in consulting about the project and defining the project scope right, maybe, just maybe, thought that the NEB and federal bodies didn't do their due diligence in consulting about the project and defining the project scope right.
It's crazy, I get it.
"Hey did you guys assess the risk to the coast and species near the coast due to the project?"
"No."
"Well do that"
OH MY GOD THEY HATE PIPELINES.
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...#_Introduction
It's all here, give it a read.
Take the time to read it instead of jumping to conclusions.
It has specifics.
Upper Nicola was asking how they would be affected. The response was a resounding "We don't know." Great consultation, certainly meaningful.
The NEBs own meeting notes show they did not respond to concerns. That's not consultation.
I know it's easy to think "They don't want the pipeline and are asserting their authority to prevent it" but these guys were actively trying to figure out what was happening, what the impact would be and what their rights were.
And Canada did not bother to give them responses in some cases. It's unconstitutional.
Here the SSN, in this specific instance, just wanted to make sure the project was safe. Not denied, they just wanted to make sure they would be prepared in the case of an emergency.
They didn't get a response back.
Again, notice that Stó:lō wasn't asking for the project to be denied. They had 89 recommendations they felt necessary to implement to mitigate cultural and ecological important issues, and what did Canada do? Nothing. Not an acknowledgement, not an understanding that they have other mitigation techniques in place, not force Trans Mountain to go through the recommendation and respond appropriately to each one, just nothing.
It's what the First Nations had said. They had people at meetings, they had people taking notes, but they had no consultation. No two-way dialogue, no understanding that their concerns were heard and accounted for. In some cases throwing them a bone was too much.
There's a grey line. What is "meaningful consultation" when a First Nation wants no part? That's a tricky subject, absolutely. But what happens when they do respond, when they do provide concerns and mitigation techniques and get nothing back? How is that meaningful. It's against their rights. The Federal Court of Appeals wasn't against pipeline, their hands were tied. Federally we dun goofed. All they asked was for them to go back and redo phase three of the consultation. Reasonable given the stuff in the decision if you took the time to read it and appreciate the view from the First Nations, at least some of them.
They didn't say cave in, give the First Nations what they want and stop the pipeline. They more or less just said, respond to their concerns. Explain why and what. Make sure they are heard. Trans Mountain and/or Canada could have given a point-by-point break down of the 89 recommendations of Stó:lō and agreed, disagreed, or come up with some type of compromise for each one. Heck, they could have just gone through each 89 and said why they wouldn't be needed. But they didn't. That's on them, not the First Nations.