# Federal Minister threatens to use Army against pipeline protesters!?



## Spencer100 (1 Dec 2016)

This could be a shit sandwich



Canada may deploy defence forces if pipeline protests aren't peaceful: Natural resources minister
http://www.bnn.ca/canada-may-deploy-defence-forces-if-pipeline-protests-aren-t-peaceful-natural-resources-minister-1.621381


Shane McNeil, BNN.ca Staff

  [:'(Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr says the federal government will call in reinforcements if Canadian pipeline protests get out of hand.

The federal government approved Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement on Tuesday. Both projects have been hot button issues amid fears about their potential environmental impact.

Carr warned potential protesters on Thursday to keep any resistance to the projects non-violent.

“If people choose for their own reasons not to be peaceful, then the government of Canada – through its defence forces, through its police forces – will ensure that people are kept safe,” Carr said in Edmonton on Thursday.

“We have a history of peaceful dialogue and dissent in Canada. I’m certainly hopeful that that tradition will continue. If people determine for their own reasons that that is not the path they want to follow, then we live under the rule of law.”

Pipeline protests have come to the forefront this year, most recently in opposition to Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access Pipeline, which will run oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Demonstrators camped out in opposition to the project for months on the Sioux Tribe’s Standing Rock reservation and were ordered to evacuate last week by North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple.

Protests also derailed the National Energy Board’s hearings for TransCanada Corp’s proposed Energy East pipeline in August. The Montreal hearings were suspended after demonstrators stormed the conference. The NEB subsequently replaced its review board in light of conflict of interest complaints.

_- mod edit to include link -_


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Dec 2016)

Could FJAG or OGBD offer an opinion here? It seems to me that maintenance of public security is a provincial responsibility and the CAF are only called upon when provincial or territorial law enforcement resources are unable to maintain order. There may be a case for support to other government departments, but the Commissioner of the RCMP has a key role in determining the response requested. 

I am a few amendments to the NDA behind since I retired, but this statement by the Natural Resources Minister bothers me.


----------



## FSTO (1 Dec 2016)

It's called Aid to Civil Power. The Province has to make the request. 
The Natural Resources Minister is talking out of his butt.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Dec 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> It's called Aid to Civil Power. The Province has to make the request.
> The Natural Resources Minister is talking out of his butt.



That's my understanding of Aid of the Civil Power, which is why the minister's statement bothered me.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2016)

If I remember correctly, the request for military assistance comes from the Provincial Attorney General's office, and the Minister of Defence makes the determination of what forces to send. (In theory, if the Minister is unwilling to support the Attorney General's request, he can send a military band in response, although in real life, I doubt such a public demonstration of power would be made).

While many people will probably accuse me of being an Amerophile, I am disturbed by this announcement because it really breaks many of the jurisdiction barriers between levels of government, and really makes some huge presumptions about Federal power. It also sets a bad precedent, since now people will be expecting a proactive response by the Government, and from one of the hardest pressed and overtasked departments (unless this is a clever way to not deploy 650 troops to chase unicorns in Mali. I rather doubt that the current GoC is that clever, however).


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Dec 2016)

Close in your assessment, but the CDS makes the determination of level and extent of response. Or he did, when I retired 22 years and one month ago.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2016)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> This could be a crap sandwich
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see it now: Prince Justin, shirtless, mollifying the angry citizens with selfies from the back of his trusty unicorn.

I betcha that Jim Carr is going to get a new one torn for him by the PMO pretty fast....


----------



## Blackadder1916 (1 Dec 2016)

While aid of the civil power can be authorized under the National Defence Act, what the possibly uninformed babblings of Minister Carr brought to mind was the Emergencies Act.  For those who can remember back that far, the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act, and the last time that was used the PM was also a Trudeau.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Dec 2016)

Incorrect Blackadder1916.

The last two times the Emergency measures act/War measures Act were invoked in Canada were the Oka crisis, under PM Mulroney, and then the Ice Storm emergency, under PM Chretien.

