jacee

Arising from Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) but not clarified until Supreme Court rulings after 2000, governments were forced to consult with Indigenous communities about developments on their traditional/treaty territories ... only in the last 20 years. For 130+ years before that, Indigenous territories were a free-for-all for corporations that mined, logged, built/operated railways, hydro lines, roads and pipelines etc with no consultation, no consent, and no revenues to Indigenous communities. Land and water were contaminated and made unfit to sustain their lives through traditional hunting, fishing, trapping, with no compensation paid, no remedial efforts (eg, clean water systems, industrial cleanup of mercury and other contaminants, etc). And still governments dilly-dally, paper shuffle, pass the buck, encourage corporate bribery to buy support and divide Indigenous communities, doing everything they can to avoid doing their jobs, avoid sharing revenues avoid settling land, treaty and title claims requiring compensation for 130+ years of rights violations ... violations of Canadian law ... that still continue.

The relevant law is the duty of the Crown (BC) to consult with Aboriginal rights holders BEFORE approving projects. The relevant law is the Federal government must 'reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title', BEFORE the shyte blows up in their faces. The province and the feds could have prevented the nation-wide uprising if they had done their jobs properly. They CHOSE to evade their responsibilities and pass the buck to the company and the RCMP, and that has clearly backfired on them. Lessons learned? "Which band" ? This is nonsense. Educate yourself. I don't involve myself in internal Wet'suet'en issues. Not our business. It is our business to make sure governments do their duty BEFORE Indigenous rights are violated, to avoid such conflicts.

I'm sure that reparations were paid in both of those situations. Back up your claim that they were not. A lot of evidence was presented to the Supreme Court and it ruled that Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title existed 'at contact', was never ceded or extinguished, and thus still exists. Read the Delgamuukw 1997 ruling if you want to know what evidence was examined. It's not up to someone else to break it down into into bite-sized chunks for you. All that remains to be done is to determine the boundaries of Wet'suet'en title territory, likely from government maps, and then the government can declare title. Obviously they shouldn't. Problem solved. They 'contribute' the land we call Canada. What would Canada's GDP look like without the billions in resource revenues from traditional Indigenous territories? To what extent are those revenues shared with the Indigenous peoples who voluntarily or involuntarily 'contributed' their territories to Canada? Did Canada obey it's own 'rule of law' ... obey the treaties? ... obey the Royal Proclamations? Or did Canada just steal the land and its resource revenues? Does Canada just maintain Indigenous people in poverty to force their submission to resource projects that destroy the land's ability to sustain them? Get back to me on that.

It's a good start. How long did it take governments to create these issues?

You say "non-white", and then you contrast that with "British/European". And then you say "With millions more new immigrants coming from foreign countries we as a people will die off." Many British/European people and Canadians are "non-white". So who is "we as a people" All Canadians? White Canadians?? If you mean white people, please say so for clarity, and to avoid such ridiculous contortions of language. And of course, you need to clarify what you propose for immigration policy: Only white people, as it seems? Would you include white Muslims? Atheists? Nordic countries & Russia? I need clarification on how you would define your preferred immigrants, and where you would find them. What "foreign countries"?

All true, and I've never claimed differently. I have only stated that the Crown had a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Chiefs, and to accommodate Wet'suet'en rights, and failed to do so. The strength of the duty to consult and accommodate varies with the strength of the assertion of rights, on this case assertion of title. If title had been declared, the Crown's job of consulting and accommodating becomes much more difficult. But the Crown in BC and in Ottawa dropped the ball completely. Governments could have prevented the RCMP attacks and the nation-wide blockades, if they had done their job right ... instead of putting the onus on the pipeline company to utilize a paltry provincial injunction. Governments deserved to have this blow up in their faces. There are many examples in Canada of how this would play out via an injunction, but the governments ignored them all, knowingly causing conflict instead. (Corporate interests take note: Canada's governments will fail to do their duty, and will leave you hanging out to dry!) And btw, Delgamuukw established that Wet'suet'en (and Gitxsan) Aboriginal title had never been ceded or extinguished - thus, exists. What remained to be established in the second trial was only what lands were included. The Tsilhqot'in (2014) ruling already answered one question, establishing that Aboriginal title is not limited to "postage stamp" areas of villages and industry (eg, fishing, hunting, trapping, etc), but included the whole of the territory identified - as required to maintain eg the whole watershed in a healthy state, for those activities to continue to sustain the people. External boundaries still need to be established, but the BC government has a map of boundaries, and the Federal government has such maps too. https://commonsensecanadian.ca/first-nations-collision-course-lng/gitxsan-wetsuweten-map/ So at this point, Wet'suet'en title can be declared by governments through negotiation, and should have been well before now. That would have still required Crown consultation about the pipeline, but with Wet'suet'en people in a stronger negotiating position.

