Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11602 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #240 on: February 21, 2020, 11:55:40 pm »
No sh!t.  You're not a lawyer either, you just read the news like everyone else.  And since you're not a lawyer you can't tell me if the injunction is constitutional or not.  The Wet'suet'en chiefs can appeal the injunction, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada if they want.

The injunctions won't be deemed illegal just because the hereditary chiefs say so and a bunch of protestors block rails.

Injunctions are court orders. That means they have the power of law. The supreme court says so. You could take it up as a constitutional issue if you like, but if you don't abide you might just find yourself in jail.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #241 on: February 22, 2020, 01:15:09 am »
... and the governments can get to work to reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown rights, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.

no - each and every time you make this unsubstantiated statement, I will ask you to support it - to provide a citation that substantiates it; ideally quote from the SCOC ruling - sure you can! You have refused the many requests I've made of you to do so. Will you again refuse this one?

the waldo quoted the relevant passages from the ruling; again, there is no directive as you claim... there is no language that compels government to do anything and accordingly neither the provincial B.C. or federal governments have shifted {much} beyond their original bargaining positions. More pointedly, as I interpret, both governments chose to expand initiatives to promote First Nations economic development... both governments moved to encourage the integration of First Nations into B.C.'s mainstream economy, while intensifying consultations with First Nations in regards resource development on presumptive claimed lands.

given the many deficiencies relating to the pleadings and treatment of evidence that existed through the lower courts leading up to that 1997 SCOC case, its ruling didn't address title resolution for claimed Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en lands. Most pointedly, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en plaintiffs lost the case at trial. However, given the lower court deficiencies, the SCOC ordered a new trial - one that has never occurred to date!

member Granny - quit telling porkies!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #242 on: February 22, 2020, 01:26:47 am »
It is extortion though. That’s the whole intent.

the waldo has not been reserved in calling out the protestors; in the case of the Mohawk I've referred to them as self-serving opportunists - that their claim to be in solidarity with the Wet'suet'en is laughable in the face of their principle focus... their emphasis on the CN rail tracks through their claimed lands and the passage of CN freight and VIA Rail passenger trains on those tracks. Equally, while being most supportive of the Wet'suet'en who have worked with the province, with CGL... I've been very critical of the small minority of hereditary chiefs who have chosen to go against the will of their own people and the majority of the hereditary chiefs.

what I will say is the Mohawk and the minority of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs have not been engaged in "fair dealings"!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #243 on: February 22, 2020, 02:11:44 am »
*** Coastal GasLink's final environmental report rejected. Construction will be delayed months. ***

no - not months. The B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) has given both CGL and the Wet'suet'en 30 days to resolve the latest "new information" brought forward by the (less than fair dealing) minority of Wet'suet'en hereditary chiefs. Per EAO:
Quote
Following this 30 day period, CGL may update and resubmit COR2 to the EAO for our approval. The EAO will consider all the information available at the time, including the updated report, all appendices, CGL’s engagement record and any additional information provided by Dark House or other Indigenous groups, and may proceed to decision shortly thereafter.

per the EAO, as I interpret, the 'last minute' raised issue from the Wet'suet'en has principally to do with concerns they have over impacts to their "Unist’ot’en Healing Centre". I understand the centre is a full kilometer from the actual gas pipeline; however, it appears significant interim construction related traffic is passing heavily on a relatively adjacent roadway. Nothing says "unfair dealings" like the following:
- as I interpret, CGL had no access to be able to assess impacts to the centre... because protestor blockades had been put up around it.
- as I read: per Resource Works - the Unist'ot'en protest camp founder is Freda Huson.
Quote
Huson has described the Unist'ot'en as having been created over a matter of years for the sole purpose of blocking pipeline construction. She describes the strategy in detail here, in a video from several years ago: To quote the most salient statement Huson makes in that video:

Quote
“We decided to start a camp right directly in the path of Enbridge and Pacific Trails pipelines route. We started by putting up a log cabin right in the GPS route, and from there we decided we wanted to build a permanent camp. After we put the cabin here in the GPS route of Enbridge and Pacific Trails, they moved their route upstream about a kilometre, kilometre and a half. We were planning to build a pithouse anyways but we decided to put the pithouse in the GPS route of PTP, as well as the permaculture garden to block them.”
 

note: Resource Works describes its mission to - communicate with British Columbians about the importance of the province's resource sectors to their personal well-being - to demonstrate how responsible development of British Columbia's resources creates jobs and incomes throughout the province, both directly and indirectly, while maintaining a clean and healthy environment.

as I read, to allow CGL to properly address the latest Wet'suet'en concerns, the EAO is impressing the need for full dialogue and cooperation between CGL and the Wet'suet'en - impressing the need for CGL to maintain a most comprehensive and transparent engagement record with the Wet'suet'en over the next 30 days!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #244 on: February 22, 2020, 10:15:09 am »
Private companies soon won't touch Canada with a barge pole when it comes to infrastructure projects. Governments will have to do them on their own. Trans Mountain is just the first.

