KIPAWA LEGAL: Frequently Asked Questions

When is the case being heard at Federal Court?

All the affidavits and undertakings for documents are complete. The court date is set for October 23/2007 and the proceedings should last about a day and a half.

Question -

With respect to navigability - What is the argument of Transport Canada? that there's no denying that the river should be "navigable" but to them, providing a portage trail around the dam for kayakers constitutes "navigability?"
Are they interpreting the 'law' around navigability to suit the needs of this project??

Second Question -

What can we (paddlers, public, concerned citizens, etc) do to help, aside from donating to the enormous legal bills associated with this battle?

Is letter-writing still a possibility? What content might need to be highlighted to the Ministers at PWGSC and TC that will have them pay attention, and not just discard the letters, with the excuse that "this is already before the courts?"

As for content - here's what I'm thinking is important... are there other key points that need to be included in a brief letter to MP's/Ministers, etc?

1. TC/PWGSC officials have acted in a manner not appropriate for "public servants"
o The public consultation of the damn construction, was not open to LARK (or at least not immediately)
o The PWGSC officials kept information from LARK throughout the past couple years that would have been helpful for LARK to know.

2. PWGSC/TC officials have based this project's direction (wrt Dam re-design) on innaccurate information.
o Claiming the dam is dangerous to navigate
o Claiming it's illegal to run the dam (when in fact the dam itself is illegal/without permit!)
o Claiming that by not having the dam, there would be minimal impact to the festival/paddling/adventure tourism in the area,
o Claiming that their mitigations for the sluice are adequate, yet they never really asked Les Amis if that was the case...

3. PWGSC carried out the Environemental Assessment in such a manner that would not impact the (already awarded) contract to construct the dam, and in doing so, avoided the involvement of Les Amis, even though it was recognized that they were a valid stakeholder, their input was disregarded.

My intent of the letter/s would be to highlight my utter disgust at how "Public Servants" are doing very little for members of the public, and that their insolence is actually costing private citizens great personal expense by launching this legal battle - whereas if they had been willing to listen all of this may have been avoided.

Not to mention the Conservative Government's cutting of the legal defence funds for small organizations for this very purpose!


Third Question

What's the best outcome of this?
--Dam is re-engineered to permit navigability?
--PWGSC officials are reprimanded/disciplined for their lack of professionalism?
--The law is altered/clarified in the area around navigable rights?



The answers to your questions

The answers can been summed up by our original requests to the Minister of Transport.

Keep the sluice of the refurbished dam navigable. That is it in a nutshell.

We demanded a complete win: reasonable accommodation of navigation which did not include the trail. We never asked for it, we didnt' argue against it.


Now to the more interesting question of reasonable accommodation...

Les Amis has demonstrated that reasonable accommodation consisted of such things as the design of the gates of the new sluice. We suggested they contact and use the services of reputable engineers who specialize in the design of whitewater facilities: Penrith, Athens, Barcelona, Munich: people like Scott Shipley who we specifically referenced.

Reasonable accommodation was both feasible and possible. Many of the design features were listed in my paper to the Canadian Dam Association: "Navigation of Water Control Structures".


Now lets look at environmental impacts on people. This is not the first or last time we look at the impacts on people as an environmental effect. On route to Arnprior from Ottawa you will see a long concrete sound barrier protecting residents from the noise of Highway 17. This is a small example of how environmental effects can be mitigated. Using the logic of PWGSC the residents would have been asked to "move" if they didn't like the noise.


Everyone has learned something from this exercise. I wish enlightenment for all in the most positive sense. I suggest "truth and reconciliation". Some of the bureaucrats have no doubt already paid a high price for their bad decisions but everybody makes mistakes. In my paper to the CHRS this weekend I speak about the experience of les amis in the environmental assessment screenings: what happened verus what was supposed to happen and make the case that unless the process for screenings changes more bad decisions will ensue.


This last point addresses your question about letter writing. The Main stream media has paid little attention to the issues here. More media time has addressed the shape of hockey pucks. If people wish to help they can draw attention to our cause. Talk to their friends and encourage them to do the same. The environment is IN and with awareness comes the singular moment in time, when the force and presence of an idea can acelerate forward. Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.

Finally, I 'd like to address the concept of the "precautionary principle".
This is the belief that even a small change can be catalytical to major change. We have to be careful what we do and if we are not sure of the consequences of our actions, err on the side of caution. PWGSC did not do this, they sat around in a little group, said "a trail - I love it when an idea comes together". They were wrong then and they are still wrong