Trans Mountain ‘pipeline is going to get built’: Trudeau dismisses B.C.’s bitumen ban

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
I ran into some nasty racism on Twitter. Apparently the 57 non-white Liberal MPs in caucus are white supremacists.
The only time I use twitter is to congratulate my sports teams, pete. Other than that I have absolutely no use for that site at all.

Was on the CBC website for awhile today and surprisingly they were actually letting us comment on the decision. In less than 15 minutes hundreds had signed in to talk about how happy they are - and the majority of commenters are just that - with today's Federal court decision. The naysayers are promptly brought to heel by all of us who support this decision and all the bands that wish to see the project finished - hopefully in their hands.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Say this to yourself "les skoden"...
Had to look that up, pete as I had no idea what it meant. Urban dictionary says it means either 'let's do this' or let's fight. No reason to get into fisticuffs so I'll just go with 'stoodis'. :smile:
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,177
14,240
113
Low Earth Orbit
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
The only time I use twitter is to congratulate my sports teams, pete. Other than that I have absolutely no use for that site at all.

Was on the CBC website for awhile today and surprisingly they were actually letting us comment on the decision. In less than 15 minutes hundreds had signed in to talk about how happy they are - and the majority of commenters are just that - with today's Federal court decision. The naysayers are promptly brought to heel by all of us who support this decision and all the bands that wish to see the project finished - hopefully in their hands.
you are why there is very little commentary allowed there

congrats
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
'Beyond advocacy:' Moe forms cabinet committee on pipeline expansions

REGINA — Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has put together a committee of cabinet ministers to assess how the government could help get more pipelines built in the province.
"Our government recognizes the necessity of further developing pipeline infrastructure to help our energy products reach key global markets," he said in a statement Tuesday.
Jeremy Harrison, minister of trade and export development, said because of the political risk around building pipelines — whether created through litigation or regulatory uncertainty — Saskatchewan will also consider buying in to projects.
Harrison, as well as the ministers of Environment, Energy and Resources, and Finance are in the group.
"It's not ideal that you would have governments directly involved in this fashion in energy infrastructure projects, but the reality is that unless governments are involved in energy infrastructure projects, they're not going to get built," he said.
"We do have an economic and policy interest in having these pipelines constructed and that requires government to have a role beyond advocacy."
Harrison said the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is a good example of government equity at work. He welcomed a decision Tuesday from the Federal Court of Appeal dismissing challenges to the project's approval.
"This project needs to go forward as quickly as it can possibly go forward," he said.
Moe said the idea for the committee came from communities, Indigenous leaders and businesses that want to expand pipeline access into the United States or create it through the Port of Churchill in northern Manitoba.
Harrison later said that the government was in favour of all the projects.
"So whether that's to Churchill, whether that's to tidewater in the west, whether that's to tidewater in the east or whether that's to tidewater in the south, we're prepared to work with proponents on all of those sort of projects," he said.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said First Nations need to be engaged in the initial discussions of any pipeline development to Churchill.
"First Nations in Manitoba must be involved, consulted and engaged in the process in a manner that respects their rights and interests," Grand Chief Arlen Dumas said in a statement Tuesday.
"This includes considerations of First Nations' interests in other infrastructure including the railway, and, if developed, their involvement that leads to positive economic benefits and prosperity."
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
William Watson: The high price of the Crown's honour

Four words especially caught my non-lawyer’s eye in the Federal Court of Appeal’s 87-page decision in the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion case, issued Tuesday. (You wouldn’t know it by the length of these things but we don’t actually pay judges by the page. We must pay them by the footnote: learned citations barnacle just about every one of the decision’s 255 paragraphs.)

The four striking words are: veto, deference, reconciliation and honour. You don’t see much discussion of honour these days.

