Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 201
offered by Mr. Fillmore is part of a continuing course of conduct where the Regional Office is
attempting to shift blame for its failures. Moreover, in the first paragraph of the document quoted
above, Mr. Fillmore makes a blatant misstatement of fact. The Plaintiffs had been asking DIAND
about access to wood for a long time before February 3, 1999.
[774] Mr. Kennedy, Head Policy and Industry Forester, wrote to his supervisor, Mr. Monty, on
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
June 18, 2000. This memorandum was entered as Exhibit P-45. Mr. Kennedy identified his
concerns with the THA process.
[775] In this memorandum, Mr. Kennedy explained that, on March 13, 2000, he had been asked to
prepare a strategy to get the THA process back on the timetable. He proposed three options to get
the process back on track. With respect to the shifting THA timelines he noted:
The first modifications to the process were to the time line prior to
the publishing of “The Development of Yukon Timber Harvest
Agreements, A Framework for THA’s in the Yukon” where we
pushed the time frame back to September, 2000. The workshop that
was held April 4 and 5, 2000 was to bring all the stakeholders
together to consult on a reasonable process, then, to proceed with the
Request for Proposal, on a given land base in South East Yukon, in a
timely manner. Commitments were made to senior levels to meet the
time frames given. As a result of a Joint Yukon and DIAND meeting
in early January, 2000, we were directed to proceed with the
knowledge that the forest management planning process would be
part of the development of the criteria required of the proponent, and
not precede the selection process. This does not seem to be clear to
all members of the working group, and leaves me wondering if with
the changes to Yukon Government, and the internal changes in
management, if we are under the same direction given that January
day.
…