Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mowich

  1. Ah, but 'feeling they should have veto' is a far cry from legally having one now isn't, Zeitgeist and that has been clearly stated by Delgamuukw they don't. It is interesting that the very same hereditary chiefs making all the noise about the Coastal Gaslink line are also the ones who chose not to go forward with a trial to prove their land claims. How they could possibly think they have a leg to stand on after abandoning the process is beyond puzzling.
  2. Well that's nice and good to know. Now could you please explain why it is 5 old men who are in the headlines? Are you a fascist?
  3. The level of support? Get real. A majority of those protesting are anything but supporting the obstructionist chiefs - they have agendas that have nothing to do with pipelines or land claims.
  4. She's just very very misinformed, Zeitgeist.
  5. The imbroglio over the Coastal GasLink pipeline speaks to the failure of the treaty process, which was supposed to resolve the Wet’suwet’en rights and title issue out of court. The Wet’suwet’en reached the agreement-in-principle stage but then abandoned the treaty table about two years ago.
  6. Wrong - again. Delgamuukw did not settle the question of Wet’suwet’en title As protests in support of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline continue to rage across the country, a number of Wet’suwet’en and their supporters have pointed to the landmark Delgamuukw decision to support their position. That position is that the hereditary chiefs are the rightful title-holders of traditional land, and that only they can make decisions about what happens on that land. They cite the landmark Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision as affirming Wet’suwet’en title. Except it didn’t. “There are people who are saying that the Delgamuukw decision affirms Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en title, and that is not correct,” said Geoff Plant, former B.C. attorney general, treaty minister and lawyer for the Crown in the original Delgamuukw trial. “It affirmed that title exists in law but said that the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan would essentially need to start all over with a new trial.” “We’re not talking about proven Aboriginal title,” said Thomas Isaac, author of Aboriginal Law and former chief treaty negotiator for the B.C. government. “We’re talking about asserted title, and we’re talking about the rule of law. And the same courts that recognize Section 35 [Canadian Constitution] rights are the same courts that put limits on those rights. It scoped out what title meant, should it be proven. That decision didn’t prove title. It was sent back to trial.” The Delgamuukw decision was an important legal precedent in Aboriginal rights and title law. The case was brought by members of the Wet’suwet’en and neighbouring Gitxsan First Nation. It became one of the cornerstones for other rulings, notably the William decision, in which the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Tsilhqot’in Nation had established title to a portion of claimed territory through continuous and exclusive occupation. Aboriginal title is a higher form of Aboriginal rights. First Nations may hold Aboriginal rights to use land and waters for activities such as hunting, fishing and trapping, but that does not mean they own it. It may be shared territory used by other First Nations. Title is a form of ownership of specific land, although that ownership is communal. In William, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed Tsilhqot’in title based on the definitions established in the Delgamuukw case. It ruled that 1,750 square kilometres of Crown land southwest of Williams Lake now belongs to the Tsilhqot’in, not the Crown. That’s 2% of the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory originally claimed. Unlike in the William case, the Supreme Court in Delgamuukw stopped short of declaring that the Wet’suwet’en or Gitxsan had proven title to any specific lands. It affirmed that Aboriginal rights and title exist and were never extinguished. But to establish title, a second trial would be needed. As the William case demonstrated, proving title would require establishing continuous and exclusive occupation to certain lands. It would also need to address overlap issues with other First Nations in shared territory. It’s not clear why the Wet’su-wet’en never pressed forward with a second trial. As of press time, a representative for the Office of the Wet’suwet’en could not be reached to comment. Even when Aboriginal title to specific land is proven, it is “not absolute” and can be infringed, if there is a reasonable justification for that infringement, the Supreme Court ruled. “The aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), including aboriginal title, are not absolute,” the Supreme Court notes in the Delgamuukw decision. “Those rights may be infringed, both by the federal … and provincial … governments. However, [Section 35] requires that those infringements satisfy the test of justification.” The court provides examples where Aboriginal title might justifiably be infringed: “agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.” The imbroglio over the Coastal GasLink pipeline speaks to the failure of the treaty process, which was supposed to resolve the Wet’suwet’en rights and title issue out of court. The Wet’suwet’en reached the agreement-in-principle stage but then abandoned the treaty table about two years ago. It is worth noting that the BC Treaty Commission recognizes the hereditary chiefs, through the Office of the Wet’suwet’en – not elected band council chiefs – as having the authority to negotiate treaty with the provincial and federal governments. In other words, the courts and governments recognize the authority of the hereditary chiefs as legitimate representatives of the Wet’suwet’en. In the Wet’suwet’en’s case, however, there is division over the Coastal GasLink project. Some hereditary chiefs oppose it, while others support it, as do all the elected band councils. Even where title is not proven – only asserted – provincial and federal governments have a duty to consult with and accommodate First Nations when approving projects that may infringe on their rights. But the duty to consult and accommodate is not a duty to achieve unanimous consent. That would effectively give First Nations a veto, and courts have repeatedly stated that no such veto power exists. “There is almost no case where Aboriginal title confers an absolute right,” Plant said. “Canadian law is always about balance. There are always cases where the greater social good will prevail over a private right, no matter how important or passionately held.” www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/delgamuukw-did-not-settle-the-question-of-wet-suwet-en-title-1.24085622 __________________________
  7. It is but that is not what you were implying now is it? You were implying that it had been enshrined by the Feds which is most certainly not the case and if these illegal blockades continue you can be darn sure that it will pushed even farther off the liberal agenda as it should. With any hope, it will die on the order table.