But in any event, it is simultaneously a simple and sophisticated piece of legislation. First of all, all policing/peace enforcement under these acts remains under the provincial control of the province that called for it at all time as this is a provincial responsibility.

On the other end, the CDS (but in reality the GG in council) decides what specific force to assign to respond to the provincial demand, and as such (and as pointed out, that could be a military band  ;D ) retains some form of federal control by way of what he/she makes available, over the political aspect of what is demanded by the province. If the CDS feels the province is waaaayyyyy over reacting, he can curtail assistance accordingly.

The retention of provincial control over the military force so assigned, on the other hand, means that the federal government cannot be implicated in the use of force by that province. This was important in the October crisis because, try as they may, the PQ and other nationalist forces in Quebec, for instance, could not get anywhere with the "federal jackboot" argument they were trying to build in their narrative of the event.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I can see it now: Prince Justin, shirtless, mollifying the angry citizens with selfies from the back of his trusty unicorn.


Just Watch Me 2.0?  Not bloody likely - mostly for the reasons mentioned upthread, as well as the fact that the son ain't the father.  Also, how badly would things have to go for the feds to be called in?



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I betcha that Jim Carr is going to get a new one torn for him by the PMO pretty fast....


:nod:  Especially when we start to hear from _other_ players in this situation.


----------



## Remius (2 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the request for military assistance comes from the Provincial Attorney General's office, and the Minister of Defence makes the determination of what forces to send. (In theory, if the Minister is unwilling to support the Attorney General's request, he can send a military band in response, although in real life, I doubt such a public demonstration of power would be made).
> 
> While many people will probably accuse me of being an Amerophile, I am disturbed by this announcement because it really breaks many of the jurisdiction barriers between levels of government, and really makes some huge presumptions about Federal power. It also sets a bad precedent, since now people will be expecting a proactive response by the Government, and from one of the hardest pressed and overtasked departments (unless this is a clever way to not deploy 650 troops to chase unicorns in Mali. I rather doubt that the current GoC is that clever, however).



Can the Federal Government though not call on the military in areas that they are responsible for though?  Pipelines crossing provincial and international boundaries for example would be under Federal jurisdiction.  And while maybe not deployed under aid to civil power/authority umbrella, could they not be deployed as security?  A sort of BDF type thing that would not necessitate the province asking for assistance?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (2 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Incorrect Blackadder1916.
> 
> The last two times the Emergency measures act/War measures Act were invoked in Canada were the Oka crisis, under PM Mulroney, and then the Ice Storm emergency, under PM Chretien.
> 
> ...



Negative.

The Oka Crisis and the 1998 Ice Storms required and obtained mobilisation of Armed Forces personnel through "Aid of the Civil Power" request pursuant to NDA Section 275 by the respective Provincial Governments (Quebec and Ontario). 

The Emergencies Act and the former War Measures Act have not been used since the October Crisis (FLQ).

Both failed to meet the criteria of activating the Emergencies Act; the over broadness of the EA was deemed to be excessive in both instances.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (2 Dec 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Can the Federal Government though not call on the military in areas that they are responsible for though?  Pipelines crossing provincial and international boundaries for example would be under Federal jurisdiction.  And while maybe not deployed under aid to civil power/authority umbrella, could they not be deployed as security?  A sort of BDF type thing that would not necessitate the province asking for assistance?



Considering that pipelines are owned and operated by private companies and not the federal government, using the military to provide security would be seen as inappropriate.

Pipelines have and are more than welcome to hire their own security personnel. However, if you want armed security... I don't know of any exemptions for pipelines like there is for cash, prescious stones (diamonds), organs, and sensitive technology.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2016)

My office was in lockdown just prior to and after the announcement. Nothing has really materialized yet, likely due to the crap weather. The real fun will be when work approaches Vancouver, the OT bill for the cops will be very high this coming year. The Municipalities will not want to shoulder it or have resources taken off the street to cover the protests. Normally a liner project is being worked upon at many sites along the route at once, but Kinder Morgan might have to limit the number of sites in order that the police can provide coverage. Now it will get interesting if the proponent hires a First Nation band to provide security......


