Federal Government Approves TMX Pipeline Again - Update: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal

[JM_]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

No worries . You are a product of canadian legal system ( common law ), so of course you don't support indigenous / first nations law.

 

Reconciliation is much than just a spoken word thrown around at your coctail parties you attend in West Van.   The  genocide will continue until Canadians fully respect indigenous peoples rights and history. 

thats pretty insulting King, I actually care a lot about seeing first nations people get out of the situations many of them are in. My wife and I chose to put all of our charitable donations into charities that try to help first nations. 

 

Your version of reconciliation seems to be some sort of utopia where every band is fully and completely satisfied with every result. In my world I'm thrilled that 20/21 bands have chosen to benefit greatly from a major project. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[riffraff]

20 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Yes, exactly,  all Canadians are responsible for the genocide of indigenous population of Canada.  

 

We still have numerous first nations commnunities that do not even have clean drinking water.....

Oh man.  I should just off myself with the weight of the world on my conscience.  I’m half Serbian second generation - my genocidal guilt has no border or end

[RonMexico]

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Great so easy heh.... well done...

 

What your solution for the  thoussands of  indigenous women missing since 1980 ?

 

...

 

 “Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls” on June 3. The inquiry was in response to an epidemic of anywhere from roughly 1,200 to 4,000 indigenous women and girls, and gay, lesbian, trans and gender-nonconforming people who have gone missing or been murdered since 1980.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/11/canada-grapples-with-charge-genocide-indigenous-people-theres-no-debate/

 

It's not easy. I had to do it. I lost my job in Vancouver and had to move for the well being of my family....or stay behind and face financial ruin and poverty. I CHOSE to leave. It wasn't bloody easy at all. I left behind my whole life, family, friends, etc.

 

how TF does this have anything to do with the missing indigenous women or residential schools? You are just trying to be a troll by adding something to the conversation that doesn't apply.

[kingofsurrey]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats pretty insulting King, I actually care a lot about seeing first nations people get out of the situations many of them are in. My wife and I chose to put all of our charitable donations into charities that try to help first nations. 

 

Your version of reconciliation seems to be some sort of utopia where every band is fully and completely satisfied with every result. In my world I'm thrilled that 20/21 bands have chosen to benefit greatly from a major project. 

I would prefer to see 21/21 but it is very admirable of what you and your family contribute to indigenous causes.  Well done. 

[kingofsurrey]

2 minutes ago, RonMexico said:

 

It's not easy. I had to do it. I lost my job in Vancouver and had to move for the well being of my family....or stay behind and face financial ruin and poverty. I CHOSE to leave. It wasn't bloody easy at all. I left behind my whole life, family, friends, etc.

 

how TF does this have anything to do with the missing indigenous women or residential schools? You are just trying to be a troll by adding something to the conversation that doesn't apply.

Its great you had the ability to move...

 

You do realize who is affected the most from catastrophic situations....   the poor and the disadvantaged are the ones that least adapt and move out of these situations.

Well done for you but don't judge others that have less ability than you to make a major move. 

[RonMexico]

12 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Its great you had the ability to move...

 

You do realize who is affected the most from catastrophic situations....   the poor and the disadvantaged are the ones that least adapt and move out of these situations.

Well done for you but don't judge others that have less ability than you to make a major move. 

 

It's a choice. Everyone has the ability to move at any time. I could have stayed and succumbed to homelessness and poverty.

 

Do the poor and disadvantaged have their feet cemented to the ground? You can stay and point fingers or you can move.

 

What did Indigenous tribes do when the resources ran out near their village? They MOVED to the next region where there was more resources to live off or they died.

[JM_]

sometimes you win one @Ryan Strome

 

This was the correct decision. 

 

Supreme Court dismisses B.C.'s bid to save bill blocking Trans

• Email

'Today it's heavy oil, tomorrow it could be anything else,' Justice Malcolm Rowe says at hearing

 

John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Jan 16, 2020 2:46 PM ET | Last Updated: 2 minutes ago

 

 

Chief Justice Richard Wagner reads the Supreme Court's decision 0:43

2667

comments

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed B.C.'s appeal of a lower court decision that quashed provincial legislation designed to block the Trans Mountain expansion project.

