Lake Watershed Guardians

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/search/article/365267
Also Times & Transcript:
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/search/article/365344

More than 30 environmental groups are pressuring the provincial government
to ban uranium exploration and mining in New Brunswick.

The groups say they're against any uranium activity in the province,
despite the recent implementation of new guidelines for exploration.

The guidelines banned mining companies from staking claims near any
communities, free-standing buildings or near provincial watersheds.

The new legislation also changed the way companies could stake land claims,
forcing them to make claims electronically instead of physically placing
blue ribbons on the property.

Inka Milewski, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick's health-watch
director and science adviser, said the province isn't listening to what New
Brunswickers want.

"While we applaud added protections to watersheds, the government is
missing the point," she said.

"In light of long-term radiological dangers from drill cores, trenching and
bulk sampling, we want a ban on uranium exploring in New Brunswick. Several
municipalities and groups have issued calls to ban uranium exploration and
mining, and it's time for the government to listen."

Randy Nason of the Grand Lake Watershed Guardians said the province should
allow New Brunswickers to participate more in a review of the Mining Act.

"Public participation processes lead to regulations that best reflect
public concerns," he said.

"Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario have conducted recent public participation
processes in reviews of their mining regulations. We demand no less."

Inquiry ,to whom it may concern:

From: Richard Harris [mailto:injusticecoalition@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:48 PM
To: inquiry.admin@bellnet.ca; plee@stu.ca; help@mlb.nb.ca; smaclean@lawsociety-barreau.nb.ca
Subject:

To Whom It May Concern:

The main key of evidence in the matter on the files of Goodwin and the Appeal of Russell’s Decision of June 3, 2005 .that I think will turn the matter in to deliberate, illegal abuse. The main issue is on the matter of Judge Russell’s decision on page 19.paragraph 49,50,51,52,

Now to get the consent of what was going on with my Lawyers, Goodwin, DOT employee’s and so on? We have to start when the Public would know for the first time the routing of the highway was to change location.

1. There was a Discovery on September 11and 12,of 2001, Now John Raymond will take undertaking to provide additional information in relation to the Public Meetings
2. See December 6, 2001 and December 5, 2001 that I will not know about till December 20, 2002. ? Why.
3. Now here is a lie on paper, because on Thursday March 1, 2007 I went to the Oromocto town hall and retained a Drawing with a date on it. ( of February 1997)

· This drawing of February 1997 was use at the Second public meetings on the alignment Issue to relocate the highway from Smith subdivision. To where it is to day.

4. Undertaking December 6, 2001 said more or less the Second public meeting was on December 11, 1996. this was in Fact the First Meeting to the Public .now on December 5,2001 undertaking as to line 2,( Quote Attached is a copy of the plan (the Drawing date of 12/96 ) plan used at the December (11) 1996 ‘’Public Meeting’’ showing the existing Highway alignment . (Now this drawing is not to scale to where the highway is now) like to the drawing of February .Dated February 1997. The one I got a copy of Fred Hackett on March, 1, 2007.

5. Why is this so important, because of a lie that was told in court by Heather Pugh that set the main Logistics for a decision of Judge Russell , to paid me so little after 8 years of fighting. ? If this memo was so important you would think it would have been brought up at one of the Discovery’s .Discovery of 2001 or 2004 but I think why it was not is because of the Goodwin Matter .see page 90, on the Goodwin draft report. Now if this memo was to play such an important part in the Russell Decision nine years later. Then why was this document not on John S. Raymond affidavit of Documents list, (form 31,B)Copy of this memo( SEE : Exhibit A-8 ) of Judge Russell paragraph 49,

6. Exhibit A-8 memo. It said Copy of this memo went to John Raymond Assistant director, Copies to Mike Phillips, Brian McEwing and Colleen Brown. Now with all these people having Copies you would think this memo that my Lawyers enter as Exhibit A-8 at trial you would think this memo would at least been on Raymond’s Documents list.

7. Questions, but look at page 90 of Goodwin report and you will see he know of a memorandum that was faxed by Ross little, to Lonnie Forbes? How would he know this? It looks like he talks to Lonnie forbs or Ross Little. Now this invitation work should be on his Detail billing. ( I will have to look for it now on March 6, 2007) When would I see any of the Governments Documents, two week be for Discovery in September 11, of 2001.

On Goodwin detail invoice billing to Mr. Richard Harris. Date Entered: July 6, 1999. On page 2. On or about March 2, 1999 Goodwin Quote (telephone Commission with Lonnie Forbes, N.B. Municipalities Culture and Housing Rural Planning Commission. Now on March 2, 1999.and looking at Goodwin page 90 of the draft report, he quoted (a memorandum contained a note for the potential of the proposed highway to affect the RAH/HARCL land and also noted that RAH had been to the NBDOT Planning Office to see the plans for the new highway.

If Mr. Goodwin was looking out for my best interest in his report. ( you would think he would be putting a date on this so call meeting at NBDOT planning Office of me seeing the Plans of the new Highway,)?