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Can the Federal Government though not call on the military in areas that they are responsible for though?  Pipelines crossing provincial and international boundaries for example would be under Federal jurisdiction.  And while maybe not deployed under aid to civil power/authority umbrella, could they not be deployed as security?  A sort of BDF type thing that would not necessitate the province asking for assistance?


As someone who used to be employed in a federally-regulated industry, I'm thinking federal jurisdiction over a site =/= federal responsibility.  If that was the case, RCMP would be patrolling all railway lines.  *I stand to be corrected*, but local (muni/prov) would still be responsible for policing/security, no?  For example, if I committed a crime in my federally-regulated workplace, they'd call the local police, not the RCMP.  In which case they get to ask for help if they don't have enough resources to keep the peace.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Dec 2016)

Job growth opportunity.

We currently have CN Rail Police.  (One live down the street from me.)  

How about Pipeline police.  They're the people that will protect the laying of pipe.....lines.

Setup a whole new department, build jobs/empires/etc.  Someone is probably already thinking about this in a cubicle somewhere in Ottawa.


----------



## mariomike (2 Dec 2016)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> How about Pipeline police.



How about Special Constables?

eg: "At the request of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and with the approval of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the Toronto Police Services Board (the Board) has designated Transit Enforcement members responsible for law enforcement and security as Special Constables."

Special Constables in Ontario employed by Police Services, such as court security officers, prisoner transport officers, cell block officers and snowmobile trail patrol officers, are sworn-in pursuant to section 53 of the Police Services Act which confers peace officer status. Special Constables have the powers of a police officer to enforce Federal Statutes and various Provincial Statutes while in the execution of their specifically appointed duties throughout Ontario. Special Constables are also utilized at many Ontario universities to provide a hybrid police-security service to their respective communities.

Special constables in Canada,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_constable#Canada


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Dec 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Can the Federal Government though not call on the military in areas that they are responsible for though?  Pipelines crossing provincial and international boundaries for example would be under Federal jurisdiction.  And while maybe not deployed under aid to civil power/authority umbrella, could they not be deployed as security?  A sort of BDF type thing that would not necessitate the province asking for assistance?



A BDF-type scenario would not apply, as that force is deployed to supplement MPs in protecting a CAF installation. Maybe somebody can dream up a vital point protection scenario, but that requires some specific government action. The CAF must only be used in a law enforcement role as a force of last resort when all other resources are exhausted or proven to be inadequate. 

There are other roles that CAF elements might provide such as airlift or aerial reconnaissance, administrative support or whatever.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> On the other end, the CDS ...decides what specific force to assign to respond to the provincial demand, and as such (and as pointed out, that could be a military band  ;D ).....


And with the MOSID for military bands being split, there would have to be a decision on which band -- a brass band playing soothing Paul Anka and Céline Dion songs.... or the more offensive and threatening sort -- bagpipes!


----------



## George Wallace (2 Dec 2016)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Setup a whole new department, build jobs/empires/etc.  Someone is probably already thinking about this in a cubicle somewhere in Ottawa.



Well.....Where the wife works, they have run out of cubicles.  Contractors have to work in the hallways.  Due to Government funding and hiring practices, Contractors outnumber Public Servants in many areas.  This means that the Good Idea Faerie would likely have to dream up a method of creating more cubicles into which to place Contractors to develop such an Empire.


----------



## FJAG (2 Dec 2016)

Sorry I'm late joining this thread. I've been having some problems getting into the Forum the last two days.

Subject to my usual "I'm a few years retired now" caveat -- here goes.

There are several legal provisions under which CF personnel might be used in these (somewhat vague) circumstances.

1.  Aid of the Civil Power is a situation where a provincial civil authority is faced with a riot or disturbance of the peace which is beyond its powers to suppress, prevent or deal with. In such a circumstance the provincial attorney general issues a requisition under Part VII of the NDA in a prescribed form directly to the CDS (no federal minister is required to be consulted although in practice they usually are). The CDS must respond by calling out such part of the CF as he considers necessary to suppress or prevent the riot or disturbance. CF personnel at all times remain under military command and remain called out until the civil authority concludes that CF assistance is no longer required.

