Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 1780 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5119
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2020, 09:49:01 pm »
This stuff is too complex.  Figure this out BC.  Good luck.

I think in an ironic twist when the native protestors leave they should pile their signs together, pour gas on them, and light them on fire.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2020, 10:27:28 pm »
In what world is an NDP and Green Party government in BC trying to ripoff natives?  If they can't respect natives, no government ever will.

Some government better, pretty soon.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-concerned-cn-rail-blockade-1.5459893

 
Quote
Me thinks there's more to this story than you're leading on.

Is there precedent for the governments needing to and consulting with both elected councils and hereditary chiefs?

Canada constructed and imposed elected Band Councils to administer funding to Bands and maintain  reserve communities, as required by treaty and other law. It works well as an administrative structure, except for perennial underfunding of public services (eg, water).

The Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights, title and treaty holders. Those are not Canada's First Nations elected Band Counicil but the larger Indigenous Nations they belong to who existed at contact or at treaty signing (where applicable).


Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2020, 10:34:53 pm »

Transport Minister Garneau says that the disruptions of rail service are illegal, and that he is "very concerned". At some point something is going to be done.
 -k

He said it's illegal if they're blocking the rails.
But if they're standing beside the tracks, not on CN land ... ?
Not clarified yet.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2020, 01:02:16 am »
It isn't about which is the rightful bargaining agent. It's about all of them being consulted.

The traditional Chiefs and Council are the Aboriginal rights and title holders on behalf of the people. (SCoC: Delgamuukw 1997)

Their objection is that the BC Crown did not consult with them, though their title is recognized.

uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?

The Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights, title and treaty holders. Those are not Canada's First Nations elected Band Counicil but the larger Indigenous Nations they belong to who existed at contact or at treaty signing (where applicable).

no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

do you really expect the Crown/industry to bring differing opinion holders together (say hereditary versus band chiefs/councilors) and attempt to have them reach a consensus within their own ranks... as a part of the consult itself? Really? Talk about your expressed call for "fair dealings"!

and.... notwithstanding the Wet’suwet’en Nation across its respective band makeup is made up of less than 3500 persons in total... less than 3500 persons in total:

as you continue to place emphasis on that "duty to consult", I'll again bring some perspective/reality to your misplaced... and overreaching... emphasis; in the form of the crafted 'Sparrow test' laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada; a test that can, as its conditions are met, override Indigenous title in the public interest. Again:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2020, 01:11:21 am »
"We're not blocking the tracks. We're just standing beside them." Plow truck guy
He said it's illegal if they're blocking the rails. But if they're standing beside the tracks, not on CN land ... ? Not clarified yet.

public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2020, 12:03:05 pm »
uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?

no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

do you really expect the Crown/industry to bring differing opinion holders together (say hereditary versus band chiefs/councilors) and attempt to have them reach a consensus within their own ranks... as a part of the consult itself? Really? Talk about your expressed call for "fair dealings"!

and.... notwithstanding the Wet’suwet’en Nation across its respective band makeup is made up of less than 3500 persons in total... less than 3500 persons in total:

as you continue to place emphasis on that "duty to consult", I'll again bring some perspective/reality to your misplaced... and overreaching... emphasis; in the form of the crafted 'Sparrow test' laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada; a test that can, as its conditions are met, override Indigenous title in the public interest. Again:

Still schilling excuses, eh waldo!

Respect? , Reconciliation ? Rule of law from the Supreme Court of Canada? ... Nah, just the same old excuses for violence instead of negotiation.

The BC Crown has not fulfilled it's duty to consult with the hereditary Chiefs who hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation.

Despite direction from the Supreme Court to reconcile titles, our governments still choose to perpetrate disrespect and police violence instead:

 BC NDP  Premier John Horgan, December 2019:
""Let's sit down *with the title holders* whose land we want to conduct economic activity on and create partnerships as a way forward. That works," "
-------
BC NDP  Premier John Horgan,
January 2020:
 "Wet'suwet'en territory ... telling CBC he wasn't going to "drop everything I'm doing to come running when someone is saying they need to speak with me."
...
"the rule of law needs to prevail in B.C." to ensure work continues on the 670-km pipeline

Classic Canadian government double-talk, all governments the same, robot schills for the fossil fuel industry, increasingly desperate in its dying days.

Wet'suet'en Chiefs are now going back to the courts:

http://www.wetsuweten.com/media-centre/news/wetsuweten-hereditary-chiefs-launch-court-challenge-to-cgl-environmental-approval

Also interesting that it was CGL that walked away from the 7-day Wiggus talks, with Chiefs and BC gov still willing to talk. The enforcement of the injunction - apparently on CGL orders to the RCMP? - may now have sabotaged those talks too.

http://www.wetsuweten.com/media-centre/news/february-4-2020-immediate-release-wetsuweten-territory-smithers-b.c


What is learned from this?

So long as consultation requirements remain unclear, investments in projects that could affect any First Nation anywhere in Canada will be deterred.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/hold-the-champagne-on-the-trans-mountain-decision-for-a-few-more-months-at-least

True of CGL project, and now TransMountain being appealed.

Also learned ... A few people standing beside railway tracks can send a very strong message.

And it's informative to Canadians as well that our governments are all so owned by the fossil fuel industries that they are unable to plan for the future. Not surprising perhaps, but a clear indication that taking it to the streets (and railways) is increasingly the only way for progress to occur.
Democracy at its finest. : )
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 12:44:24 pm by Granny »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2020, 01:40:20 pm »
Still schilling excuses, eh waldo!

Respect? , Reconciliation ? Rule of law from the Supreme Court of Canada? ... Nah, just the same old excuses for violence instead of negotiation.

