Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
It's not about satisfying. There is no requirement to satisfy, just to engage, to meaningful consult. A bit more than an acknowledgement, give an explanation for why the conditions/concerns/requests/ were/weren't reasonable/justified/required.
As for the specific conditions, I don't have the complete list but the decision did acknowledge they were reasonable and specific (again give it a read, you very likely to change your mind about this being a political influenced decision). They included some as illustrations and it's heartbreaking if you have a conscious.
They weren't asking for Canada to give them the Northwest Territories and Manitoba in exchange for their support. They were asking to be notified about spills. Yeah, that's what the conditions entailed, I #### you not.
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-...#_Introduction
Spend three years asking to be notified about spills (and other pretty reasonable requests) and the Board, Trans Mountain and Canada couldn't just give you a straight, "sure if there's a spill in your area you will be notified with in 12 hours." And then they have the audacity to say there was some form of meaningful consultation? Could you imagine. You just want to know the fish you caught aren't contaminated with some reassurance but nope, too much to ask for apparently.
For other requests from other parties it was trickier, some asked for taxes and stuff like that. That would have been a lot harder to navigate and I understand the idea of just trying to avoid it all together. But the stuff above? Everyone who had even a peripheral involvement with Trans Mountain, the Board and Canada regarding this project should be fired and shamed. |
You’ve made some great posts here, thanks. But you also sound like a guy who’s never had to do consultation in BC. There is no level of consultation that will achieve what you and many others think it will achieve because people are using the system to fight projects every step of the way to further an American agenda.
That’s the point you’ve fundamentally missed. Your point about consultation on spills is excellent and accurate and I agree but then you immediately yourself go onto say that “well yeah there were others that wanted trickier things”. EXACTLY.
And for the naysayers that say there are no options or nothing we can do again you are wrong. There are things that sound eccentric or escalated or whatever, but they are options.