2.  Under s 273.6 of the NDA, the GiC or the MND (on the request of the Solicitor General or any other minister) may authorize the CF to perform any duty involving public service that is military in nature and that is in the national interest and that cannot be effectively dealt with without CF assistance. Note the difference from ACP is that the provision is broader that riot and disturbance and can be initiated at the federal level without a provincial attorney general requisition. This provision has been and is being used for a variety of situations such as assistance to fisheries enforcement, assistance to federal penitentiaries, CF Armed assistance to the RCMP (CFAADs), CF assistance to provincial police forces (CFAPPFDs) and various MOUs such as assistance to RCMP re drug ops, surface ships and aerial surveillance re fisheries, environmental emergencies response.

3. Emergencies Act The Act is very broad in nature and includes various types of emergencies including "public order" ones. Emergencies must be ones which are urgent, critical ones of a temporary nature that seriously threaten the public safety, health or lives of Canadians and are of such scope as to be beyond provincial capacity or are ones which threaten Canadian sovereignty, security or territorial integrity. It generally would not apply in situations such as lawful dissent or protest. The Act is triggered by a GiC declaration.

The various provisions above are complex and nuanced and I'd be hard pressed to describe what is being contemplated in the article although I think I can reasonable say that it wouldn't be the Emergencies Act. Which of the other two remedies are being contemplated would really depend very much on the circumstances and the provincial/federal agencies involved/effected.

 :cheers:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Dec 2016)

Here is a link to a paper written by Sean M. Maloney that gives a good history of military Aid-to-Civil Power in Canada.

The paper originally appeared in "PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn - 1997, pp. 135-52."


----------



## FJAG (2 Dec 2016)

:goodpost:

Maloney's paper is an excellent precis of all three circumstances under which military forces can be used to operate on domestic operations -- note that it goes beyond just Aid to Civil Power and also covers s273.6 assistance and War Measures/Emergencies Act provisions and examples.

 :subbies:


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2016)

> Non-peaceful pipeline protests will be met by police and military, federal minister tells Edmonton business leaders



http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pipeline-protests-will-be-met-by-police-and-military-federal-minister-tells-edmonton-business-leaders







Guns in the street.  Indeed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pipeline-protests-will-be-met-by-police-and-military-federal-minister-tells-edmonton-business-leaders
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Back when we had boots that didn't create friendly casualties


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pipeline-protests-will-be-met-by-police-and-military-federal-minister-tells-edmonton-business-leaders
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More like guns in the woods, based on where the pipelines'll be.  Still, Jr. doesn't strike me as cut from the same jib as the "just watch me" Sr.


----------



## FJAG (3 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pipeline-protests-will-be-met-by-police-and-military-federal-minister-tells-edmonton-business-leaders
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was there as a brand spanking new subbie running my troop in south Montreal. 

Walking around one of our major cities wearing combats, webbing, a helmet and carrying a loaded pistol was a strange feeling indeed.

 :subbies:


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2016)

A bit of "clarification" from the minister in question ...


> Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr says his comments about the possible use of "defence forces" or police during future protests over pipeline projects approved this week by Ottawa weren't meant to be read as a threat.
> 
> "There is no warning intended," Carr told CBC Radio's The House in an interview to air Saturday.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/pipeline-protests-will-be-met-by-police-and-military-federal-minister-tells-edmonton-business-leaders
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wasn't there a political party in Canada which made alarming ads about "Soldiers, with guns......on our streets!"

They thought it was bad, or inappropriate or something, and Canadians should work to elect governments that would never do this. /sarc


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Dec 2016)

A British Columbian grand chief has attacked the statement by the Natural Resources Minister as reported in the story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.


