Alberta Politics Thread v2

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If these pipeline companies just kept walking way and investing elsewhere we might get some feeling of urgency from the various governments.

Urgency to do what? Something like what Mr. Coffee proposed?

I pretty much agree with him. Transmountain should be a slam dunk, as it's twinning an existing pipeline. That's about as low-impact as it gets. We need to drag things back to where greenfield projects can meet a threshold for approval and make it extremely clear that consultation is not a veto.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by SebC

Urgency to do what? Something like what Mr. Coffee proposed?

I pretty much agree with him. Transmountain should be a slam dunk, as it's twinning an existing pipeline. That's about as low-impact as it gets. We need to drag things back to where greenfield projects can meet a threshold for approval and make it extremely clear that consultation is not a veto.

This, a thousand times over.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by redforever

This, a thousand times over.

That genie is already out of the bottle and its not going to be put back in. We've got it on a provincial level with Quebec not giving consent nor BC multiple times. Every consent argument now comes with protest to force agreement.


This government had an opportunity on more then several occasions to enforce the constitution and chose to fritter their hands like a weak bird and sit on their hands.


Basically now we're in a situation where every single project is going to be paralyzed by the question of consent and those groups or individuals will stare at the government and basically say "We're not consenting, what are you going to do about it?"


Personally with transmountain when people were screaming for and the government was talking about declaring it in the national interest and the government decided not to do that, they gave in.


With this latest LNG Pipeline where everything was signed and done properly and sub groups within consenting groups said we don't consent we lost any notion of consultation is required but consent isn't.


Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 aren't even needed anymore to kill projects, one group with a camera and protesters and no stake in the game can say "We don't consent" and we tie ourselves in knots to placate them.


The more that I think about it, the more that I like New Brunswicks idea of a resource corridor from coast to coast that can transport oil, natural gas, hydro is a really smart idea and something that the government can strongly declare int he national interest and expropriate.



But its never going to happen.


If we can't twin a existing pipeline, and if we can't push through a project that was approved on all level, what does that mean in terms of new projects and new investment? It means that nobody with the money to do it is going to risk it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Andrew Roman's breakdown of C-69 and the problems with it


https://andrewromanviews.blog/2018/1...ssessment-law/

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to…..

• achieving reconciliation with First Nations …. based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership;
• using transparent processes that are built on early engagement and inclusive participation and under which the best available scientific information and data and the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada are taken into account in decision-making
• assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives;

However, the government is unlikely to achieve:

• reconciliation with FNs via an adversarial hearing process in which one side has to be the winner and the other side the loser, particularly if some FNs support and others oppose the pipeline;
• transparency via a process in which those who decide the assessment do not hear the parties, while those who hear cannot decide
• transparency when some parties are permitted by the Act to provide their evidence and opinions in confidence, as secret evidence is not transparent
• an inclusive and democratic society by assessing and taking unspecified “actions” against the impact of a pipeline on unspecified “groups of women, men and gender-diverse people”.

If the key intended results conflict with the Act itself, and thus, will not be achieved, honesty requires that either the description of the intended results be amended or the Act be amended to correct the conflict.

hree Basic Problems With Impact Assessment Not Addressed by C-69

1. The CEAA and the NEB Act give the NEB conflicting duties. Is this supposed to be an assessment process or a licensing process? The two are not the same. The numerous upstream and downstream impacts the CEAA requires the NEB to assess (e.g. of tanker traffic in the ocean) are much broader than the conditions of licence that the NEB and the Cabinet can impose under the NEB Act. Downstream tanker traffic is not part of a pipeline proponent’s project. What happens in the ocean is not within the proponent’s control. Therefore, conditions of license cannot include anything about tanker traffic because the pipeline would have no way to comply with such conditions. While assessment of tanker traffic may be mandatory for CEAA purposes it is irrelevant for NEB Act pipeline licensing purposes. This conflicting mixture of two different processes in one proceeding needs to be resolved by amending C-69.
2. The CEAA already required too many potential future environmental, social and economic impacts to be considered. Several are of marginal relevance, and use vague language that encourages litigation. C-69 lengthens, rather than shortens the list of mandatory considerations.
3. The persons who conduct the public hearings (the NEB or the new Impact Assessment Agency) have no authority to decide anything. On the other hand, the persons who decide everything (the Cabinet) do so in secret, with no public participation. C-69 gives the Minister even greater political control over the hearing process, increasing politicization while reducing transparency.

