Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 102
[402] The Plaintiffs continued their efforts throughout February and March to get a firm answer
from the Department concerning secure access to the required volume of wood. During these
months, employees of the Department advised the Plaintiffs that steps were underway to develop a
process for the issuance of THAs. Pressure was mounting, both on the Plaintiffs who were
concerned about the viability of the mill and on the Department, to deliver on its representations that
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
an adequate supply of fibre would be available to the Plaintiffs.
[403] Exhibit D-81, Tab 35 is a letter from Ms. Guscott to Ms. Clark, dated March 18, 1999. In
this letter, Ms. Guscott advised that there was no guarantee that SYFC would receive a permit at
that site “or at all”. She further advised that any steps taken before the resource reports were
completed would be at SYFC’s own risk.
[404] Ms. Clark responded to this communication by a fax on March 18 th , found in Exhibit D-11,
Tab 12. Ms. Clark advised that the existing policy did not fit the manufacturing sector and said that
she appreciated the priority that DIAND was giving to their concerns.
[405] Exhibit D-13 is another letter from SYFC to Ms. Guscott. It was dated March 19, 1999. This
letter was written by Mr. Heit, Wood Supply Manager for SYFC, he said that the Department had
given no reasonable guarantee of the timber supply. He said that this was made clear in para. 3 of
Ms. Guscott’s letter of March 18 th . This letter was sent in respect of accessing timber in a specific