“Veto” appears nine times and all nine will be reassuring to Canadians who think 21st-century law is tilted in favour of anti-everything activists. Every time the court uses “veto” it’s saying something like: “A veto over the Project (i.e., the pipeline) … forms no part of the duty to consult…” Or “Canada was under no obligation to obtain consent prior to approving the Project. That would … amount to giving Indigenous groups a veto…” Or consultation “does not dictate any particular substantive outcome. Were it otherwise, Indigenous peoples would effectively have a veto over projects such as this one. The law is clear that no such veto exists (emphasis added).”

Good! No vetoes over resource projects. Or any other projects, presumably. The court even submits that “Indigenous peoples … cannot tactically use the consultation process as a means to try to veto” a project by, for instance, talking out the clock. “At some juncture, a decision has to be made about a project and the adequacy of the consultation. Where there is genuine disagreement about whether a project is in the public interest, the law does not require that the interests of Indigenous peoples prevail.”

A second word it’s good to see is “deference,” even if it appears just twice. The context is (hold on: sharp logical curves ahead) the court noting that it was the job of the Governor-in-Council (effectively the government) to decide whether the second round of consultations that in 2018 a different judge had ordered had in fact been conducted in a reasonable way. The decision concludes the G-in-C completed this job by providing an assessment of that question “that is fact-intensive and that calls for deference.” Too often Canadian courts seem not to defer to political and regulatory authorities but instead to impose their own views. This decision makes clear in several instances it’s not the courts’ job to second guess legally designated authorities.

The third word that stood out is “reconciliation.” I’m an economist, not a lawyer (to my 94-year-old mother’s everlasting regret) but “reconciliation” is such a freighted, political word it was surprising to see it used 24 times. Thus: Reconciliation is a “first principle of aboriginal law” and a “controlling concept” in conducting consultation. It is also “about relationship” and is meant to be (uh-oh, the ground is getting mushy here) “transformative, to create conditions going forward that will prevent recurrence of harm and dysfunctionality… In the end, we all must live together and get along in a free and democratic society of mutual respect.”

But then just as we’re about to cue the kids’ choir for a chorus of “Kumbaya!” the court warns that “reconciliation does not dictate any particular substantive outcome.” Nor does “the fact that the consultation has not led the (First Nations’ communities that have brought the appeal) to agree that the Project should go ahead … mean that reconciliation has not been advanced.”

What the last striking word, the Crown’s “honour,” does require is consultation. It would not be “honourable for Canada to act unilaterally in a way that could affect the rights of Indigenous peoples, without first engaging meaningful consultation,” especially in view of the “tension between the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty and pre-existing sovereignty, rights and occupation of aboriginal peoples.” (Aren’t you glad that’s settlered!)

So: Consultations have to be serious. You don’t have to get “free, prior and informed consent,” as the UN wants. But you’ve got to conduct “meaningful” consultations.

How do you do that? If you’re building a pipeline, by spending as much on billable hours as on steel. By visiting a lot. By meeting a lot.

By studying a lot. By explaining in detail why you do or don’t accept suggestions for changing your plans. By keeping a detailed record of every meeting. By answering every question or comment promptly and in triplicate. By offering programs of one kind or another that address people’s concerns. And by winning over First Nations. Consent may not strictly be required. But the decision notes that 120 of 129 Indigenous groups “potentially impacted by the Project … either support it or do not oppose it.” As Nancy Pelosi would ask: Have you got the votes?

Bottom line for an economist? The price of the Crown’s honour isn’t infinite — there aren’t any vetoes, not in law at least. But it’s high.

To build a pipeline you’ll have to spread the profits around.

nationalpost.com/opinion/william-watson-the-high-price-of-the-crowns-honour
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Without common sense there's not much hope. It doesn't take an astute understanding of rocket science to see that a pipeline is a hell of lot safer than hauling it by rail.
Unfortunately common sense is a commodity in short supply these day, JLM. Common sense would dictate that 4 FN bands with no skin in twinning the line would be given short shift by the courts considering they are vastly outnumbered by the over 100 bands who do support it - but no, their specious appeals must heard and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted on the effort.

