Canadian Money Forum banner

321 - 336 of 336 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,016 Posts
Enforcing the law rolls off the tongue very easily. The reality is there is a world of difference between catching, charging, going through the court process, the appeals processes and the sentencing procedure.

It is not an arrest them, put them in jail, and it is all over..the trains are rolling again. This may be where public opinion is at the moment however it does not represent the reality of the situation. Andrew Scheer’s comments were for public consumption. I doubt very much whether the clear thinkers on that side of the House are in agreement with such a simplistic and dangerous approach.

Just one more reason why the sooner he goes the better it will be for that Party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,584 Posts
So Trudeau is a clear thinker by legitimizing attempts to set trains on fire? I guess Canada is broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
It is not an arrest them, put them in jail, and it is all over..the trains are rolling again.
Yes, it's really that simple. When the thugs that block rail lines are all in jail the trains are rolling again. Who else will block the lines? You? sags? james?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,016 Posts
Not saying that Trudeau is a clear thinker. Just saying that the arrest and locked em up approach will not work in the long run. Even worse, it willsimply inflame the situation. This is not about one blockade. It could be about many, changing on a regular basis from place to place. Just try to get the authorities up to Hornepayne or some where in the Fraser Canyon before the natives disappear and hit another main line. That is the reality

The late Jim Prentice essentially split with Haroer’s team and Cabinet in 2009 because he believed that no pipeline could be built without the agreement with, and financial participation of the First Nations. He felt any other way was doomed to failure. Alas, that message did not match the public stance of his Party and the industry.

His wisdom has been proven to be correct. Perhaps if both sides of the Commons had listened to his wisdom and learned from his experience we would be in a better place today vis a vis pipelines and our relationship with our First Nations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Yup...don't arrest thugs because it will "inflame the situation". Let the terrorists call the shots. I'm sure everything will work out just fine :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
Not saying that Trudeau is a clear thinker. Just saying that the arrest and locked em up approach will not work in the long run. Even worse, it willsimply inflame the situation. This is not about one blockade. It could be about many, changing on a regular basis from place to place. Just try to get the authorities up to Hornepayne or some where in the Fraser Canyon before the natives disappear and hit another main line. That is the reality

The late Jim Prentice essentially split with Haroer’s team and Cabinet in 2009 because he believed that no pipeline could be built without the agreement with, and financial participation of the First Nations. He felt any other way was doomed to failure. Alas, that message did not match the public stance of his Party and the industry.

His wisdom has been proven to be correct. Perhaps if both sides of the Commons had listened to his wisdom and learned from his experience we would be in a better place today vis a vis pipelines and our relationship with our First Nations.
I agree, but we can't expect 100% agreement.
With a country of nearly 40 million people, unanimous agreement is impossible.

We have to let the democratically elected representatives make a decision and follow that.
There are a LOT of people very unhappy with the actions of the Trudeau government, but they aren't lashing out because they feel that the system is mostly fair, and they simply lost.
This only works as long as people have trust in the institutions, ensuring we trust them is the number one job of the government.


I understand that hit and run terrorist attacks are a problem. But when people see this as an effective way to get what they want, they will do it.
Also that it's very lopsided, it only takes a small number of people to cause billions in economic damage.
When you look at impoverished First Nations communities, you only have to look at the billions in projects being cancelled due to illegal protests.

The thing is the people who want to invest, build and improve can't resort to simply burining it all down.
There is a certain feeling of unfairness, the approvals were gotten, and a small number of dissidents who never approved of the project, or anarchists who just want to cause trouble can kill it.

If a foreign actor wanted to cause damage to Canada, supporting domestic terrorist groups in politially sensitive areas is a shockingly effective way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,825 Posts
I don't think the issues are that complex at their core.

Should companies have the right to build whatever they want on land they don't control. Should the government provide support for the company view with eminent domain laws ?

The native people have control over the land and a pipeline wants to build on their land.

The native people offered an alternative route for the pipeline that they believed would have less environmental impact on their land.

The company refused, claiming the environmental impact on an alternative route would have been greater. Perhaps it would but that decision was up to the native's to make.

The government should halt all construction until the company reaches an agreement with the natives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
I don't think the issues are that complex at their core.

Should companies have the right to build whatever they want on land they don't control. Should the government provide support for the company view with eminent domain laws ?

The native people have control over the land and a pipeline wants to build on their land.

The native people offered an alternative route for the pipeline that they believed would have less environmental impact on their land.

The company refused, claiming the environmental impact on an alternative route would have been greater. Perhaps it would but that decision was up to the native's to make.

The government should halt all construction until the company reaches an agreement with the natives.
Well you skipped over the actual topic of this thread.
1. Should people be allowed to illegally block and tamper with infrastructure?
No
The other ones are pretty obvious.
2. Should companies do whatever they want? No, and nobody is suggesting that.
3. Should native people have control over their land? Yes, everyone supports that.

Really, they need to deal with 2 separate issues.
1. Enforce the law, the illegal action needs to stop.

2. The First Nations governance disaster needs to get resolved.
It is insane that after the elected representatives approve something, some unelected troublemakers can step in and say "no".

I really feel for the First Nations who are being disproportionally hurt by their lack of democratic rights.
I think the Canadian government really needs to get serious, and only deal with the freely elected representatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
The largest investment company in the world has let it be known that Canada is a place they where no longer feel comfortable doing business. Trudeau's actions have shown that he would rather let an unelected dictator and convicted wife beater call the shots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
I don't think the issues are that complex at their core.

Should companies have the right to build whatever they want on land they don't control. Should the government provide support for the company view with eminent domain laws ?

The native people have control over the land and a pipeline wants to build on their land.

The native people offered an alternative route for the pipeline that they believed would have less environmental impact on their land.

The company refused, claiming the environmental impact on an alternative route would have been greater. Perhaps it would but that decision was up to the native's to make.

The government should halt all construction until the company reaches an agreement with the natives.


sags i do appreciate that you are one of the few on here who is not fiercely & promiscuously racist.

however i also do take issue with your view on the alternate pipeline route.

former CEO Rick Gateman detailed both routes at length in the letter - cited far upthread by dubmac - which he wrote to the OW in 2014. Evidently there were numerous other CGL overtures to the wet'suwet'en from 2012 through 2017. However no representative of the hereditary clan system - certainly not their formal office known as the OW - apparently ever replied.

gateman's letter included a detailed map of both routes, which i've studied.

the "alternate route" is a much smaller existing pipeline, only 10 inches in diameter. It was built to deliver natural gas to four towns in the central/northwestern zone of wet'suwet'en territory. Houston, smithers, burns lake & a 4th town.

because this pipeline had to angle quite far north, then west, then south again in order to serve those 4 towns, its loop is considerably longer than the new proposed coastal gasLink pipe, which cuts across central wet'suwet'en territory more or less as the crow flies.

the very proximity of the old 10" pipeline to the biggest 4 towns in the territory is another reason not to construct the new pipeline in the old right-of-way, gateman wrote in his letter. The old pipeline also crosses twice the number of salmon-fishing rivers as the new.

the new coastal gasLink pipeline is a different beast entirely. Its diameter is 48 inches, ie considerably more than four times the size when you configure casings, reinforcements & support structures.

different engineering considerations would apply to such a monster pipe. Some that occur to a non-engineer include depth of bedrock, gradient slope of valleys & mountain passes, how susceptible is surface soil to erosion & mudflow during spring melt.

but an engineering team would work with many more terrain considerations & variables than the few suggested in preceding paragraph & the result is the present route for the new CGL pipeline. AFAIK it's far too late to change this route.

in 2015 gateman went on record saying that a pipeline builder is always willing to consider alternate route suggestions early in the design phase, but he said that switching routes at late dates is close to impossible. It's worth mentioning again that evidently the wet'suwet'en did not make any alternate route requests during those early planning years.

IMHO the pipeline route is non-negotiable at the present time. It will be constructed as the CGL plan stands or not at all. Also IMHO, construction will likely be successful. It's my belief that the hereditary chiefs & the clan members they represent will gradually be won over.


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
The late Jim Prentice essentially split with Haroer’s team and Cabinet in 2009 because he believed that no pipeline could be built without the agreement with, and financial participation of the First Nations. He felt any other way was doomed to failure. .

i don't recall the late jim prentice but if the above is his view, then he was 100% correct.

no persons understand this better than justin trudeau & his entire cabinet. Since 2015 they have worked exhaustively in this direction.

it's a fascinating, watershed moment in canadian history. Either the indigenous nations will join canada in a network of cooperative sovereign relationships, or their more radical warrior society elements are going to prevail. Nations in possession of unceded territories - there are several in northern quebec - have a big ace up their sleeve. They own their land, subject to certain qualifiers which provincial & federal supreme courts are still working out.

recently sags posted that "now" is the time for half-decided indigenous nations to come forward & join with canada, since future non-trudeau non-liberal governments will not be as patient or as accommodating.

imho the federal & BC gummints did an outstanding job during their four-day marathon negotiation with the wet'suwet'en last weekend.

ministers caroline bennett & john fraser broke the impasse. They recognized the hereditary chiefs along with the band councils, arranged for pipeline construction to re-start immediately without protest, while calling in a profoundly respectful manner for the wet'suwet'en community to return to its roots to re-examine the issue.

mirabile dictu, bennett & fraser were even able to arrange for the RCMP to return to patrolling the territory, without so much as a murmur of complaint from the hereditary chiefs.


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,825 Posts
Thanks for the info Humble.

I don't believe that any form of self government for indigenous people would be supported by the majority of Canadians.

I think if such a policy were part of a Liberal election platform, they would be solidly defeated by the Conservatives.

The level of native racism in Canada is much higher than we like to admit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
sags i do appreciate that you are one of the few on here who is not fiercely & promiscuously racist.


.
Few?
I'd say the vast majority of people on this forum are not exhibiting racist behaviour.

There is nothing "racist" about saying the law should be enforced equally and fairly regardless of race.

The only people bothering me are people like you who want to deny First Nations their right to democracy, and destroy the future of their communities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
Thanks for the info Humble.

I don't believe that any form of self government for indigenous people would be supported by the majority of Canadians.

I think if such a policy were part of a Liberal election platform, they would be solidly defeated by the Conservatives.

The level of native racism in Canada is much higher than we like to admit.
I actually think self government has broad support.
The problems on Native reserves are primarily a lack of democratic institutions.

They can't make progress when the leaders aren't accountable to the people.
To be fair, there are some where undemocratic leadership has been effective, but in most cases, it ends up doing more harm than good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
If people can't accept an unelected dictator who is not accountable to the people then the only possible answer is racism.

Of course, racism is the answer to every argument the left loses.
 
321 - 336 of 336 Posts
Top