Three Basic Problems With Consultation of First Nations

1. The positions of FNs on a pipeline are often divided. While many support pipelines that provide many FNs with jobs and income, a few FNs are unalterably opposed. The purpose of opposed FNs in participating in the Crown’s consultation process is not to arrive at an agreement to accept the pipeline but to collect evidence for a successful court challenge. They have every right to do this, but the government has no duty to enact legislation that makes successful court challenges easier.
2. Under our system of government the public service employees doing the consulting can have no authority to decide anything or make any commitments to FNs on behalf of the Cabinet.
3. The Cabinet cannot meet and consult repeatedly with 100+ FNs potentially affected by the pipeline. Thus, the people doing the consulting are necessarily just the conduits of FNs’ concerns to the Cabinet. However the FCA in TMX held that performing this role was inadequate. That decision should have been appealed, but was not.

Litigation Triggers in the IAA

1. Secret Evidence of “Indigenous Knowledge”

A pipeline company going through the IAA process will be concerned that some FN witnesses may present their “Indigenous knowledge” in confidence, attacking the proponent’s evidence.
The IAA has no definition of “Indigenous knowledge”. The hearing is about possible impacts of the pipeline many years into the future. There can be no “knowledge” of the future. There are only predictions.
This secret “knowledge” may cause project approval to be denied. As the law is written, the proponent will be denied an opportunity even to know the evidence against it, and therefore, denied a fair opportunity to challenge it.
The IAA does permit someone to apply for disclosure of the secret evidence subject to certain conditions. However, no disclosure may be granted unless it is necessary for “procedural fairness”. When a proponent and an FN are disputing disclosure of secret evidence, the hearing will probably be suspended while the procedural fairness issue goes to the FCA, and perhaps also to the SCC. In any event, the resolution of this issue may not be simple or quick.
2. Unrealistic Statutory Time Limits
The TMX hearing had some 1,600 participants. The IAA emphasizes greater public participation. To hear from an unlimited number of public participants presenting an unlimited volume of evidence would require unlimited time. Pipeline opponents will sometimes organize numerous individuals to make repetitive, scripted presentations, to maximize delay. The Agency will have to impose time limits, at least on oral submissions, thereby potentially triggering court challenges. To reduce the risk of successful court challenges, the Minister will probably have to grant one or more extensions of time beyond the statutory time limit for completing the hearing.
3. Problem Language
Vague, over-inclusive language in the IAA – of which there are numerous examples – will also be potential litigation triggers for one side or the other. Such language will not be helpful to anyone. I have seen an environmental group seeking support for the legislation on social media, encouraging Senators to approve C-69 quickly despite industry objections. However, if environmental advocates understood that the vague language and undefined action words in C-69 can be interpreted in ways that harm rather than help the environment, they, too, would want the legislation made more effective through better drafting.

Any ways its a pretty interesting in depth look at the bill and includes discussions around extra-ordinary ministerial power over projects, how it places various agencies in direct conflict, and opens up every project to litigation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Conclusion

The Impact of the Impact Assessment Act
One of the most important impacts of the IAA will be invisible: the potential proposals not presented for assessment because they are deterred by the new law. If the unarticulated goal of the IAA is to make the TMX application Canada’s last pipeline application, there is no need for this IAA process. Just pass a law prohibiting any further pipelines, or announce that the Cabinet will no longer approve any such applications. The negative outcomes of both NG and TMX in the courts will be remembered when potential investors’ lawyers review the IAA. These lawyers will see through the government’s unrealistic expectations, to realize that any new project is unlikely to be approved within a reasonable time, and with finality. Therefore, the main impact of the IAA will probably be to discourage private sector investment in Canadian energy resources.
This law will have to be fixed sooner or later. Why not now?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by SebC

Urgency to do what? Something like what Mr. Coffee proposed?

I pretty much agree with him. Transmountain should be a slam dunk, as it's twinning an existing pipeline. That's about as low-impact as it gets. We need to drag things back to where greenfield projects can meet a threshold for approval and make it extremely clear that consultation is not a veto.

This.