Not that in anyway will stop those whinging bands from continuing to state their so-called grievances to the media every single chance they get. Adversity sells and the media is all too willing to cover them when common sense would have them interviewing those bands who today are celebrating the victory.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
you are why there is very little commentary allowed there

congrats




Oh hemerHOID - YOU WILL TELL LIES WITH YOUR DYING BREATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your lies are SO BAD you are even prepared to dispute the statements of a Cdn LAW PROFESSOR - as set out below!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I think we should refresh your memory regarding THIS CBC CENSORSHIP ISSUE:::::


Here is an older article illustrating civil service union Hog greed and just how much support they are prepared to give to LIE-berals in exchange for gravy. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, recently placed the future of the Canada’s national public broadcaster on the electoral map with comments aimed at sparking a renewed debate on future funding models. Lacroix disputed claims that low ratings are to blame for the CBC’s financial struggles, instead pointing to the need to consider alternative fee schemes, including new levies on Internet providers or supplementary charges on television purchases.

(So greedy CBC Hogs want to pick the pockets of other businesses in order to salvage their own suddenly shaky place on the LIE-beral gravy train! Why should internet providers be made to pay because their viewers and users have chosen to TURN OFF CBC tv and radio? And considering how widely and rapidly the CBC article mocking the LIE-beral MyDemocracy website as “a box of doughnuts” circulated- it is entirely CLEAR that Cdns will listen to CBC IF it ever finds anything else relevant to say! And that is the trouble- CBC is so busy spouting LIE-beral propaganda that it as NOTHING REAL to say!)

While disagreement over CBC funding is as old as the broadcaster itself, the more uncomfortable discussion for the CBC is its coverage of the 2015 election campaign — particularly its approach to national debates and political party advertising — which raises troubling questions about its relevance in the current media environment.

(Meaning the 2015 federal election that brought Our idiot Boy Justin to power- which featured regular media efforts to smear Conservatives and aid Our idiot Boy and his moronic minons!)

Most would agree that the CBC features an excellent group of reporters and boasts insightful analysts for its panel discussions. However, rather than working to make itself an invaluable resource for the election, the CBC has been unnecessarily restrictive in its broadcasting choices and in the use of its content.

The problem is obvious- CBC DOES NOT WANT informed voters- it wants LIE-beral voters! It jumped on the MyDemocracy website as a one off chance to temporarily show its faux impartiality- about a subject that other media was so scornful of that CBC felt compelled to jump on the band wagon in an effort to cover its own ass!)

The most puzzling decision has been its refusal to broadcast debates hosted by other organizations. The CBC may be disappointed with the debate approach adopted by the political parties in this campaign, but that does not change the sense that if the national public broadcaster does not air programs in the national public interest, it calls into question the very need for a public broadcaster. Indeed, the CBC seems to have cut its nose off to spite its face by doing its best to prove its critics right.

(CBC is being typically Hoggish in refusing to accept debate programing that it did not produce and does not approve of because it does not contain LIE-beral bias! LIE-berals consider suitable debate to be a series of easy questions lobbed gently at them so they can knock it out of the park! Real debate with actually facts is something LIE-berals increasingly SHUN! CBC recognizes- as all Hogs do- that LIE-beral victory- meaning MORE GRAVY- is also a win for CBC- thus CBC DOES NOT WANT any critical examination of LIE-beral policy- for fear of discovering the ROT at its heart!)

The CBC’s odd coverage choices are not limited to the missing debates. Its use of video clips from the debates has also been unnecessarily restrictive. For example, before analyzing the recent Munk debates on the “At Issue” panel, host Peter Mansbridge warned viewers that “we are limited with the excerpts with the amount we are allowed to show.” A similar warning preceded the discussion at other debates.

