Quote:
Originally Posted by westopher
The main reason that the pipeline was blocked is the NEB didn't consider the effect of increased tanker traffic on marine life in their study of environmental impact.
Thats not bullshit, and don't you think that its probably something that should be looked at in the study? I'm not anti pipeline. There already is one, and if another means getting our oil to tidewaters and actually having a positive effect on Canadian economy, it needs to be considered. However, studies on environmental impact need to be comprehensive, and inclusive of these issues, or its clear that the study is not being performed with due diligence.
Is it reasonable to put it together if there is clarity that the NEB was incapable of a thorough study?
|
The "blocking" of the pipeline was specifically related to a failure to evaluate the impact of additional tanker traffic on the southern resident killer whale and to adequately consult with first nations.
With respect to the southern resident killer whales:
The NEB's position was that the evaluation of the impact of increased tanker traffic on the southern resident killer whale was outside of their jurisdiction, the NEB believed that the DFO (Engaged during consultation and at cabinet review prior to issuance of order in council for or against CPCN) would evaluate this impact, if needed.
Having said that, if there is legitimate concern regarding the impact increased tanker traffic may have on the southern resident killer whale then I would suggest that all industries associated with large vessels should be subject to an similar level of environmental scrutiny (IE: Grain ships, cruise ships, container ships, ferries).
The concerns relating to the southern resident killer were based on underwater noise and potential for physical contact with shipping vessels, it was not based on the risk of a spill.
With respect to inadequate consultation:
The decision from the FCOA actually stated that the company was successful in their efforts to adequately consult, however, the crown was not. The duty to consult does fall on the crown, although they may transfer some of the consultation tasks/functions to the proponent the crown ultimately must ensure that the consultation would withstand a legal challenge based on past case law where adequate consultation has been defined.
Adequate consultation and the duty to accommodate is a very tricky legal subject, the First Nations know that in order to get the most accommodation possible they must make the consultation as challenging as possible.
On the subject of first nations consultation...
Consider the Jumbo Glacier Resort in the kootenays, since 1991 the BC Gov and the resort designer have been in consultation with the Ktunaxa Nation.
Quote:
|
The Ktunaxa believe the project will drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat'muk, the traditional name for the spiritual territory, and permanently impair their religious beliefs and spiritual practices.
|
For 18 years the parties were engaged in regular consultation before the Ktuana finally refused to participate any further (2009), stimulating a series of legal challenges that would arrive at he SCOC in 2017 where the court ruled in favor of the BC Gov and the resort.
Quote:
The ruling said the B.C. government had engaged in "deep consultation" throughout the process, and had met its duty to consult and accommodate under Sec. 35 of the Constitution Act. The section does not give Indigenous groups a veto power over development projects; it guarantees a process, but not a particular result, the ruling said.
"Where adequate consultation has occurred, a development may proceed without consent," it reads.
|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ind...sort-1.4381902
Should it take 26 years to get permission to build a ski resort?
Make no mistake about it, FN want the ability to veto any and all developments, a veto is the greatest bargaining chip of them all.