Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 207
[787] On August 9, 2000, Mr. Kennedy reported to Ms. Guscott that the Timberline Report #2 had
been received. This email was entered as Exhibit P-80, Tab 77. In his email, Mr. Kennedy explained
to Ms. Guscott that she needed to review the new document. With respect to volume in the previous
TSA, Kennedy stated that there were “[s]ome major number changes once we removed some
hidden constraints to management that were in previous.” (Emphasis added)
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[788] These “hidden constraints to management” were the basis for Mr. Monty identifying to Mr.
Ballantyne, as mentioned previously, that there was insufficient wood for the Watson Lake mill.
[789] The draft RFP, that is the “first trial balloon” according to the Plaintiffs, was released in
September 2000. This RFP was based on the analysis from the Timberline #2 Report. However,
before the actual RFP was released in 2001, the size and number of THAs were altered without
explanation. The new RFP reverted to the previous Timberline Report #1, which had been based on
the preliminary TSA with its “hidden constraints to management”.
[790] The “first trial balloon” contained several different options for THAs including both large
and small volume THAs. The actual RFP when it was released had two THAs, each with a
maximum volume of 30,000 m 3 per year of timber.
[791] This change was accepted by DIAND for the express purpose of resolving what the
Department called a “nagging commitment”. The words “nagging commitment” were used by Mr.
Dave Loeks, a consultant to DIAND, in his letter of June 15, 2001 to Mr. Joe Ballantyne, DIAND