Quote:
Originally Posted by tkflames
This is where you and I will need to disagree. Dont get me wrong, I wish it were easier and quite honestly my families well being depends on at least some of these projects going through. However, it's easy to have a strong opinion about "naional interest projects" when you don't have any skin in the game. I think the response would be different if the pipeline cut through your backyard and you got a fraction of the value you think your property is worth. We need to get out of the mindset that large projects can be rammed through without proper consideration for landowner rights. The laws 50 years ago with respect to landowner rights are a lot different than they are today and quite honestly we are better off for it. At the end of the day this project got rejected in the supreme court due to improper consideration for stakeholder rights. We can only hope for every development projects sake that this project now produces a proper road map to get these projects through in the future. A lot of valuable time has been wasted from this lack of clarity, but as much as you may have biases against the national government, this is a court issue, not a government one.
|
I disagree here on a few counts. Find me a land owner that didn’t get more than fair market value for the land that was affected? The people along the right of way including every Aboriginal group on the ROW were in favour.
Then in the general case I disagree with you in general on land rights. The national interest should easily trump land ownership rights. There was proper consultation amount land owners compared to every other infrastructure project ever built in Canada. No other project in the history of Canada considered up and downstream affects of the piece of infrastructure.
Until someone can tell be what makes pipeline special the current process is ridiculous.