Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[burn_this_city]

Anyone really surprised by Corral's hot takes?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Anyone really surprised by Corral's hot takes?

The only thing that will be less surprising is the fact that Corral won't bother responding to the way nik dismantled him.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This shows a complete lack of well everything by Krause. Bias, critical thinking, understanding of law. Just how stupid do you have to think this?

The judges wouldn't give two ####s who sent First Nation money. The only thing that mattered was if they were meaningful consulted, and they clearly weren't.

You don't think judges would care if people claiming they were not "meaningfully consulted" (which is something not meaningfully defined) were paid to make those claims?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You don't think judges would care if people claiming they were not "meaningfully consulted" (which is something not meaningfully defined) were paid to make those claims?

Yes, absolutely 100% they would not care at all. Because there's nothing illegal or unkempt (or secret) about First Nations accepting money from special interest groups who they believe align with their values. On either side of the equation.

It's the actions of the NEB, Trans Mountain and the Governor in Council that were assessed and found to be lacking.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Cap, can I just say that although our politics are not always on the same side, I really enjoy your tone and delivery. Very easy to read and with a professionalism anyone can enjoy. I always welcome your posts and enjoy reading your perspective. Your knowledge on military and global security affairs is also noted.

Gosh, I'm blushing, my style has certainly changed from the early days on this board.


At the end of the day, this is a debate and discussion, there's nothing personal here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This shows a complete lack of well everything by Krause. Bias, critical thinking, understanding of law. Just how stupid do you have to think this?

The judges wouldn't give two ####s who sent First Nation money. The only thing that mattered was if they were meaningful consulted, and they clearly weren't.

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.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Gosh, I'm blushing, my style has certainly changed from the early days on this board.


At the end of the day, this is a debate and discussion, there's nothing personal here.

I just find you come at politics with a right-of-center rationality that lends well to a light-hearted conversation. None of the smug abrasiveness that is quite common. You avoid the personal attacks like a boss.

Plus you obviously enjoy wrestling as much as I do, that counts for something

[Roughneck]

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.

'Meaningful consulting' will become the new 'clear majority' of ambiguous legal terms.

[Oling_Roachinen]

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.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well considering that the transportation of goods across border for trades under the constitution is a Federal power, I don't see where the Irony is, its their job.

The irony of a Trudeau using federal might to come in and save the Alberta oil sector in the name of national interest. You know, cause another Trudeau sunk it in the name of national interest.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by transplant99

https://business.financialpost.com/o...landlocked-oil

Wow, what an interesting read - and not in a good way. Every Albertan should read this article before heading to the polls.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Wow, what an interesting read - and not in a good way. Every Albertan should read this article before heading to the polls.

According to tax documents filed with the IRS, Tides Foundation funded the Tsleil-Wauteuth First Nation specifically “to stop and oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project.”

The Tsleil-Wauteuth First Nation was the lead applicant to the Federal Court of Appeal and Tides paid it at least US$270,000 (2009-2017) for the Tar Sands Campaign. Information on the amount that may have been paid in 2018 is not yet publicly available.

In ruling that the government needed to consult, and do so “meaningfully,” the court instructed the government to consult with the very same First Nation that is being funded to stop the project by non-Canadian sources with broad interests that stand to benefit by stalling the Trans Mountain project.

What a complete bastardization of a court proceeding and consulting process that some still defend. Can't wait to do it all over again this summer too.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by nik-

Imagine being so partisan that your reaction to foreign derailment of billions of dollars in royalty revenue for all Canadians is to desperately grasp at something another political party did.

Imagine being so small minded that you hand wave away an existential economic crisis for a major Canadian industry, employer and tax provider because you'd rather be a party hack than have a prosperous country.

That would be embarrassing.

Even if one were to concede to a 'derailment of billions of dollars' by foreign interests, you are still overlooking that small little detail that these projects were halted by Canadian courts which ruled legal errors were made by federal governments and regulatory agencies. But I suppose its OK to overlook such details in your bluster.

[nik-]

Why was it before the court in the first place? Could it possibly be as a result of a challenge by one of those funded groups? Next time it will be some other undefined, nebulous form of consultation that magically didn't happen and it will all start over again.

You're clinging to a single result, I'm talking about a strategy. You're ignoring the important conversation out of team politics.

It's better your side win and we all suffer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Corral

Even if one were to concede to a 'derailment of billions of dollars' by foreign interests, you are still overlooking that small little detail that these projects were halted by Canadian courts which ruled legal errors were made by federal governments and regulatory agencies. But I suppose its OK to overlook such details in your bluster.

Would anyone have appealed the decision if not for the misinformation campaign on pipeline safety. If the general view of pipelines was positive the likelyhood of lawsuits is diminished. Or groups are more willing to be partners in the projects instead of adversaries.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that all hurdles would be eleimimated in the absense of the funding but money and influence campaigns are done becuase they are effective.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

What a complete bastardization of a court proceeding and consulting process that some still defend. Can't wait to do it all over again this summer too.

