Jump to content

BC NDP are going to give FNs a veto over land use in BC


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah it does.  Sorry.   First nations may have an interest in it  but it belongs to the crown. Still called crown land :) 

In the Crown's mind I'm sure but this little interest thingy is considerably different now. You shouldn't expect much sympathy with your attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

In the Crown's mind I'm sure but this little interest thingy is considerably different now. You shouldn't expect much sympathy with your attitude.

No, it's largely in keeping with what has been in the past.

ANd what goes around comes around. If first nations start blocking things in their areas unreasonably then all kinds of interests will pull out.  And suddenly there's no work, nowhere even to buy groceries, not much in teh way of votes for politicians to worry about... guess what happens then.

Trans people though they could throw their wait around and do anything they wanted.  Read any alberta papers today? Or from a number of other provinces? Eventually if you eff around too much you find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They'll be back. The things they need aren't going anywhere.

Sure they do.  Alberta found that out in the 80s

And why would they be back?  if the natives wouldn't deal first time no point in a second time.

and evnetually the things that are needed won't be needed any more.  And if they're needed THAT badly - the laws will change and they'll find out what effing around gets.

They'll get a reasonable say here, if they abuse it they'll wind up with nothing. You've heard the story of the beggar with the sack and the gold giving fairy right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/1/2024 at 1:29 PM, blackbird said:

They have “the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired … to own, use, develop and control.”

FNs are only 5% of the population;  yet they will have a veto on how the rest of the population of BC uses the land.

 

What difference does it make that they are only 5% ????

The Canadian Government can bring even more immigrants to wash this down to 1% or 0.5% and it still makes no difference.

If something is yours , it is yours, regardless how many people want to make use of it or take it from under your feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cougar said:

What difference does it make that they are only 5% ????

The Canadian Government can bring even more immigrants to wash this down to 1% or 0.5% and it still makes no difference.

If something is yours , it is yours, regardless how many people want to make use of it or take it from under your feet

You are obviously one very confused person.

A small number of natives claim thousands of square kilometers as theirs on the basis that their ancestors lived somewhere in some remote villages scattered around the province.  They never occupied or developed most of the province that they are now claiming as theirs.  It is ludicrous to think they actually have claim to the vast areas they are claiming.  They are doing it simply because they can and the  BC NDP is buying it.  They know the weakness and foolishness of the NDP leftists and are exploiting it for all they can.  They have been doing this kind of thing for years.  What is shocking is the NDP actually falls for all this crap and is giving away the province which they have absolutely no right to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2024 at 11:00 AM, herbie said:

If 'anything' always boils down to huge megaprojects that affect land use, almost impossible should be the norm.
If you want to dig up or cut trees on someone's traditional territory without giving them a say don't even think about it. It's not 1953 anymore.

Companies need some sort of certainty before they spend hundreds of millions planning a project only to have it bogged down in turf wars and frivolous court cases. If nothing else an agreement like this might allow them to walk a way before they waste a ton of money for nothing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

We aren't the only ones who have those things. Projects need to be economically viable otherwise there is no point. 

All too often project are unviable if they need to account for their impact to the environment and things that live there.  Take open pen fish farms for example.  They're supposed to be in closed containment systems on land by 2025 but they're threatening to go to another more compliant country if they''re not allowed to continue doing as they please.

Of course DFO is backing off but hopefully now we'll have people who can tell the fish farmers not to let the door hit them on the ass on their way.

Hopefully we'll be a country that doesn't have things like a distant absent accommodating government that can be easily influenced and lobbied far away from the people and regions affected by their decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

All too often project are unviable if they need to account for their impact to the environment and things that live there.  Take open pen fish farms for example.  They're supposed to be in closed containment systems on land by 2025 but they're threatening to go to another more compliant country if they''re not allowed to continue doing as they please.

Of course DFO is backing off but hopefully now we'll have people who can tell the fish farmers not to let the door hit them on the ass on their way.

Hopefully we'll be a country that doesn't have things like a distant absent accommodating government that can be easily influenced and lobbied far away from the people and regions affected by their decisions.

That's not what I am talking about, I'm referring to all the human generated costs and delays. If you want zero impact on the environment, nothing will ever get approved. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

That's not what I am talking about, I'm referring to all the human generated costs and delays. If you want zero impact on the environment, nothing will ever get approved. 

There'll always be some impact. I think the sort of delays you're talking about are mostly due to a political stubbornness that's habitual. It's almost entirely due to the deep quagmire of mistrust that's bogging virtually everything down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There'll always be some impact. I think the sort of delays you're talking about are mostly due to a political stubbornness that's habitual. It's almost entirely due to the deep quagmire of mistrust that's bogging virtually everything down. 

Political stubbornness and activism. The BC government spent a fortune on unsuccessful court challenges to TMX. FN infighting and vandalism added a lot of cost to the new gas pipeline. We are not well regarded by companies willing to put up billions for major projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The BC government spent a fortune on unsuccessful court challenges to TMX

As the people who elected them expected them to.
In reality it was chicken change as to the actual fortune spent by Ottawa to ensure it, wasn't it?

