Trudeau government at pains to explain Pacific Northwest LNG

[?Impact]

Iwe can't really do much better without hurting everyone.

We can do a lot better, and nobody will be hurt by our efforts. It is your do nothing attitude that is destroying the world. Get off you lazy assets and accomplish something.

[PIK]

How??? There is life outside of cities, in case you did not know. Ontario has already proved to how much damage can be done when fools are making the rules.

[Smallc]

PIKs logic can be applied to everything in life. It's so simple. Progress could come to a grinding halt. Why bother with...anything?

[Argus]

We can do a lot better, and nobody will be hurt by our efforts. It is your do nothing attitude that is destroying the world. Get off you lazy assets and accomplish something.

Like destroying our economy for nothing?

[Argus]

PIKs logic can be applied to everything in life. It's so simple. Progress could come to a grinding halt. Why bother with...anything?

And your logic says spending hundreds of billions for no actual result just means a job well done.

[?Impact]

Like destroying our economy for nothing?

There is only one true economy, that is our environment. The rest is artificial.

[Argus]

There is only one true economy, that is our environment. The rest is artificial.

You are doing literally NOTHING for our environment.

[eyeball]

He's recognizing it which apparently is a giant leap for you.

[PIK]

I would bet we are carbon neutral or close to it, with the forest in this country. Most people fly what do you see from up there.

Edited October 3, 2016 by PIK

[Smoke]

I would bet we are carbon neutral or close to it, with the forest in this country. Most people fly what do you see from up there.

You may be on to something there PIK

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

[jacee]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-child-welfare-program-offer-to-first-nation-backfires-over-lng-ties/article21101169/?click=sf_globefb#dashboard/follows/

The Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have returned a cheque to the province and have backed away from a proposed agreement on the pipeline after the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation linked its LNG offer to continued funding for vulnerable children in the northern coastal community.

 

 

[TimG]

14 minutes ago, jacee said:

The Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have returned a cheque to the province and have backed away from a proposed agreement on the pipeline after the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation linked its LNG offer to continued funding for vulnerable children in the northern coastal community.

Good that someone in government in drawing the link between resource development and money to fund programs.

These leeches need to learn that they can't get something for nothing.
If they want taxpayers in the urban centers to fund their lifestyle they need to contribute back.

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

 

These leeches need to learn that they can't get something for nothing.

I imagine there's a few Wet'suet'en who probably feel the same way about Victoria.

[jacee]

That.

 

[TimG]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I imagine there's a few Wet'suet'en who probably feel the same way about Victoria.

They are the one's asking for money.
If they don't want development on their lands then fine. They don't get any financial support from outside.
They can live off the land like they used to without heating or treated water or medical care.

Why should the rest of the country support them?

Edited October 18, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

18 minutes ago, TimG said:

They are the one's asking for money.
If they don't want development on their lands then fine. They don't get any financial support from outside.
They can live off the land like they used to without heating or treated water or medical care.

Why should the rest of the country support them?

Why should they support the rest of the country?

.

[TimG]

44 minutes ago, jacee said:

Why should they support the rest of the country?

Why can't they take care of their own children? Why is it up to Victoria to provide funding for 'children at risk'?
 

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, TimG said:

Why is it up to Victoria to provide funding for 'children at risk'?
 

The blanket answer is it is up to Ottawa and not Victoria, but BC joined Confederation later and perhaps there are different treaties involved.

[TimG]

38 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The blanket answer is it is up to Ottawa and not Victoria, but BC joined Confederation later and perhaps there are different treaties involved.

You miss the point. These remote communities cannot maintain a modern lifestyle without outside funds. All of the native groups seem to think they should be given as much money as they need to support their lifestyle in the middle of nowhere yet they think they can also block the projects that generate the wealth needed to provide them funding.

Why should the government provide them funding if they are so intransigent?

Edited October 18, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

You miss the point.

No, I am well aware of the point. Are you suggesting that treaty obligations are irrelevant? That sounds like Trump, we can renegotiate later and screw them.

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No, I am well aware of the point. Are you suggesting that treaty obligations are irrelevant? That sounds like Trump, we can renegotiate later and screw them.

There are no 'treaties' signed with most native bands in BC which means there are no specific obligations or promises. The system in place evolved over time where they were assumed to be wards of the federal government and the government did what it needed to do with the lands they claimed. The legal framework fleshed out by the SCC has imposed a number of fiduciary obligations on the federal government but the SCC has also allowed the federal government to pursue projects in the public interest on claimed lands without their permission (subject to certain requirements like advance consultation).

IOW - it is reciprocal relationship. If the natives think they can block development of important projects then I don't see why the federal government should be supporting their lifestyle. 

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, TimG said:

There are no 'treaties' signed with most native bands in BC which means there are no specific obligations or promises.

Actually that is the worst situation, because it essentially means nothing was ever ceded. 

[TimG]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Actually that is the worst situation, because it essentially means nothing was ever ceded. 

At what does that really mean in practice? Nothing. The lands are part of Canada. 
The SCC has outlined a process for dealing with bands that have no treaties and this process allows the government to infringe on claimed lands when there is a public interest and the government has attempted to accommodate concerns of bands claiming the lands.

IOW - the relationship is reciprocal. Natives don't get to take government money without accepting the price that comes with that money. That price is the government can overrule their objections for some projects on the lands they claim.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, TimG said:

You miss the point. These remote communities cannot maintain a modern lifestyle without outside funds. All of the native groups seem to think they should be given as much money as they need to support their lifestyle in the middle of nowhere yet they think they can also block the projects that generate the wealth needed to provide them funding.

Why should the government provide them funding if they are so intransigent?

All vulnerable children in Canada are entitled to the same support. Withholding funds for children to force a community to support a gas pipeline would be pretty lowlife behaviour ... about normal for Canada's track record with Indigenous Nations.

Starving children to force adults to 'sign zee paper' ... We've heard that story before:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/06/10/canada_starved_aboriginal_people_into_submission_goar.html

I think instead, we should withhold Children's Aid funding from municipalities that fail to provide Nestle with free access to water for their bottled profit.

Yep ... The way of the future in the TimG 'white nation'.

Starve the children ... for profit!! 

Lot of potential there ... 

We could starve the old people! ... and the puppies too ... !

/sarcasm

Edited October 18, 2016 by jacee
Reminder that TimG is a 'white nationalist'

[TimG]

24 minutes ago, jacee said:

All vulnerable children in Canada are entitled to the same support.

It is not about vulnerable children and you know that. This is just the latest excuse to get money from the government. If it was not 'vulnerable children' it would have been something else. These native bands constantly harping about how they want self government but only if someone else pays for it. Yet despite having their lifestyle subsidized for years they refuse to show any flexibility when Canada decides it needs to develop the industry that is needed to pay for those benefits. Sorry, I don't have much sympathy.