"We're here to listen and willing to shuffle some pawns around, but the rest of the board is set in stone."

Ultimately nothing makes everyone happy but you cant just abandon all projects because its not all rosy for everyone.

Its the 'Perfection Fallacy.' If it isnt perfect then why bother at all?

Which is heavily flawed reasoning.

[GGG]

The biggest problem in BC that the legislation does not resolve is the whole concept of unceded traditional lands. All of the consultation is based around the Indian Act. If you the governments wants real reconciliation as the legislation indicates it would mean real nation to nation negotiations with each of the clans under the terms of their historical government. This means that they would have a veto on their unceded traditional lands. This also means that if the government truly wants to view them as a Nation then than you have to respect if that Nation says no.

The current blockade of the LNG line and the outcome of those court cases may well determine if Canada is actually Canada and if anything can ever be built (road,school, highway etc again.)

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GGG

The biggest problem in BC that the legislation does not resolve is the whole concept of unceded traditional lands. All of the consultation is based around the Indian Act. If you the governments wants real reconciliation as the legislation indicates it would mean real nation to nation negotiations with each of the clans under the terms of their historical government. This means that they would have a veto on their unceded traditional lands. This also means that if the government truly wants to view them as a Nation then than you have to respect if that Nation says no.

The current blockade of the LNG line and the outcome of those court cases may well determine if Canada is actually Canada and if anything can ever be built (road,school, highway etc again.)

Yah good bye Canada if any of that happens.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

The biggest problem in BC that the legislation does not resolve is the whole concept of unceded traditional lands. All of the consultation is based around the Indian Act. If you the governments wants real reconciliation as the legislation indicates it would mean real nation to nation negotiations with each of the clans under the terms of their historical government. This means that they would have a veto on their unceded traditional lands. This also means that if the government truly wants to view them as a Nation then than you have to respect if that Nation says no.

The current blockade of the LNG line and the outcome of those court cases may well determine if Canada is actually Canada and if anything can ever be built (road,school, highway etc again.)

So what's the negotiation point here.


Band - "WE don't consent we'll no pipeline"


Oil Company - "we'll pay you money"


Band - "How much"


Oil Company - "This much"


Band - "Not enough"


Oil - "Screw it, we're out, no money for you"


Band goes to the media - "evil oppressive oil company and government deny needed funds"

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So what's the negotiation point here.


Band - "WE don't consent we'll no pipeline"


Oil Company - "we'll pay you money"


Band - "How much"


Oil Company - "This much"


Band - "Not enough"


Oil - "Screw it, we're out, no money for you"


Band goes to the media - "evil oppressive oil company and government deny needed funds"

Uh that’s literally been the last couple decades of negotiations with FN in BC. That is the gyst of it. You should see some of the stuff I’ve been a part of and / or heard about first hand. Some bands obviously worse than others. The Blueberry band in BC is actually notorious and one of the worst. Personally I’ve never dealt with them but I have heard from multiple people and the things I’ve heard are like out of a sitcom or something.

And GGG is absolutely and unequivocally right. This is a colonial issue in a modern world. Treaties 6, 7 and 8 are Alberta. They laid the groundwork for industry to move ahead with things on a much different playing field than in BC. They set standards and ground rules like, for example, if you’re a band near Lethbridge you can’t claim ancient heritage territory up in Zama and stop projects. But if you’re a band in Vancouver you sure can claim some ancestor of yours hunted up in Prince George some time ago and you need to be consulted with.

Edit- I should add/ many companies are willing to bring in FN groups as partners on projects and hire their people and pay them money. I’ve been involved in these negotiations. Again they work in Alberta because you’re dealing with the regional 4-5 groups but when the number of groups gets to like 30 and some bands refuse to work with other bands, like in Bc, but they’re both claiming heritage lands and you have to deal with them... you’re kinda screwed even if you were willing to hire them. Many times this has less to do with greed and more to do with band politics. Oh yeah and then you get the council elections every two or three years. So whatever deal you made at the beginning with bands 1-6 now need to be potentially renegotiated if you’ve taken too long to sort through this #### show.

Trust me- it’s a disaster up there. You can’t appease everyone on a project. That’s been known since humans were making projects.

