[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure what you mean by "easy".  Did you happen to notice the numerous court proceedings involving the Trans Mountain pipeline?

It's funny, not so long ago I was explaining that development is not impossible if the First Nations object.  I might even have been trying to convince you of that.  Now they are easy to disregard?  Hmm

[viper37]

I am not sure what you mean by "easy".  Did you happen to notice the numerous court proceedings involving the Trans Mountain pipeline?

It's funny, not so long ago I was explaining that development is not impossible if the First Nations object.  I might even have been trying to convince you of that.  Now they are easy to disregard?  Hmm

The things have changed.

You look at it through the legalistic lens.  I look at it through the political lens.

The pipeline will happen, the industrial emission will increase by a lot, as well as other industrial pollutants.

First Nations objections will be switfly set aside, as well as any provincial objection.

I am uncertain about the repeal of the tanker ban.  I give it a 50/50 chance of happening.

[crazy canuck]

The legal lens is not hypothetical.  Court challenges by First Nations are real, and that is why meaningful consultation is required.  That process is onerous and so it is often better to obtain agreement rather than try to defend the validity of the consultation process in court.

[Jacob]

For the record, I tend to believe the pipeline MOU is good politics and won't necessarily mean a pipeline being built, but my impression is that a good number of British Columbians - and perhaps more importantly a number of Coastal First Nations - are understanding the MOU as an attempt to force a pipeline to be built without their consent; and they're reacting rather strongly to that.

[crazy canuck]

For the record, I tend to believe the pipeline MOU is good politics and won't necessarily mean a pipeline being built, but my impression is that a good number of British Columbians - and perhaps more importantly a number of Coastal First Nations - are understanding the MOU as an attempt to force a pipeline to be built without their consent; and they're reacting rather strongly to that.

The law does not require consent, it requires meaningful consultation. See my post above explaining why that process normally encourages agreement.  Although, I grant you the term consent is used a lot by the BC Premier and First Nations so I don't blame you for thinking that is so.

A point that has been made that has a lot of merit is that the Feds cannot download the Crown's consultation duties to the Province of Alberta, but I don't understand the MOU as suggesting that.  Rather, AB has to satisfy initial criteria before the Feds start stepping into the process.

I also hear a lot of talk that the MOU is imposing something.  It is not, and to the extent sophisticated people who know better are saying these sorts of things, consider the political reasons they might be doing so.

As an aside, out of curiosity, what record?

[viper37]

Oh, I like that one.
Time Magazine not fact-checking their sources.
They attributed to Hoekstra (US ambassador to Canada, very... charming individual  ) a made up quote by the Beaverton.

'Made-up quote' in Canadian satire site The Beaverton fools Time Magazine

In a recent article about the United States' strained relationships with other countries, Time Magazine included a made-up quote from Canadian satire site The Beaverton — seemingly as fact
. 
In the Oct. 1 article about the United States' eroding alliances, there's a section that references U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra's recent appearance at an event hosted by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.

At the event, Hoekstra voiced his disappointment with the anti-American sentiment that's spread across Canada in light of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and his quips about Canada becoming the 51st state. 

Time quoted Hoekstra: "A Canada that it would be very easy to target with 500% steel tariffs, or one patriot missile aimed at Parliament Hill,' he added, rather incredulously.'"

Except Hoekstra didn't say that — The Beaverton, a satirical news site in Canada akin to The Onion, made it up for this article titled, "US Ambassador threatens to tariff, annex, and bomb Canada if anti-American sentiment doesn't improve."

[Jacob]

The law does not require consent, it requires meaningful consultation. See my post above explaining why that process normally encourages agreement.  Although, I grant you the term consent is used a lot by the BC Premier and First Nations so I don't blame you for thinking that is so.

A point that has been made that has a lot of merit is that the Feds cannot download the Crown's consultation duties to the Province of Alberta, but I don't understand the MOU as suggesting that.  Rather, AB has to satisfy initial criteria before the Feds start stepping into the process.

I also hear a lot of talk that the MOU is imposing something.  It is not, and to the extent sophisticated people who know better are saying these sorts of things, consider the political reasons they might be doing so.

Yeah, there's a bit of communications issue going on here I think.

As an aside, out of curiosity, what record?

The record of "shit said on languish indicating our various political positions" 

[crazy canuck]

The record of "shit said on languish indicating our various political positions" 

 

[crazy canuck]

Oh, I like that one.
Time Magazine not fact-checking their sources.
They attributed to Hoekstra (US ambassador to Canada, very... charming individual ) a made up quote by the Beaverton.

'Made-up quote' in Canadian satire site The Beaverton fools Time Magazine

In a recent article about the United States' strained relationships with other countries, Time Magazine included a made-up quote from Canadian satire site The Beaverton — seemingly as fact
.
In the Oct. 1 article about the United States' eroding alliances, there's a section that references U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra's recent appearance at an event hosted by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.

At the event, Hoekstra voiced his disappointment with the anti-American sentiment that's spread across Canada in light of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and his quips about Canada becoming the 51st state.

Time quoted Hoekstra: "A Canada that it would be very easy to target with 500% steel tariffs, or one patriot missile aimed at Parliament Hill,' he added, rather incredulously.'"

Except Hoekstra didn't say that — The Beaverton, a satirical news site in Canada akin to The Onion, made it up for this article titled, "US Ambassador threatens to tariff, annex, and bomb Canada if anti-American sentiment doesn't improve."

I would bet good money the author of the article used AI to write it.

[Grey Fox]

I think there might differences in how a MOU is, well, understood between Viper (& us easternly layman) vs what CC understands of it.

Culturally in Quebec, MOUs are rarely, if ever, renegaded upon. They've been effectively the contracts.

[crazy canuck]

I think there might differences in how a MOU is, well, understood between Viper (& us easternly layman) vs what CC understands of it.

Culturally in Quebec, MOUs are rarely, if ever, renegaded upon. They've been effectively the contracts.

It is the same here.  But this is not really an MOU.  It is a framework setting out a number of preconditions which AB must meet before the Feds do anything. My assumption is they called it an MOU for optics in AB.

[Grey Fox]

That only muddies the water tho. What are the real intentions of the federal government? It will get it's way but we don't know what it really wants.