On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 How so in relation to Canadian property law? Well it's kinda like this. Let's say the province wants to build a highway and it goes right through your house. If the province can prove that it is in the interest the community, you can't really stop them. And of course you have to get fair market value. That's the bar that has to be cleared under the new law. If you are Enbridge you have now to prove the same thing. Not just profit margins. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Well it's kinda like this. Let's say the province wants to build a highway and it goes right through your house. If the province can prove that it is in the interest the community, you can't really stop them. And of course you have to get fair market value. That's the bar that has to be cleared under the new law. If you are Enbridge you have now to prove the same thing. Not just profit margins. Not quite, Canadian Governments (Federal, Provincial and Municipal) can and do legislate laws and regulations that allow them to expropriate property……..Canadians do not have a guarantee to property enshrined in the Charter. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Not quite, Canadian Governments (Federal, Provincial and Municipal) can and do legislate laws and regulations that allow them to expropriate property……..Canadians do not have a guarantee to property enshrined in the Charter. I just said that. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 I just said that. No you didn't: Well it's kinda like this. Let's say the province wants to build a highway and it goes right through your house. If the province can prove that it is in the interest the community, you can't really stop them. And of course you have to get fair market value. That's the bar that has to be cleared under the new law. If you are Enbridge you have now to prove the same thing. Not just profit margins. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Which part of that didn't you get? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Which part of that didn't you get? I “get” property and conveyance law……..more then you will with Google.......If you want an adult discussion on property rights in Canada, I will gladly oblige (in it‘s own thread), but I won’t entertain your regurgitated contributions…….For a starting point, if you’re interested, go here: http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Property-Guide-Canadas-Law/dp/0779813669 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 I “get” property and conveyance law……..more then you will with Google.......If you want an adult discussion on property rights in Canada, I will gladly oblige (in it‘s own thread), but I won’t entertain your regurgitated contributions…….For a starting point, if you’re interested, go here: http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Property-Guide-Canadas-Law/dp/0779813669 I'm only "regurgitating" what the SCC sais today. Go convince them of your knowledge. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 I'm only "regurgitating" what the SCC sais today. Go convince them of your knowledge. Oh of that there is no doubt, nor argument from myself…….What is apparent though, you don’t understand the meaning nor eventual application of this ruling........... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 I'm only "regurgitating" what the SCC sais today. Go convince them of your knowledge. Harper keeps bashing his head against the SC and he keeps losing. Maybe he should step aside so we can get things done. Quote
Smallc Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 It's like this - when you own property, the government can take it and use it by a) buying it from you b ) convincing you to partner with them - getting your consent, or c ) take it from you if it's for something deemed essential. Derek is right. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 It's like this - when you own property, the government can take it and use it by a) buying it from you b ) convincing you to partner with them - getting your consent, or c ) take it from you if it's for something deemed essential. Derek is right. "Deemed essential" there you go. Quote
Smallc Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 What he's saying is that aboriginal treaty rights have become simply property rights. This ruling would seem to bare that out. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 What he's saying is that aboriginal treaty rights have become simply property rights. This ruling would seem to bare that out. Not quite the strength of the property rights you have if you are named on title of your home in downtown somewhere Canada, but closer to it than it was before todays ruling. Quote
jacee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Not quite the strength of the property rights you have if you are named on title of your home in downtown somewhere Canada, but closer to it than it was before todays ruling.In some ways ... remains to be seen in the courts.But in fact if the government wants our property for resource or infrastructure, etc, they can take it ... for their version of "fair" (ie, depressed) market value. They need consent to use Aboriginal title land, or demonstrate in court a compelling and substantial need. So ... Aboriginal title is stronger than our property 'title' in that respect. Another point of interest re Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline: I read yesterday that financial markets are not using Northern Gateway in calculating Enbridge's estimated future earnings (for investors), because there are "too many obstacles". 209 conditions is as good as a "no". . Edited June 27, 2014 by jacee Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 In some ways ... remains to be seen in the courts. But in fact if the government wants our property for resource or infrastructure, etc, they can take it ... for their version of "fair" (ie, depressed) market value. They need consent to use Aboriginal title land, or demonstrate in court a compelling and substantial need. So ... Aboriginal title is stronger than our property 'title' in that respect. Another point of interest re Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline: I read yesterday that financial markets are not using Northern Gateway in calculating Enbridge's estimated future earnings (for investors), because there are "too many obstacles". 209 conditions is as good as a "no". . One of my "to do's" is to read that 209 item list but, I'd say if "Wall Street" has come to that conclusion I may just move that job a little further down my list. Quote
jacee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 One of my "to do's" is to read that 209 item list but, I'd say if "Wall Street" has come to that conclusion I may just move that job a little further down my list. Ya I'd take it off your list for now ... unless 60+ First Nations suddenly decide they desperately need it ! Not likely, since they now have even more power to refuse. . Quote
jacee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Or if they're given enough money.... Another lowlife slam. How mature. . Quote
Smallc Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Anyone is for sale for the right price. How is that a slam? Edited June 27, 2014 by Smallc Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Or if they're given enough money.... That, or the price of LNG drops. Quote
jacee Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Anyone is for sale for the right price.Who bought you?How much? Edited June 27, 2014 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted June 27, 2014 Report Posted June 27, 2014 Everyone buys me. I have a business. I'm also willing to look at the other side. Quote
Topaz Posted June 28, 2014 Report Posted June 28, 2014 I wonder if Harper and Enridge will spent more time this summer talking to lawyers and not on the barQ scene? This decision must have really peeved him off. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) Everyone buys me. I have a business. I'm also willing to look at the other side. I wonder if they are.......with a projected $86 million in direct annual tax revenue for BC and Alberta, I truly wonder if they are actually paying attention to the other side……For instance, the new acute care center at BC Children’s Hospital will be ~$530 million dollar bill, or could be paid for by tax revenues to the Province from Northern Gateway over 6-7 years…Another example, the BCTF has estimated the need for ~$250 million in additional funding to address class size and composition in BC schools, with the Province only able to offer $75 million…..Tax revenues from Northern Gateway might not solve all of BC’s education or healthcare woes, but would sure go a long way in helping… Edited June 28, 2014 by Derek 2.0 Quote
jacee Posted June 28, 2014 Report Posted June 28, 2014 I wonder if they are.......with a projected $86 million in direct annual tax revenue for BC and Alberta, I truly wonder if they are actually paying attention to the other sideFor instance, the new acute care center at BC Childrens Hospital will be ~$530 million dollar bill, or could be paid for by tax revenues to the Province from Northern Gateway over 6-7 yearsAnother example, the BCTF has estimated the need for ~$250 million in additional funding to address class size and composition in BC schools, with the Province only able to offer $75 million..Tax revenues from Northern Gateway might not solve all of BCs education or healthcare woes, but would sure go a long way in helping I'm sure they're aware of that. Does that include costs of spill cleanup and destruction? Because I expect they're considering that too. . Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.