Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11578 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #135 on: February 16, 2020, 02:31:41 pm »
Seems like, the company should have been less stubborn.

Sure, years more delays, 800 million in added costs and greater overall environmental risks. Nothing to be stubborn about.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #136 on: February 16, 2020, 03:28:27 pm »
Nothing to do with following Russia. We kill our own industry and make ourselves poorer for nothing. Lowering demand is what will lower consumption, not Canadians trying to look noble while the rest of the world carries on.

No one has suggested shutting down Canadian industry.  I keep using the examples of India and the EU as massive markets doing their part.  Most of the world's population is on board with action now.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #137 on: February 16, 2020, 03:53:15 pm »
No one has suggested shutting down Canadian industry.  I keep using the examples of India and the EU as massive markets doing their part.  Most of the world's population is on board with action now.

Interesting discussion with Mark Carney this am who is now heading to the UN. He describes how the world's population is getting on board with focusing on the Paris Accord. I would suggest he brings with him some knowledge as to how economies work and how to ween them from fossil fuels.


"Every major company needs to have a strategy for net-zero," says Mark Carney, the next UN Special Envoy on Climate Change.

In conversation with The Sunday Edition's host Michael Enright, Carney stressed that citizens in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed, through their elected parliaments, to meet the target of the 2016 Paris Agreement to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that target cannot be met without reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

"It would be a bit odd if you're running a company and you haven't thought of your strategy to move to net-zero — or for a net-zero world — unless you're just planning on running down your company, in the next decade or so," said Carney, whose term as Governor of the Bank of England ends next month.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-february-16-2020-1.5459411/mark-carney-named-un-special-envoy-on-climate-change-says-the-smart-money-is-on-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.5462453

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #138 on: February 16, 2020, 04:42:58 pm »
@waldo

Crown duty to consult ...
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201917E#a3-1

We can only know the outcome of the Crown's consultation when the Crown has actually done so.

Perhaps the BC government will now begin those consultations, as they (and the feds) are soon meeting with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 04:52:34 pm by Granny »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #139 on: February 16, 2020, 04:54:17 pm »
Sure, years more delays, 800 million in added costs and greater overall environmental risks. Nothing to be stubborn about.

It's the BC government that has been stubborn and refused to consult.
Any further delay is on them.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #140 on: February 16, 2020, 05:02:01 pm »
I see this as an internal FN power struggle. Who speaks for FN, hereditary chiefs or elected band councils? The non FN people involved are either just useful fools or trying to use this particular struggle to advance their own agendas.

It isn't either/or.
Both should be consulted.
That has not happened.
The BC government failed to do so, and
Premier John Horgan was very disrespectful.
BC and federal reps are meeting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs this week.
It's probably best if Horgan doesn't go.
He's out of his depth.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #141 on: February 16, 2020, 05:06:08 pm »
Interesting discussion with Mark Carney this am who is now heading to the UN. He describes how the world's population is getting on board with focusing on the Paris Accord. I would suggest he brings with him some knowledge as to how economies work and how to ween them from fossil fuels.


"Every major company needs to have a strategy for net-zero," says Mark Carney, the next UN Special Envoy on Climate Change.

In conversation with The Sunday Edition's host Michael Enright, Carney stressed that citizens in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed, through their elected parliaments, to meet the target of the 2016 Paris Agreement to limit the increase in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that target cannot be met without reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

"It would be a bit odd if you're running a company and you haven't thought of your strategy to move to net-zero — or for a net-zero world — unless you're just planning on running down your company, in the next decade or so," said Carney, whose term as Governor of the Bank of England ends next month.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-february-16-2020-1.5459411/mark-carney-named-un-special-envoy-on-climate-change-says-the-smart-money-is-on-transition-from-fossil-fuels-1.5462453

There may be a better thread for this, but that's an amazing quote!  :  )

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #142 on: February 16, 2020, 05:30:46 pm »
no! The point you continue to fail on is, 'who holds the title'... you claim it's the hereditary chiefs and attribute that to the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010. You also fail to comprehend what's been written/replied to you - I've read a significant amount of the ruling and I've quoted from it several times in this thread. When I ask you to substantiate your claim by quote citing passage within the ruling, you can't... you won't! You just keep repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over and over again! You state your repeated claim is obvious!  ;D

by the by: this evening, news outlets were covering Alberta Premier Kenney's reaction/statement... in which he includes a reference to the hereditary chiefs - where he stated, "8 of 12 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have come out in favour of the CGL pipeline". The waldo is still running with "8 of 13", as I've posted several times earlier in this thread. You ain't got the numbers member Granny! Of course Premier justVisitingJason also ran the table to include just who else within impacted First Nations have given their support for the CGL pipeline... the point being this support narrative is now becoming front-&-center and the media is starting to play it against the naive and ignorant BC protestors who actually believe the Wet'suet'en members are against the CGL pipeline. About time - yes?

here, let me quote again from the SCOC ruling... you tell me if it lines up with what I've stated several times now in regards title; I've stated a few variants of this: "no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner.". Said quoted passage from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

Quote
Aboriginal title is sui generis, and so distinguished from other proprietary interests, and characterized by several dimensions. It is inalienable and cannot be transferred, sold or surrendered to anyone other than the Crown.  Another dimension of aboriginal title is its sources:  its recognition by the Royal Proclamation, 1763 and the relationship between the common law which recognizes occupation as proof of possession and systems of aboriginal law pre‑existing assertion of British sovereignty.  Finally, aboriginal title is held communally.

Finally, aboriginal title is held communally. - had enough yet member Granny?

@waldo

Crown duty to consult ...

We can only know the outcome of the Crown's consultation when the Crown has actually done so.

Perhaps the BC government will now begin those consultations, as they (and the feds) are soon meeting with Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs.

you're so full of shyte! You now appear to have shifted away from your perpetual nattering (15+ posts) claim that, "the hereditary chiefs hold the title" - cause the waldo busted that lil' gem/sham claim of yours - yes!

and now... you're highlighting "duty to consult"!  ;D I expect I've probably had a like 15+ posts where I speak to "duty to consult"... in particular, posts highlighting its attachment to SCOC rulings... and what it means... and doesn't mean! More pointedly I've focused on the lack of consensus within the Wet'suet'en' themselves... that the Crown can't decide who represents the First Nation, can't decide who decides for the First Nation, can't bring the differing views of a First Nation together as a part of consultation, can't presume upon a consensus FOR THE FIRST NATION itself.

now most pointedly: again, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support for the CGL pipeline (including those 5 of the largest Wet'suet'en clan); 20 First Nation Councils (including that of the Wet'suet'en) have given their support (and at least 5 of the hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Council members through the 5+ years of consult); per the National Coalition of Chiefs, 80% of the Wet'suet'en have voted in favour of the pipeline. At least 3 departments of said Crown have been involved in the CGL/First Nation gas pipeline initiative... all through the 5+ year consult process... involved in terms of environmental assessment, certifications, permits, etc.. (Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources; Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development; Environmental Assessment Office)

at least 3 formal meetings (that included hereditary chiefs) have occurred between CGL and the Wet'suet'en... as I read, there have been a total of 40 "points of contact" between CGL, provincial departments and CGL. The current status would appear to have the hereditary chiefs refusing to acknowledge and reply to the CGL letter sent to the hereditary chiefs in 2014 - a letter I will expand upon in subsequent posts.

go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #143 on: February 16, 2020, 05:35:39 pm »
It's the BC government that has been stubborn and refused to consult. Any further delay is on them.

consult with who? Who speaks for the Wet'suet'en? Who decides for the Wet'suet'en? Who arrives at consensus for the differing views of the Wet'suet'en - most pointedly, among the hereditary chiefs themselves... where only 5 of 13 are not in favour? Again:

and now... you're highlighting "duty to consult"!  ;D I expect I've probably had a like 15+ posts where I speak to "duty to consult"... in particular, posts highlighting its attachment to SCOC rulings... and what it means... and doesn't mean! More pointedly I've focused on the lack of consensus within the Wet'suet'en' themselves... that the Crown can't decide who represents the First Nation, can't decide who decides for the First Nation, can't bring the differing views of a First Nation together as a part of consultation, can't presume upon a consensus FOR THE FIRST NATION itself.

now most pointedly: again, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs have given their support for the CGL pipeline (including those 5 of the largest Wet'suet'en clan); 20 First Nation Councils (including that of the Wet'suet'en) have given their support (and at least 5 of the hereditary chiefs were/are also Band Council members through the 5+ years of consult); per the National Coalition of Chiefs, 80% of the Wet'suet'en have voted in favour of the pipeline. At least 3 departments of said Crown have been involved in the CGL/First Nation gas pipeline initiative... all through the 5+ year consult process... involved in terms of environmental assessment, certifications, permits, etc.. (Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources; Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development; Environmental Assessment Office)

at least 3 formal meetings (that included hereditary chiefs) have occurred between CGL and the Wet'suet'en... as I read, there have been a total of 40 "points of contact" between CGL, provincial departments and CGL. The current status would appear to have the hereditary chiefs refusing to acknowledge and reply to the CGL letter sent to the hereditary chiefs in 2014 - a letter I will expand upon in subsequent posts.

go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!

go peddle your talking points elsewhere, hey member Granny!

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #144 on: February 16, 2020, 06:19:29 pm »
It isn't either/or.
Both should be consulted.
That has not happened.
The BC government failed to do so, and
Premier John Horgan was very disrespectful.
BC and federal reps are meeting with the Wet'suet'en Nation Chiefs this week.
It's probably best if Horgan doesn't go.
He's out of his depth.
So you consult both and they don't agree. We wind up right where we are now. FN need to get their **** together and stop wasting other people's time and money.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 06:21:54 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #145 on: February 16, 2020, 06:21:19 pm »
It's the BC government that has been stubborn and refused to consult.
Any further delay is on them.

The bands and the company came to an agreement. This is all on FN who can't get their **** together.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #146 on: February 16, 2020, 06:57:25 pm »
Sure, years more delays, 800 million in added costs and greater overall environmental risks. Nothing to be stubborn about.

We know that this routing has definitely avoided any delays.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #147 on: February 16, 2020, 06:57:42 pm »
The bands and the company came to an agreement. This is all on FN who can't get their **** together.

It's not that simple.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #148 on: February 16, 2020, 08:07:10 pm »
It's not that simple.

Ya, it is that simple.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #149 on: February 16, 2020, 08:07:38 pm »
We know that this routing has definitely avoided any delays.

What routing?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC