[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

One more question CC - do you have a good link or source on the $1B spending on coast safety and the bit about the tug-boats etc?

I want to relay this information to others and I'd like to substantiate it with more than "this guy I know - he's a great guy - said this was the case and I'm convinced" if possible.

[crazy canuck]

Other than the piece you linked, are you aware of any other good coverage the digs into this?

I think the work Vaughn Palmer is doing with his Vancouver Sun articles have been good.  Well, he is always worth a read no matter what he is reporting on.  I also follow Keith Baldry on Twitter (a TV reporter and so I only can see him comments in print on twitter).

I think that may have been a move by KM to ratchet things up a notch - to get the Albertans and the Feds riled up a bit (or at least their publics) - to move things forward on the political side of things. Seems to have worked too.

Yep, whoever thought up that strategy in KM is going to get a big bonus.  They put a flag up the pole and the Feds and Alberta definitely jumped to attention.

[crazy canuck]

One more question CC - do you have a good link or source on the $1B spending on coast safety and the bit about the tug-boats etc?

I want to relay this information to others and I'd like to substantiate it with more than "this guy I know - he's a great guy - said this was the case and I'm convinced" if possible.

That comes from Palmer.  I will try to find it.

edit:  a quick search didn't turn up the reference I was looking for but here is something on the topic that did turn up

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-kinder-morgan-climate-change-1.4578732

[Jacob]

Thanks!

[viper37]

ahh, the pipe-line.

Every left leaning Quebecer is ready to take arms and join the fight to prevent this project from becoming a reality. Well, they would be if they weren't totally hostile to the idea of anyone having access to a gun

In my opinion, a pipeline is a no brainer.  The alternative is trucks&trains.  Surprisingly, oil trucks aren't involved in a lot of accidents.  But when there is an accident... (see second video, expect casualties.  With trains, anyone living in Quebec knows of Lac Mégantic.  But this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Train accidents that result in no fatalities but still result in an oil spill are quite frequent.  But they are under-reported, and if they happen on a private or small provincial track, badly maintained, outside of an inhabited area, the company maybe tempted to just sweep this under the rug, as was the case with the former Ultramar's Ultratrain.

Of course, oil should stay into the ground and not be burnt.  Elephants should not be eloctructed.  People should not kill people.  You can't be against virtue.  But virtue isn't reality.


Back on the pipeline business, I really wanted to come back here after seeing that beautiful headline: "Send in the army to build the pipeline".  It turned out to be bad sensational journalism only.  Bad, bad lying faker news stuff.  So sad.

Former Alberta energy minister says call in the troops to build trans-mountain]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/former-alberta-energy-minister-says-call-in-the-troops-trans-mountain-1.4621835]Former Alberta energy minister says call in the troops to build trans-mountain

A former Alberta energy minister says that building the Trans Mountain pipeline will require the federal government to provide military support against what he calls "eco-terrorists" who will continue to block the project.

It's a tad different than what the headline said at first
No real news there, bummer.  It would have been fun to see the Federal army displacing white protestors so that First Nations could cash in on a oil project. 

[viper37]

Also, while I'm here.  It really bugs me.

Route.

How do you pronounce this?  Like Roots! Bloody roots! or more like It's a rout!?  (kinda like "rowt, I guess).

[Jacob]

Also, while I'm here.  It really bugs me.

Route.

How do you pronounce this?  Like Roots! Bloody roots! or more like It's a rout!?  (kinda like "rowt, I guess).

Route is pronounced like "root", not "rout" [rowt].

Good to see you. Hope you are well

[Grey Fox]

Ben, comme, route, là.

[garbon]

I don't know, J. I think this that I found seems accurate.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56019/whats-the-correct-way-for-pronouncing-route

In US English, route is usually pronounced "root" in reference to a roadway, as in "Route 66." As a verb, e.g., "route the cables behind the monitor," you tend to hear "rowt." This is not a uniform distinction, nota bene.

[viper37]

Ben, comme, route, là.

j'entends souvent les 2...

Ok, thanks J. and G. and GF

[Grey Fox]

Both pronunciation exist but mean different things.

[crazy canuck]

Both pronunciation exist but mean different things.

I was recently in a conversation with a group where one person pronounced it root and the other rowt - we were, at least I thought we were, talking about the same thing.    

[Grey Fox]

[Jacob]

I don't know, J. I think this that I found seems accurate.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/56019/whats-the-correct-way-for-pronouncing-route

In US English, route is usually pronounced "root" in reference to a roadway, as in "Route 66." As a verb, e.g., "route the cables behind the monitor," you tend to hear "rowt." This is not a uniform distinction, nota bene.

Fair enough. I think locally I hear "root" for the verb as well. The only context where I hear "rowt" is "rowt-er" for network routers.

EDIT:I use "rowt" for a failure of morale leading to a disorganized withdrawal, but that doesn't come up enough in conversation for me to know if that's the standard pronunciation.

[crazy canuck]

If - as you say (and I have no reason to doubt you) - all the First Nations along the route are in favour then that's huge from my POV. It's somewhat at odds with what I'm passively seeing in the media around here where the First Nation's interests are generally positioned as being "land defenders" against the pipeline. I'm not quite sure how to square that apparent contradiction - I suppose they're from First Nations whose territories are not crossed by the pipeline, and they're getting involved anyhow?

I think there are a couple of things at play here.  There is a significant movement within first nation groups, and particularly in BC, asserting that recent SCC decisions require consent (not merely consultation).  They are stretching the law a bit - the SCC confirmed that where aboriginal title is proven after a trial then their consent is required but until that time, if there is a claim to title, then consultation is required.  But the legal details aside, there is a strong political motive to take the opportunity to assert the consent narrative.

And so you might ask, hasn't consent been given by the first nations impacted by the pipeline?  This is where we enter into the difficult area of overlapping aboriginal claims and the reason why the SCC ruled the way it did.  One of the elements of proving aboriginal title is to prove exclusive use of the land prior to colonization.  That cannot be done where there are overlapping claims and  some of the first nations who are adamantly opposed to the pipeline have very expansive views of their claimed territories.  As a result they will never be able to prove title and so they have gone the political route (yes I did that on purpose) to assert that their consent is required.

There is also an investigative journalist following up the financial contributions from US environmental organizations to those first nations groups in opposition - but I don't think this is about the money.  I think their opposition is genuine and largely motivated by the "consent" issue.