Kipawa River Issues
--------------------
What is at stake: If the Court accepts that the public right of navigation is a paramount right and that property owners should exercise their rights in such a way so as not to unecessarily interfere with the rights of navigation wherever possible; If the Court accepts that the de facto history and uncontradicted evidence is that the old dam did not completely obstruct navigation by canoe, raft and kayak and it must be conceded that it is technically possible to have a structure that serves the object of flood control but doesn't deny navigation; If the Court agrees that negatively impacting marine navigation is a significant environmental effect and if the Court agrees that CEAA requires that the government apply precautionary principles to development so as to minimize or avoid significant environmental effects such as the loss of marine navigation; and if the Court agrees that PWGSC started with the incorrect and immutable starting assumption that navigation is unsafe and illegal and that holding such a position caused it to be hostile to a stakeholder and minimize a stakeholder's views from the outset, that is in direct conflict with its statutory obligations and duties. Then, PWGSC started with incorrect assumptions and misconstrued its obligations from the very outset thereby causing it to view Les Amis as a mere nuisance and rendering the process a farce where only one conclusion was possible. If the Court agrees with that then, in fact, there was never a public consultation in the sense of dialogue or exchange, but simply a series of decrees or edicts. What PWGSC says was a consultation, Les Amis says was a sham and a farce. If the Court agrees with Les Amis, then the whole CEAA approval will collapse, the permits quashed and PWGSC will have to go back to square one.
**********Have a Nice Day**********
No comments:
Post a Comment