Coastal Gas Link was selected to build the line in 2012 and filed its first environmental assessment application in 2014. In future, what company is going to spend hundreds of millions and years in an exercise that is likely to be futile.
Nobody on this forum is, to my knowledge, a lawyer on aboriginal rights and law in BC/Canada.

that waldo guy plays one on tee-vee... and with that pretext: there have been several posts in this thread presuming upon SCOC rulings; however, in the waldo's humble opinion, none of these rulings are the definitive resource in regards the oft stated "Crown duty to consult". Rather, that duty stems from S.35 of the 1982 Constitution itself - hence more relatively recent emphasis on the singular word and phrases that include "reconciliation". More pointedly in regards establishing land title, this duty is not one of blanket application; rather, it applies, 'case-by-case' with an onus on First Nations to apply and make their case... with, it seems, judicial oversight required to determine the legitimacy of these 'case-by-case' submissions.

what extends from the waldo's personal interest in seeing First Nations participation in improving their own economic standing, is my targeted review of related SCOC rulings that speak to limitations on granted title - limitations that particularly reflect resource related developments on claimed (or established) First Nations lands. Developments with a greater public interest attachment; ones that particularly bring significant benefits to impacted First Nations themselves. And again, my targeted review of those related SCOC rulings has been done to:

=> emphasize Crown duty to consult does not present First Nations, "a veto, a right to veto", say... public interest resource developments, and

=> tests have been established to more pointedly help ascertain and determine whether, for example, resource developments meet that test of being, 'in the public interest'. In that pointed regard, near the very beginning of this thread, I wrote:

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

and yes, member wilber, private company engagement and investments therein are at risk until greater certainty becomes ingrained in relationships concerning First Nations land claims (titled, or not). If nothing else, the element of time/process required to determine said public interest (broader public good), might be enough to negatively influence a private company's decision making in considering resource related developments - something that, perhaps, protestors implicitly factor (knowingly, or not).
 

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #245 on: February 22, 2020, 11:44:08 am »
Injunctions are court orders. That means they have the power of law. The supreme court says so. You could take it up as a constitutional issue if you like, but if you don't abide you might just find yourself in jail.

Exactly.  If you see it that way then the issue is over.  The court has said for the protestors in BC to move and allow the gaslink work to continue.  If the chiefs have an issue with that, then file an appeal through the courts.  Which is exactly what i'm saying they should do.  So you and I agree.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #246 on: February 22, 2020, 12:09:35 pm »
Quote
and yes, member wilber, private company engagement and investments therein are at risk until greater certainty becomes ingrained in relationships concerning First Nations land claims (titled, or not). If nothing else, the element of time/process required to determine said public interest (broader public good), might be enough to negatively influence a private company's decision making in considering resource related developments - something that, perhaps, protestors implicitly factor (knowingly, or not).
 

The simple fact is, doing anything resource related in this country is a crap shoot because you can't depend on any sort of consistency. If there are places to invest that don't have that uncertainty, Canada won't even get a look. I sure as hell wouldn't put any of my own money in any kind of resource development in Canada. As a tax payer I have been forced to invest in TMX because we made the project impossible for private industry.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 12:14:48 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #247 on: February 22, 2020, 12:34:51 pm »
The simple fact is, doing anything resource related in this country is a crap shoot because you can't depend on any sort of consistency. If there are places to invest that don't have that uncertainty, Canada won't even get a look. I sure as hell wouldn't put any of my own money in any kind of resource development in Canada. As a tax payer I have been forced to invest in TMX because we made the project impossible for private industry.

You are right, Canada is not the wild west or giving you environmental exploitation rights by filling the right pockets like many other places. Also note that most of those places don't have consistency either, they generally have a high rate of inflation on the bribes.

I am Canadian, and I don't want to be a tinpot nation.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #248 on: February 22, 2020, 12:41:28 pm »
You are right, Canada is not the wild west or giving you environmental exploitation rights by filling the right pockets like many other places. Also note that most of those places don't have consistency either, they generally have a high rate of inflation on the bribes.

I am Canadian, and I don't want to be a tinpot nation.

We are a tinpot nation because we don't have any rules that can be depended on. We don't have a clue so we make it up as we go along.

But don't worry, it won't be a problem after industry washes its hands of us.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #249 on: February 22, 2020, 02:32:50 pm »
Private companies soon won't touch Canada with a barge pole when it comes to infrastructure projects.

