Stop using First Nations as anti-development props

[Anonymous]

By Anthoy Furey of Sun Media.



Last week the Ontario Court of Appeal began hearing a case where a group of Ecuadorian Indigenous peoples are suing Chevron's Canadian branch in the hopes that a Canadian court will enforce a judgment made by the Ecuadorian government against Chevron's American parent company.



The case has been dismissed by American courts, been denounced as the "legal fraud of the century" by The Wall Street Journal, and the lawyer behind it was found to have engaged in racketeering.



But it's no wonder the case has wound its way up to Canada — the original Ecuadorian settlement is $9.5 billion, the largest of its kind. In the unlikely event that they manage to pull it off, that's quite of lot of cash to go around for the plaintiffs, lawyers and investors who've been bankrolling this endeavour.



(This fascinating case goes back decades and there are books and documentaries on it, some backing Chevron, others against.)



There is one group that presumably won't share in any of the spoils though. That's Canadian First Nations. Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, was on hand last week to pose for photos with the Ecuadorians who had flown up for the two days of arguments in a Toronto courtroom.



Billions



While this is all about collecting billions for the plaintiffs (or whatever is left after the lawyers and investors take their cut), the spiffy Manhattan PR agency doing publicity for the case argues that the Toronto court proceedings are all about "the battle to strengthen the rights of Indigenous peoples everywhere". They're shamelessly trying to co-opt Canadian First Nations, their allies and environmental activists to help them collect their cash.



It's a cynical spin but it's not the first time we've seen it. In fact, a similar game is being played right now in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline dispute. There's a natural assumption that all First Nations people are against the project and the likes of Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh have no problem invoking them as props to support their own opposition to it.



The problem is it's far more nuanced than that. Yes, some First Nations are opposed. But some are firmly in support. A recent piece by Postmedia columnist Mike Smyth tells the story of Whispering Pines First Nation. The current Trans Mountain pipeline already runs across their land. They currently receive $300,000 yearly for the right of way and this is set to double once the pipeline is twinned. Plus they'll be receiving $5 million that'll be held in trust with the annual interest used for community programs.



"We need that revenue," Chief Mike Lebourdais told Smyth. "If they shoot us in the foot on this, I'd like to know if that revenue will come from John Horgan."



Lebourdais is one of the pipeline's most vocal supporters and Whispering Pines is one of 33 First Nations that have signed mutual benefit agreements, an underreported fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau drew attention to during his media remarks last Sunday.



Meanwhile, Maureen Thomas, chief of the Tsleil-waututh Nation, is one of the leaders most vocally opposed to the project. She's in a slightly different position than Lebourdais though. While the Tsleil-waututh Nation's Burrard Inlet 3 reserve is very close to where the pipeline concludes in Burnaby, it doesn't run across any of their land.



So you have situations where First Nations most directly affected by the pipeline support it and those nearby but not actually on it opposing it. If this tells us anything it's that perhaps progressive politicians and activists should stop rolling out any sentence that begins with "First Nations oppose..." because to suggest there's unity on the issue just isn't true.



While there's something of a national conversation going on right now about "cultural appropriation" and stereotypes as it relates to First Nations in arts & culture, where's the condemnation for this stereotyping of Aboriginal attitudes to economic growth?



The Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business reported in a recent survey that back in 2011 there were 43,000 small businesses run by Aboriginal Canadians, with only 10% of these being start-ups. The number one grievance of these business owners? They need greater access to equity and funding to keep on growing.



Since we know the Aboriginal population is young and growing, maybe our politicians and activists should stop just using First Nations as anti-development props and instead support the progrowth attitudes that are clearly alive and well in their communities.

[Anonymous]

By Brian Lee Crowley of the MacDonald Laurier Institute.

Expect civil disobedience as the next step in Trans Mountain dispute



Here is the bad news for those who think the current spat between BC and Alberta over the Trans Mountain pipeline is the final hurdle before the project is completed: You ain't seen nothin' yet.



When all is said and done, BC will eventually have to recognise that it must act within the law – and the law here is firmly on Ottawa's side. The courts have already made crystal clear that the federal government makes decisions about infrastructure, like pipelines and railways, that crosses provincial boundaries.