Jim Carr's comments senseless, clumsy, B.C. leader says
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/jim-carr-s-comments-senseless-clumsy-b-c-leader-says-1.3187619

Laura Payton, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer
@laura_payton

Published Sunday, December 4, 2016 7:00AM EST 
OTTAWA - Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr's assertion the police and military will deal with civil disobedience over pipeline projects was "stupid and clumsy," a British Columbia grand chief says.
Stewart Phillip, grand chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, says Carr's remarks Wednesday to an audience in Calgary were "stupid, stupid, stupid."
"I think it was an incredibly stupid and clumsy statement to make in an already volatile situation, [on] a deeply emotional issue here in British Columbia. And it's just absolutely senseless, counter-productive and unhelpful," Phillip said in an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period.
Asked what would happen if pipeline protesters used civil disobedience and unrest to make their case, Carr told a Calgary Chamber of Commerce audience that the military or police would ensure people's safety.
"If people chose for their own reasons not to be peaceful then the government of Canada, through its defence forces, through its police forces will ensure that people are kept safe," Carr said.
"We have a history of peaceful dialogue and dissent in Canada. I certainly hope that tradition will continue. If people for their own reasons determine that’s not the path they want to follow then we live under the rule of law."
Speaking to reporters, Carr later said "law enforcement officials do what they're paid to do. It's as simple as that."
On Friday, Carr's spokeswoman said he "did not mean to suggest action would be taken against protesters."
British Columbia has seen a number of protests since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline, which will run through Vancouver.
Phillip said the statement has an immense political cost for the Liberals, noting thousands of Indigenous Canadians supported Trudeau "with respect to his commitments to the environment, to completely redoing the Canadian Environmental Assessment processes and the National Energy Board oversight legislation and policies. He's done neither."
"He's broken all of his promises and commitments, and we're certainly not about to continue supporting his government given this betrayal."
In a separate interview on CTV's Question Period, Transport Minister Marc Garneau touted the conditions imposed on Kinder Morgan by the National Energy Board, as well as the federal government's new oceans protection plan.
"We recognize that people can express themselves on [the pipeline], and I'm sure that they will. And ... it's very clear that we need to explain it, because once people understand what the measures are, they're reassured," he said.
"This is very muscular. It's very robust. It addresses the concerns with respect to marine safety."
Garneau says the Liberals are behind the Charter and fully recognize the right for Canadians to express themselves.
"Some Canadians have strong emotions about some of the things that are decided by the government, and they have the right to express it. We fully recognize that and we are confident that they're going to do it peacefully," he said.
Phillip says British Columbians are organizing against the Trans Mountain pipeline.
"The battle is just beginning here on the West Coast," he said.

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2016)

Message firing alright, message - STOPS!


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau narrowly avoided an organized walkout during his speech to Indigenous leaders Tuesday after Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr called chiefs to apologize for remarks some saw as a threat to protesters opposed to contentious pipeline projects.
> 
> Quebec Chief Serge Simon, a Mohawk from Oka and a strident opponent of pipeline projects, had been assembling a group of chiefs to take a stand and turn their backs on Trudeau at the Assembly of First Nations gathering in Gatineau, Que.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Dec 2016)

This CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act suggests that a giant suck back is underway by the government and especially Mr Carr. 

Carr dials back military response, says Liberals ’embrace’ pipeline dissent
By The Canadian Press — Dec 6 2016

OTTAWA — The Liberal government is going out of its way to play down the prospect of violent confrontations at oil pipeline protests.

Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr made an unprompted point today of once again saying that the Liberals "embrace" dissent while linking civil disobedience with peaceful protest.

At the Assembly of First Nations annual meeting, national Chief Perry Bellegarde expressed concern about the potential for a pipeline-inspired confrontation with the military along the lines of the 1990 crisis in Oka, Que..

Some First Nations and environmental groups have promised massive protests over the Liberal government's controversial decision to approve the expansion of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Alberta into suburban Vancouver.

Carr told an Edmonton business audience last week that if protests aren't peaceful, police and "defence forces" would ensure that people are kept safe and the rule of law prevails.