In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Richard Wagner said the court will let the B.C. Court of Appeal decision stand.

 

The decision clears yet another legal hurdle for the long-delayed pipeline project. A separate Federal Court of Appeals case on the project, which considers Indigenous issues, is still pending.

 

The decision, issued from the bench on the same day legal counsel delivered oral arguments, is a blow to B.C. Premier John Horgan, who has sought to stop construction of the expansion. If built, the pipeline will carry nearly a million barrels of oil from Alberta's oilpatch to the B.C. coast each day for export to Asian markets.

Horgan promised in the 2017 election campaign "to use every tool in our tool box to stop" the construction of the Trans Mountain expansion.

The court's ruling was not unexpected, given how poorly the B.C. case fared in front of the justices Thursday.

The B.C. NDP government had drafted amendments to provincial environmental law to all but ban interprovincial shipments of heavy oil — bitumen and diluted bitumen — and other "hazardous substances" through pipelines, including the Crown-owned Trans Mountain expansion project.

 

The current route of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The expansion would twin it.

The amendments would have required companies transporting these substances through B.C. to first obtain provincial permits.

In a statement, Horgan said he was disappointed by the decision, which effectively ends the province's litigation.

"This does not reduce our concerns regarding the potential of a catastrophic oil spill on our coast. When it comes to protecting our coast, our environment and our economy, we will continue do all we can within our jurisdiction," he said.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, meanwhile, called the decision a "big win" for his province.

"This could not be a stronger affirmation of Alberta's position," he said. "I really believe 2020 is going to be a good year, a turnaround year, for Alberta."

Despite Horgan's 2017 promise to use all the provincial levers available to stop the project, Joseph Arvay, the lawyer representing the attorney general of B.C., insisted Thursday the proposed permits were not designed to target Trans Mountain.

He said the proposed law was designed rather to protect the environment by guarding against spills. However, the B.C. regime did not target bitumen transported by ship.

"The only concern the premier, the attorney general and the members of the government have had is the harm of bitumen. It's not about pipelines. They're not anti-pipelines, they're not anti-Alberta, they're not anti-oilsands, they're not anti-oil," Arvay said.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan welcomed the court's ruling.

"It is a core responsibility of the federal government to help get Canada's resources to market and support good, middle class jobs," he said in a media statement. "We know this is only possible when we earn public trust and work to address environmental, Indigenous peoples' and local concerns, which we are doing every step of the way on TMX."

Bitumen is a molasses-like liquid or semi-solid form of petroleum. Environmentalists maintain diluted bitumen is difficult to clean up in the event of a spill on or near water.

Most of the justices — Malcolm Rowe, Rosalie Abella, Russell Brown, Andromache Karakatsanis and Nicholas Kasirer — questioned the province's authority to enact legislation on a matter that so clearly falls under federal jurisdiction.

The top court echoed many of arguments made by the five judges on the B.C. Court of Appeal, who ruled unanimously last spring that the Horgan government stepped into federal jurisdiction by imposing conditions on a project that crosses provincial boundaries.

Under section 92(10) of the Constitution, interprovincial projects like Trans Mountain are exclusively the purview of the federal government.

That section stipulates that "lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Roads, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces" are Ottawa's responsibility.

• Trudeau extends olive branch to Western Canada, vows to build Trans Mountain despite opposition

• Alberta leaders cheer court ruling against B.C. bid to regulate bitumen shipments

Rowe said B.C. is trying to block a project legitimately approved by the federal government.

"This [B.C.] legislation is about taking away the ability of the Government of Canada to effectively approve interprovincial pipelines that pass through B.C. carrying anything," Rowe said.

