Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11515 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #195 on: February 19, 2020, 01:14:57 am »
and FFS, today, Solomon had St. Jody as a panel member on 'PowerPlay'... the waldo suspects the heavy-hand of regular panel member 'Robert Fife' had an influence in her appearance (with a wink, wink, nod, nod to Warren Kinsella)!

and the waldo kidsYouNot: JWR expressed surprise that she wasn't invited to the Party Leaders meeting called seeking solutions to the blockading protests... such arrogance from the PartyOfNone JWR... she being the former Cabinet Minister who refused to accept the Indigenous Services file.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #196 on: February 19, 2020, 03:38:51 am »
Sure, but that doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want.  There's laws and courts that should be followed until such time that it's changed in the law.  I'm perfectly fine with changing the law to meet their needs and sovereign claims but we can't have chaos until that happens.

They have territory in Canada, ok well what does the law say about building on that land?  If they want the law changed, ok let's work to change the law.  Until then, we go by what the law and the courts say as of right now.  If you want to challenge a court decision, then challenge it.  Lots of pro bono lawyers out there i'm sure willing to help them and make a name for themselves.

It's fine and good to listen to protestors, but we shouldn't be negotiating with them, it's ridiculous.  The law is the law, enforce the law.  The truth is the gov doesn't want to do it because it's bad PR, gotta be PC.

Enforcing the law means that the Crown in BC has a duty to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council prior to approving the pipeline route. But Premier John Horgan refused to talk with them, figured he'd just bully his way past that Supreme Court of Canada law and depend on the local provincial court and RCMP force.

We see where that got him now, and the rest of us too.

Maybe next time a Premier will respect the law, and not put the whole country at risk.

The federal government is now requesting meetings with Wet'suet'en Nation Council, to try to fix the mess that Horgan has created by flouting the law.



Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #197 on: February 19, 2020, 04:03:59 am »
Enforcing the law means that the Crown in BC has a duty to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council prior to approving the pipeline route. But Premier John Horgan refused to talk with them, figured he'd just bully his way past that Supreme Court of Canada law and depend on the local provincial court and RCMP force.

We see where that got him now, and the rest of us too.

Maybe next time a Premier will respect the law, and not put the whole country at risk.

The federal government is now requesting meetings with Wet'suet'en Nation Council, to try to fix the mess that Horgan has created by flouting the law.

"duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Native Council"... which is comprised of who... exactly who? And to you, what would be the nature of this consult that you're forever parroting on about?

now, are you claiming it's not correct that, as oft stated by politicians and the media, 8 of 13 hereditary chiefs gave their approval? ... and that more pointedly, they gave their approval to the route being considered by CGL and the 20 First Nation Councils that have signed agreements with BOTH the province and CGL... are you claiming that is not correct?

are you claiming there has been no consultation between the province and impacted First Nations?

are you claiming it's not correct that (at least 5) hereditary chiefs were also Band Council members involved in the 5+ years of negotiations with the province and CGL?

are you claiming that no hereditary chiefs have been involved in related negotiations with the province/CGL?

again:
=> 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 19, 2020, 04:26:17 am by waldo »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #198 on: February 19, 2020, 04:09:00 am »
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"!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #199 on: February 19, 2020, 04:20:08 am »
Enforcing the law means that the Crown in BC has a duty to consult with the Wet'suet'en Nation Council prior to approving the pipeline route. But Premier John Horgan refused to talk with them, figured he'd just bully his way past that Supreme Court of Canada law and depend on the local provincial court and RCMP force.

by statute, please state the particular law you're referring to. As for the respective SCOC ruling you keep hanging on:

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

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #200 on: February 19, 2020, 04:25:14 am »
hey now member Granny... is this more of the "consult" you're after... more of the "fair dealings" you continue to speak to?

Feb 12 - Wet'suwet'en chiefs sue Ottawa to force Crown to act on climate change

Quote
... two Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs are suing Ottawa in a bid to force the federal government to take action on climate change.

