undrip-behind-closed-doors
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
GLG
Well-Known Member
Are they honest brokers of truth? History would say that they have a record of one view and finding alternative facts to back them.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/saskatchewan-radio-ad-residential-schools-myths-1.4836348
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
climate change deniers who say the world is better off with Global warming than global cooling
https://www.desmogblog.com/frontier-centre-public-policy#s6
https://www.desmogblog.com/frontier-centre-public-policy
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Achieving true consultation
https://www.lexpert.ca/article/what-adopting-undrip-may-mean/?p&sitecode=lex
The decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia was rendered by the Supreme Court in 1997, followed by the landmark Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) in 2004. Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), rendered this year, was the Federal Court of Appeal dismissal of Indigenous groups’ appeal to stop the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.
The Coldwater case is important in that it clarifies how the duty to consult needs to be performed in certain circumstances, since it derives from the honour of the Crown. In its judgment, the FCA indicated that the requirements to consult are “not as stringent as we thought it would be; it's based on reasonableness, and no specific outcome to be reached.” The duty to consult doesn’t grant veto rights to oppose projects, and even in cases where deep consultation has occurred, the Crown is not obliged to reach an agreement with First Nations.
“It doesn’t impose a standard of perfection,” and courts do not need to become “an academy of science and look in detail at the scientific evidence.”
Vidrascu says that if the federal government applies the same wording that UNDRIP uses — “free, prior and informed consent” of First Nations to projects affecting them — it would overturn the Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council)ruling of 2018.
“The SCC held that the duty to consult does not apply to legislation,” so the federal government would not have to consult First Nations before adopting legislation that affects them, he says.
“That would be a huge new thing, if the federal government was obliged to consult each and every time they draft a bill. Currently, they have to consult when they approve a project that impacts on the First Nations’ asserted or proved rights. So, that’s going to be a huge thing if the government keeps its promise to adopt” UNDRIP.
New Conservative party leader Erin O’Toole has promised a National Strategic Pipelines Act, which would allow the federal government to identify national strategic pipelines and subject the projects to expedited reviews if declared of national strategic interest. This would remove authority from the provinces to approve projects and may lead them to contest the act, Vidrascu says.
“That’s going to be almost certainly challenged by the provinces on a constitutional basis.”
https://www.lexpert.ca/article/what-adopting-undrip-may-mean/?p&sitecode=lex
The decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia was rendered by the Supreme Court in 1997, followed by the landmark Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) in 2004. Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), rendered this year, was the Federal Court of Appeal dismissal of Indigenous groups’ appeal to stop the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.
The Coldwater case is important in that it clarifies how the duty to consult needs to be performed in certain circumstances, since it derives from the honour of the Crown. In its judgment, the FCA indicated that the requirements to consult are “not as stringent as we thought it would be; it's based on reasonableness, and no specific outcome to be reached.” The duty to consult doesn’t grant veto rights to oppose projects, and even in cases where deep consultation has occurred, the Crown is not obliged to reach an agreement with First Nations.
“It doesn’t impose a standard of perfection,” and courts do not need to become “an academy of science and look in detail at the scientific evidence.”
Vidrascu says that if the federal government applies the same wording that UNDRIP uses — “free, prior and informed consent” of First Nations to projects affecting them — it would overturn the Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council)ruling of 2018.
“The SCC held that the duty to consult does not apply to legislation,” so the federal government would not have to consult First Nations before adopting legislation that affects them, he says.
“That would be a huge new thing, if the federal government was obliged to consult each and every time they draft a bill. Currently, they have to consult when they approve a project that impacts on the First Nations’ asserted or proved rights. So, that’s going to be a huge thing if the government keeps its promise to adopt” UNDRIP.
New Conservative party leader Erin O’Toole has promised a National Strategic Pipelines Act, which would allow the federal government to identify national strategic pipelines and subject the projects to expedited reviews if declared of national strategic interest. This would remove authority from the provinces to approve projects and may lead them to contest the act, Vidrascu says.
“That’s going to be almost certainly challenged by the provinces on a constitutional basis.”
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The article that Derby posted was written by a retired judge, some may label him a "right wing racist conservative" that ive seen in response to other things he has written. However, what he is talking about in UNDRIP seems to be a concern by many in the legal community including JWR who calls legislation around UNDRIP "unworkable"
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Standard tactic: When you can't actually address nor counter the information being presented, attack the presenter.
Something a few here are fully committed to...
Cheers,
Nog
ziggy
Well-Known Member
walleyes
Well-Known Member
That works both ways. Just because the left view suits yours doesn’t make them correct. Honestly fellows, use common sense look around you quite sucking up the Kool- Aid already. It has to be embarrassing after being wrong for so many years no ??
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Totally agree, people have to shuck the tribalism that’s been developing and open their ears and minds.
Yes she did but your quote is out of context. She called it "unworkable" because there was a large number of laws and regulations that would have to be re-written to be consistent with UNDRIP. That is now supposedly taking place following a commitment by the Federal Government to do so that came after her remark, but not because of her remark.
D
Deleted member 8461
Guest
All UN agenda 21, 2030, 2050 the Great Reset.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
build back better
SpringFever2359
Well-Known Member
Push, push, push then there will be an uprising never before seen in Canada, dont get rid of your guns
Similar threads
