All First Nation reserves in support of Kinder Morgan

[Gone_Fishin]

So why is Horgan denying FN the chance to participate in the project? Why is Horgan so bigoted toward FN people? Why doesn't Horgan want FN people to succeed?


All First Nations crossed by Trans Mountain pipeline route in support of project: Kinder Morgan

By Deborah Jaremko

Since federal approval was granted in late November, twelve new Aboriginal communities have affirmed their support for the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, says Kinder Morgan Canada.

There are now 51 Aboriginal communities that have signed mutual benefit agreements with the project valued at more than $400 million.

This includes all of the First Nations whose reserves the pipeline crosses and about 80 percent of communities within proximity to the pipeline right-of-way, the company says. The 51 agreements include 10 in Alberta and 41 in B.C.


snip

"To me, these MBAs represent not only an agreement to share opportunity and provide prosperity, but a symbol and recognition of a shared respect,” Anderson said.

Kinder Morgan says it engaged with 133 Aboriginal communities, and the majority that the project crosses--either pipeline or tanker--have signed on.

The pipeline crosses nine First Nations Reserves in British Columbia, all of which Trans Mountain has agreements with.

http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2016/1 ... er-morgan/

[Urbane]

^^ Horgan is fighting the federal government, the Alberta provincial government, and First Nations. And he's fighting against the majority of British Columbians who are in favour of the pipeline project. That's not good government.

[flamingfingers]

Hmmm.... well now:

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/kinder-morgan-oil-pipeline-nowhere/

[hobbyguy]

^^ How about something factual for a change? And a link that works...

[flamingfingers]

https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/kin ... e-nowhere/

Berger’s argument appeared to be that the GIC should have provided the reasons for its conclusion.

He also repeated the criticism that “Alberta gets the lion’s share of the benefits” from the expansion.

“B.C. bears the entire risk of the effects of marine spills,” Berger said.

[Merry]

The following was taken from an article about the Energy East pipeline, but it applies just as much to the Kinder Morgan one and is worth the read:

premiers have no constitutional basis to be making conditions, demands or anything else on this pipeline, and they play a dangerous game in attempting to do so.

The constitutional position is remarkably clear. The text of Canada's Constitution specifically puts interprovincial transportation in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. A long line of cases recognize that interprovincial pipelines are a mode of transportation. The case law has also long been clear that provinces cannot exercise their jurisdiction in ways that interfere with interprovincial transportation.

The Supreme Court of Canada established a definitive position in 1954 in a case called Campbell-Bennett v. Comstock Midwestern. It ruled that provinces could not interfere with interprovincial pipelines. Even though provinces could normally create legal mechanisms like liens for the enforcement of debts, the court held, they could not create mechanics' liens that would apply to pipelines. Provincial laws could not be permitted to even risk interfering with interprovincial transportation infrastructure.

In other interprovincial transportation contexts, there have been other definitive rulings that provinces cannot interfere and even that provinces must make provincial Crown land available for federally approved projects. Such statements have been repeated over the decades. They are implicit in the recent determination of the National Energy Board that the City of Burnaby cannot take steps at a municipal level to interfere with the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

These constitutional principles were the bases on which Canada was built. Had every province felt free to interfere with every interprovincial transportation project at will – or even to threaten it under the guise of unconstitutional "conditions" – there very possibly would have been no national railways and no Canada to speak of.

Part of being part of a federation is that there is an acceptance of the definitive role of the national government making decisions on major matters of the national transportation network – in this case, through the careful analysis of the National Energy Board, which functions as an administrative tribunal independent of political influence. Every element of the national transportation network will create some inconvenience in somebody's backyard, but the building of a country cannot be held hostage to the not-in-my-backyard syndrome that so quickly arises in any discussion.

