Kinder Morgan and Burnaby

[Hassel99]

Can you please define unceded first nations land for me please? Is this land not under the domain of the federal and province and municipal governments as per their respective jurisdiction?

[Hassel99]

No one is able to define unceded first nations land?

[hobbyguy]

I would guess it means that no treaty has been reached. But that's just a guess. If no treaty, no ceded lands...

[A_Britishcolumbian]

Can you please define unceded first nations land for me please? Is this land not under the domain of the federal and province and municipal governments as per their respective jurisdiction?

hey hansell99, great question.

cede - Give up (power or territory) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/cede

so unceded would mean to have never 'given up'. a first nation 'gives up' the land when they enter a treaty to that effect. no treaty, no 'federal' , 'provincial', 'regional' or 'municipal' jurisdiction. it would be a first nations jurisdiction solely.

[sale4u]

I'm confused as to why these "protesters" don't get on their bicycles and battery operated cars and go to the root of the problem...the tar sands. Oh wait, I guess it's easier to grab a latte and walk over and *bleep* at the poor guys just doing their job, trying to feed their families, instead of putting some true effort into their cause.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

think global, act local.

[twobits]

I'm confused as to why these "protesters" don't get on their bicycles and battery operated cars and go to the root of the problem...the tar sands. Oh wait, I guess it's easier to grab a latte and walk over and *bleep* at the poor guys just doing their job, trying to feed their families, instead of putting some true effort into their cause.

And the guys working in the oil sands are not just doing their jobs and trying to feed their families??? I wonder how much your "entertainment" revenues would drop R if those pay cheques were not coming back to the Okanagan. What a friggen hypocritical stance to take when you jet off Mexico with those oil sands dollars in your till.

[Donald G]

To twobits ...

I find it amazing that many "complainers" and "activists" do not know enough about our Canadian Financial System to even understand how their own income, standard of living and public conveniences are directly linked to any number of things.

Its like complaining about the cattle industry and then sitting down to a juicy hamburger or steak. Lord save us from the ignorance of those who complain without even realizing their own part in the creating the problem that they are complaining about.

[hobbyguy]

It has little to with financial aspects, except that K-M screwed over the Burnaby Refinery and refused to give them pipeline priority, thereby forcing them to rely on more expensive rail and truck transport, thereby driving up gasoline prices for the folks of BC.

Well that, and it is a marginal project for Canada, the real project that will benefit all of Canada (except BC) is the Energy East project. The K-M project is all about benefits to the Chinese who were allowed to buy the tar sands...

It has to do with respecting the right of municipalities to write and enforce bylaws.

That you guys can't be bothered to read the reports, easily obtainable from CERI, is what amazes me...

[Donald G]

To hobbyguy ...

According to you it has little to do with the financial aspects?

You are a classic example of a Canadian with little to no knowledge regarding Canada's financial system. Nor the effect on Canada of the move toward a World Based Economy.

[sale4u]

You missed my point, I was trying to point out that some of these "protesters" don't understand where the real damage is being done and what the facts are of the Burnaby project (through the mountain not on it). What I find hypocritical is the fact that perhaps some of these very same people drive the road on Burnaby mountain to eat at the restaurant at the top. They weren't out there (to my knowledge) when the trees were torn down to lay that ashphalt. SOME "protesters" , I think, merely go where the camera's are instead of looking at whole picture and getting the facts.
Oh and by the way, I absolutely understand that the people (not just "guys") are just doing their job as I was one of them once. The people that should be targeted, in my opinion are the executive making the decisions and the politicians making the environmental rules.

[/quote] And the guys working in the oil sands are not just doing their jobs and trying to feed their families??? I wonder how much your "entertainment" revenues would drop R if those pay cheques were not coming back to the Okanagan. What a friggen hypocritical stance to take when you jet off Mexico with those oil sands dollars in your till.[/quote]

[hobbyguy]

Donald old chap, do not make the mistake of assuming. You know what that rule is on that.

A different perspective on economics does not mean a lack of knowledge. If you do read the CERI reports on the real economic impacts of the various projects, you will see that for Canada the best project by a long shot is Energy East. That project protects and enhances the jobs of those working in the tar sands, and at the same time protects and enhances the jobs of many, many more Canadians.

I make no apologies for being a patriotic Canadian. A "world based" economy is not a priority for me, because the benefits for Canada, except for a privileged few, aren't there. I am interested in an economy that is "Canada based", and for the benefit of Canadians first.

[twobits]

I make no apologies for being a patriotic Canadian. A "world based" economy is not a priority for me, because the benefits for Canada, except for a privileged few, aren't there. I am interested in an economy that is "Canada based", and for the benefit of Canadians first.

And you would also be a supporter of "Infant Industry Economics". They just don't work in a global economy HB. You need to drag yourself into the realities of a new global economy instead of ignoring....with arrogance...the realities of competitive advantage.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Can you please define unceded first nations land for me please? Is this land not under the domain of the federal and province and municipal governments as per their respective jurisdiction?

You need to go back to the Royal Proclemation of 1763 to really start to understand this stuff.

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-proclamation-of-1763/
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/royal-proclamation-1763.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-proclamation-of-1763-canada-s-indian-magna-carta-turns-250-1.1927667

After this happened, the Crown set out to make treaties with First Nations groups to get them to "cede" their land. Because of that, we have the Numbered Treaties. Most of Canada is covered by these treaties, except for British Columbia. I can't remember the reference but as I understand it, the BC governor of the day (1800s) didn't have much interest in "Indians" and didn't negotiate any treaties. There are a couple of early treaties on Vancouver Island, and of course the more recent Nisga treaty, but BC is largely "unceded" land under the terms of the 1763 Royal Proclamation. And no, it was never repealed as far as I know so it is still law.

That's my basic understanding. If anyone would like to correct me or add to this, please feel free.

[maryjane48]

at anyrate i think that this could have all been avoided if km had simply help public meeting on what they had planned on doing. us here in bc have to much experience in dealing with foolish companies.