Police and Natives protest Fracking, New Brunswick

[cybercoma]

I did not realize how common this fracking thing is, and it seems that maybe the eco freaks have exagerated on this process also.

eco freaks, eh? is that like feminazis?

[TimG]

It's pretty unethical and against the spirit of the law to consult without ever intending to reach an agreement.

The court choose the words 'duty to consult' deliberately in order to avoid having development held hostage by unreasonable demands coming from native groups. That said, the court has also indicated that the government must make a good faith effort to address native concerns but if government makes the good faith effort then there is no requirement that government reach an agreement.

The only question is whether the efforts made by the government in this case are enough to be considered a good faith effort. Natives cannot insist that the government sign an agreement with them.

Edited October 28, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What do you suppose "good faith effort" means? Saying they don't have to reach an agreement is like saying employers have to consult unions, but don't have to reach an agreement with them. There's no point even consulting if that consultation is going to be "Here's what we're doing, like it or lump it."

[TimG]

What do you suppose "good faith effort" means? Saying they don't have to reach an agreement is like saying employers have to consult unions, but don't have to reach an agreement with them.

The court has made it clear that natives do not have a veto over development projects. Requiring an agreement gives natives a veto. If the court wanted to give natives a veto they would have said that.

[Accountability Now]

Oops! I guess I lost the link to the article on Aboriginal rights.

Here it is:

N.B. fracking protests and the fight for aboriginal rights

Re your link ...

Presenting information to First Nations is not 'consultation' with them.

Their concerns have not been addressed.

No agreement was negotiated for exploration.

This is the kind of 'oldthink' that caused Caledonia: "But we TOLD them what we're doing!"

It's obviously not good enough.

It's not good enough for the local communities either. This is an issue all across the country, and internationally.

reforming-mining-laws-and-policies

The 'duty to consult' is a duty to consult. It is not an obligation to 'reach an agreement'. The SCC has made it clear that natives do not have a veto on development projects.

The article I posted showed evidence of consutlation meetings with the First Nations. The work they are doing right now is only exploratory in nature and like Craig Leonard (NB Energy Minister) stated....its a sliding scale when it comes to consultation. For testing...they have met the duty to consult by giving notification.

If they find resources, then they will take the consulation to the next stage. As per the article:

As we have said all along, if oil and gas reserves are found through the exploration process, the government and proponents would have to enter into further consultations with First Nations to ensure that the environment was protected and that Aboriginal peoples benefited from oil and gas development,

As Cyber has said....this is more about the locals and not just about a First Nations issue as it appears that the consultation requirements have been met. What we are seeing is a larger group which political opponents of the provincial government and other activists generally opposed to fracking. I almost have to wonder if these 'other' groups are using or spurring on the First Nations as pawns in their game plan full well knowing they will be able to get away with more than a group of non-First Nations. Just an opinion though....

[cybercoma]

The court has made it clear that natives do not have a veto over development projects. Requiring an agreement gives natives a veto. If the court wanted to give natives a veto they would have said that.

A veto is not an agreement. Surely you know this.

[Boges]

A veto is not an agreement. Surely you know this.

Yes but not allowing development to go forward unless an agreement is made is a veto.

[TimG]

A veto is not an agreement. Surely you know this.

You clearly don't understand what the word 'agreement' means. It implies that both sides agree on something. If a development cannot proceed without an agreement then each side is given veto over the development that is exercised by simply refusing to agree.

Like I said: natives do not have a veto over development projects which means there can be no requirement for governments to sign any agreement with them. The only requirement is a good faith attempt to get an agreement (e.g. consultation).

Edited October 28, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Then there is no requirement to consult because the consultation process is rendered moot by not having to reach an agreement.

[TimG]

Then there is no requirement to consult because the consultation process is rendered moot by not having to reach an agreement.

The court was trying to navigate a fine line. It wanted governments to pay attention to native concerns but it did not want the country to be held hostage by greedy native groups. The requirement to consult was the compromise. Do you really believe that native groups should be able to hold the country hostage? Edited October 28, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Do you still beat your wife?

I think it's pretty clear that if the government doesn't need to reach an agreement with First Nations, then the consultation process is meaningless because they still get to do whatever they want anyway. I don't really see an alternative to the suggestion that they don't have to reach some sort of agreement.

[TimG]

I think it's pretty clear that if the government doesn't need to reach an agreement with First Nations, then the consultation process is meaningless because they still get to do whatever they want anyway.

It is not meaningless because governments are obligated to have consultations and cannot refuse reasonable accommodation. All the rules do is prevent natives from exploiting the provision and making unreasonable demands.

[cybercoma]

So now they cannot refuse "reasonable" accommodation. Who's defining reasonable here?