If the claim filed in federal court this week by leaders of the Likhts'amisyu Clan succeeds, Ottawa would be forced to revisit the approval of projects like the $6-billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline, if they kept Canada from meeting international commitments to lower greenhouse gas levels

"What the Likhts'amisyu are saying to the federal government is that you've talked the talk, now it's time to walk the walk," said Richard Overstall, the lawyer for the chiefs.

"And allowing these high greenhouse gas emitting projects to continue for 40 years isn't walking the walk."

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #201 on: February 19, 2020, 09:20:26 am »
One way or another, these blockades will have to end.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #202 on: February 19, 2020, 01:28:05 pm »
waldo recap: today, weakAndy continued his pining for a violent end to the Mohawk/Wet'suet'en protests... continued to press for PM Trudeau to direct police intervention. Scheer extended beyond his earlier comments where he told Indigenous protesters/allies to “check their privilege”... now today, outright calling them, "radical activists aimed at the destruction of the Canadian energy industry". For good measure, mmmKay labeled them "thugs"! Just the required collective CPC measured tone needed!  ;D

why it seems PM Trudeau (and other oppoLeaders Singh, May & Blanchet) went so far as to 'eject a protestor' from today's related ad-hoc meeting of party leaders convened by PM Trudeau!

Quote from: Liberal Party leader - PM Trudeau
Mr. Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today
Quote from: Green Party leader - Elizabeth May
Mr. Scheer was excluded because the speech he gave following the PM's statement was viewed as disqualifying him from participation in a discussion on how to find solutions.
Quote from: NDP Party leader - Jagmeet Singh
Scheer's speech on the blockades this morning was reprehensible. What he said was divisive. It was purposely designed to pit some groups against another - and to me it needs to be denounced. What he is suggesting is not a way forward

as a topper, self-labeled "True Blue" O'Toole was just livid that Scheer wasn't at the meeting... sending off this twitter zinger:

One way or another, these blockades will have to end.

one way is/was to meet seeking {possible} solutions - everyone there except angryAndy!  ;D


Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #203 on: February 19, 2020, 01:36:00 pm »

one way is/was to meet seeking {possible} solutions - everyone there except angryAndy!  ;D



Possibly, but if not, they will still have to end otherwise there will be violence of some sort.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #204 on: February 19, 2020, 01:40:21 pm »
Right now it is just about how much the economy is affected. Once more people start losing jobs and businesses and can't pay their bills, the anger will build and violence against demonstrators from the public will be likely.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #205 on: February 19, 2020, 02:19:41 pm »
yup! Overnight a rail tracks blockade was set up by "Cuzzins for Wet'suwet'en"... just outside Edmonton but still under the policing jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton Police Services. Apparently, supporters from Yellow Vests, United We Roll and Wexit are planning a counter-protest 'sometime this afternoon'... CN seeking court injunction@ 13:00 MDT --- CN heads to court, seeking injunction against rail blockade in west Edmonton

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #206 on: February 19, 2020, 09:49:41 pm »
Why would CN not sue these groups or the government/police for not doing anything.

Oh well, not my money.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #207 on: February 19, 2020, 10:13:47 pm »
Why would CN not sue these groups or the government/police for not doing anything.

Oh well, not my money.

Good luck finding a lawyer for that.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #208 on: February 20, 2020, 10:07:47 am »
yup! Overnight a rail tracks blockade was set up by "Cuzzins for Wet'suwet'en"... just outside Edmonton but still under the policing jurisdiction of the City of Edmonton Police Services. Apparently, supporters from Yellow Vests, United We Roll and Wexit are planning a counter-protest 'sometime this afternoon'... CN seeking court injunction@ 13:00 MDT --- CN heads to court, seeking injunction against rail blockade in west Edmonton

it appears the 'counter-protestors' did a lil' cleanup in aisle 9... wait, what's this waldo - on the left of the graphic below is mmmKay's first tweet (now deleted), replaced shortly after with a series of tweets on the right. Hey now waldo, why would MacKay, a former Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada, delete his first comment?  ;D




edit to add: MacKay faces backlash over now-deleted tweet that critics say promoted vigilantism
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 04:06:42 pm by waldo »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #209 on: February 20, 2020, 04:10:31 pm »
of course Ezrant goes beyond Peter MacKay's support for vigilantism... bigly beyond, indeed!