Abella said interprovincial pipeline approvals are "unquestionably a federal undertaking." Brown described the B.C. permitting regime as a deliberate attempt to usurp Ottawa's jurisdiction.

The pile-on by the justices over B.C.'s legal rationale was so intense that, by day's end, Arvay conceded the obvious: he likely wasn't going to win the appeal.

"If I'm not going to win the appeal, I don't want to lose badly," he said in his final reply.

'Today, it's heavy oil. Tomorrow, it could be anything else'

The Trans Mountain expansion project went through a years-long federal review by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and has been approved by the federal Liberal cabinet — twice.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the project is in the national interest and would help deliver Canadian oil to tidewater for shipment to lucrative markets in Asia, reducing price pressures on Alberta oil producers.

"If you have a pipeline and you can't put anything through it, it's totally useless. That frustrates the federal permitting process does it not?" Rowe said Thursday.

"Today, it's heavy oil. Tomorrow, it could be anything else."

 

Pipe for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is unloaded in Edson, Alta., on June 18, 2019. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

Brown said B.C.'s law "effectively allows the province to regulate the design and operation of an interprovincial operation," a constitutional no-no given how explicit the document is on interprovincial matters.

Ecojustice lawyer Harry Wruck, an intervener in the case, said environmental concerns should override other constitutional considerations.

"Environmental protection underpins the whole Constitution. Without a viable environment we cannot have a Constitution, we cannot have a nation based on laws, we cannot have institutions, we cannot have a society, in effect," Wruck said.

"What we're saying [is] environmental protection is an underlying constitutional principle that must inform the division of power analysis," he added, citing the constitutional division of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Jan Brongers, the lawyer representing the Attorney General of Canada, asked the Supreme Court today to dismiss the B.C. appeal because the proposed environmental amendments are ultra vires, or beyond the province's jurisdiction.

Brongers said the federal government is also concerned about environmental protection and has its own regulations in place to guard against a potential spill. He said B.C. has overreached.

"Your point is the province is reaching into the federal toolbox because their toolbox doesn't do the job?" Brown asked Brongers.

"Yes. They're trying to regulate the same subject for the same purpose, but they have different notions for what's required," Brongers replied.

Justice Michael Moldaver described the B.C. bill as an attempt to "throw up barriers that will, at a minimum, delay or obstruct" a project approved by the federal cabinet.

Rowe said siding with B.C. in this case would be devastating to interprovincial commerce. "There will be nothing. The uncertainty will kill the business case," he said.

• VIDEO
  B.C. to appeal decision over control of Trans Mountain pipeline oil to Canada's top court

• B.C. legislation unfairly targets Trans Mountain, project proponent argues

Brown, Karakatsanis and Rowe questioned the environmental protection argument because the legislation doesn't address the transport of heavy oils by other means — by ship, for example — or existing heavy oil shipments that move through the province.

Karakatsanis noted that the province already has environmental legislation — the Environmental Management Act — that can be applied in the event of a spill.

Abella said there's no question a province can enact environmental protection legislation, but the question before the court is whether this legislation protects the environment in a way that interferes with clear constitutional boundaries.

Arvay argued that the division of powers does not amount to "watertight compartments" — and courts previously have recognized that certain functions are best carried out by the level of government closest to the people affected.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[Violator]

@Jimmy McGill

 

What does a court case like this cost 

[JM_]

Just now, Violator said:

@Jimmy McGill

 

What does a court case like this cost 

well this one not much since the court didn't even want to hear it. Its hard to know for sure, depends on how much outside contracting BC is doing but I wouldn't be surprised at all if at the end of the day BC spends 10 million or so fighting the pipeline. We won't know until there is a change in government. 

[DonLever]

Don't need to read the whole article.  

 

Basically it came down to the issue of jurisdiction and the ruling is very clear:

 

Rowe said B.C. is trying to block a project legitimately approved by the federal government.

"This [B.C.] legislation is about taking away the ability of the Government of Canada to effectively approve interprovincial pipelines that pass through B.C. carrying anything," Rowe said.

