Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11545 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #150 on: February 16, 2020, 08:37:38 pm »
What routing?

The current routing seems to be costing them time and money just fine.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #151 on: February 16, 2020, 08:39:38 pm »
Ya, it is that simple.

It's not actually.  Indigenous people have title to the land.  The land was never ceded in this case.  The INA band council has control over the reserve lands, but not the traditional territory.  That title is held by the hereditary chiefs.  Like I said, this has been a long journey of understanding for me.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #154 on: February 16, 2020, 09:02:57 pm »
It's not actually.  Indigenous people have title to the land.  The land was never ceded in this case.  The INA band council has control over the reserve lands, but not the traditional territory.  That title is held by the hereditary chiefs.  Like I said, this has been a long journey of understanding for me.

Who cares, get their **** together so people aren't chasing their tails trying to deal with them.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #155 on: February 16, 2020, 09:03:44 pm »
The current routing seems to be costing them time and money just fine.
And another routine wouldn't? Did you bother reading the article?
"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 #156 on: February 16, 2020, 09:21:42 pm »
And another routine wouldn't? Did you bother reading the article?

The hereditary chiefs wanted to negotiate on the routing.  As they don't have legal standing under Canadian law, they were ignored...and that was a bad idea.  You'd think pipeline companies would have learned by now.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #157 on: February 16, 2020, 09:38:54 pm »
The hereditary chiefs wanted to negotiate on the routing.  As they don't have legal standing under Canadian law, they were ignored...and that was a bad idea.  You'd think pipeline companies would have learned by now.


They wanted a routing that went through the lands of other bands who hadn't been dealt with. So now the company is supposed to go back and negotiate with them but they can't get their **** together either because they are the same as this bunch and we wind up right where we are now. Aside from the fact the new routing also goes through more environmentally sensitive areas and will cost another 800 million to build.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #158 on: February 17, 2020, 12:27:36 am »
Indigenous people have title to the land.  The land was never ceded in this case.  The INA band council has control over the reserve lands, but not the traditional territory. That title is held by the hereditary chiefs.

no => 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.

now... from a First Nation perspective, there may be a perceived internal view as to who "has oversight/control" of reserve versus non-reserve land - but in the case of the Wet'suet'en, that view is quite clearly not a consensus view. If it were you wouldn't have the Wet'suet'en Band Council out negotiating and signing agreements with the province and with CGL - notwithstanding the 19 other impacted First Nations who have similarly negotiated their own respective agreements. And again, per media accounts, 8 of those 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs are said to have given their approval... and more pointedly, it appears but 2 of those 5 dissenting hereditary chiefs are the principal (hard-core) opponents.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #159 on: February 17, 2020, 12:27:56 am »
=> per negotiated agreements, along with revenue from Impact Benefits Agreements and Provincial Pipeline Agreements, Indigenous businesses will benefit from $620 million in contract work for the project’s right-of-way clearing, medical, security and camp management needs. There is another $400 million in additional contract and employment opportunities for Indigenous and local B.C. communities during pipeline construction.

distinct from the agreements between CGL and the 20 impacted First Nations, the province of B.C. has also signed its own benefits agreements with the 20 impacted First Nations related to the pipeline project. As of Aug, 2019, a provincial spokesperson stated 15 of those agreements are in effect... I've not been able to find a more recent status update in that regard.

particular to the Wet'suet'sen, the following details relate to the benefits agreement signed with the province of B.C. - again, separate and distinct from any benefits realized directly in regards the negotiations with CGL; specifically, per a 2014 press kit release by the Wet'suwet'en First Nation (WFN) Chief and Council:

Quote
The WFN will receive approximately $2.8 million from the province at three different stages for the Coastal Gas Link (CGL) gas pipeline project:

    - $464,000 within 90 days after signing the agreement
    - $1,160,000 when pipeline construction starts (scheduled to begin in 2015)
    - $1,160,000 when the pipeline is in service

The WFN will also receive a yet-to-be-determined share of $10 million in ongoing benefits for the life of the pipeline - estimated at 25 to 35 years.

The province committed $30 million towards an Environmental Stewardship Initiative (ESI); proposed ESI programs include: culvert removal/upgrade, beaver dam management, stream and riparian enhancement and restoration, access to traditional sites, riparian livestock/fencing management, moose winter range enhancement, and road access decommissioning and reclamation.