Yet the province of BC isn't the last obstacle to be overcome on the road to pipeline construction. Even once BC accepts it must obey the law, we still need to deal with the hardline environmental movement. People who are unmoved by arguments based on our legal and constitutional processes by which we resolve disputes and who do not accept that those on the losing end of such arguments must nevertheless respect the democratic process and the rule of law.



It is vital to underline that this is a completely different matter than First Nations' concerns, which are still being dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the constitution, parliament and the courts. Indigenous concerns, although much more diverse than portrayed in the media, are separate from the thrust of environmental protests.



Indeed, First Nations that support responsible development and want to use their legitimate power to negotiate a piece of the action have every interest in ensuring that these disputes are settled within the framework of the law. They will suffer more than most if investment in the natural resource economy is driven away by political uncertainty.



Neutralize



Returning to the environmental movement, suppose the prime minister manages to neutralise Premier John Horgan. Then you can be 100 percent certain the gloves will come off. What happens next is easy to foresee. The environmental movement will unleash a large-scale campaign of civil disobedience and more.



It could take many forms but let's assume that it aims to reach a crescendo at the moment of maximum political leverage – namely the 2019 federal election.



The campaign will have two messages. The first arises from the hostage to fortune given by then opposition leader Justin Trudeau, who ill-advisedly claimed that "governments issue permits but communities give permission." That endorses the view that disaffected communities who don't win their argument governments, tribunals and courts, nonetheless have the final say over projects they dislike.



The prime minister will be roundly and loudly accused of hypocrisy and the abandonment of the environmentalists whose support he so assiduously courted in the last election. The political message in 2019 will be loud and clear.



The campaign's second message will be how the refusnik groups are so incensed that they are willing to risk jail and fines to make their opposition effective. One need not recruit that many protesters in absolute numbers from the 2.5 million people in the Lower Mainland to make the nightly news. Nothing would make pipeline opponents happier than to see the federal government and the RCMP throwing scores, if not hundreds, of protesters into paddy wagons in the lead-up to Election Day 2019.



Heated environment



In this heated environment, acts of violence, sabotage and civil disobedience will be deployed in order to make such confrontations unavoidable. Fences will be scaled, bodies chained to equipment, roads blocked, cars and trucks vandalised.



If, when this crucial moment comes, the prime minister doesn't have the stomach to see off the activists and protesters, it won't just be the Trans Mountain pipeline that will suffer. The message that will go out to investors everywhere is that even when legal businesses have the active support of the public authorities, intimidation by radicalised minorities can and will win the day.



The fact that Ottawa may financially backstop the project is irrelevant. Companies don't want compensation for failed projects. They want certainty that if they respect the law they will be allowed to do their work. The stakes couldn't be higher.

[Anonymous]

Trans Mountain not in the clear yet



This week Trans Mountain pipeline got some good news from a major pollster, some maybe good news (maybe not) from the Supreme Court and some bad news from the company wanting to build the $7.4-billion line, Kinder Morgan.



Let's start with the good news: After months of controversy, the pipeline is actually more popular with Canadians than it was before. According to the Angus Reid Institute, even a slim majority of British Columbians favour building the project. Back in February, before the trade war and war of words commenced between the Alberta and B.C. governments, support for Kinder Morgan was at nearly 49 per cent nationwide, compared to 40 per cent opposition. The rest were unsure. Now, even despite the heated news coverage, angry protests, wine bans and appeals to courts to reject/uphold the federally approved pipeline, nationwide support for Trans Mountain has risen six percentage points to 55 per cent, while opposition has fallen to 38 per cent. Even in B.C., support has risen from 48 per cent two months ago to 54 per cent now. Support is lowest in Vancouver proper and highest in the Interior, where most of the pipe would be laid. (This latter finding — that 60 per cent or more of residents along the route are in favour is perhaps not surprising since they and their communities stand to benefit the most economically.)



What is surprising is that even among Vancouverites, 50 per cent support building Trans Mountain, versus less than 40 per cent who are against.



British Columbians have concerns — mostly about potential tanker spills. But if those concerns are adequately addressed, a growing number of West Coasters seem to be OK with tripling the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline. This growing public support is probably not enough to push the government of NDP Premier John Horgan over into the "yes" camp. His minority government is still being held in power by a Green party rump that would force an election if Horgan switched positions.