Ontario and Quebec long benefited from the national railways in the context of a national federation. Today, Alberta and Saskatchewan need to be able to transport their oil to market, and it is shameful if provinces that long benefited from the very same principles now act on some pretense as if they did not exist.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe- ... e21887449/

[Ian_Stephen]

January 2016 on the Northern Gateway project (a project with clear parallels to Kinder Morgan's) the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in Coastal First Nations v. British Columbia (Environment) that British Columbia “has legal responsibilities, social and political goals and other important objectives that are unique to this province” and that “This Project is clearly distinguishable from past division of powers jurisprudence dealing with aviation or telecommunications; the proposed Project, while interprovincial, is not national and it disproportionately impacts the interests of British Columbians. To disallow any provincial environmental regulation over the Project because it engages a federal undertaking would significantly limit the Province's ability to protect social, cultural and economic interests in its lands and waters.”

As to "all First Nations reserves" they've also routed around reserves so to take the remaining ones they cross as particularly meaningful may be misleading. Certainly Secwepemc, Clearwater, Stó:lō (16 nations working together), Tsleil-waututh, Squamish who are all right on the route have been vocal in their opposition, and those are just the ones I know off top of head. I don't know how the mutual benefit agreements with First Nations work but when Kinder Morgan was negotiating Community Benefit agreements with municipalities they were saying that the agreements were to compensate for disruption during construction and that signing one did not indicate support for the project. Despite that assurance Chiliwack declined the deal until after the NEB hearing for project approval specifically to avoid giving the impression of support during that hearing.

[Snman]

This article is not new but it does display the arrogance of Horgan and Heyman. Worse still, also Weaver. "Trans Mountain will never be built," Weaver said. "I'm convinced of that". Who does Weaver think he is? He accused Trudeau of bullying British Columbia. These are the clowns running the province? Yikes!!

http://www.theprovince.com/business/joi ... story.html

[Cactusflower]

The following was taken from an article about the Energy East pipeline, but it applies just as much to the Kinder Morgan one and is worth the read:

premiers have no constitutional basis to be making conditions, demands or anything else on this pipeline, and they play a dangerous game in attempting to do so.

The constitutional position is remarkably clear. The text of Canada's Constitution specifically puts interprovincial transportation in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. A long line of cases recognize that interprovincial pipelines are a mode of transportation. The case law has also long been clear that provinces cannot exercise their jurisdiction in ways that interfere with interprovincial transportation.

The Supreme Court of Canada established a definitive position in 1954 in a case called Campbell-Bennett v. Comstock Midwestern. It ruled that provinces could not interfere with interprovincial pipelines. Even though provinces could normally create legal mechanisms like liens for the enforcement of debts, the court held, they could not create mechanics' liens that would apply to pipelines. Provincial laws could not be permitted to even risk interfering with interprovincial transportation infrastructure.

In other interprovincial transportation contexts, there have been other definitive rulings that provinces cannot interfere and even that provinces must make provincial Crown land available for federally approved projects. Such statements have been repeated over the decades. They are implicit in the recent determination of the National Energy Board that the City of Burnaby cannot take steps at a municipal level to interfere with the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

These constitutional principles were the bases on which Canada was built. Had every province felt free to interfere with every interprovincial transportation project at will – or even to threaten it under the guise of unconstitutional "conditions" – there very possibly would have been no national railways and no Canada to speak of.

Part of being part of a federation is that there is an acceptance of the definitive role of the national government making decisions on major matters of the national transportation network – in this case, through the careful analysis of the National Energy Board, which functions as an administrative tribunal independent of political influence. Every element of the national transportation network will create some inconvenience in somebody's backyard, but the building of a country cannot be held hostage to the not-in-my-backyard syndrome that so quickly arises in any discussion.

Ontario and Quebec long benefited from the national railways in the context of a national federation. Today, Alberta and Saskatchewan need to be able to transport their oil to market, and it is shameful if provinces that long benefited from the very same principles now act on some pretense as if they did not exist.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe- ... e21887449/

When reading these articles, one must consider the source. The G&M article was written by a University of Saskatchewan law professor; the "Kinder Morgan Oil Pipeline to Nowhere" was an article in 'Business In Vancouver'.