The province has also announced a $30 million education and training fund to develop the required employment skills needed for WFN members to work on the pipeline

geezaz waldo... that's a whole lotta consulting going down!
« Last Edit: February 17, 2020, 12:30:01 am by waldo »

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12472
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #160 on: February 17, 2020, 05:58:48 am »
In late December 2012, at the height of the Idle No More movement, there was a 13-day blockade of a rail line near Sarnia, Ont. Before the protest ended, CN Rail conveyed its frustration to federal officials — but Stephen Harper's government didn't send in the RCMP or the military to break it up.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-indigenous-first-nations-pipeline-rail-protests-1.5463827

Super informative.

Hey there Waldo, did you support the Harper government at that time?  ???

By the way... thanks all for this very well discussed and informative thread.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #161 on: February 17, 2020, 07:28:54 am »
Hey there Waldo, did you support the Harper government at that time?  ???

reference points are key, particularly when presuming upon the oft used phrase (per member Granny), "fair dealings"! By the by Member Hardner, are you able to offer a past instance of like Indigenous support for an energy resource development project as has been shown by the 20 First Nations impacted by the B.C. CGL pipeline route/development?

in any case, if nothing else, the Canadian nation crippling actions taken by the (Ontario resident... Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory resident - less than 2200 on reserve resident) Mohawk First Nation have been exposed as self-serving and focused more (if not all) on their raised concerns for the existence of the CN Rail tracks and the usage therein by CN/Via Rail for freight and passenger travel. Media accounts of social media commentary by "some" Mohawk protestors, suggests CN paying a passage toll might contribute to an end of their blockade/protest... so much for the false premise, "solidarity with the Wet'suet'en"!

your mention of Harper days is one that showcases today's weakAndy Scheer/O'Tool CPC differences with Harper - those today calling for political interference to direct RCMP/OPP policing... you know, police-state like interference with the most focused CPC/ConMedia political attacks against PM Trudeau for, in Scheer's own words, "failing to direct the national police force to enforce the law and end the illegal tactics".

Quote
{Feb 13th} - Indigenous Services Minister, Marc Miller said he wanted to renew a 17th century diplomatic treaty between the Iroquois and European settlers.

"I am writing to confirm what I agreed orally a short while ago: that pursuant to the principles of the Silver Chain Covenant, I hereby agree to polish the Chain with you and the Kanien'kehá:ka of Tyendinaga at a location of your choosing this coming Saturday {Feb 15th}," wrote Miller.

The Silver Chain Covenant — an agreement between Anglo-American settlers and the Mohawk that established hunting boundaries in present-day upstate New York — is often invoked when discussing contemporary affairs between the state and Indigenous peoples. The covenant included a promise to promote peace and trade between the peoples in colonial America.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12472
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #162 on: February 17, 2020, 08:55:25 am »
No, I can't.

So you supported Harper ?

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #163 on: February 17, 2020, 08:58:57 am »
no => from the 1997 SCOC ruling in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia - 3 SCR 1010:

now... from a First Nation perspective, there may be a perceived internal view as to who "has oversight/control" of reserve versus non-reserve land - but in the case of the Wet'suet'en, that view is quite clearly not a consensus view. If it were you wouldn't have the Wet'suet'en Band Council out negotiating and signing agreements with the province and with CGL - notwithstanding the 19 other impacted First Nations who have similarly negotiated their own respective agreements. And again, per media accounts, 8 of those 13 Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs are said to have given their approval... and more pointedly, it appears but 2 of those 5 dissenting hereditary chiefs are the principal (hard-core) opponents.

It really isn't as simple as Canadian law on its own anymore.  The courts have also made that clear.  The traditions of indigenous people matter legally.  The groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs.  The RCMP operating under the BC court order needlessly escalated this.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9120
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #164 on: February 17, 2020, 09:03:59 am »
It really isn't as simple as Canadian law on its own anymore.  The courts have also made that clear.  The traditions of indigenous people matter legally.  The groups are now in solidarity with the hereditary chiefs.  The RCMP operating under the BC court order needlessly escalated this.

So why are the courts issuing injunctions?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC