GT: Canadian Federal Election 2019

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Could you source this one for me?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tmx...nges-1.5269605

The court said the attorney general did state that if the leaves to appeal were successful, and the opponents applied for a judicial review, the government would defend cabinet's decision.

"But on the leave motions they offered no submissions or evidence to assist the court," Stratas said.

"Therefore, this court must conclude that the issue of adequacy of the further consultations ... meets the 'fairly arguable' standard for leave," he said.

Conservative Alberta MP Michelle Rempel said by failing to intervene in the appeals process the Liberal government "confirmed our worst suspicions."

"Today we found out Justin Trudeau rolled over and refused to stand up for the Trans Mountain pipeline in court — not submitting a defence against 11 motions to overturn the approval of the project," Rempel said.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Could you source this one for me?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tmx...nges-1.5269605

When asked why the government did not try to head off another appeal by vigorously making its case in court, Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi said it was waiting to make such argument at "the right time."

"We want courts to decide who should have the right to appeal and who should not have the right to appeal at all," he said in an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics.

"We will be mounting that defence and at that time we will defend that record. We have a very strong record on these consultations and we responded to every legitimate concern that communities have identified. We have done everything right and I am confident we will continue to proceed. It will be completed by the middle of 2022."

If the court hearing that will decide if an appeal is valid isn't the "right time" to oppose those appeals, I have no idea what is. More than likely what he really meant was "we don't want to give anyone ammunition for the election and reduce our opportunities to send this back to re-examination under C-69 if we need to make a concession under a coalition government".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Could you source this one for me?

Its Lorne Gunter, but here's from September


https://edmontonsun.com/opinion/colu...alberta-on-tmx

But here is the outrage in Wednesday’s ruling: Stratas only permitted the First Nations’ appeals to go forward because Ottawa did nothing to oppose the Indigenous groups’ court applications.


In short, Ottawa appears to have thrown the fight. It appears to have laid down in the face of First Nations’ opposition — as if the Trudeau government’s real goal was to see the appeals (but not the pipeline) go ahead.


Stratas noted that while Indigenous groups filed appeals “consisting of many thousands of detailed pages,” the federal government didn’t lift a finger. Stratas wrote the Trudeau Justice department “offered no submissions or evidence to assist the Court.”


The Liberals didn’t file a single document. And in court, if one side raises no objections to the demands of the other side, the other side is typically given what it wants.

The Government didn't file one document and their lawyers didn't show up.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Going into an election with reconciliation as a talking point and actively opposing First Nations in the court regarding not just proper consultation but trying to prevent them from discussing the lack of proper consultation would have been seen as hugely hypocritical.

It's not like they would have stopped the appeal either, everyone and their dog knew that we would be back in courts over the new round of consultation.

It was always going to come down to whether or not the FCA judges saw the consultation as adequate or not, that hasn't changed.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, my party. I have a feeling that you and I voted for the same party yesterday.

I realise that it's not actually built yet, but it's going ahead at this point. Of course there are more legal challenges, and hopefully they get quashed. But to suggest that the NDP or BQ would just crush this because they have a potential balance of power in parliament doesn't seem possible as surely the CPC and Liberals would crush any attempt at this point.

Sure you did. Don’t alienate your clientele.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Could you source this one for me?

Quote from the National Post below:

Ottawa’s decision not to oppose the challenges from Indigenous groups at this stage of the process has confused legal experts and attracted criticism from some who say the government isn’t doing enough to get the project built.

It also seems to have surprised Federal Court of Appeal Justice David Stratas, who wrote in his decision, released Wednesday, that the federal government “offered no submissions or evidence to assist the Court.”

While Ottawa does plan to oppose the First Nations, who are arguing that the latest round of Indigenous consultation on the project was inadequate, the government did not argue against a full appeal. “Down the road, the respondents might be able to present strong evidence supporting the adequacy of the further consultation,” Stratas wrote in his decision. “At this time, however, the respondents have withheld their evidence and legal submissions on these points.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...nsion-in-court

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If the court hearing that will decide if an appeal is valid isn't the "right time" to oppose those appeals, I have no idea what is.

At... The appeal itself? Obviously?

This was probably just a political move calculated to avoid news coverage about how the Liberal Government was fighting with first nations groups before the election, though.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Sure you did. Don’t alienate your clientele.

Why would I lie? It's not like I'm afraid that someone would want to argue with me if I voted for the Liberals or whoever?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tmx...nges-1.5269605



If the court hearing that will decide if an appeal is valid isn't the "right time" to oppose those appeals, I have no idea what is. More than likely what he really meant was "we don't want to give anyone ammunition for the election and reduce our opportunities to send this back to re-examination under C-69 if we need to make a concession under a coalition government".

Ah I see - so it's your interpretation, even though the government said it will be represented at the actual appeal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Fair enough, but how is that on the Liberals and not the people who are actively opposing the project - BC, First Nations. What would the Conservatives have done differently to have more progress?

Declared the Pipeline in the national interest, that would have probably satisfied Kinder to hang on instead of throwing up their arms and selling the thing. Kinder was looking for signs that the Government was committed to the pipeline, instead Trudeau ignored them and waffled and kept quiet and Kinder pulled.



Appealing the FAC decision to the SCC which would have nailed down the concepts of consultation and nailed down other issues.


Shown up at hearings.


Add on, don't show up and have a grinning press conference with a BC Government while handing over a big novelty check. The government had a right to withhold infrastructure transfers for example.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Going into an election with reconciliation as a talking point and actively opposing First Nations in the court regarding not just proper consultation but trying to prevent them from discussing the lack of proper consultation would have been seen as hugely hypocritical.

It's not like they would have stopped the appeal either, everyone and their dog knew that we would be back in courts over the new round of consultation.

It was always going to come down to whether or not the FCA judges saw the consultation as adequate or not, that hasn't changed.

If you're not going to oppose any First Nation's group in court about anything, then you're giving them a veto on every development project of any kind in the country.

If that's the position of the Liberal party, then I wish they would have had the stones to run on it, because I don't think many people would consider that reasonable.

Consultation is important, but at some point it's also important to be willing to defend the consultation you've done.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why would I lie? It's not like I'm afraid that someone would want to argue with me if I voted for the Liberals or whoever?

Read my second sentence again.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you're not going to oppose any First Nation's group in court about anything, then you're giving them a veto on every development project of any kind in the country.

If that's the position of the Liberal party, then I wish they would have had the stones to run on it, because I don't think many people would consider that reasonable.

Consultation is important, but at some point it's also important to be willing to defend the consultation you've done.

But that isn't the position of the Liberal government so...?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Going into an election with reconciliation as a talking point and actively opposing First Nations in the court regarding not just proper consultation but trying to prevent them from discussing the lack of proper consultation would have been seen as hugely hypocritical.

It's not like they would have stopped the appeal either, everyone and their dog knew that we would be back in courts over the new round of consultation.

It was always going to come down to whether or not the FCA judges saw the consultation as adequate or not, that hasn't changed.

So this is the one and only time that being seen as hypocritical has had any impact on the Liberals?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Ah I see - so it's your interpretation, even though the government said it will be represented at the actual appeal.

My interpretation that the government didn't show up to mount a defense?

I speculated on the reasons why they didn't fight the appeals, but the Liberals not attending and choosing to allow the appeals to continue uncontested isn't interpretation or speculation. The judge even said the government could have strong evidence and legal arguments to show that consultation was adequate, but it was withheld.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Going into an election with reconciliation as a talking point and actively opposing First Nations in the court regarding not just proper consultation but trying to prevent them from discussing the lack of proper consultation would have been seen as hugely hypocritical.

It's not like they would have stopped the appeal either, everyone and their dog knew that we would be back in courts over the new round of consultation.

It was always going to come down to whether or not the FCA judges saw the consultation as adequate or not, that hasn't changed.

There's no stopping, the FN's still gave their evidence to a judge on the supposed lack of consultation. What they didn't do was demonstrate the counter evidence that they consulted properly, which someone who fully recognized how badly this needs to be built presumably would have done. Did you not learn that in Law School?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you're not going to oppose any First Nation's group in court about anything, then you're giving them a veto on every development project of any kind in the country.

Except that's not at all what was said. Huge difference between fighting First Nations leading up to and during the election about leave to appeal that you're going to lose, and the actual appeal that is happening after the election.

If they brought up anything the headline would have been:
"Trudeau loses dirty fight against First Nations regarding consultation"

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Consultation is important, but at some point it's also important to be willing to defend the consultation you've done.

That's what will happen in the actual appeal.

Assuming the Liberals don't form a coalition with the NDP now and just kill it all and declare war on Alberta.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Read my second sentence again.

Oh yeah, you think that I should do one thing and tell everyone I did something else for business reasons? I don't operate that way. I'm fine with telling people who I voted for and why, if their interested.

I voted CPC this time based largely on the fact that for me it came down to them or the Liberals. I wasn't voting for Trudeau particularly after the SNC scandal. If that somehow offends people, there's not much I can do about it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

There's no stopping, the FN's still gave their evidence to a judge on the supposed lack of consultation. What they didn't do was demonstrate the counter evidence that they consulted properly, which someone who fully recognized how badly this needs to be built presumably would have done. Did you not learn that in Law School?

This was a leave to appeal. Not the appeal itself. Leave to appeal are relatively easy to get, especially with something as ill-defined as consultation. There was no hope in hell of stopping the appeal from occurring. Now it's about how well they did their consultation and how well they can argue their case...which was exactly the same before the leave for appeal.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

NDP and Greens for all the press they receive had a disastrous night.

Both need new leaders to remain at all credible.

You're totally right about the NDP. However, I think that the Greens did as well, or even better then could be expected. They received a record 1,162,361 votes and hold more seats then they ever have.

That siad, you are right. The onus is on the party to find a new leader, and start to build a viable platform so that they can be voted for with some legitimacy.