Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
There has never been a definition on what meaningful consulting is. The main reason why the Government should have appealed the FAC decision is to actually get a definition of meaningful consulting. Right now a lot of frustration is that for some meaningful consultation is basically a right to outright refuse.
As it stands that lack of definition, just frankly means that any project is going to be held up by the courts forever.
|
There isn't a hard definition of meaningful consultation, we agree, but what anyone who reads the decision agrees with is it certainly isn't want happened in the Trans Mountain pipeline. Do the inverse and explain how the First Nations were meaningful consulted because the NEB and Trans Mountain didn't show it at all. They showed they took notes, didn't respond to concerns and then didn't address very specific requests. This is all factual and in the decision that I said I wasn't going to talk about again....sorry.
And how does that have to do with what is being discussed?
"Neither the NEB or Trans Mountain considered these very reasonable and specific 89 conditions requested."
"Hey, did you know this environmental group got money from Americans?
"What? How is that relevant? Did that stop you from addressing or considering these conditions"
"Well no, but Rockefeller, global conspiracy and all that"
Again it was the (lack of) actions by the NEB and Canada that got appealed. How the First Nations got the money to make the appeal doesn't matter to the judges.