Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 73
June 4, 1996. In his letter, Mr. Ivanski noted that LPL had inquired “whether DIAND is
fundamentally opposed to the concept…” and advised Mr. Bourgh on behalf of LPL, of the need to
satisfy regulatory requirements, including environmental assessments. He pointed out that
satisfaction of all the relevant requirements did not guarantee the grant of tenure.
[286] Mr. Ivanski also indicated, in the letter of June 4 th , that DIAND had not been entertaining
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
requests for new THAs until an overall forest policy had been developed. That policy development
included the development of a FMP.
[287] This aspect of the letter of Mr. Ivanski is at odds with the information given by Minister
Irwin to the Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Watson Lake, the Honourable Audrey McLaughlin.
This is recorded in a letter to LPL from their MP dated April 29, 1996; see Exhibit P-79, Tab 31.
Mr. Ivanski’s letter is also inconsistent with the letter sent by Minister Irwin, dated June 18, 1996, to
the Member of the Legislative Assembly (“MLA”) for Watson Lake, the Honourable John Devries;
see Exhibit D-20.
[288] Minister Irwin had indicated to both the MP and MLA that DIAND was willing to accept
business proposals. The Minister also assured that proper consideration would be given to any
proposals received. A business proposal only relates to a THA. A business proposal was not
required to apply for a CTP.
[289] Mr. Ivanski concluded his letter of June 4, 1996 by wishing LPL success in its endeavours.