Still support is growing. And that, eventually, should put plenty of political pressure on Horgan and on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to get the line built. Harder to decipher is Thursday's Supreme Court ruling on interprovincial trade barriers on beer. The justices decided unanimously that provinces can erect barriers to goods from other provinces, provided their intent is not to punish other provinces. Experts are divided on whether this a good thing or a bad thing for Alberta and Trans Mountain. Ian Blue, the constitutional lawyer who unsuccessfully represented the "free-the-beer" side in court, believes Alberta can slow the flow of oil to B.C. because the court only ruled out punitive tariffs — not slowed flow. On the other hand, several other constitutional lawyers believe Thursday's ruling means B.C. might well be within its rights to reject bitumen from Alberta, if its reason for doing so is safety of its coastline. Of course, hanging over all of this is an announcement this week from Kinder Morgan that despite all the polls, prime ministerial meetings and court decisions, the project still seems "untenable" to investors. Trans Mountain ain't outta the woods yet.

[Anonymous]

It's a myth that First Nations oppose resource development.

[Bricktop]

Leftards will do ANYTHING to achieve their political aims. They will use any minority, perceived (or actual) social injustice, cause or reason to destroy the world as we know it.



They will even pervert YOUR children to their doctrines.

[Anonymous]

It's all a big money libtard scam.

Ever wonder why the same people seem to show up at pipeline protests, climate change demonstrations, protests against West Coast tanker traffic, and vocalize loudly against so-called dirty oil produced by the Alberta oil sands? While a flippant answer might be, "they're professional protesters and have nothing better to do," the more accurate response is that these protests are not grass-roots affairs organized from some hipster's basement apartment. They are in fact extremely well-funded and orchestrated events where the money can all be traced back to the Tar Sands Campaign.

 

Launched in 2008 by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Tides Foundation, the Tar Sands Campaign is an international initiative designed to stop expansion of the Canadian oil industry, reduce demand for Canadian oil sands crude in the US and stop or stall pipeline and port construction. The goal is to shut down the export of oil from Western Canada by pipeline, tanker and rail.

According to her analysis, over a dozen US foundations granted at least $75 million for initiatives to stymie the Canadian energy sector between 2009 and 2013. The biggest beneficiaries were First Nations including those that opposed Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project. She said US tax returns show two coastal First Nations received US$27.3 million in one mega-grant to pay for "Mobilizing First Nations Against Climate Change in B.C.

http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2018/04/02/following-big-us-money-behind-canadian-pipeline-protests">http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/indep ... e-protests">http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2018/04/02/following-big-us-money-behind-canadian-pipeline-protests

[Anonymous]

It's all a big money libtard scam.

Ever wonder why the same people seem to show up at pipeline protests, climate change demonstrations, protests against West Coast tanker traffic, and vocalize loudly against so-called dirty oil produced by the Alberta oil sands? While a flippant answer might be, "they're professional protesters and have nothing better to do," the more accurate response is that these protests are not grass-roots affairs organized from some hipster's basement apartment. They are in fact extremely well-funded and orchestrated events where the money can all be traced back to the oil sands Campaign.

 

Launched in 2008 by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Tides Foundation, the oil sands Campaign is an international initiative designed to stop expansion of the Canadian oil industry, reduce demand for Canadian oil sands crude in the US and stop or stall pipeline and port construction. The goal is to shut down the export of oil from Western Canada by pipeline, tanker and rail.

According to her analysis, over a dozen US foundations granted at least $75 million for initiatives to stymie the Canadian energy sector between 2009 and 2013. The biggest beneficiaries were First Nations including those that opposed Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline project. She said US tax returns show two coastal First Nations received US$27.3 million in one mega-grant to pay for "Mobilizing First Nations Against Climate Change in B.C.

http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2018/04/02/following-big-us-money-behind-canadian-pipeline-protests">http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/indep ... e-protests">http://www.stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2018/04/02/following-big-us-money-behind-canadian-pipeline-protests

I read about this.

[Berry Sweet]

First Nations will do anything for money.  They have nothing to show for it.