- Reaction score
- 5,337
- Points
- 1,160
You mean in any other country that didn't have to deal with FN land claim negotiations.Hiway 69 has been under construction since 1993.
In any other developed country it would have been done by 2000.
You mean in any other country that didn't have to deal with FN land claim negotiations.Hiway 69 has been under construction since 1993.
In any other developed country it would have been done by 2000.
I can think of no country that would put up with what we do.You mean in any other country that didn't have to deal with FN land claim negotiations.
Perhaps not, but we wrote a lot of it into the Constitution and adopted the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law, so here we are.I can think of no country that would put up with what we do.
Smart buggers, those Canuks eh!Perhaps not, but we wrote a lot of it into the Constitution and adopted the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law, so here we are.
Perhaps not, but we wrote a lot of it into the Constitution and adopted the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law, so here we are.
Notwithstanding that, no parliament can bind future parliaments.
Having said that, everything is negotiable and it makes sense to keep people on side.
Up here in Rupert's Land we have the advantage of Sir John A. MacDonald's numbered treaties based on recognition of the 1763 proclamation.
BC is still under negotiation. But the Inuit of Nunavut have proven what is possible.
BC is only about 200 years away from the treaty situation in eastern Canada...
All of which has been peacefully and permanently resolved. Just ask the Miqmaq, Mohawk and Ojibway.
Yeah, about that...
First Nation asks logging protesters to leave Walbran Valley
The Pacheedaht First Nation says the blockade undermines its authority to govern its traditional territory and disrupts its efforts to manage its lands responsibly.
Good idea - done.... Can I recommend that this thread be expanded a bit (maybe reflected in the title) to be come a catch-all for natural resources development in Canada and associated infrastructure? I suspect we’ll have an increase in discussion on this subject and a thematic thread will probably suit it well.
The use of salt makes me also wonder if some of the subsurface formations...some of which are full of saltwater...could be used. There are also empty formations being used as disposal wells and some of the pipelines currently in the country are used for pumping this fluid to a selected disposal well (subsurface formation).
Two benefits of this...one the re-introduction of fluid helps stabilize rock formations to reduce earthquakes. A lesson learned from the the 1970's and 1980's Colorado drilling fields. Second it may allow for a concentration of salt/water that even if heated should remain within the formation at a heated gaseous state similar to natural gas capture?
Not a geologist or driller but does make me wonder about opportunities not just here but also places like southern Ontario (former Windsor Salt mines) or a ocean water test along the ocean coasts.
I'm looking for some clarity here.
Was the expectation that the identification of 'fast tracked' projects by the Feds (with the Provs and Indigenous partners) was that the Fed's would be making the purely business decision as to what was going to be built and where and what route it would take, or, was the aim of 'fast tracked' identification to select already defined projects that were stuck in the molasses of gov't bureaucracy and push them across the finish line ASAP?
Are there any open, business initiated, oil pipeline proposals in the works right now, beyond some back of the napkin stuff?
Not sure that I understand, but I'm willing to follow you over the hill and see what's on the other side.A ULCC tanker conducting a Williamson turn or the federal Liberal caucus.
Which will answer the helm and reverse course first?
No, but the Constitution can.Notwithstanding that, no parliament can bind future parliaments.