Carr has been dialling back that reference to the military ever since, while opposition MPs accuse the Liberals of inflaming an already tense situation and undermining civil liberties.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2016)

A true popcorn moment for me. The Liberals expose themselves in public. The Greenies besides themselves with anguish. The FN stuck between a rock and hard place, having placed all their cards on a party that has now publicly threatened force against them and the FN can't look to the CPC without losing face.  op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... The FN stuck between a rock and hard place, having placed all their cards on a party that has now publicly threatened force against them and the FN can't look to the CPC without losing face.  op:


... not to mention FNs being less-than-fully-unified on the pipeline issue.

And we have one of the Conservative leadership contenders piping up with a plan - "spy on 'em & lock 'em up" instead of "sic the troops against 'em":


> Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch has turned her right-of-centre brand of populism onto Canada’s pipeline protesters, vowing to increase penalties for illegal protests and calling for environmental lobbying to be recognized as a political activity.
> 
> In a Facebook messaged posted Tuesday, Leitch outlined a five-point plan in response to the political backlash against oil pipeline construction happening from B.C. to Quebec. She calls for higher penalties against violence and vandalism, “ensuring those who provide support for the aforementioned actions are charged.” She wants to create a new joint police force to target environmental protests and to classify environmental lobbying as political activity “to get international money out of the process.” She is also calling for unspecified changes to regulations to “ensure Canada’s ability to compete in the marketplace.” ...


This, from Leitch's FB feed:


> ... I am pleased to announce my support for the construction of the Energy East pipeline. This important project will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, get Canadian oil to market, and create jobs for Canadians across the country, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
> 
> I also announced a 5-point plan to ensure that natural resource development in Canada proceeds without illegal interference. It includes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (7 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A true popcorn moment for me. The Liberals expose themselves in public. The Greenies besides themselves with anguish. The FN stuck between a rock and hard place, having placed all their cards on a party that has now publicly threatened force against them and the FN can't look to the CPC without losing face.  op:



It was and is the most delicious wine I have drank in a long time..........


----------



## quadrapiper (7 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And we have one of the Conservative leadership contenders piping up with a plan - "spy on 'em & lock 'em up" instead of "sic the troops against 'em":This, from Leitch's FB feed:


While as a citizen I'm not entirely comfortable with either, I'm actually less concerned about a straightforward deployment of force (be it police or army) than Leitch's notion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2016)

spying on domestic groups and even blowing up the odd shack/barn/pump station is a time honoured tradition for the RCMP.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> spying on domestic groups and even blowing up the odd shack/barn/pump station is a time honoured tradition for the RCMP.


Now THAT came up quicker than even _I_ expected!


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Dec 2016)

:backpedalling:  Lots of laughs to see team Red  in action again.  Boy oh boy, has this ever been a banner month of foot in mouth disease for them.   :rofl:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :backpedalling:  Lots of laughs to see team Red  in action again.  Boy oh boy, has this ever been a banner month of foot in mouth disease for them.   :rofl:



Yes, pretty soon they will be bypassing the old Reform Party (if they haven't already) in the number of the "_open mouth, insert foot_" moments.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Dec 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act suggests that a giant suck back is underway by the government and especially Mr Carr.
> 
> Carr dials back military response, says Liberals ’embrace’ pipeline dissent
> By The Canadian Press — Dec 6 2016
> ...



I am glad to see that many First Nations are not getting on the 'no pipeline' bandwagon and resisting getting drawn into the general fray. The smart ones know that this is good for them and their communities in terms of employment, self-reliance and long term sustainability. It's also an opportunity to emerge from under the 'poor me' umbrella that idiots like the Green Party insist on trying to extend over more and more of our population, to the detriment of that population.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2017)

This appears to be a step _beyond_ pipeline "dissent" ...

_*"An anonymous anarchist takes credit for Ontario (Enbridge Line 10) pipeline sabotage"*_ (VICE News)
_*"Pipeline opponents appear to be damaging Line 10 — and now police are looking for them"*_ (CBC)
_*"Hamilton police report mischief to Enbridge pipeline"*_ (globalnews.ca)


----------