Yet the reality is that there was no need to be restrictive in the use of video clips. Canadian copyright law permits the use of copyrighted works without permission as part of the fair dealing clause. News reporting is one of the enumerated purposes and even expanded clips would easily qualify under a fair dealing analysis.

(So CBC lied about its policy of deliberately limiting public debate!)

(HEY THERE JAMES BONDO- I DO HOPE YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD about using news clips and such AS THIS DOES MAKE YOU LOOK A FOOL!!!!! And it works for print media as well so long as the real author is given full credit as I always DO! And there is a further issue I am careful with- and that is NOT to put words into the mouth of another writer- it is for this reason that I always make it known that my comments are in brackets when I add words to an article!)

All news organizations are free to use as much of the video from debates as necessary to highlight key moments and positions of each leader. To suggest that the law creates significant limits on the ability to show debate clips is inaccurate.

In fact, the CBC’s misreading of the law is not limited to the use of clips within its news broadcasts.

Just prior to the election call, it asked YouTube and Facebook to remove a Conservative campaign advertisement that used clips from a CBC interview with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. To support its takedown claim, the CBC argued that “no one – no individual candidate or political party, and no government, corporation or NGO – may re-use our creative and copyrighted property without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and our content.”

That too is wrong.

(OH? MORE CBC/LIE-beral censorship and deliberate mis-representation of law and facts? And it relates to CBC being wrong about its crap on a paying site! Copyright law covering political comment on a FREE/NON profit site like this is even LOOSER! You have made yourself look foolish as usual!)

The law features important limitations on the rights of all copyright holders and all media organizations regularly rely on them in their reporting. The limits of copyright extend to campaign commercials and there is little that the CBC- or anyone else- can do about it.

With its rejection of the national debates, its limited use of debate clips and its attempts to limit re-use of its broadcast content, Canada’s national public broadcaster has marginalized itself during the election campaign at the very time that it could be demonstrating its relevance to the national political coverage.

(Worse- CBC has been caught deliberately trying to stack voter choice! Just as Our idiot Boy is trying to take over and paralyze our parliament with his idiot electoral reform!)

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

(Geist has done us a favour by illustrating the ugly bias that CBC is trying to hide!)
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,499
8,098
113
B.C.
Unfortunately common sense is a commodity in short supply these day, JLM. Common sense would dictate that 4 FN bands with no skin in twinning the line would be given short shift by the courts considering they are vastly outnumbered by the over 100 bands who do support it - but no, their specious appeals must heard and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted on the effort.

Not that in anyway will stop those whinging bands from continuing to state their so-called grievances to the media every single chance they get. Adversity sells and the media is all too willing to cover them when common sense would have them interviewing those bands who today are celebrating the victory.
The media have never been trustworthy in my mind .The first political lesson I remember learning was watching a Conservative leaders debate with my mother . I wondered why a hard core Liberal like her was watching . She said it is important to know your opponents arguments so you can counter . After watching the debates I decided to route for one candidate ( walker or Warner something like that ) The next morning the news papers were rallying against my choice and misstating his speech . I brought this up with my mother she said that is what the media do , watch listen and use your own brain when choosing . That was over 50 years ago and still pertinent. Every time I have been interviewed my words were skewed or the interviewer tried ( sometimes successfully) to put words in my mouth .
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Unfortunately common sense is a commodity in short supply these day, JLM. Common sense would dictate that 4 FN bands with no skin in twinning the line would be given short shift by the courts considering they are vastly outnumbered by the over 100 bands who do support it - but no, their specious appeals must heard and millions of taxpayers dollars wasted on the effort.

Not that in anyway will stop those whinging bands from continuing to state their so-called grievances to the media every single chance they get. Adversity sells and the media is all too willing to cover them when common sense would have them interviewing those bands who today are celebrating the victory.


That's the kind of shit that happens when all races and ethnicities don't all receive the same treatment by the establishments. If you are white, sane and sober you don't count!