"Sue and Settle: How to Force Regulatory Action By Using The Court System; Similarities Across Borders"
Knowing how closely intertwined Y2Y, CPAWS, other ENGO's are to our Provincial and Federal Environment Ministers, it is rather strange that CPAWS would sue the Federal Environment Minister. Is the public really to believe this was not some ploy to justify action on this agenda? Is this a classic case of bait and switch, or like our friends in the US have reported "sue and settle". Here is how this case played out: CPAWS sues Federal Environment Minister, gives ultimatum to Federal Environment Minister, then DROPS LAWSUIT!!!!!!! Who pays the costs of these shenanigans? Is it the taxpayer that defends the CPAWS suit? I wonder what would happen if OUR Environment Minister was sued for allegations of illegal activity? Lawsuits are not uncommon to CPAWS it seems. Back in 1998 this was an increasing occurrence for CPAWS. It would be interesting to know how much of their activity and budget is allocated to these types of political activities. Check this out from Public Policy Sources. “Never in CPAWS’ history have we fielded so many lawsuits, and we see no end in sight.” Y2Y also joins the party. Not happy with a government decision? Pressure and sue the government to respond. It would be interesting to see how much of these grants from outside of Canada go toward lawsuits. Pay attention Yukon and BC, the Peel and this are two examples in YOUR back yard. https://y2y.net/…/s-80-…/@@download/file/S.80%20LPU%203A.pdf Don't think for a second this just applies to the mining, forestry and species protection fields. They even appear to target developers trying to invest in local economies. Check out this story from a developer in Canmore where the AEP rejects the proposal, and has Y2Y applauding the decision. Knowing what you now know from reading our posts so far, do you really think this is not the result of direct political lobbying? Isn't Y2Y a charity? Or did they end up registering as a lobbyist? Aren't there rules on 10% of activity of charities being dedicate to political lobbying? Where is the other 90% of activity? It seems like a heck of a lot of lobbying. Perhaps the media coverage and lawsuits are a big proportion of this? What about their stewardship initiatives? Many of our followers have argued that CRA should definitely be taking a closer look into this. If this is your position, here is the procedure, where you can add links to any information supporting your concerns: If you have concerns with any of these activities, you can express them to the Ethics Commissioner: Office of the Ethics Commissioner Suite 1250, 9925 - 109 Street NW Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2J8 Telephone Number: (780) 422-2273 Fax Number: (780) 422-2261 E-mail Address: [email protected] Now what about our earlier point on the American struggle? From our grassroots citizens in the USA who are reporting astounding parallels to their land management policy concerns: Here in the US the same problem exists, the NGO files a lawsuit and the govt settles it without ever going to court. It is called sue and settle. The goal, create regulatory changes without going through congressional approval. Is this what happened with CPAWS suit? It appears as though they were able to force the govt into creating a regulatory rule without proper govt procedure for rulemaking. Notice also it is about land use regulation, which one article stated was voluntary at this point but now it is one step closer to forced regulatory land use practices, and of course the phony protection of a habitat.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |