Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[5abi]

As a Canadian Sikh, who knows no other place but Canada and even call this my ancestral home as it will be going forward - I was very disappointed in Carny. Trudeau netted him the Sikh vote by exposing India and Modi and then Carny does this.

[Firebot]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maj...ttee-1.7565285


'Contentious'

304 of 333 MP voted in favour of C-5..

Very positive bill. Cut the red tape. Let's get 'er done.

[Ryan Coke]

So far I’m impressed with Carney. He seems to be pragmatic, and wanting to strengthen the country. I keep having a wait and see attitude, but I like what I’m seeing in the early days.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Firebot

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maj...ttee-1.7565285


'Contentious'

304 of 333 MP voted in favour of C-5..

Very positive bill. Cut the red tape. Let's get 'er done.

The contentious part is that First Nations and environmentalists are unhappy with it. This could lead to legal challenges and other such issues because those groups want consultation, which no doubt means a veto for some of those parties.

[direwolf]

Yup, First Nations folks are definitely not happy about certain parts of the bill. I’m guessing there might be some amendments made before they ram it through, otherwise everything will just get tied up in litigation for months on end.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Yup, First Nations folks are definitely not happy about certain parts of the bill. I’m guessing there might be some amendments made before they ram it through, otherwise everything will just get tied up in litigation for months on end.

What could possibly go wrong by railroading through environmental and indigenous impact assessments?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What could possibly go wrong by railroading through environmental and indigenous impact assessments?

You mean what could go wrong bypassing red tape? Nothing really. We just spend the last decade sitting on our hands and it's time to move forward rather than waste more years sitting in neutral.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

The contentious part is that First Nations and environmentalists are unhappy with it. This could lead to legal challenges and other such issues because those groups want consultation, which no doubt means a veto for some of those parties.

I think they need to send this to the Supreme Court for reference. It’s not binding but at least the government would understand how to ensure meaningful consultation is obtained and the treaty and eviromental regs are met

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Slava

The contentious part is that First Nations and environmentalists are unhappy with it. This could lead to legal challenges and other such issues because those groups want consultation, which no doubt means a veto for some of those parties.

First Nation groups already have the right to consultation... meaningful consultation at that... and this act doesn't change that. So I guess the only question is whether the "major projects" can accomplish meaningful consultation in the two year timeframe. I'd like to think that they could.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You mean what could go wrong bypassing red tape? Nothing really. We just spend the last decade sitting on our hands and it's time to move forward rather than waste more years sitting in neutral.

Evaluating the impacts on the environment isn't just red tape. If what you're proposing has the potential to affect fresh water and ecodiversity, that's not a good thing.

Look up what's happening in the Yukon right now with one of the biggest gold mines leaking cyanide into the drinking water. Coincidentally, said mine is on indigenous territory.

Not all environmentalists and indigenous groups are motivated by the same levels of greed and individualism that some of you are.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do things that are in the best interest of the country. But saying "#### it" when it comes to evaluating their impact isn't exactly a winning formula.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Parallex

First Nation groups already have the right to consultation... meaningful consultation at that... and this act doesn't change that. So I guess the only question is whether the "major projects" can accomplish meaningful consultation in the two year timeframe. I'd like to think that they could.

Of course it can be done.

What environmentalists want (less so FN groups, many / most of which actually want these projects to go ahead) is to outright stop or have approval rights so they can shut everything down.

Which is objectively NOT in the best interests of Canada. Particularly since many of these people / groups are USA funded. Enough is enough with the nonsense.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Evaluating the impacts on the environment isn't just red tape. If what you're proposing has the potential to affect fresh water and ecodiversity, that's not a good thing.

Look up what's happening in the Yukon right now with one of the biggest gold mines leaking cyanide into the drinking water. Coincidentally, said mine is on indigenous territory.

Not all environmentalists and indigenous groups are motivated by the same levels of greed and individualism that some of you are.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do things that are in the best interest of the country. But saying "#### it" when it comes to evaluating their impact isn't exactly a winning formula.

I would say I'm an environmentalist, but I hate to say that because I'm pro-development and progress. And also not crazy. Here's the issue with things like "cyanide in the drinking water," though—no one wants that outcome, and no one favors it. I'm assuming that you're talking about the Eagle Gold Mine? That mine had studies and impact assessments, and they still got the outcome no one wanted. They had a good partnership with the First Nations, and everything was running well until it wasn't. However, this is part of the issue with the consultations and assessments. You can still have bad outcomes just because you do all of those things.

Some of these standards, as they are, are subjective. Adequate consultation means different things to different people; even then, the idea is consultation. They're not asking for permission. They're telling you what they're doing and asking for some input, but how much of that input do they have to implement? And then you have this case like Eagle, where the relationship with First Nations was good, and the mine was the largest employer in the Yukon. Things soured when they had the failure, and I don't think that any amount of consultation could've prevented that.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

The contentious part is that First Nations and environmentalists are unhappy with it. This could lead to legal challenges and other such issues because those groups want consultation, which no doubt means a veto for some of those parties.

That’s kind of the whole point of the bill. Building anything in this country provokes opposition from some stakeholder or other. Community residents, environmental organizations, indigenous groups. Giving each of those parties a say may seem reasonable in isolation. But taken together they make it difficult, costly, and sometimes impossible to get anything build.

Carney has the wind in his sails and political license to get things done. If he doesn’t break the logjam now, if the cost and time to build everything from homes to pipelines to hospitals to rail-lines keep going nowhere but up, Canadians are not going to be happy.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Slava

I would say I'm an environmentalist, but I hate to say that because I'm pro-development and progress. And also not crazy. Here's the issue with things like "cyanide in the drinking water," though—no one wants that outcome, and no one favors it. I'm assuming that you're talking about the Eagle Gold Mine? That mine had studies and impact assessments, and they still got the outcome no one wanted. They had a good partnership with the First Nations, and everything was running well until it wasn't. However, this is part of the issue with the consultations and assessments. You can still have bad outcomes just because you do all of those things.

I'm not really disputing any of this. My point was largely that even if the outcome is wrong, the process needs to be correct, and dismissing these impact assessments as "red tape" is ignorant.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Of course it can be done.

What environmentalists want (less so FN groups, many / most of which actually want these projects to go ahead) is to outright stop or have approval rights so they can shut everything down.

Which is objectively NOT in the best interests of Canada. Particularly since many of these people / groups are USA funded. Enough is enough with the nonsense.

Dude, you sound like Trump claiming that every protest is funded by George Soros.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not really disputing any of this. My point was largely that even if the outcome is wrong, the process needs to be correct, and dismissing these impact assessments as "red tape" is ignorant.

The problem is that the pendulum has swung too far in Canada for project approvals, ultimately making us less competitive as a jurisdiction for capital investment.

There needs to be a common sense approach that facilitates a stable capital investment regime with a reasoned approvals process. It is a challenging balance to strike, but our current state actively chases investment out of the country, so it clearly needs re-working.

Capital is like water. It follows the path of least resistance. I'm not advocating for no oversight, but I am advocating for streamlined approvals processes, especially for projects of national importance.

Not everyone is going to be happy with every project, every time.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not really disputing any of this. My point was largely that even if the outcome is wrong, the process needs to be correct, and dismissing these impact assessments as "red tape" is ignorant.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not really disputing any of this. My point was largely that even if the outcome is wrong, the process needs to be correct, and dismissing these impact assessments as "red tape" is ignorant.

The issue is that the way the impact assessments are being used as a veto, not to actually evaluate environmental issues.

You can do everything by the book for a pipeline file but it never gets anywhere. You can say this following ramble is a strawman, but I assure you this happens every single time.

The First Nation will bring up an issue - something like a big flood risk that could tear your pipeline out of the ground. It's a legitimate concern, but as with any pipeline you have already done a crapload of geotechnical engineering to show that it's okay. Even in worst case scenarios like the 2013 Calgary floods.

You share your analysis and present it to the FN, and they say "well, what if there was a rainfall that's 3x the 2013 floods?" okay, you go run that case. Pipeline is getting to its limits, but still safe. Bring it back to the FN.

They say - Well how about 10x the 2013 floods? Climate change might make that a possibility! The pipeline fails that case, but you push back saying it's unrealistic, and suddenly it's a CBC article about how the FN's concerns about being ignored.

Finally, you call the chief outside of the process and ask them what is going on - they want you to contract their band's water management company and to build a new fire hall to respond in case of a disaster. Using the band's indigenous knowledge they can mitigate the 10x 2013 flood scenario. You write up an agreement and things are fine.

This is the best case scenario for big projects. You've seen many of the worst cases play out in the media.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The issue is that the way the impact assessments are being used as a veto, not to actually evaluate environmental issues.

You can do everything by the book for a pipeline file but it never gets anywhere. You can say this following ramble is a strawman, but I assure you this happens every single time.

The First Nation will bring up an issue - something like a big flood risk that could tear your pipeline out of the ground. It's a legitimate concern, but as with any pipeline you have already done a crapload of geotechnical engineering to show that it's okay. Even in worst case scenarios like the 2013 Calgary floods.

You share your analysis and present it to the FN, and they say "well, what if there was a rainfall that's 3x the 2013 floods?" okay, you go run that case. Pipeline is getting to its limits, but still safe. Bring it back to the FN.

They say - Well how about 10x the 2013 floods? Climate change might make that a possibility! The pipeline fails that case, but you push back saying it's unrealistic, and suddenly it's a CBC article about how the FN's concerns about being ignored.

Finally, you call the chief outside of the process and ask them what is going on - they want you to contract their band's water management company and to build a new fire hall to respond in case of a disaster. Using the band's indigenous knowledge they can mitigate the 10x 2013 flood scenario. You write up an agreement and things are fine.

This is the best case scenario for big projects. You've seen many of the worst cases play out in the media.

Once you get through the environmental venier it’s all about the money. Hopefully our new government can speed up the payment process and get things done, it will benefit everyone in the end.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Once you get through the environmental venier it’s all about the money. Hopefully our new government can speed up the payment process and get things done, it will benefit everyone in the end.

It's not that it is about money, so much as people who live in chronic poverty cannot refuse money because of principles. Like ted Debeassi said, everyone has a price. Unfortunately for First Nations in Northern Canada that price is tough (impossible) to refuse.

Before 1930 and the collapse of the global fur market Northern Indigenous Peoples didn't need to balance their cultural, societal priorities against chronic economic needs.

Indigenous peoples in general don't want to give up and inch, and truly want to limit development and the risks that it poses. But in the end, a hungry belly is a hungry belly, and money can afford your children a better life.

It is easy for us to scoff and say what the greater good is, but it's not cutting through your yard and the homeland of your ancestors. It may seem like a baron hinter land to you, but it is all about perspective.

[Blaster86]

DiBiase, you philistine.