The BC Crown has not fulfilled it's duty to consult with the hereditary Chiefs who hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation.

no "schilling" / no excuses given - none needed! Care to offer a legal based citation that definitively states, as you say, "the hereditary Chiefs hold Aboriginal rights and titles on behalf of the whole Wet'suet'en Nation." ... and that, more pointedly, they have been determined to be the persons/body to target "consultation duty" towards. And, most pointedly, that the Crown/industry has an obligation to determine consensus within the differing positions held within Indigenous Nations themselves.

I'm shocked you have no comment on my highlighting the dual roles held by 'some' hereditary chiefs... that they're also Band Councillors and were apart of the 5+ years negotiations (aka, duty to consult)... shocked, I tells ya!
The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.


Despite direction from the Supreme Court to reconcile titles, our governments still choose to perpetrate disrespect and police violence instead:

from the SCOC judgement you continue to rely upon, there is pointed reference to the lack of First Nation interveners joining the appellants in the related appeal case... with the most pointed statement, "It may, therefore, be advisable if those aboriginal nations intervened in any new litigation". The point being, the onus is on respective First Nations to initiate their respective requests/claims for title... "over said lands that were never ceded".

your emphasis on SCOC "direction" is rather "loose", notwithstanding its emphasis on 2-way negotiations, good faith & give & take... and reconciliation within the sovereignty of the Crown; re: para 186 of the judgement


as an interested outsider, the waldo certainly looks with interest to said 'next court challenges by Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs'. Given the overwhelming majority of the ~3500 band members support the gas pipeline, the Sparrow test 'public interest' (over some minimum number of "dissenters") shouldn't be difficult to realize. Again:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group

Q: can a few hundred (if that) dissenting Wet'suet'en band members supersede the public interest, a part of which itself brings significant economic relief/investment to the Wet'suet'en? Can it... should it?

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2020, 02:29:47 pm »
Gee, and I thought transportation was a federal jurisdiction, that's why they are regulated by the Department of Transport. In the words of the Knights of the Holy Grail when confronted by the killer bunny. Run away, run away.

Yes, there are many federal acts that govern railways in Canada. Enforcement however is a different question. The CN Police Service has primary responsibility on the right of way, and limited (enforcement of HTA for example) secondary responsibility outside that area. Most areas adjacent to the right of way would be primarily under provincial jurisdiction, and in some cases municipal.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 02:31:31 pm by ?Impact »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2020, 04:29:34 pm »
public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?

Racist smear much?
No such dangers have ever been encountered.

However, I concur that CN makes it's own choices about stopping its trains for its own reasons.

I'm just not clear on how standing beside train tracks on public property constitutes any kind of offence against the law.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2020, 04:47:19 pm »
uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?


There is no contradiction. The Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal rights and title holders who care for the land on behalf of all Wet'suet'en Nation people.

The problem across Canada is that the Crown never consults with any Aboriginal groups regarding developments on their traditional territories. They just foist that duty onto industry, and are seldom held to account for their failure.

Wet'suet'en Nation Council refused to negotiate with CGL, and insisted on dealing with the BC Crown, as is appropriate.

First Nations are entitled to make deals with industry as they choose - cash for their reserve communities in return for their verbal  support for the project -  but they have limited authority to decide matters relevant to the entire traditional Wet'suet'en territory.

All are part of the discussions, all belong to the Wet'suet'en Nation, and the Chiefs and title holders  should have also been consulted by the Crown.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2020, 04:53:35 pm »
public safety/interest is paramount. CN won't run trains... and potentially endanger passengers given, for example, the uncertainty of whether train derailing blockades put up by these protestors suddenly appear. Certainly you can't be condoning potential threats to rail passengers - surely not - yes?

Racist smear much?

much? How much? Based on what? ... there's nothing in the reply you've quoted that even remotely smears, racist or other!
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2020, 05:03:12 pm »
All are part of the discussions, all belong to the Wet'suet'en Nation, and the Chiefs and title holders  should have also been consulted by the Crown.

and the example I offered... the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest Wet'suet'en clan that were also Band Councillors during the 5+ years of negotiations (aka consult duty)? How selective and self-serving of you to continue to ignore that point I've stated, several times now.

again, you speak of "discussions": do you interpret it is the responsibility of the Crown/industry to reconcile differing views/opinions within the Wet'suet'en... to ascertain just who the participants should be within the Wet'suet'en... to determine just who the 'deciders' should be within the Wet'suet'en? Is there no responsibility of/onus on the Wet'suet'en to reach consensus within their own ranks?

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4050
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #57 on: February 12, 2020, 08:35:41 pm »
about that 'duty to consult'... as in the hereditary chiefs having a duty to consult with the peeps!  ;D


Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7943
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2020, 05:08:49 am »
https://native-land.ca/

Somebody had posted that the Mohawks were not on ancestral land.  Maybe, but this map shows that they are at least adjacent, and certainly not displaced into an entirely foreign terrain. 
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2020, 07:59:23 am »
and the example I offered... the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest Wet'suet'en clan that were also Band Councillors during the 5+ years of negotiations (aka consult duty)? How selective and self-serving of you to continue to ignore that point I've stated, several times now.

again, you speak of "discussions": do you interpret it is the responsibility of the Crown/industry to reconcile differing views/opinions within the Wet'suet'en... to ascertain just who the participants should be within the Wet'suet'en... to determine just who the 'deciders' should be within the Wet'suet'en? Is there no responsibility of/onus on the Wet'suet'en to reach consensus within their own ranks?

Waldo, the Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights and title holders. That is clear.
Internal arrangements are their business.

I've seen no data indicating that a majority of Wet'suet'en Nation people voted for anything, but again, those are internal matters.

Your cherry-picking criticisms are irrelevant.
Your smear about "train derailing blockades" is just a racist smear. Nobody has taken such risks.