  8. Top marks for an excellent post, Zeitgeist.
  9. True that, Argus. So very very true.
  10. Thank you so much for all the facts you have and are presenting, DogOnPorch. I also thank you for the links.
  11. Oh puhlease. You are in favor of a bunch of old men nearing the end of their lives who are condemning all the younger generations present and in the future to a continued life of poverty, poor education, poor health facilities and all the other benefits that would come from the Coastal Gaslink line. FYI, those so-called hereditary chiefs were given years - years to come forward with there concerns. Instead they sat on their asses until long after negotiations were finished and the bands along the line had signed agreements with the company. Then they went to Coastal Gaslink demanding a new route. Coastal Gaslink told them that the route change they were demanding was more environmentally sensitive than the proposed route. Got that eyeball - more environmentally sensitive. In addition, it would cost billions more and would financially impact the bands signed on to the project.
  12. It is a far cry from civil disobedience to illegally blockading rail lines but I doubt you are able to understand the difference. Sad that.
  13. Ah..........so it was clan mothers who took away hereditary titles from the Wet'suwet'en women now in court to fight that decision. Good to know.
  14. You think they could develop that in the North especially around all those remote communities who do not have manufacturing plants nearby nor any other means of income except the public purse. Would be great if they could but the fact is that can't and won't happen - due to the remoteness. So as you cheer for the demise of the Teck mine, know that you are supporting the continued impoverishment of those communities.
  15. "In an email to Ricochet, the B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy said that “the EAO has not rejected CGL’s report” and is asking the company for more information, including “how the feedback from Indigenous nations has been responded to and addressed.” “CGL is authorized to conduct pre-construction activities and this may continued during this 30 day period.” Coastal GasLink told CBC in a statement that the company hopes to engage Unist’ot’en shortly to address concerns."
  16. Nothing. Nada. Just a futile attempt to deflect from the fact that she cannot produce a reliable source for her falsehoods.
  17. Excuse me? You are much smarter than that. Just in case, cite means that you give a reliable source. FB is the least reliable source out there and a really feeble attempt at trying to make your specious comment legit.
  18. Strange...........I've read four different articles on the counter-protestors in Edmonton, watched several broadcasts including one on cbc about it - and if anyone was going to mention any of the groups mentioned above it would be them - and you know what not one single mention of any of them. Where do you get your news from?
  19. Don't hold your breath, the drama queen doesn't like facts.
  20. By not allowing remote FN communities to partnership with resource companies is simply condemning them to decades more of subsistence living on government funding. Resource extraction in such communities is the ONLY way the bands will be able to provide decent employment for their people. In addition to employment the ongoing royalties will give the bands funds to build better homes, well-maintained water plants, better schools, better health facilities and the list goes on. I will never support the implementation of UNDRIP as it would enshrine two levels of law in Canada and no democratic country in the world would or should stand for that. What does need to happen is abolishment of the Indian Act followed by every single FN living on a reserve given title to their own land. What is standing solidly in the way of those two necessary changes is the AFN. Just as the men who claim hereditary titles in the Wet'suwet'en band, the chiefs who sit on the AFN believe they have an almost divine right to rule over their people. Neither of the two truly care about the welfare of their people which is blatantly obvious in the current situation. They do not wish to see the power they have over their people diminished in anyway which would be the result if the Act was gone and title to the land was in the hands of individual band members. For all that the radical activists scream and holler for UNDRIP, they side-step the two issues that would actually see concrete changes for the better in the lives of FNs.
  21. I wonder if the Eastern Canadians who are running short of propane to heat their homes, or the thousands of Canadians - many of them FNs in remote communities facing grocery shortages think this is entertaining?
  22. They will not move until they are assured that those working on the line will not be put in danger and have unfettered access to the work site. The small group of anti-line people have shown time and again they cannot be trusted to obey the injunction. Had they done so, the RCMP would not be necessary. Really you do need to get a better grip on what is happening on the ground there.
  23. If by these people you mean the so-called hereditary Wet'suwet'en chiefs, you could be right. However, as Chief Clarence Louie of the Okanagan band has proven, there are FNs who are well able to run profitable businesses. With the help of others on his reserve he turned a failing community into a shining example of what FNs can do when they take the time to learn good business practices, put them in place and insist that meetings are held on time - not on Injun Time as he is fond of stating. The bands that want to buy the TM line are also well versed in business economics and their reserves are also well run. Unfortunately, many reserves fail to realize that this is the 21rst century and subsistence living has only exacerbated their problems. Until those bands realize that the way forward, the only way forward for remote communities lies with resource extraction, they will continue to be dependent upon the government for handouts.
  24. Yes, the liberals recognized UNDRIP. It is not, however, enshrined in Canadian law and with any luck never ever will be. It would be absolutely disastrous for our country.
  • Create New...