Abella said interprovincial pipeline approvals are "unquestionably a federal undertaking." Brown described the B.C. permitting regime as a deliberate attempt to usurp Ottawa's jurisdiction.

Edited January 17, 2020 by DonLever

[kingofsurrey]

4 hours ago, RonMexico said:

 

It's a choice. Everyone has the ability to move at any time. I could have stayed and succumbed to homelessness and poverty.

 

Do the poor and disadvantaged have their feet cemented to the ground? You can stay and point fingers or you can move.

 

What did Indigenous tribes do when the resources ran out near their village? They MOVED to the next region where there was more resources to live off or they died.

You are wrong. When hurricaine Katrina hit.  All the peope with a bit of money fled.

The most poor and economically challenged were not able to move.  Many perished. 

Never blame the poor for the inabilitiy to make proper choices.. many have no resources and very little formal education/training/skills   or even a few bucks to buy a bus ticket.

 

Congrats on your move.  You did the right thing and i am sure it was not easy.  Says alot about you that you had the courage to do it for you and your family.

Well done.

[kingofsurrey]

5 hours ago, riffraff said:

Oh man.  I should just off myself with the weight of the world on my conscience.  I’m half Serbian second generation - my genocidal guilt has no border or end

Its not about what happened in the past.... its all about how we move forward.

 

Reconcilation is more than just a hollow word spoken by politicians at media TV events...

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sometimes you win one @Ryan Strome

 

This was the correct decision. 

 

Supreme Court dismisses B.C.'s bid to save bill blocking Trans

• Email

'Today it's heavy oil, tomorrow it could be anything else,' Justice Malcolm Rowe says at hearing

 

John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Jan 16, 2020 2:46 PM ET | Last Updated: 2 minutes ago

 

 

Chief Justice Richard Wagner reads the Supreme Court's decision 0:43

2667

comments

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed B.C.'s appeal of a lower court decision that quashed provincial legislation designed to block the Trans Mountain expansion project.

In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Richard Wagner said the court will let the B.C. Court of Appeal decision stand.

 

The decision clears yet another legal hurdle for the long-delayed pipeline project. A separate Federal Court of Appeals case on the project, which considers Indigenous issues, is still pending.

 

The decision, issued from the bench on the same day legal counsel delivered oral arguments, is a blow to B.C. Premier John Horgan, who has sought to stop construction of the expansion. If built, the pipeline will carry nearly a million barrels of oil from Alberta's oilpatch to the B.C. coast each day for export to Asian markets.

Horgan promised in the 2017 election campaign "to use every tool in our tool box to stop" the construction of the Trans Mountain expansion.

The court's ruling was not unexpected, given how poorly the B.C. case fared in front of the justices Thursday.

The B.C. NDP government had drafted amendments to provincial environmental law to all but ban interprovincial shipments of heavy oil — bitumen and diluted bitumen — and other "hazardous substances" through pipelines, including the Crown-owned Trans Mountain expansion project.

 

The current route of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The expansion would twin it.

The amendments would have required companies transporting these substances through B.C. to first obtain provincial permits.

In a statement, Horgan said he was disappointed by the decision, which effectively ends the province's litigation.

"This does not reduce our concerns regarding the potential of a catastrophic oil spill on our coast. When it comes to protecting our coast, our environment and our economy, we will continue do all we can within our jurisdiction," he said.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, meanwhile, called the decision a "big win" for his province.

"This could not be a stronger affirmation of Alberta's position," he said. "I really believe 2020 is going to be a good year, a turnaround year, for Alberta."

Despite Horgan's 2017 promise to use all the provincial levers available to stop the project, Joseph Arvay, the lawyer representing the attorney general of B.C., insisted Thursday the proposed permits were not designed to target Trans Mountain.

He said the proposed law was designed rather to protect the environment by guarding against spills. However, the B.C. regime did not target bitumen transported by ship.