Yes. Just for not the way you want to make it out to be.

Section 35(1) gives First Nations a constitutional right to have meaningful consultation. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court prior and most recently in the Court of Appeals once again.

First Nations have no obligation to support or concede their rights for projects. Nor does anyone in Canada. Thank God. Nor is there any legal issue in accepting outside funds when your interests align.

People have known for decades that First Nations (and every other organization) accept funds from organizations that support their causes. This goes both ways, there's also a lot of money from energy companies being dumped into First Nations. This isn't illegal or secret.

What Canada has an obligation to do is to provide meaningful consultation, a constitutional obligation. If a First Nation doesn't want to come to the table, that's their right, the issue is that they did. They requested a two-way dialogue, they brought up conditions, that went ignored.

Canada has an obligation to consult. In a nutshell (and I'd just recommend reading the decision instead of a rather pitiful summary of it here but) they defer to the NEB. The NEB deferred much of it to the applicant. The applicant met with the First Nations, they wrote notes about their concerns and came up with strategy but was ultimately up to the NEB to determine the conditions of approval where there was disagreements. They told the First Nations that they would tell the NEB of the concerns. The NEB met with the First Nations, they told the First Nations they would tell the Governor in Council about their concerns. The Governor in Council told the First Nations that they couldn't address their concerns because the NEB didn't recommend them. It became a monstrously flawed loop of their concerns being wrote down but never addressed because no party believed it was up to or in their party to address. There's was no Supreme Court recognized two-way dialogue. And again we aren't necessarily talking about crazy requests, some wanted to be assured that they would be notified of spills - something that the applicant, NEB, and ultimately Canada would not concede or address or most importantly discuss specifically.

This isn't about giving them a veto or requiring consent, it's simply giving them an avenue to be consulted and a two-way dialogue that they have a legal right to have that went ignored. If they want to oppose the pipeline (which to be fair, wouldn't you if you aren't getting any answers about how it will affect your drinking water?) that's also their right and if they want to work with other parties that oppose the pipeline, that's perfectly legal.

We've gone over this. You refuse to look at facts or read the decision. You're just mad that they weren't good little Indians conceding their constitutional rights and supporting a project that they have every right to oppose.

It would take far less time and effort to actually read the decision in its entirety than continuing parroting half truths and misconceptions. The same way it would take less time to actual consult with First Nations than continue to fight over an extremely reasonable ruling to upheld the constitution. So that's what's happening.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Would anyone have appealed the decision if not for the misinformation campaign on pipeline safety. If the general view of pipelines was positive the likelyhood of lawsuits is diminished.

Yes? A resounding yes that the same parties would still have appealed. There would be the exact same complaints as before. This isn't about pipeline safety, it's about a constitutional right to be consulted and have two-way dialogue that went ignored.

Again, I point you to the concerns of Stó:lō that went woefully unaddressed by all parties. The extremely reasonable conditions they requested.

You could just as easily - and more accurately - asked, had anyone actually committed or simply addressed and discussed their concerns would they still be appealed. And, far more importantly, would the appeal have won if they actually did some type of two-way dialogue.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Hey if these Oil companies and CEO's are doing dirty things with their money, or forming and funding political action groups that campaign in elections, fund groups filing nuisance lawsuits, pay people to protest and jam up consultations to actually slow them down, then they should be audited..

Is it really a nuisance lawsuit if the plaintiff wins? (perhaps you're referring to other examples?)

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

What a complete bastardization of a court proceeding and consulting process that some still defend. Can't wait to do it all over again this summer too.

We get it, you don't like the plaintiffs. You have yet to respond with any specifics on why you feel the court process was flawed.

Still waiting on anyone to argue against Ollig's post summarizing the proceeding: https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...postcount=2087

[Corral]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why was it before the court in the first place? Could it possibly be as a result of a challenge by one of those funded groups? Next time it will be some other undefined, nebulous form of consultation that magically didn't happen and it will all start over again.

You're clinging to a single result, I'm talking about a strategy. You're ignoring the important conversation out of team politics.

It's better your side win and we all suffer.

Well things get before the courts when someone feels the law has been contravened, and in these cases of pipelines the law was contravened.

While i'm sure the First Nations and ENGO communities would be flattered by the suggestions here about how strong and successful their strategy of opposition has been, they would also point out how much more money and strategy operates behind groups like CAPP. Team politics is everywhere. Best not to pretend its just on one side of the dispute.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why was it before the court in the first place? Could it possibly be as a result of a challenge by one of those funded groups?

Perhaps you can better explain this position to me. It seems like your argument comes down to:

"The only reason it came to light and the court had to rule on their constitutional rights being violated is because of those special-interest funded groups."

That obviously can't be your position, that your more concerned how it became known their constitutional rights were violated as opposed to being concerned that they were violated, but I'm not sure how else to read it.

Again, the First Nations were not "on trial" they didn't do anything wrong. Canada erred in meeting their legal requirements. It was a mistake that needs to be rectified.