[SeeGeeWhy]

I’ve always wondered why BC never had treaty agreements set up, does anyone know the history? Honestly, I don’t think the Trudeau govt is skilled, courageous or inspiring enough to create “the last treaties”, but that’s basically the issue we’ve been dancing around for decades in western Canada. These problems won’t go away until we move away from these one off negotiations and come to a common understanding on how we would like to either protect or develop the west coast.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

The biggest problem in BC that the legislation does not resolve is the whole concept of unceded traditional lands. All of the consultation is based around the Indian Act. If you the governments wants real reconciliation as the legislation indicates it would mean real nation to nation negotiations with each of the clans under the terms of their historical government. This means that they would have a veto on their unceded traditional lands. This also means that if the government truly wants to view them as a Nation then than you have to respect if that Nation says no.

Regardless of whether they are a nation, they are certainly not a state, neither de facto nor de jure. They should not be treated as if they have the sovereignty of a state.

If we want real reconciliation, we have to stop giving privileges to a small group of people based on birthright, or there will always be legitimate grievances, and fair resentment, from people who do not have them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Regardless of whether they are a nation, they are certainly not a state, neither de facto nor de jure. They should not be treated as if they have the sovereignty of a state.

If we want real reconciliation, we have to stop giving privileges to a small group of people based on birthright, or there will always be legitimate grievances, and fair resentment, from people who do not have them.

Not that I agree with what I about to post but I think it is worth framing the argument from the other point of view.

you are being colonial. These traditional lands were not lost through war or ceded through treaty and are not inhabited by Canadians. So why because Ottawa draws a line on a paper does that make it Canada. On what grounds did these bands give up sovereignty to these lands? What jurisdiction does Canada have other than their own self declaration.

Giving people privilege based on birthright sounds about what white males have been doing the last few hundred here’s. Why when it benefits the current inhabitants of the land is that no longer okay.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not that I agree with what I about to post but I think it is worth framing the argument from the other point of view.

you are being colonial.

It's not just a colonial thing. In the period of German mediatisation, hundreds of small semi-sovereign states, principalities, duchies, counties, cities, bishoprics, etc who originally answered only to the Holy Roman Emperor were subsumed by major neighboring states that would form the major states of Germany today.

While no doubt a traumatic experience for the families that lost sovereign rule of their territories, it was a necessary step for Germany to take to become an effective modern state to catch up and then surpass the likes of the UK, France and Russia.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It's not just a colonial thing. In the period of German mediatisation, hundreds of small semi-sovereign states, principalities, duchies, counties, cities, bishoprics, etc who originally answered only to the Holy Roman Emperor were subsumed by major neighboring states that would form the major states of Germany today.

While no doubt a traumatic experience for the families that lost sovereign rule of their territories, it was a necessary step for Germany to take to become an effective modern state to catch up and then surpass the likes of the UK, France and Russia.

I’m not familiar enough with that part of German history to know the details of it, was conquered or by agreement or something else but if you applied today’s legal and ethical standards would it have been legal to do.

[Dion]

Is the NDP ready for the spring election?

Keith Gerein wrote an interesting oped about the upcoming spring election where he did some digging to find out how many candidates the parties have endorsed in 87 ridings.

I was surprised to read that NDP has only 36 with most of them being incumbents. The UCP on the other hand has 79 and 53 for the Alberta party.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...0-a2364ba702e7

[CaptainCrunch]

Indigenous Groups looking to buy Transmountain


https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tmx...nous-1.4975243

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Dion

Is the NDP ready for the spring election?

Keith Gerein wrote an interesting oped about the upcoming spring election where he did some digging to find out how many candidates the parties have endorsed in 87 ridings.

I was surprised to read that NDP has only 36 with most of them being incumbents. The UCP on the other hand has 79 and 53 for the Alberta party.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...0-a2364ba702e7

That's a tough row for the NDP, mainly because their party is looking at a bad defeat at the moment. Nobody is going to want to spend money or time so they're walking away.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Indigenous Groups looking to buy Transmountain


https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tmx...nous-1.4975243

When the Feds purchased Trans Mountain I wondered if this might be part of their end game. Would be interesting to see it through as there would then be indigenous groups opposing each other on the expansion (should that part still proceed). Also, it would make for an interesting dynamic in the optics of protesters now protesting literally against indigenous groups.

[burn_this_city]

UCP loses another MLA