Don't tie yourself to the delusion that people must make it easy for companies, it's the other way round. People set the rules, and there's no 'corporate EI'. If they can't profit, don't. If they think they can, it's still a risk, no guarantees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

As the people who elected them expected them to.
In reality it was chicken change as to the actual fortune spent by Ottawa to ensure it, wasn't it?

Don't tie yourself to the delusion that people must make it easy for companies, it's the other way round. People set the rules, and there's no 'corporate EI'. If they can't profit, don't. If they think they can, it's still a risk, no guarantees.

IF the risk is lower elsewhere or too high for their tastes they spend their investment money somewhere else. which is what's been happening. ANd our standard of living goes down as a result.

You know all those social programs you love? Like fighting overdose deaths, and the cbc and all that? Yeah - that's the first on the chopping block as gov't revenues dry up. First nations spending will go next. Then it starts to bite into core services. 

And the very people you claim to care about, the first nations and poor, will be the ones to suffer the most as people look to care for their own families and themselves.  and gov't money dries up.

Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2024 at 8:05 AM, blackbird said:

You are obviously one very confused person.

A small number of natives claim thousands of square kilometers as theirs on the basis that their ancestors lived somewhere in some remote villages scattered around the province.  They never occupied or developed most of the province that they are now claiming as theirs.  It is ludicrous to think they actually have claim to the vast areas they are claiming.  They are doing it simply because they can and the  BC NDP is buying it.  They know the weakness and foolishness of the NDP leftists and are exploiting it for all they can.  They have been doing this kind of thing for years.  What is shocking is the NDP actually falls for all this crap and is giving away the province which they have absolutely no right to do.

Boy wait until you hear about how colonialism worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Boy wait until you hear about how colonialism worked.

I'm sure you and they are writing a fiction you hope to replace history with even as we speak.  Let me know when the disney movie comes out

The first colonials nations did not occupy all of bc. There weren't enough of them to even consider that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The first colonials nations did not occupy all of bc. There weren't enough of them to even consider that.

You know that because no one was here to 'prove it' before it got colonized. The archeologists are all leftist liars and smallpox didn't get here first.

Gee for someone who insists they're not a racist you sure grasp at straws to undermine anything that promotes Native history or might benefit existing ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herbie said:

You know that because no one was here to 'prove it' before it got colonized. The archeologists are all leftist liars and smallpox didn't get here first.

 

If your claim is that no one alive was here to prove it thus we can't know then all the first nations claims are false.  Well done :)

IF you're claim is that archeologists know - then you're also done because no archeologist claims that the first nations settled on even a small percentage of the land.  At best they'd traverse it once in a while but given the population they just didn't settle all the lands they claim and archeology doesn't support that. Their claims are based on 'oral tradition'.

And i have no idea what you're talking about with smallpox.  I doubt you do either , you seem to just have these little meltdowns regularly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You always seem to have trouble understanding what people are saying unless you can nitpick some detail into claiming they said what they didn't.
But you're right in one thing, Natives didn't "settle" the land, they just lived on it. You are the settler that paid someone and 'claims' ownership of a chunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, herbie said:

You always seem to have trouble understanding what people are saying unless you can nitpick some detail into claiming they said what they didn't.

Your communications problems and lack of adult language skills are not my problem nor my fault.

I repeat what you say. If you meant to say something different, then say what you mean.

33 minutes ago, herbie said:

But you're right in one thing, Natives didn't "settle" the land, they just lived on it.

Natives settled ON the land, they didn't settle the land. Correct. But that's not what they claim in court.'

ANd yep - now we own it. Try and take it back - see what happens ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This whole notion that natives are less warring, less colonial, less oppressive, and more peaceful than other humans is stupid and wrong.  Giving a veto to non-taxpayers is stupid.  BC is a silly jurisdiction that would have no economic heft if it wasn’t for its nice geography that makes it a retirement mecca.  It’s drug-infested and over-priced.  They’re totally uncritical about the Indigenous people there, who kept slaves and were one of the most brutal peoples in the Americas.  Read about the tortures and slaughters that took place between tribes historically.  It’s not pretty.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Giving a veto to non-taxpayers is stupid.

It's smart if you want to dilute the influence that corporations have on land use decisions made behind closed doors. Corporations who all too often use the same process to lobby for tax breaks and subsidies.

This roots the decision making process much closer to the people and communities that are most affected by the decisions.

Oh, and I don't know where you live but since treaties First Nations here pay taxes like the rest of us.

Edited by eyeball
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's smart if you want to dilute the influence that corporations have on land use decisions made behind closed doors. Corporations who all too often use the same process to lobby for tax breaks and subsidies.

This roots the decision making process much closer to the people and communities that are most affected by the decisions.

Oh, and I don't know where you live but since treaties First Nations here pay taxes like the rest of us.

It’s a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.  Good luck with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...