Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
For the group that had 89 conditions, what were they? Were they reasonable? Attainable? Do you really think if they had responded "No" to each of them instead of the general commitment they made that this nation would have been satisfied with that or the FCA would have considered that meaningful two way dialogue?
|
It's not about satisfying. There is no requirement to satisfy, just to engage, to meaningful consult. A bit more than an acknowledgement, give an explanation for why the conditions/concerns/requests/ were/weren't reasonable/justified/required.
As for the specific conditions, I don't have the complete list but the decision did acknowledge they were reasonable and specific (again give it a read, you very likely to change your mind about this being a political influenced decision). They included some as illustrations and it's heartbreaking if you have a conscious.
They weren't asking for Canada to give them the Northwest Territories and Manitoba in exchange for their support. They were asking to be notified about spills. Yeah, that's what the conditions entailed, I #### you not.
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...#_Introduction
Quote:
[683] To illustrate the nature of the recommendations, section 17.2 of the ICA deals with recommendations to mitigate the Project’s impact on fisheries. Section 17.2.1 deals with Management and Planning in the context of fisheries mitigation. The recommended Management and Planning mitigation measures are:
17.2.1 Management and Planning
5. Stó:lō Fishing representatives will participate in the development and review of Fisheries Management Plans and water course crossing EPPs before construction and mitigation plans are finalized.
6. Stó:lō representatives will provide input on proposed locations for Hydrostatic test water withdrawal and release.
7. [The proponent] will consult with Stó:lō representatives to develop the Emergency Response Plans in the study area.
8. Stó:lō representatives will consult with community members to determine appropriate restoration plans for water crossings including bank armouring, seed mixes or replanting requirements.
9. Stó:lō fishing representatives must be notified if isolation methods will not work and [the proponent] is considering another crossing method.
10. Stó:lō representatives must be notified as soon as a spill or leak, of any size, is detected.
11. During water quality monitoring program, anything that fails to meet or exceed established guidelines will be reported to a Stó:lō Fisheries Representative within 12 hours.
[684] These measures are specific, brief and generally measured and reasonable. If implemented they would provide more detail to the Board’s generic conditions on consultation and require timely notification to the Stó:lō of events that may adversely impact their interests.
|
Spend three years asking to be notified about spills (and other pretty reasonable requests) and the Board, Trans Mountain and Canada couldn't just give you a straight, "sure if there's a spill in your area you will be notified with in 12 hours." And then they have the audacity to say there was some form of meaningful consultation? Could you imagine. You just want to know the fish you caught aren't contaminated with some reassurance but nope, too much to ask for apparently.
For other requests from other parties it was trickier, some asked for taxes and stuff like that. That would have been a lot harder to navigate and I understand the idea of just trying to avoid it all together. But the stuff above? Everyone who had even a peripheral involvement with Trans Mountain, the Board and Canada regarding this project should be fired and shamed.