I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer. “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...
RE: CTV News -- DRIPA amendments, lack of transparency spark backlash in BC After a two-week hiatus for spring break, the debate over the NDP government’s handling of First Nations rights continued Monday in the legislature ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - When the Richmond news broke, I was frustrated like everyone else. But after looking into it, this didn’t come out of nowhere, and it’s not really about DRIPA. The recent court decisions aren’t that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) suddenly changing the rules. They’re the courts applying Section 35 , which has been the law for over 40 years. Governments have always had a duty to consult. DRIPA didn’t create that, it was meant to bring some structure to a process that was already being fought out in the courts. The real issue is uncertainty. When the rules aren’t clear, projects stall, costs go up, and everything turns into a legal fight. That doesn’t help homeowners, industry, o...