compliance that needed to be addressed.
This perspective/bias was further evident in regards to political interference. He stated unequivocally that though suspected, it never happened. ” the Review found no evidence that Government is inappropriately influencing IRAC decision making”. He was not specific about what constitutes “inappropriate”. The proposed structural changes were therefore established primarily to diffuse “the appearance” of political interference.
It was not provided who would be responsible for the merit based selection process and the subsequent performance reviews.
There is no mention of public oversight in any form.
The appeal process through the Planning Act/Municipality Act etc. seemed to pass muster. There was no recommendation to make it more accessible or less expensive. Though necessary to ensure public participation and transparency in energy regulation, the same standards evidently don’t apply to administration of the LPA/Planning Act/Municipalities Act/EPA. The only suggestion made was that those not qualified to launch an appeal should be informed of that at the outset, to avoid unnecessary delays.
It does not recommend any change in the current LPA land purchase protocol. No mention of more transparency or accountability.
Francis recommends the threshold for IRAC involvement in corporate land transactions to be upped to 2250 acres. This was seen as a means of eliminating annoying red tape and consuming too much of the Commissioners’ time.The primary reason for the lower threshold was to get a handle on Beneficial Ownership.
The review process itself should be examined. The Report states that the commission had over 40 meetings with community organizations, municipal leaders, industry organizations, provincial government departments, IRAC Commissioners, IRAC staff and “other stakeholders”.
Who were these meetings with? To my knowledge there were no environmental or other advocacy groups invited to meet. The NFU was offered a time with three days notice in the middle of farmers busiest time of the year. Was there any record kept of these meetings ?
There were 20 public presentations as well as 63 written submissions directed to this Commission. To my knowledge there is no public access to any of them. Having attended the complete Charlottetown session and having read many of the submissions, a significant number of the points and recommendations made in them are not reflected in the Interim Report.
Though presenting worthwhile recommendations, this report does not address the flawed culture which eroded Islanders’ confidence in IRAC. Significant areas of concern such as the lack of transparency, shoddy record keeping, and questionable methodology associated with their LPA inquiries were pointedly ignored.
I see an attempt to facilitate a Rebranding of IRAC, while making it more efficient and tidying up “the appearance of” conflict of interest, political interference and inaccessibility.
Questions remain: Why is there an Interim Report six weeks before the final report is to be delivered? The current Government seemed to be forewarned sufficiently to roll out their ambitious plan three days after its release. Would that be considered “appropriate” political interference?
Boyd Allen, Pownal
