Nova Scotia's department of Environment and Climate Change 'draft standard' prohibits quarries in town drinking water supply areas, so why was the Caribou Lake quarry approved in Bridgewater's?
Thanks for digging deeper into this, Linda. That's very sleazy about the area of the quarry being 3.99ha, so that it would be exempt from greater scrutiny.
It's alarming how the ECC doesn't seem to gave a damn about protecting areas that deserve serious protection. It's almost the opposite - they seem bound and determined to give everything away to anyone who comes along wanting to do some project.
It's also incredibly worrisome that they don't seem to care much about protection of watersheds. Unbelievable.
re: "A couple of weeks ago I received the “Draft Pit Standard” — fully redacted except for the cover page."
Apparently your FOI was deemed "frivolous, vexatious or without enough specifics" , the Houstonian standard (as reported by yourself) for rejecting such inquiries.
vex·a·tious
/vekˈsāSHəs/
adjective
causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry..
So if a journalist's search for important information in the public interest causes the Blackrock Boy and his underlings to feel 'annoyed, frustrated or worried' - as of course any inquiry into their malfeasance and serial subversions of democracy would - that search needs to be shut down. Or fully redacted as the case may be. Truth is always "vexatious" to tyranny.
Great work as always, Linda. The public really needs to mobilize around such issues. Our democratic institutions hang by a thread.
They really are, Brooks, hanging by a thread. I added a postscript to the article today -- which you likely didn't see -- which is further evidence of how bad things have gotten. After filing Form 7 with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner [OIPC] re: the “Draft Standard,” I received an acknowledgement of receipt from the office, but also a heads up that there’s a serious backlog of files. There are numerous problems with this review process -- one being that "if the file is not resolved at the investigation stage, it will move to the Commissioner who will complete the review and issue a public report with findings and recommendations. The Commissioner cannot order the public body to disclose records, nor can she impose sanctions or fines on the public body or order compensation. She can only make recommendations to the public body. It is up to the public body to accept or reject the Commissioner’s recommendations." This is what the OIPC office informed me today. Then the other pretty serious issue -- one that really does impede the proper functioning of democracy because that requires that information is provided in a timely manner -- "the OIPC currently has a backlog of review files which are processed in the order in which they are received. We are currently assigning files to investigators from 2021. We will request further information from the public body and an investigator will contact you when your file is reached.” I think it will be some time before I hear back regarding this review... and even when I do, there is nothing compelling the public body -- in this case the NSECC -- to disclose the contents of the "Draft Standard."
Between the toothlessness of the Commissioner's ruling, the backlog and the random and increasing charges - waived on appeal in this case, but often not - one wonders if the Freedom of Information Act is being violated, in spirit if not in letter....probably both. The deliberately engineered backlog is a case in point. If OIPC is just getting to files from 2021, I guess you can expect a ruling sometime around 2029, i.e. long after the quarry has been approved, the world's last remaining Atlantic Whitefish is floating belly-up, and the people of Bridgewater are drinking from plastic bottles. Justice delayed is justice denied, and information in the public interest delayed is information denied. As you say, just total contempt for the democratic process.
What does our MLA have to say about this? Does anyone involved say anything about the high level of arsenic KNOWN to be throughout that watershed area? What is the material being quarried? At one time slate-rock shale was Provincially prohibited from use in roadway construction since its use increases groundwater acidity which negatively impacts fish reproduction and general thrival. Was that prohibition lifted? I sure have a lot more questions than answers...but something stinks.
So appreciate your work on this and pray that it doesn't land on deaf ears within the department. To think that the municipalities' clear wishes, species at risk threats and potential negative public drinking water impact don't outweigh a gravel pit is pretty crazy...
Thanks for digging deeper into this, Linda. That's very sleazy about the area of the quarry being 3.99ha, so that it would be exempt from greater scrutiny.
It's alarming how the ECC doesn't seem to gave a damn about protecting areas that deserve serious protection. It's almost the opposite - they seem bound and determined to give everything away to anyone who comes along wanting to do some project.
It's also incredibly worrisome that they don't seem to care much about protection of watersheds. Unbelievable.
re: "A couple of weeks ago I received the “Draft Pit Standard” — fully redacted except for the cover page."
Apparently your FOI was deemed "frivolous, vexatious or without enough specifics" , the Houstonian standard (as reported by yourself) for rejecting such inquiries.
vex·a·tious
/vekˈsāSHəs/
adjective
causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry..
So if a journalist's search for important information in the public interest causes the Blackrock Boy and his underlings to feel 'annoyed, frustrated or worried' - as of course any inquiry into their malfeasance and serial subversions of democracy would - that search needs to be shut down. Or fully redacted as the case may be. Truth is always "vexatious" to tyranny.
Great work as always, Linda. The public really needs to mobilize around such issues. Our democratic institutions hang by a thread.
They really are, Brooks, hanging by a thread. I added a postscript to the article today -- which you likely didn't see -- which is further evidence of how bad things have gotten. After filing Form 7 with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner [OIPC] re: the “Draft Standard,” I received an acknowledgement of receipt from the office, but also a heads up that there’s a serious backlog of files. There are numerous problems with this review process -- one being that "if the file is not resolved at the investigation stage, it will move to the Commissioner who will complete the review and issue a public report with findings and recommendations. The Commissioner cannot order the public body to disclose records, nor can she impose sanctions or fines on the public body or order compensation. She can only make recommendations to the public body. It is up to the public body to accept or reject the Commissioner’s recommendations." This is what the OIPC office informed me today. Then the other pretty serious issue -- one that really does impede the proper functioning of democracy because that requires that information is provided in a timely manner -- "the OIPC currently has a backlog of review files which are processed in the order in which they are received. We are currently assigning files to investigators from 2021. We will request further information from the public body and an investigator will contact you when your file is reached.” I think it will be some time before I hear back regarding this review... and even when I do, there is nothing compelling the public body -- in this case the NSECC -- to disclose the contents of the "Draft Standard."
Between the toothlessness of the Commissioner's ruling, the backlog and the random and increasing charges - waived on appeal in this case, but often not - one wonders if the Freedom of Information Act is being violated, in spirit if not in letter....probably both. The deliberately engineered backlog is a case in point. If OIPC is just getting to files from 2021, I guess you can expect a ruling sometime around 2029, i.e. long after the quarry has been approved, the world's last remaining Atlantic Whitefish is floating belly-up, and the people of Bridgewater are drinking from plastic bottles. Justice delayed is justice denied, and information in the public interest delayed is information denied. As you say, just total contempt for the democratic process.
What does our MLA have to say about this? Does anyone involved say anything about the high level of arsenic KNOWN to be throughout that watershed area? What is the material being quarried? At one time slate-rock shale was Provincially prohibited from use in roadway construction since its use increases groundwater acidity which negatively impacts fish reproduction and general thrival. Was that prohibition lifted? I sure have a lot more questions than answers...but something stinks.
So appreciate your work on this and pray that it doesn't land on deaf ears within the department. To think that the municipalities' clear wishes, species at risk threats and potential negative public drinking water impact don't outweigh a gravel pit is pretty crazy...