I think we'd ALL agree that blockades shouldn't be happening ... if governments are doing their job right. Canadians say ... "The economic impact ... 53% heightens the importance of reaching a resolution through meaningful dialogue and negotiation. 42% requires immediate forceful intervention by police at blockades. 5% Unsure They didn't ask whether governments should have prevented conflict by fulfilling the duty of the Crown to consult meaningfully with Indigenous rights holders, and adequately accommodate their rights and title, when the Crown contemplates actions that may infringe on Aboriginal rights. If they asked the right questions, I think we'd all agree on a lot of things.

It was posted previously. We can't post the same link repeatedly.

This article is from before the RCMP raid that happened Feb 20th. My point in posting that article is the issue of the TCEnergy/CGL pipeline project fast becoming non-viable. " ... bottom falls out of LNG market in Asia Some analysts believe that high-cost fossil fuels from Canada will never be economically viable in a low-carbon world"

There is substantial effort going into increasing the efficiency and reducing unwanted effects of wind turbines. Eg, https://ca.dhgate.com/product/400w-12v-24v-vertical-axis-helix-windmill/431511618.html No doubt the issue of recycling will be addressed.

I don't agree with prescribing how Indigenous people 'should' improve their lives. There are many reasons to get rid of the 'Indian' Act, but there are also many rights enshrined in the Act that need to be preserved. Again, it's their call, and I would like to see Indigenous people take the lead in drafting a new agreement.

RCMP prepares to crack down on Wet'suwet'en Nation as bottom falls out of LNG market in Asia Some analysts believe that high-cost fossil fuels from Canada will never be economically viable in a low-carbon world https://www.straight.com/news/1355886/rcmp-prepares-crack-down-wetsuweten-nation-bottom-falls-out-lng-market-asia

72 % of Canadians want governments to resolve Aboriginal rights issues, to stop causing conflicts.

Fossil fuels increasingly offer a poor return on energy investment https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711114846.htm And that's with current public subsidies propping up profits. Shift 30% of subsidies to renewable energy, and the profits - and investors - shift to renewables. Free the energy market!

Redirecting small portion of subsidies would unleash clean energy revolution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/fossil-fuel-subsidy-cash-pay-green-energy-transition

72% of Canadians are smart enough to be determined that governments' inaction must stop causing conflict with Indigenous peoples.

It means resolve clean water issues, Aboriginal land claims, rights and title issues, duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate Aboriginal rights ... BEFORE government inaction erupts into occupations and blockades, the only way Indigenous rights issues have ever gained national attention and brought about some short-lived government action.

1 No linky-proof, no truth. 2 You think I'm a Liberal?! LOLOL

Justin Trudeau is still SUBSIDIZING THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRIES WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF OUR MONEY EVERY YEAR, propping up fossil fuel profits with corporate welfare, even as they are losing investor confidence.

Do you even grasp the contradiction in your comments? 2 The AFN represents Canada's elected Band Councils, some of whom are the "FNs that support resource extraction" Lol 1 The vast majority of Canadians - 72% - believe that Canada should be "actively resolving the core issues with Indigenous peoples". Federal-politics-March-4-2020-VF-updated.pdf Nowhere does it say what you claim. Greta Thunberg is certainly right: The fossil fuel lobby's dirty tactics, outright lies and inability to provide links/evidence/proof of their claims are just a sign of increasing desperation, knowing they are losing.

2016 article ?! No link ?! Lol Here's an update: When Stephen Harper’s Conservatives held power, they ordered the Canada Revenue Agency to initiate costly audits of environmental NGOs (ENGOs) suspected of excessive political or even partisan activity. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals eased the rules restricting the political activities of charities And your outdated linkless distraction about a taxation dispute doesn't negate anything Environmental Defence or I said. cleaner cheaper growing renewables ready. canadian-policy-isnt

Link?

That's precisely ... nonsense: You've made that up. Where's your linky proof? Lol https://environmentaldefence.ca/2019/06/06/cleaner-cheaper-growing-renewables-ready-canadian-policy-isnt/ We’ve seen that recently in Alberta. Over the last 18 months, renewable energy companies signed contracts to feed green power to the grid that will be cheaper than natural gas plants. Despite common perceptions, those low costs are possible without subsidies. In fact, it is fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas that get the bulk of government handouts. Renewable energy, already cheaper, becomes more profitable than fossil fuel energy when we switch just 30% of fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy, level the playing field, free the energy market: Investment money goes where the profits are ... and the green shift is done! It's really very simple. We just have to break the fossil fuel industry's dependency on massive public welfare. They can sink or swim without our money.

Only when profits are propped up by taxpayers. Let's see how they perform in a free energy market, without public subsidies! Lol

Nobody's replacing anything "right now". You're being as ridiculous as a Wexiteer. Lol