All Things First Nations - CF help, protests, solutions, residential schools, etc. (merged)

[garb811]

Trudeau senior ensured that individual property rights were not enshrined in our constitution.  This is key to the governments assertion that the ownership of any property in Canada, particularly that property where the crown requires you to have a licence to own/operate (e.g. guns), is a privilege.

You've made the assertion that it was PET who kept property rights out a few times, yet never provide a source. So...here's the actual answer from the Fraser Institute:

Lacking constitutional protection, governments routinely trample property rights

Back when Canada’s premiers and then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau debated what to put into what later became the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, property rights were one possibility and on the table.

Trudeau had pushed for property rights as justice minister in 1968, again as prime minister in 1969, and in 1980 during constitutional talks. But property rights never made it into the final 1982 Charter because Trudeau and Bill Bennett, then-Premier of British Columbia, were the lone advocates.

While one can only theorize about the positive impact of including property rights in the Charter, the effect of excluding property rights are demonstrable—and demonstrably harmful. (I chronicled some examples in a recent book on the subject).
...

Lots of people to point that particular finger at, but PET isn't one of them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Back on topic:

I have a question for any lawyers in the crowd.

It seems to me that CN and CP Rail have really nothing to do with this CGL dispute, but are nonetheless being used as a hostage and racking up serious business losses in the process (along with lots of other businesses). Could those that block rail lines and those who counsel blocking rail lines find themselves at the wrong end of a civil suit for damages? Could they be successfully sued?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Trespass is a provincial offence, in some cases a federal offence and is also a civil action ( a tort). So in theory, yes.  There are complete defences to the civil action. The right to civil dissent does not usually trump private property rights.

Edit: I would also note that in order to obtain the injunctions ( which in this case are also civil injunctions)  the companies would have to establish that the harm being suffered resulting from the blockades is “ irreparable harm”. That type of harm seems self evident in this case and the costs and losses incurred are the measure of damages.
Who gets sued? Who pays? How?  In what court?
Ultimately, we can expect very little restitution in this matter.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The railways are on ROW granted by the Federal crown for the most part and regulated by the Crown. Now it would get messy where CN took over from BCR, but those rails are on a ROW issued originally by the government of BC, not sure who has ownership now?

 

[Haggis]

You've made the assertion that it was PET who kept property rights out a few times, yet never provide a source. So...here's the actual answer from the Fraser Institute:

Lacking constitutional protection, governments routinely trample property rights[/url]Lots of people to point that particular finger at, but PET isn't one of them.

Then, I stand corrected, apologize and retract my assertion.

 

[Lumber]

An oldy, but a goodie.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/rethinkingthereserve/week+problems+governance/280526/story.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

A former CAF officer wrote about exactly how vulnerable Canada's economy is to such actions -- as well as how to head such things off at the pass -- in 2013 (links to PDF).  All I'll say is that it's interesting reading, with a quite few controversial ideas. :nod:

What this guy is quoted saying to the CBC ...

... Calls to send in the army, particularly at this stage, are "ludicrous," said Bland, who added he believes that kind of solution is "way beyond anything we need to do now, or in the future."

The military is — and should be — the federal response "of last resort," he said.

The army's mission is to fight foreign enemies and terrorists, not Canada's own citizens. Treating the blockades like a full-blown insurrection would not only be perilous, said Bland — it would ignore the real nature of the Crown-Indigenous relationship.

"There is nothing so dangerous that you have to send (the army) in," he said.

Seven years ago, Bland said, he would have estimated the probability of an actual Indigenous uprising much higher than he does today — simply because governments have finally acknowledged Indigenous Canadians' real grievances and have made attempts, however imperfect, at reconciliation.

An overwhelming number of First Nations leaders and their people appear to be behind the federal government in its push for a negotiated end to the current crisis. A military response, Bland said, would destroy that goodwill while setting back the growing rapprochement with Aboriginal communities.

Political aims, political options

The aim of the current wave of protests is political, said Bland, and it's not likely the activists want (or are prepared) to escalate the confrontation into an armed conflict.

"They know if they decided to block down railways for a long time, or if they use weapons of any kind, in any strength, that the army and the Mounties and everybody would be down their throats," he said.

"They're not interested in getting into a war with Canada. What they want to do, like a lot of other people, is put enough pressure on the government so that the government recognizes their claims and demands." ...

... with a bit of interesting backstory on the current Indigenous affairs minister ...

... Indigenous Services Minister Marc Miller recently raised the spectre of that two-and-a-half-month standoff near Montreal. Thirty years ago, Miller told the House of Commons, he was a young army reservist serving alongside "four Mohawk brothers." When the unit was ordered to Oka, the four Mohawk brothers left their unit.

"They were asked to make a difficult choice ... between the country that they would lay down their life for and their families. For them, the choice was clear," Miller said.

