Comment Period - Not Enough Time

My first and most obvious and irrefutable comment is that 30 days is no where near long enough to read, digest and comment on a project of this, perhaps the biggest, most complex and arguably the most significant project ever considered for an impact assessment in Canada.

The expectation that interested persons with varying degrees of familiarity can read, comprehend and provide meaningful comment on over 1200 pages describing a proposed project as complicated as this is unreasonable and unfair.

Understanding and commenting on what is presented is onerous enough, but the object of this exercise as I understand it is to identify the gaps; those areas of concern to human health and the natural environment that are not present in this Initial Project Description (IPD). In order to understand what is missing, one must become familiar with what is presented.

Interested parties, like me, have lives outside of voluntary involvement in contributing opinions and critiquing potentially harmful proposals (of which there is no shortage). I can not spend the majority of my day reviewing and commenting on one of many issues that demand our attention as citizens. And this particular project is the largest, most ambitious and potentially the most harmful proposal ever to be tabled in my experience.

Not only are we expected to comment on the proposal within this too short of a period, but  if we want to apply for funding for this review and future study and input, the request must be completed also at this time, within the same 30 day period. Unreasonable.

For the reasons stated above, I urge the Committee to extend the review period significantly (perhaps 90 days) to allow interested parties to do a thorough job of reviewing and commenting on this proposed IPD. To expect quality input on a proposal of this magnitude within a 30 day period is completely unreasonable and makes a mockery of the whole process.