"The only concern the premier, the attorney general and the members of the government have had is the harm of bitumen. It's not about pipelines. They're not anti-pipelines, they're not anti-Alberta, they're not anti-oilsands, they're not anti-oil," Arvay said.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan welcomed the court's ruling.

"It is a core responsibility of the federal government to help get Canada's resources to market and support good, middle class jobs," he said in a media statement. "We know this is only possible when we earn public trust and work to address environmental, Indigenous peoples' and local concerns, which we are doing every step of the way on TMX."

Bitumen is a molasses-like liquid or semi-solid form of petroleum. Environmentalists maintain diluted bitumen is difficult to clean up in the event of a spill on or near water.

Most of the justices — Malcolm Rowe, Rosalie Abella, Russell Brown, Andromache Karakatsanis and Nicholas Kasirer — questioned the province's authority to enact legislation on a matter that so clearly falls under federal jurisdiction.

The top court echoed many of arguments made by the five judges on the B.C. Court of Appeal, who ruled unanimously last spring that the Horgan government stepped into federal jurisdiction by imposing conditions on a project that crosses provincial boundaries.

Under section 92(10) of the Constitution, interprovincial projects like Trans Mountain are exclusively the purview of the federal government.

That section stipulates that "lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Roads, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces" are Ottawa's responsibility.

• Trudeau extends olive branch to Western Canada, vows to build Trans Mountain despite opposition

• Alberta leaders cheer court ruling against B.C. bid to regulate bitumen shipments

Rowe said B.C. is trying to block a project legitimately approved by the federal government.

"This [B.C.] legislation is about taking away the ability of the Government of Canada to effectively approve interprovincial pipelines that pass through B.C. carrying anything," Rowe said.

Abella said interprovincial pipeline approvals are "unquestionably a federal undertaking." Brown described the B.C. permitting regime as a deliberate attempt to usurp Ottawa's jurisdiction.

The pile-on by the justices over B.C.'s legal rationale was so intense that, by day's end, Arvay conceded the obvious: he likely wasn't going to win the appeal.

"If I'm not going to win the appeal, I don't want to lose badly," he said in his final reply.

'Today, it's heavy oil. Tomorrow, it could be anything else'

The Trans Mountain expansion project went through a years-long federal review by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and has been approved by the federal Liberal cabinet — twice.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the project is in the national interest and would help deliver Canadian oil to tidewater for shipment to lucrative markets in Asia, reducing price pressures on Alberta oil producers.

"If you have a pipeline and you can't put anything through it, it's totally useless. That frustrates the federal permitting process does it not?" Rowe said Thursday.

"Today, it's heavy oil. Tomorrow, it could be anything else."

 

Pipe for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is unloaded in Edson, Alta., on June 18, 2019. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

Brown said B.C.'s law "effectively allows the province to regulate the design and operation of an interprovincial operation," a constitutional no-no given how explicit the document is on interprovincial matters.

Ecojustice lawyer Harry Wruck, an intervener in the case, said environmental concerns should override other constitutional considerations.

"Environmental protection underpins the whole Constitution. Without a viable environment we cannot have a Constitution, we cannot have a nation based on laws, we cannot have institutions, we cannot have a society, in effect," Wruck said.

"What we're saying [is] environmental protection is an underlying constitutional principle that must inform the division of power analysis," he added, citing the constitutional division of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

Jan Brongers, the lawyer representing the Attorney General of Canada, asked the Supreme Court today to dismiss the B.C. appeal because the proposed environmental amendments are ultra vires, or beyond the province's jurisdiction.

Brongers said the federal government is also concerned about environmental protection and has its own regulations in place to guard against a potential spill. He said B.C. has overreached.

"Your point is the province is reaching into the federal toolbox because their toolbox doesn't do the job?" Brown asked Brongers.

"Yes. They're trying to regulate the same subject for the same purpose, but they have different notions for what's required," Brongers replied.

Justice Michael Moldaver described the B.C. bill as an attempt to "throw up barriers that will, at a minimum, delay or obstruct" a project approved by the federal cabinet.