Like Miller, many of the current crop of Canadian military leaders were junior officers at the time of Oka and remember what a divisive, dangerous time it was. Bland said he would be shocked if a chief of the defence staff ordered soldiers into an Indigenous community to put down a protest.

"Some of the officers would quit before they did that."

 

[MilEME09]

They talk like the CDS or MND can just send in the troops on a whim

 

[Kirkhill]

Haggis - here's something that you might be familiar with.

I don't know what the comparable Canadian cases might be but I "suspect" that our situation is not too dissimilar from that of the Brits.

A female serial offender with 390 previous convictions and a man with 291 previous convictions were spared jail sentences last year (2019) , official figures have revealed.

The woman was given a sentence of one-day detention and the male offender was given an absolute discharge.

In 2018 a woman with 376 previous convictions was given a conditional discharge, a man with 285 convictions was ordered to pay a fine and a man with 285 convictions was given a conditional discharge.

And one more thought - If there are privately funded Railway Police with Federal Powers, why aren't there privately funded Pipeline (or Powerline) Police with Federal Powers?

in 2017 a woman with 366 previous convictions was given a one-day detention and a man with 284 convictions was ordered to pay compensation.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/20/offender-390-previous-convictions-spared-jail-prosecutions/

How do I tie this into the Civil Disobedience debate?

It seems to me that when the policing forces have more work than they can handle they opt for a quiet life - like any other rational sentient being.  What is the point of policing if you receive no support,  are constantly crlticized when you do it, and you still get to pick up your pay check if you don't?

It seems to me that we have created reactive forces more focused on Investigations after the fact than proactive forces focused on creating a secure, Policed environment before the fact.  And in my view, maintaining lines of communication, removing blockades is a clear Policing matter.

In the same sense that we used to police up our barracks, armouries, parade squares and ranges.  We removed that which was superfluous and unwanted and restored order.

Do we actually have Police forces any more (outside of the traffic control beat) or do we simply have an Investigative department for crimes?

My suspicion is that the Railway Police of old would not have countenanced the current situation.  Their methods might have been less than the modern world would tolerate but can we argue that the need for their intervention is any less now than it was?

Canadian Pacific Police Service

Canadian Pacific Police Service are responsible for all aspects of railway security. They are duly appointed and armed federal police officers that gather their authority in Canada via the Railway Safety Act as well as other acts.[citation needed]

The Railway Safety Act is a federal act that allows for any federal railway to appoint officers as police constables. These police constables have all the powers of a regular police officer as it relates to the protection of property owned, possessed or administered by a railway company and the protection of persons and property on that property.[1] Railway police are unique in Canada as they are essentially a private company that employs sworn police officers. CPPS are "a fully authorized federal force, bound to uphold Canada's laws" and licensed to carry arms.[2]

The main duties of a railway police officer are to protect the public using the company facilities, the employees and its assets. This includes public education on trespassing, school awareness programs, investigating crimes against the railway, assist the local police services, issuing tickets and many other duties including security of property and buildings. CP Rail assigns individual officers large sections of railway tracks to patrol and conduct active enforcement and public safety initiatives.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Police_Service

Canadian National Police Service

In Canada, members are federally sworn in under section 44.1 of the Railway Safety Act granting powers as police constables and have the same powers of arrest as any police officer in Canada anywhere in Canada as 'Peace Officers' under Section 2 of the Criminal Code. Police constables are employed by Canadian National and are also considered public servants, sworn to the Crown to uphold the law and protect

The CN Police federal oath of office primarily directs their duties 'on and along' CN infrastructure, protecting properties owned and administered by CN. CN Police have additional provincial appointments which allow them to extend provincial enforcement such as the Highway Traffic Act outside the boundaries set under the Railway Safety Act of Canada.

Under section 26.1 of the Railway Safety Act, it is an offence for any person to "enter on land on which a line work is situated". Offenders can be dealt with in multiple ways such as being compelled to Federal Court by means of a promise to appear or can simply be issued a ticket through the relevant provincial Contravention Act and released. Maximum penalties for contravention of the act for any offence can be up to a $10,000 fine and imprisonment in the case of a private person. A company can also face up to a $200,000 fine for contravention of this act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_National_Police_Service

Are the protesters private persons? Or are they agents of an organization (or organizations)?


And another thought, if there are privately funded Railway Police with federal powers why aren't there privately funded Pipeline (or Powerline) Police with federal powers? 

 

[Good2Golf]

Recalling that CAF Aid to the Civil Power remains entirely conditional on a request from a Province, as effected through its Attorney General or Minister of Justice (depending on a Province’s judicial structure), to the CAF Chief of Defence Staff.

From the National Defence Act of Canada:

NDA §277. Where a riot or disturbance occurs or is considered as likely to occur, the attorney general of the province in which the place where the riot or disturbance occurs or is considered as likely to occur is situated, on the initiative of the attorney general or on the receipt of notification from a judge of a superior, county or district court having jurisdiction in the place that the services of the Canadian Forces are required in aid of the civil power, may, by requisition in writing addressed to the Chief of the Defence Staff, require the Canadian Forces, or such part thereof as the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as the Chief of the Defence Staff may designate considers necessary, to be called out on service in aid of the civil power.

