Deliberately missing the point?

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I am responding to a letter by Bob Carter of Vale who claimed to be responding to a letter signed by myself and Maude Barlow, dated March 26.  

Mr. Carter accuses Ms. Barlow and me of incorrect assertions and with ignorance and misrepresentation of facts.

He is attempting a typical strategy of discrediting the messenger(s) and diverting attention from the real issue. It is Mr. Carter who is “conveniently ignoring” the fact that Vale intentionally did proceed with an action knowing the court could invalidate the permission to do so.

Ms. Barlow and I did not assert that Vale’s disrespect for the law and due process was with respect to the legal (yet deeply flawed) environmental review process. Our accusation was about the recent legal challenge of Schedule II.

Furthermore, our letter did reference the environmental assessment process and that Sandy Pond was reclassified under that process in 2009. Mr. Carter should cease misrepresenting what we really said.

Instead of responding to his own fabricated questions, I challenge him to respond to these very clear and pointed questions.

While seeking intervener status in the legal challenge, did Vale initially assert that a successful ruling would not have any impact on its permit to destroy Sandy Pond? In granting the intervener status, did the court not refute this and state that the hearing’s judge could rule in favour of the applicant with “retroactive effect?”

In the midst of a protracted legal process and with the knowledge of a potential invalidation of Schedule II, did Vale not deforest the area, remove the fish and generally do irreversible and irreparable damage to Sandy Pond?

These are very direct and clear questions for Mr. Carter.   

His responses can be very short and simple. Yes, yes, and yes.

Ken Kavanagh

chair, St. John’s Chapter

Council of Canadians

Geographic location: Sandy Pond

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Corporate Psycho
    April 25, 2013 - 16:56

    This was one of the "improvements" to Grimes' deal made by Danny Williams & Charlene Johnson who was ironically the Minister of Environment at the time.

  • Brad
    April 25, 2013 - 10:09

    Yes I find it hard to believe that they proceeded to destroy Sandy Pond and area when in the middle of a lawsuit. Even if they lose how do you compensate for the loss of a pond and animal habitat? There is no price in my opinion. Keep fighting the good fight so that maybe in the future these companies will be forced to find a more environmentally sound practice of disposing of their waste.