[TimG]

So now they cannot refuse "reasonable" accommodation. Who's defining reasonable here?

There have been many court ruling defining what that means. Also "reasonable accommodation" is what I meant when I said "good faith consultations".

[jacee]

Yes but not allowing development to go forward unless an agreement is made is a veto.

It's a condition of doing business, not yet met.

It's also clear to the court that the company isn't trying very hard, as their injunction wasn't extended.

A clear sign that the condition of meaningful consultation and adequate accommodation (imposed by the Supreme Court) hasn't been met.

Informing communities what you're going to do isn't meaningful consultation.

.

Edited October 28, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

You clearly don't understand what the word 'agreement' means. It implies that both sides agree on something. If a development cannot proceed without an agreement then each side is given veto over the development that is exercised by simply refusing to agree.

Like I said: natives do not have a veto over development projects which means there can be no requirement for governments to sign any agreement with them. The only requirement is a good faith attempt to get an agreement (e.g. consultation).

Which hasn't been done.

So the injunction wasn't extended.

Consultation/accommodation in progress.

[Accountability Now]

Which hasn't been done.

So the injunction wasn't extended.

Consultation/accommodation in progress.

Jacee...the lifting of the injunction had nothing to do with the consultation efforts, As per the judge....Judge George Rideout said the injunction was no longer necessary because SWN Resources has removed its equipment and vehicles from a compound near Rexton and the protesters are no longer blocking the road.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/judge-lifts-injunction-against-shale-gas-protests-in-new-brunswick-1.1506003

Go ahead and believe what you want but consultation happened.

[jacee]

Jacee...the lifting of the injunction had nothing to do with the consultation efforts, As per the judge....Judge George Rideout said the injunction was no longer necessary because SWN Resources has removed its equipment and vehicles from a compound near Rexton and the protesters are no longer blocking the road.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/judge-lifts-injunction-against-shale-gas-protests-in-new-brunswick-1.1506003

Go ahead and believe what you want but consultation happened.

What evidence is there of that?

And what evidence is there that the concerns of local communities have been addressed?

[Smallc]

And what evidence is there that the concerns of local communities have been addressed?

That isn't a requirement. Just because someone has a concern doesn't mean it warrants anything.

[jacee]

That isn't a requirement. Just because someone has a concern doesn't mean it warrants anything.

What about fracking in your neighbourhood?

Would you care to have a say?

[Smallc]

What about fracking in your neighbourhood?

Would you care to have a say?

What about it? Who am I exactly? What do I know?

[Accountability Now]

What evidence is there of that?

And what evidence is there that the concerns of local communities have been addressed?

Global has an article which also has a copy of the recent injunction removal. In this document it discusses how SWN went through the process of Duty to Consult for the testing. They even did a Final Duty to Consult with the aboriginals. Here have a read http://globalnews.ca/news/915092/judge-rules-not-to-extend-swn-injunction-against-shale-gas-protesters/

What concerns do the community have about exploring the region for oil/natural gas? That's all they were doing...exploring! It's like I already said...if and when they decide to frack then that will open up a whole new consultation process that will require much greater depth. They can address their concerns again at that point.

[jacee]

What about it? Who am I exactly? What do I know?

Way to waffle, smallc.

Do you know what colour you like your tap water?

How many millions of litres of water can your local aquifer afford to lose?

This is 'exploratory' fracking:

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/mobile/fracking-opposition-quiet-but-vigilant-in-n-s-town-1.1517388

In 2007 and 2008, a Denver-based company called Triangle Petroleum fracked three exploratory wells in the Kennetcook area.Almost six years later, millions of litres of briny, contaminated water line holding ponds at two of the three sites, and the company and province have long been at odds on how to clean it.

...

I know a lady in the village, after they started fracking, her water turned to an orangey colour, says resident Marie Anthony.

I'm pretty sure most people near fracking sites would be very concerned.

.

[Smallc]

So what if they are? Do we stop the world because some people are concerned?

[jacee]

Global has an article which also has a copy of the recent injunction removal. In this document it discusses how SWN went through the process of Duty to Consult for the testing. They even did a Final Duty to Consult with the aboriginals. Here have a read http://globalnews.ca/news/915092/judge-rules-not-to-extend-swn-injunction-against-shale-gas-protesters/

Read it again.

It doesn't say there was any consultation with First Nations.

It says the province didn't think it was necessary. Obviously the First Nation disagreed, but was not consulted.

What concerns do the community have about exploring the region for oil/natural gas? That's all they were doing...exploring!

See above post.

It's like I already said...if and when they decide to frack then that will open up a whole new consultation process that will require much greater depth. They can address their concerns again at that point.

For sure.