So on or about March 19, 1999. Goodwin was at my place getting eight Thousand more dollars from me, leading me on that his report was just about finished. It was worth around 4-to-6 hundred thousand, But Obviously he knew what was to take place in March of 2005 in Court. (The key to this whole matter is this non dated Drawing that Goodwin refers to on his page 90 in his report.

(Goodwin quotes) February 3, 1997, a memorandum was faxed by Ross Little, NBDOT land Management & planning to Mr. Lonnie Forbes, Development Officer for the Rural Planning District Commission concerning the Richard Harris property and enclosing plan #82? Now how would I know what plan #82 was, if I did not see this till March of 2005 in Court.

Now back to the Exhibit A-8 the memo that appeared in Court and entered by my lawyers, it has no dates and no official writings or notes to make it a legal document other than stating it was plan #82

8. Now look at paragraph #6 and you will see that there were copies of Heather Pugh’s Memo sent to Ross Little.

· Facts there were no Drawing’s showing my 18 building lots sent to DOT, planning Office till January 1997.

· We know that the Town of Oromocto did not get a Survey drawing till February of 1997 to have the Second public Meeting. Because the first was on December 11, 1996. And six day’s later on the same day that I know now my wife Marilyn Harris signed for a Notice of intent to survey letter.

· Heather Pugh Memo said I seen her on December 17, 1996. This is false!

· I will admit I did go to see Heather Pugh with a drawing that I received from Lonnie Forbes only after the meeting on February 12, 1997 with Stephen Leblanc.

· The drawing with a date on it of 12/96. On this drawing I drew a red line to show DOT people buy taking all my property they would not need to move the salt and sand storage building. I think I knew for sure on February 15, 1997 that they did not have any survey work started yet.

· On or about March 2,2007 At 9:30.am I traveled to the Burton Court House, looking for this plan #82,filed (not in the Court) but what I did learn was the date of Survey ,1997/ 03 /07 ,I think this would be March ,7,1997. But what I know from the Town Hall in Oromocto that there was drawing with a date February 1997 that the town had.

· This bring us to a question when for the first time could these Center Lines be put on this none dated Drawing. ? Because these Line are the location where the Highway is today.

· So with the matter of a so call meeting on December 17, 1996. With Heather Pugh. This meeting would have been impossible.

9. Now on Paragraph [51] of Judge David Russell’s decision, who would these accusations benefit the most? I think it would be Goodwin as he obviously knew what was to take place in Court 2005 .as it looked on page 90 of the Draft report that I would not see for the first time until July of 1999.
   

10. Look what I was doing March 13, 2005 in this matter of a meeting on December 17, 1996? Going to the Oromocto postal out let to find out what day this Intent to Survey letter was sign for. ? Why did Mr. Caldwell not enter the whole 4 page Documents I gave him? I think this has a lot to do with Goodwin matter.

Jackie Vautour and Family.

Parks Canada is extending an olive branch to hundreds of people in eastern New Brunswick who used to live in what is now Kouchibouguac National Park.

Administrators at the sprawling seaside park are reaching out to people who were involved in one of Canada's most traumatic expropriations in order to make sure the history of the area and its vanished Acadian villages are remembered along the park's scenic trails and breathtaking vistas.

An advisory committee has been organized to involve former residents in planning the park's future and finding ways in which it can commemorate its past.

"This will lead to a better understanding of what we can do at Parks Canada to help tell the story so that former residents feel the park belongs to them as well," said Claude Degrace, acting superintendent of the park and himself an expropriated resident.

Established in 1969, the 238-square-kilometre national park lies on the Northumberland Strait. Its long stretches of pristine beaches, shifting sand dunes and wooded bike and hiking trails have made it a popular tourist destination.

But the expropriation of 10 Acadian villages to create the park caused enormous disruption in the lives of more than 1,000 people whose families had fished and farmed the land for generations and for a long time many local residents have avoided visiting the park because of the hurt it symbolizes, said Degrace.

Continue Article

Former residents of the area don't look down on the park, he said, but often question the way the expropriation was carried out.

Jackie Vautour and his family were defiant to the end and still live in a ramshackle home in the middle of the park. His family endured violent confrontations with police, the bulldozing of the family's original home and enticing gifts of land and money from the New Brunswick government.

"Although it was legal, it turned everyone's life around and upside down," Degrace said.

Vautour challenged the expropriation in court, it was ruled lawful. But the bitter experience of Kouchibouguac forever altered the way Parks Canada acquires land, he added.

The Canadian National Parks Act, given royal assent in October 2000, states Parks Canada will not acquire land through expropriation. Now real estate for national parks is assembled over a period of many years as Parks Canada buys up parcels of land as they come available on the market or as the owners die.

In Kouchibouguac, several graveyards mark the history of its former communities but the advisory committee will also be looking for new ways to highlight the areas where villages and homesteads once existed.

Velma Chiasson, whose family land was expropriated in the 1960s, said she would like to see parts of the park currently inaccessible opened so former residents can visit their former homes once again.

"What hurts them the most is that since the park was built, nothing was done with much of the land. It is just sitting there dormant," said Chiasson, who will also be serving on the advisory committee.

© The Canadian Press, 2007