IMHO, the BIV article is written by someone who has his finger on the pulse of British Columbia. The KM expansion cannot be compared to the transcontinental railways of yore. For one thing, this is a pipeline that is basically transporting diluted bitumen from Alberta to the US and Asia. Very little of this product will be refined in B.C., but will be shipped to Cherry Point, WA, refined there and then sold back to British Columbians. Much of it will also be shipped via tanker across the Pacific Ocean. It's ludicrous to think this oil pipeline will break the ties that bind this country together.

If the federal government thinks B.C. is somehow in contravention of the Canadian constitution, then I suggest an amendment be made to the constitution. It's not carved in stone.

[hobbyguy]

^^ Actually, it has become apparent that Andrew Weaver has a serious problem with "my way or the highway" closed thinking. Very disappointing, but it seems he has been hanging around with phony enviro-loons too long.

Constantly you hear from the fact challenged that that 'THERE WILL BE A MAJOR TANKER DISASTER" - which is just total hysteria.
You will hear the fact challenged plastic kayakers blathering on about "wind and solar are getting cheaper every day" - while ignoring the real facts - and then saying that technology will solve the problems of wind and solar (which is false as they problems of basic physics) - and then turn around and make the assumption that technology hasn't made huge strides in navigation and tanker safety (you know, GPS, Chartplotters, double-hulls, computerized ship traffic control etc.). Meanwhile ignoring that thousands of tankers have been through the same waters heading to places like Cherry Point - without a single spill.

The opponents of KM are closed minded. They have their enviro-radical religion, and they will stick to it, even as they paddle plastic kayaks with plastic paddles - all made from oil....

[mikest2]

When reading these articles, one must consider the source. The G&M article was written by a University of Saskatchewan law professor; the "Kinder Morgan Oil Pipeline to Nowhere" was an article in 'Business In Vancouver'.

IMHO, the BIV article is written by someone who has his finger on the pulse of British Columbia. The KM expansion cannot be compared to the transcontinental railways of yore. For one thing, this is a pipeline that is basically transporting diluted bitumen from Alberta to the US and Asia. Very little of this product will be refined in B.C., but will be shipped to Cherry Point, WA, refined there and then sold back to British Columbians. Much of it will also be shipped via tanker across the Pacific Ocean. It's ludicrous to think this oil pipeline will break the ties that bind this country together.

If the federal government thinks B.C. is somehow in contravention of the Canadian constitution, then I suggest an amendment be made to the constitution. It's not carved in stone.

So, it's safe to assume that you would prefer to twin or triple the current rail lines to meet the demand for the movement of petroleum products across BC ?

[maryjane48]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

[hobbyguy]

CF - try the facts:

1) Rachel Notley is hopping mad at the BC NDP clown car.
2) Saskatchewan Party government of Saskatchewan is joining the Alberta NDP in the fight against the BC NDP clown car.
3) The federal Liberals will be forced to clamp down on the BC NDP clown car because the incompetent BC NDP are creating a constitutional violation.

Finally, the BC NDP are a usurper government that hold little legitimacy, having broken parliamentary conventions to make a sleazy backroom deal an stage a coup. That does not give the BC NDP clown car a mandate to pursue a radical agenda that is unconstitutional.

All of us, as Canadians, and as BC residents lose when the so called government engages in unconstitutional lawless behavior.

LOL - you want the rest of Canada to change our constitution so that the BC NDP clown car can drive around in crazy circles???

[hobbyguy]

Its much simple than that hobby. The majority of canadians are not interested in bending over for tar sand companies as its dead end .

Only if you take a simplistic view. The BC NDP and the NDP in general, and certainly the lunatic LEAPers are NOT a majority of Canadians. That Desmog stuff is bad for cerebral function.

[Cactusflower]

^^ Neither of you have even attempted to debate what I wrote. The old 'NDP/Green Party - bad: AB/Feds - good' shtick just doesn't cut it anymore.