Castanet

I believe that both the BC government and the Canadian government will ignore the UN, and carry on doing the right thing.

The UN has taken a position based on questionable advocacy and done so out of an ideological position and ignorance of the facts on the ground. Such is the folly of ideological positions - they always result in flawed views.

The UN does a role in world, but taking ideologically flawed ignorant positions does them a serious disservice. The correct and valuable service the UN provides is:

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Winston Churchill

This flawed statement from the UN is bad for the UN's primary purpose.

"We" will just ignore it.

hobbyguy wrote:
The UN has taken a position based on questionable advocacy and done so out of an ideological position and ignorance of the facts on the ground. Such is the folly of ideological positions - they always result in flawed views.
.

This is exactly why so many people were angry with our PM for bending over for the UN on their insane immigration policy. Now that we have been shown to be so weak-kneed and subservient to unelected disgusting morally bankrupt organizations, the UN will continue to try to impose their unelected will on us, including in situations like this, with Site C.

The UN is wrong on some issues, and the UN is right on others. Certain social media outlets are relabeling humanitarian programs as problematic and incapable.

I went to London and sat with other indigenous peoples from Malaysia, Africa, Australia etc and we sat with a board of UN and EU reps and discussed the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights. It's a very generalized and blanket document that hardly applies to all indigenous people as a whole, theres nearly 400,000,000 indigenous people around the globe.

Proper consultation is necessary for both parties to move forward, since we've been allowed in the court of law in the 70s/80s its been made clear its better to work as friends than try to strong arm the other party.

There is no budge when it comes to something that can so radically change the geography and biology of a waterway that has sustained people for several lifetimes.

^^ be my guest: define "consultation".

hobbyguy wrote:^^ be my guest: define "consultation".

We all know what it means and we know there was some level of consultation but the question is how much. If they consulted with the suit and tie councillors then they aren’t doing a good job of proper consultation.

Site C has been sort of a flagship for what needed to be amended as far as BC hydro needs to do in the way of maintaining healthy relations with FN, they’ve revamped their methods and policies and are doing better and were seeing it in Merrit.

Brass Monkey wrote:We all know what it means and we know there was some level of consultation but the question is how much. If they consulted with the suit and tie councillors then they aren’t doing a good job of proper consultation.

^^^

Question, or perhaps a couple: As there sometimes time constraints on resource projects, would it be fair to expect a time constraint on "consultations" ?
I understand "consultations" are an avenue to listen to issues and offer the best solutions to those issues. So what happens when a band just keeps saying No. https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/246928 ... -up-rights. Perhaps being a bit presumptuous but it seems the hereditary chiefs are saying no.
I understand the FN bands do not have veto over projects if "proper" consultations have taken place. So what is going to happen in this case around Houston? What exactly is "proper consultation".

I have not heard anything in the news regarding the Hereditary Chiefs of the other bands along the route. Perhaps they recognize the benefits of their bands being offered work and other "perks". Why is this band of chiefs refusing to recognize a 100 foot right of way for a natural gas pipeline ( stuff is lighter than air and dissipates quickly) really is not an issue in the big scheme of things. Perhaps building a refinery might be but an underground pipeline...

Brass Monkey wrote:

hobbyguy wrote:^^ be my guest: define "consultation".

We all know what it means and we know there was some level of consultation but the question is how much. If they consulted with the suit and tie councillors then they aren’t doing a good job of proper consultation.

Site C has been sort of a flagship for what needed to be amended as far as BC hydro needs to do in the way of maintaining healthy relations with FN, they’ve revamped their methods and policies and are doing better and were seeing it in Merrit.

NO. We do NOT all know what that means. I challenge you to define it.

It can not mean or imply a veto. If you are way out there in la-la land it does not mean that your opinion will be reflected in the decision."Adequate" consultation does not imply agreement in a democracy, not does it imply that you necessarily agree with the end decisions.

Does it mean that the government et al are required to speak with every single person? Nope, that's not practical.

So go ahead, define that nebulous term.

hobbyguy wrote:
NO. We do NOT all know what that means. I challenge you to define it.

It can not mean or imply a veto. If you are way out there in la-la land it does not mean that your opinion will be reflected in the decision."Adequate" consultation does not imply agreement in a democracy, not does it imply that you necessarily agree with the end decisions.

Does it mean that the government et al are required to speak with every single person? Nope, that's not practical.

So go ahead, define that nebulous term.

Consultation in this context means to discuss potential problems and solutions, benefits, timelines, impacts, what it means for future generations and anything related to the project not only with the suit and tie councillors but other members of the community aka elders, hereditary chiefs. As well as to agree on and employ a non-partisan study that will describe the economical and environmental impacts of the project. Some concerns that I would have just like many of the people of these bands is not opinion but fact, this dam will drastically change the geography of the traditional land and can likely be detrimental to the fishing and hunting in that region. Some bands do not have policies where communities can vote on certain things but it is still incredibly useful to get that input even if its just a consensus with no legal or legislative power.

^^ so you see consultation as a nimby veto?

Brass Monkey wrote:

hobbyguy wrote:
NO. We do NOT all know what that means. I challenge you to define it.

It can not mean or imply a veto. If you are way out there in la-la land it does not mean that your opinion will be reflected in the decision."Adequate" consultation does not imply agreement in a democracy, not does it imply that you necessarily agree with the end decisions.

Does it mean that the government et al are required to speak with every single person? Nope, that's not practical.

So go ahead, define that nebulous term.

Consultation in this context means to discuss potential problems and solutions, benefits, timelines, impacts, what it means for future generations and anything related to the project not only with the suit and tie councillors but other members of the community aka elders, hereditary chiefs. As well as to agree on and employ a non-partisan study that will describe the economical and environmental impacts of the project. Some concerns that I would have just like many of the people of these bands is not opinion but fact, this dam will drastically change the geography of the traditional land and can likely be detrimental to the fishing and hunting in that region. Some bands do not have policies where communities can vote on certain things but it is still incredibly useful to get that input even if its just a consensus with no legal or legislative power.

Or maybe, since the result will in essence be a new lake, the fishing might just improve and turn out to be awesome.

Brass Monkey wrote:
Consultation in this context means to discuss potential problems and solutions, benefits, timelines, impacts, what it means for future generations and anything related to the project not only with the suit and tie councillors but other members of the community aka elders, hereditary chiefs. As well as to agree on and employ a non-partisan study that will describe the economical and environmental impacts of the project. Some concerns that I would have just like many of the people of these bands is not opinion but fact, this dam will drastically change the geography of the traditional land and can likely be detrimental to the fishing and hunting in that region. Some bands do not have policies where communities can vote on certain things but it is still incredibly useful to get that input even if its just a consensus with no legal or legislative power.

are you saying that none of this was done? I find that hard to believe.

It won't matter what gets done, some will never be satisfied.