To be clear, you are referring to fossil fuel "infrastructure", in this case not for domestic "infrastructure" needs, but for export, for private profit.


Quote
Governments will have to do them on their own. Trans Mountain is just the first.
We don't need any more fossil fuel infrastructure, so no problem.

Quote
Coastal Gas Link was selected to build the line in 2012 and filed its first environmental assessment application in 2014. In future, what company is going to spend hundreds of millions and years in an exercise that is likely to be futile.

Yes, it's true what you say: Fossil fuel production is futile, only barely propped up by public subsidies. Otherwise, renewable energy would already be more profitable ... but fossil fuel subsidies are constraining the free market in energy.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #250 on: February 22, 2020, 03:02:58 pm »
To be clear, you are referring to fossil fuel "infrastructure", in this case not for domestic "infrastructure" needs, but for export, for private profit.



No I'm referring to any infrastructure but do you seriously think this country's economy doesn't need exports? If so we could also get rid of much of our farming as well.


Quote
We don't need any more fossil fuel infrastructure, so no problem.

The countries buying the stuff do. Perhaps California, Mexico and Florida should stop exporting vegetables to Canada, they don't need the extra themselves.


Quote
Yes, it's true what you say: Fossil fuel production is futile, only barely propped up by public subsidies. Otherwise, renewable energy would already be more profitable ... but fossil fuel subsidies are constraining the free market in energy.

The fossil fuel industry gets about 4.5 billion in tax incentives. As a result, Alberta sends 20 billon in net tax revenues to Ottawa. 4.5 billion for a 20 billion return sounds like a good investment to me.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 05:26:13 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Old Old x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #251 on: February 22, 2020, 03:26:56 pm »
To be clear, you are referring to fossil fuel "infrastructure", in this case not for domestic "infrastructure" needs, but for export, for private profit.

c'mon member Granny, you should aspire to be a broken clock rather than the broken record you are... at least then you'd occasionally be right on sumthin! Again, as I wrote earlier:

'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation

notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).

and yes, OF COURSE, there is a private-for-profit element at play with B.C. LNG... of course. However, the Horgan NDP government has designs on significant monetary returns for natural gas as tied to royalties and taxes... as contributed to the so-called "Prosperity Fund" (as originally introduced by the Clark Liberal government), accepting that the government analysis behind the natural gas return projections has taken some legitimate criticism. And, again, notwithstanding the negotiated monetary gains directly to the impacted 20 First Nations who have signed agreements with Coastal GasLink!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #252 on: February 22, 2020, 03:30:32 pm »
in regards those... but 5 (of 13) hereditary chiefs opposed: trending => Wexit'suet'en chiefs  ;D

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #253 on: February 22, 2020, 03:46:21 pm »
by the by waldo, why is DOFO MIA... at least B.C.'s Premier Horgan has been responding to the heat, rightly or wrongly!

so... per B.C. jurisdiction, the RCMP have been active to enforce B.C. court injunctions against protestors/blockades. But not, per Ontario jurisdiction, the OPP! Wassup wit dat?

A very important point no one is making about the blockades — they’re Ontario's fault

Quote
The RCMP in their role as British Columbia’s provincial police are happy to enforce court orders against blockades and encampments. Quebec Premier François Legault vowed Thursday that the Sûreté du Québec would enforce any injunction issued against a rail blockade in St-Lambert, on Montreal’s south shore, which has halted southbound CN traffic to the United States as well as suburban commuter train service. And he asked Mohawk Peacekeepers to enforce any injunction against a separate blockade of the CP tracks in nearby Kahnawake, which has severed Quebec’s other rail link to New York State.

It is only the Ontario Provincial Police who refuse to do the courts’ bidding, proudly letting the Mohawk blockade near Belleville drag on for coming up on two weeks.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #254 on: February 23, 2020, 02:04:01 pm »
by the by waldo, why is DOFO MIA... at least B.C.'s Premier Horgan has been responding to the heat, rightly or wrongly!

so... per B.C. jurisdiction, the RCMP have been active to enforce B.C. court injunctions against protestors/blockades. But not, per Ontario jurisdiction, the OPP! Wassup wit dat?

A very important point no one is making about the blockades — they’re Ontario's fault

Wait, what happened to "politicians don't tell the police what to do in this country"?  How does that prior hot-take resolve with the new view that it's Dug Ford's fault that the OPP aren't enforcing court in junctions?   Have Horgan and Legault have broken some anti-banana-republic tradition by telling the cops to get off their asses, or was it always the right thing to do but we're only talking about it now that it's an opportunity to criticize Dug?

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City