Kinder Morgan announces suspension of Trans Mountain expansion
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Canadians don't make policy, Cliffy. They elect governments to do that.
I do agree that is sad to see the divisiveness resulting over the extension especially as there is such deep and very real divide between the two sides.
Why should they?
As well it should be beholden to their shareholders as they are.
Considering the billions they have already sunk into the line, I doubt they are looking with humor upon the current situation.
I think any shareholder in Kinder Morgan needs to review the performance of this company over the last say 5 years.
I find it very plausible that Kinders entire game here is to unload this pipeline on the province of Alberta.
It would be a positive thing for share price.
I find it very plausible that Kinders entire game here is to unload this pipeline on the province of Alberta.
It would be a positive thing for share price.
Horgan is the least of your worries. The Supreme Court of Canada declared that because BC has almost no treaties with the indigenous peoples, that most of the province belongs to them and it is the indigenous peoples who are leading the fight against the pipeline and tanker traffic. Trudeau and Kinder Morgan can posture all they want, but if they ram this abortion through, there will be law suits that will hold this up until it becomes an economic loser and Kinder Morgan pulls out. There are already several suits in the process and forcing this through before they are settled could be seen as a declaration of war.
The big constitutional question here is who has the say so on first nations land.
We are by reflex making it about BC vs Alberta or BC versus Canada, but it is in fact going to be settled by whether or not the Supreme Court will put into law that which Canada has agreed to in principle at the UN.
Let us be clear - the Kinder Morgan pipeline was pushed through First Nations land without consent. They now want to expand it - again without consent.
That is the constitutional challenge here, and as is normally the case the Ignore List is chattering about everything but.
We are by reflex making it about BC vs Alberta or BC versus Canada, but it is in fact going to be settled by whether or not the Supreme Court will put into law that which Canada has agreed to in principle at the UN.
Let us be clear - the Kinder Morgan pipeline was pushed through First Nations land without consent. They now want to expand it - again without consent.
That is the constitutional challenge here, and as is normally the case the Ignore List is chattering about everything but.
War eh, Cliffy? Well if it came to that, we would see FN bands that support the extension pitted against those who don't. As interesting as that might be from a purely anthropological viewpoint, it most certainly wouldn't further the negotiating of treaties with bands now in contention over land titles.
Clear as mud as usual. Tell you what, Hoid. You do some research then come back and tell us the names of every band along the pipeline route and whether or not they have signed off on the pipeline. Okay. Until then, best you keep your generalizations to yourself, they do nothing to further your cause.
yes because you have been spot on in all your estimates.
all the bands - 40 of them 56 of them
whatever. no need to get facts when you can just make them up
Still waiting for the list of bands along the route, Hoid...........and waiting..............and waiting....
The supreme court does not make law, and the UN has no power to make or change laws in Canada.
As for consent, KM has consent from all the bands that the line passes through now. If you have information otherwise, please present it.
you're going to be waiting awhile if you expect me to get you information that is readily available to anyone who cares to look into it.
You clearly have no knowledge of or understanding of BC
Ya, I know, but he replied to one of my posts a few days ago, so I know he reads them. He just answers or replies to the "easy" ones.
Hoidy, hoidy, hoidy.........why I am not surprised that you would fail to produce any proof to back up your generalizations? Because this is your modus operandi. Some bands have been on board for a long time.
First Nations look to break 'pipeline gridlock' | CBC News
"The pipeline crosses nine First Nations Reserves in British Columbia, all of which Trans Mountain has agreements with."
All First Nations crossed by Trans Mountain pipeline route in support of project: Kinder Morgan | Pipelines & Transportation | JWN Energy
Clearly. :roll::lol:
Going back to an earlier post wherein you mentioned that there was no indigenous representation at the meeting on Sunday. I think that is a big mistake on the PMs part especially after his repetitive messages of inclusion and reconciliation. The FNs have every right to be at the table and the lack of their presence will not resonate well for the government. There is little sense trying to make peace with Alberta and BC only to rouse the ire of First Nations when a little courtesy and commitment to his views could hopefully smooth all the waters.
Last edited:
‘They’re Not Getting How the Constitution Works’: Why Trudeau, Notley Can’t Steamroll B.C. on Kinder Morgan Pipeline
In the fall of 1981, Jack Woodward was a young lawyer in Ottawa when NDP leader Ed Broadbent and prime minister Pierre Trudeau struck a deal to include aboriginal rights in the Canadian constitution.
“I banged out a first draft,” Woodward recalls. “I typed it out on a manual typewriter. I had to do it in a hurry.”
In less than an hour, Woodward had laid the foundation of Section 35, the part of the Canadian constitution that recognizes and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples.