Rowe said siding with B.C. in this case would be devastating to interprovincial commerce. "There will be nothing. The uncertainty will kill the business case," he said.

• VIDEO
  B.C. to appeal decision over control of Trans Mountain pipeline oil to Canada's top court

• B.C. legislation unfairly targets Trans Mountain, project proponent argues

Brown, Karakatsanis and Rowe questioned the environmental protection argument because the legislation doesn't address the transport of heavy oils by other means — by ship, for example — or existing heavy oil shipments that move through the province.

Karakatsanis noted that the province already has environmental legislation — the Environmental Management Act — that can be applied in the event of a spill.

Abella said there's no question a province can enact environmental protection legislation, but the question before the court is whether this legislation protects the environment in a way that interferes with clear constitutional boundaries.

Arvay argued that the division of powers does not amount to "watertight compartments" — and courts previously have recognized that certain functions are best carried out by the level of government closest to the people affected.

 

4 hours ago, Violator said:

@Jimmy McGill

 

What does a court case like this cost 

 

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well this one not much since the court didn't even want to hear it. Its hard to know for sure, depends on how much outside contracting BC is doing but I wouldn't be surprised at all if at the end of the day BC spends 10 million or so fighting the pipeline. We won't know until there is a change in government. 

 

4 hours ago, DonLever said:

Don't need to read the whole article.  

 

Basically it came down to the issue of jurisdiction and the ruling is very clear:

 

Rowe said B.C. is trying to block a project legitimately approved by the federal government.

"This [B.C.] legislation is about taking away the ability of the Government of Canada to effectively approve interprovincial pipelines that pass through B.C. carrying anything," Rowe said.

Abella said interprovincial pipeline approvals are "unquestionably a federal undertaking." Brown described the B.C. permitting regime as a deliberate attempt to usurp Ottawa's jurisdiction.

This has to be all smoke and mirrors by the BC government. How the hell could they not have had legal advice telling them they're wasting their money. 

 

They want the revenue they just want to convince their supporters they oppose it.

[Violator]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

 

 

This has to be all smoke and mirrors by the BC government. How the hell could they not have had legal advice telling them they're wasting their money. 

 

They want the revenue they just want to convince their supporters they oppose it.

Bc NDP is trying to keep its shaky alliance together thus the challenge.Same strategy with the federal Liberals and the court challenges makes people all warm and fuzzy.

[Ryan Strome]

9 minutes ago, Violator said:

Bc NDP is trying to keep its shaky alliance together thus the challenge.Same strategy with the federal Liberals and the court challenges makes people all warm and fuzzy.

Ya fair point.

[kingofsurrey]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Ya fair point.

BC elected politicians have a duty to represent BC interests.

 

Having a catastrophic oil spill in Vancouver Harbour and  contributing to global  Climate change is not really in BC residents best interest........ so of course BC politicans are challenging the twinning of the toxic peanut butter tar sludge line. 

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, kingofsurrey said:

BC elected politicians have a duty to represent BC interests.

 

Having a catastrophic oil spill in Vancouver Harbour and  contributing to global  Climate change is not really in BC residents best interest........ so of course BC politicans are challenging the twinning of the toxic peanut butter tar sludge line. 

That isn't what they challenged. What they challenged they had less than 0% of winning. If they were looking after the interests of BCers they wouldn't have wasted BCers money.

[kingofsurrey]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

That isn't what they challenged. What they challenged they had less than 0% of winning. If they were looking after the interests of BCers they wouldn't have wasted BCers money.

The twinning of the pipeline threatens all BC residents  ( spills ) and it also threatens all citizens of the planet ( global climate change).

 

Not sure what you are going on about.....

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

The twinning of the pipeline threatens all BC residents  ( spills ) and it also threatens all citizens of the planet ( global climate change).

 

Not sure what you are going on about.....

interesting I'm thinking the exact same thing atm.

[kingofsurrey]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

interesting I'm thinking the exact same thing atm.

Albertan oil patch worker....