The Federal government has no direct control in use of the CAF except possible the case where the MND directed the CDS to refuse a Province’s request for ACP.

Regards
G2G

 

[brihard]

And another thought, if there are privately funded Railway Police with federal powers why aren't there privately funded Pipeline (or Powerline) Police with federal powers?

I’m not sure we want to go down the American path of niche police services all over the place. I’m bloody sure I don’t want police powers in the hand of agencies entirely answerable to corporations. We’ve already seen recently that CN might have unduly influences an investigation by their police into a triple fatal train wreck.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I guess that’s because the current police services are so effective?

 

[brihard]

I guess that’s because the current police services are so effective?

Depends how you measure efficacy, and whether you’re looking purely in the short term tactically, or long term strategically.

This particular situation is a really, really ugly overlap of quite a few things with long term political ramifications at both levels of government. Nobody wants a repeat of Oka or Gustafsen Lake.

 

[GAP]

Depends how you measure efficacy, and whether you’re looking purely in the short term tactically, or long term strategically.

This particular situation is a really, really ugly overlap of quite a few things with long term political ramifications at both levels of government. Nobody wants a repeat of Oka or Gustafsen Lake.

Well.....after Oka or Gustafsen Lake, things settled down a lot....just say'n.... :

 

[Remius]

I’m not sure we want to go down the American path of niche police services all over the place. I’m bloody sure I don’t want police powers in the hand of agencies entirely answerable to corporations. We’ve already seen recently that CN might have unduly influences an investigation by their police into a triple fatal train wreck.

Washington DC as something like 27 different law enforcement agencies. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_the_District_of_Columbia

 

[Jarnhamar]

An oldy, but a goodie.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/rethinkingthereserve/week+problems+governance/280526/story.html

Holy hell.
That's brutal.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One way to deal with the issue is to change legislation to recognize (some types of extreme protester activity) as terrorism:

'Protesters as terrorists': growing number of states turn anti-pipeline activism into a crime

Conservative lawmakers have put forward laws criminalizing protests in at least 18 states since 2017 that civil liberties advocates say are unconstitutional

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/wave-of-new-laws-aim-to-stifle-anti-pipeline-protests-activists-say



Oil Companies Persuade States to Make Pipeline Protests a Felony

States criminalize demonstrations near energy infrastructure

Alliance of chemical makers and oil refiners pushing measures

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-19/oil-companies-persuade-states-to-make-pipeline-protests-a-felony

 

[Remius]

Holy hell.
That's brutal.

They mentioned Membertou.  I've been there and it is a good example of what can be when done right.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>One way to deal with the issue is to change legislation to recognize (some types of extreme protester activity) as terrorism:

I was turning that over in my mind - using the colloquial definitions of terrorism we sometimes toss around here (violence, or maybe merely criminal action, in pursuit of political aims, etc), wondering if protests which include theft writ large should be called terrorism.

A few protestors and supporters, following the advice of contemporary and prior activists, have explicitly declared that the point of blockades is to create economic harm, or, in plain terms, to steal.  The idea is to steal from parties with no power to directly meet demands in the hopes that they will indirectly assist by applying pressure to those with power to meet demands.  That's why they're not confining their gatherings to what most people would think of as "public spaces" - the lawn of Parliament, or of a legislature, etc.  Are some people really so protected that they can be responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars of theft and suffer no consequences?

That is also why the representatives of police who have taken to talk radio to proclaim their "neutrality", or bemoan being caught in the middle, are destroying the credibility of police.  You can be neutral if you are there to keep the peace between a group of protestors and a group of counter-protestors.  You can not really claim to be neutral if your chosen inaction gives one party everything it wants (the protestors, who want the theft to continue) and the other party nothing it wants (the freedom to get to work on time, or deliver goods, or not have to forfeit a day's pay for entirely failing to get to work).  From a "citizens" point of view, the "police" are there to serve a public need - to maintain order which allows "citizens" to go about their business - at the expense of "rats".  That's the job, and that's why the authority is delegated (from the "citizens", because we have consensual government).  Most people won't express it that way, but that's why they're calling in and writing letters wondering why the authorities aren't solidly on-side for public order, right now.

The more we tolerate, the further the boundaries will be pushed.

 

[Strike]

They mentioned Membertou.  I've been there and it is a good example of what can be when done right.

There seems to have been a turning point with the new guard of FN leaders.  There is a big push now to become less reliant on government funding and become self-sustaining. But it seems with the OW, they are led by the old guard.

I recall reading an article written by a past Chief of Membertou, about a speaking tour he'd done once the band had gone into the black, and the push-back he received from so many, especially on the west coast, was shocking.