In the ensuing 37 years, Woodward has come to know a thing or two about Canada’s constitution. For one, he fought the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s title case for a quarter century, resulting in the landmark Supreme Court ruling that the nation holds title to about 1,900 square kilometres of its traditional territory in B.C.
So when Woodward hears pundits and politicians bandying around the phrase “unconstitutional,” his ears perk up.
“The government of Alberta will not — we cannot — let this unconstitutional attack on jobs and working people stand,” Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said after the B.C. government announced its intention to limit the transport of diluted bitumen through the province in January.
“She’s completely wrong about that,” Woodward told DeSmog Canada. “And if she was right, she could go to court. But she knows she’s not right, so that’s why she’s using that word as if it is a political tool rather than a legal tool … That’s a superficial and incorrect view of how the Canadian constitution works.”
Woodward says Notley is referring to pre-1982 classic constitutional questions about the divisions of powers between federal and provincial governments.
“But since 1982, you also have the additional complexity of constitutional protection of aboriginal rights, which in some cases override either federal or provincial powers,” Woodward said.
Indigenous rights are not a footnote in the ongoing constitutional saga over the the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — they’re at the centre of it. And yet, they’re virtually absent in media coverage of Canada’s pipeline pandemonium.
Beyond Indigenous rights, landmark rulings such as the Tsilhqot’in decision have emphasized something called “co-operative federalism.”
“The modern trend of federalism is that nobody has the upper hand — and everyone has to work it out,” Woodward said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statements on the Trans Mountain pipeline also seem ignorant of that reality.
“Look, we're in a federation,” Trudeau has said. “We're going to get that pipeline built.”
But Canada’s constitution governs by the principle that you err on the side of allowing two different laws to exist if at all possible, Woodward says.
“So it’s true that Canada could authorize a pipeline, but it’s also true that B.C. could probably govern safety aspects of that pipeline within B.C. including regulation of hazardous products, such as diluted bitumen,” Woodward said.
http://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/13/the...ey-can-t-steamroll-b-c-kinder-morgan-pipeline
In the fall of 1981, Jack Woodward was a young lawyer in Ottawa when NDP leader Ed Broadbent and prime minister Pierre Trudeau struck a deal to include aboriginal rights in the Canadian constitution.
“I banged out a first draft,” Woodward recalls. “I typed it out on a manual typewriter. I had to do it in a hurry.”
In less than an hour, Woodward had laid the foundation of Section 35, the part of the Canadian constitution that recognizes and affirms the rights of Indigenous peoples.
In the ensuing 37 years, Woodward has come to know a thing or two about Canada’s constitution. For one, he fought the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s title case for a quarter century, resulting in the landmark Supreme Court ruling that the nation holds title to about 1,900 square kilometres of its traditional territory in B.C.
So when Woodward hears pundits and politicians bandying around the phrase “unconstitutional,” his ears perk up.
“The government of Alberta will not — we cannot — let this unconstitutional attack on jobs and working people stand,” Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said after the B.C. government announced its intention to limit the transport of diluted bitumen through the province in January.
“She’s completely wrong about that,” Woodward told DeSmog Canada. “And if she was right, she could go to court. But she knows she’s not right, so that’s why she’s using that word as if it is a political tool rather than a legal tool … That’s a superficial and incorrect view of how the Canadian constitution works.”
Woodward says Notley is referring to pre-1982 classic constitutional questions about the divisions of powers between federal and provincial governments.
“But since 1982, you also have the additional complexity of constitutional protection of aboriginal rights, which in some cases override either federal or provincial powers,” Woodward said.
Indigenous rights are not a footnote in the ongoing constitutional saga over the the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — they’re at the centre of it. And yet, they’re virtually absent in media coverage of Canada’s pipeline pandemonium.
Beyond Indigenous rights, landmark rulings such as the Tsilhqot’in decision have emphasized something called “co-operative federalism.”
“The modern trend of federalism is that nobody has the upper hand — and everyone has to work it out,” Woodward said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statements on the Trans Mountain pipeline also seem ignorant of that reality.
“Look, we're in a federation,” Trudeau has said. “We're going to get that pipeline built.”
But Canada’s constitution governs by the principle that you err on the side of allowing two different laws to exist if at all possible, Woodward says.
“So it’s true that Canada could authorize a pipeline, but it’s also true that B.C. could probably govern safety aspects of that pipeline within B.C. including regulation of hazardous products, such as diluted bitumen,” Woodward said.
http://www.desmog.ca/2018/04/13/the...ey-can-t-steamroll-b-c-kinder-morgan-pipeline