Instructor Certification May 12 -13

Dave Gillespie and Carole Westwood will be conducting a Level II Instructors Course in Minden May 12 - 13. Candidates will be sent Chapter 8 to review before the course. Prerequisite: Current Level I WO Instructor certification, or current PC Level 1 Instructor Certification. (photocopy of certification required with payment/registration form). PC Candidates will have to purchase WO manual at the course to complete their notes ($35)

The problem with Environmental Assessments

Politicians are still just people. They are mostly honest, mostly over-worked, and often wrong.

Bureaucrates are also just people. They too are mostly honest and possibly over-worked, and if they were wrong.... don't you think they'd know it?

So lets look at the big cases, Mahar Arar, Almadi, The Adscam in Quebec, The Air India Inquiry, .... mistakes are being made and people are being affected.

Still, if you can help them to do the right thing, why not try?

At Issue.

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**********

Environmental Assessments: How is that working for us?

Four main purposes of the CEAA

a) to ensure that the envirionmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take actions in connection with them
b1) to encourage responsible authorities to take actions that promote sustainable development and thereby achieve or maintain a healthy environmental and healthy economy
b2) ensure that responsible authorities carry out their responsibilities in a coordinated manner with a view to eliminating unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment process;
c)to ensure that projects that are to be carried out in Canada or on federal lands do not cause significant adverse environmental effects outside the jurisdictions in which the projets are carried out;
d)to ensure that there be an opportunity for public participation in the environmental assessment process. S4 of the CEAA

There are three assessment tracks:

Three tracks:
Screening: self assessment
Comprehensive studies
Independent review panels (warranted by public concern)


The problem with the CEAA is as follows:

About 6000 assessments per year from Jan 1995 to Jan 2000 of which 99% are screenings (page 4)


Use of the courts is necessary: for balance between different interests!

There are limited opportunities for meaningful public involvement in screenings and comprehensive studies.

Difficulty is created for the public in accessing information through public registries

What happened: The owners of the dam planned for a routine screening, initially unaware of a special circumstances surrounding their project. They were unable to respond to the evidence that did not fit their paradigm and original assumptions no matter what information was brought to their attention. The specific case did not fit into their understanding of the “class”.

Expecting only feedback from French users: the screening was to be conducted in French Only but most participation regarding this special issue was from English users.

The project in question is instrumental in a much larger river diversion project but the EA only deals with the smaller wedge issue of dam refurbishment.

The project in question adopted a coordinator but the coordinator did not serve to adequately address public concerns.

The CEAA was to promote greater use of mediation and dispute resolution but despite numerous requests for meetings with the Ministry Representatives no mediation was provided.

The issue here is that an exception arose and the system was unable to deal with it fairly and objectively:

What happened instead was:

At first the officials said that navigation of the sluice was illegal. Through public participation, it was shown to them that it was in fact legal.

Behind the scenes, outside the realm of public participation they proceeded to try and make navigation illegal or impossible, while moving on to say that navigation of the sluice was unsafe.

Through public participation it was shown that navigation was in fact safe.

Behind the scenes, outside the realm of public participation the responsible authorities proceeded try and establish that navigation was unsafe, trying to raise examples of dangers while continuing on with changes to navigable status when in fact navigable status had already been identified through an internal fact finding.

Finally, the officials proclaimed that the loss of navigation was insignificant and this finally becomes a matter for the court and largely a matter of opinion.

At this point: the Plaintiff, Les Amis de la rivière Kipawa had no recourse but to give up or launch a court action putting the whole of the environment assessment into question.








**********Have a Nice Day**********