What remains unclear from second segment with Mitch Case:
First, since Mr. Case admits he doesn't really know anything about what actually happens in other areas where industrial/resource development happens, I am entitled to disbelieve his hearsay accounts that the companies show up and talk only puppies and unicorns and don't disclose any risks unless the information is screwed out of them. It also has to be said that many of these studies the companies don't want to talk about, which supposedly show poor health outcomes from industry are activist junk science and ignore risks like cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and obesity among the local residents. So there might be some justification for the companies taking a sunnier view of what they propose.
Second, are the Metis yet another sovereign government, with its own laws (as Mr. Case alluded), we have to negotiate with in order to get anything done? Who actually speaks for the Metis "nation" so we can tell when their consent has been granted, that the accommodation proposed is acceptable....or not? Is it Mr. Case's call, by himself, or some other activist, or is there is a transparent grass-roots process that the proponent, and the government, can get a deal with that both know will be binding?
How many Metis rely on the Sault fishery that the other 40,000,000 of us must yield to their traditional lifestyles? How much of the blame for the dysfunction and misery in aboriginal and Metis communities is down to the sins of our fathers and how much is down to learned helplessness? A lot of vague stewardship and ways of knowing mumbo-jumbo tied together with "you-know" every few words. No, I don't know what "justice" would really look like in the opinion of the Metis and I still don't know after listening to this segment.
Excellent summary of the weaknesses of this infomercial. They will be consider you an outlier, but you are not.
Misters Gurney and Case have already decided that the average person is stupid and, therefore, the 50% of the population below average are dumb and dumber. This is the tripe served at dinners to smug progressives who believe in an epistocracy. The same pseudo-intellectuals who underestimated Mr. Trump, to our detriment.
Historians should understand better than anyone how history repeats itself.
Subscription ends in February. Seven months and counting.
I suspect the reason there were so few comments, lively or otherwise is because everyone knew it was going to be an infomercial. Which it was, but I wanted to hear what the other side says, even if they’re paying for it. (If not for the interview itself, then as an acknowledged partner.)
The fundamental problem I see with the obligation of the Crown to consult and accommodate indigenous and Métis groups is determining when such C &A has been adequate to green-light the project. Under current Canadian law, the regulator and ultimately Cabinet (because the regulators is a creature of the Executive) make this determination: you have been heard and in our opinion the accommodation is adequate. Case closed. If an interest group believes it wasn’t heard or didn’t get the accommodation it wanted, it can sue in Court, and then the Court decides.
But the indigenous group doesn’t decide *itself* whether the C & A was adequate. Other people get a vote, too. “We listened, we accommodated. We evaluated your arguments. We got approval. Now shut up, take down your barricades, and go away.”
But now under the consent model, the industry *and Cabinet* have to convince every indigenous group that the project is in *their* interests, not just the larger public interest. The indigenous communities, all 633 of them plus various Métis nations and Inuit get to be the judge of what *they* approve.
It gets worse. *Who* decides? How is that consent given legal force? Can it be contested or withdrawn within any indigenous nation after the fact? After the money starts to flow and the shovels go into the ground. In the C & A model this doesn’t matter. The project was approved based on the process. The fact that one or more bands, or factions within a band, change their mind doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t their minds that approved it. But under a consent model, if they change their mind, the project gets cancelled. So being sure who exactly gives consent will become very important.
Governments in democracies generally like to go through band councils elected under the Indian Act. It feels right to us. We don’t like dealing with feudal oligarchies of aristocrats who know what’s best and don’t have to listen to their people, only the powerful families. In the case of Coastal Gas Link, the Wetsuwetn tribal chiefs agreed with the band council, and with all the other bands along the route. But then there was a putsch, where these chiefs were ousted by a gang of cronies who opposed it, with results as we know. Was it colonialist and imperialist for our government to take the opinion of democratically elected band councils, or should we have said, “Sure, we’ll respect whatever your traditional governance says”?
Under C & A it didn’t matter what the new cronies said. The pipeline was permitted. But under consent, these chiefs could have rescinded the permit and stopped the project....even if the band council was still for it, which it was.
Now sure, we can say, let the indigenous people work this out for themselves in their own way without colonialist interference. Fine, but that will mean no one will invest in anything, because no investor can be sure that his project won’t get derailed at the next putsch, aka a “feast.” Leaving the aboriginals to it is not, in a rocks-and-trees economy, cost-free for the rest of us. Maybe we don’t want to be a rocks-and-trees economy anymore.
I was hoping to get some insight from Mr. Gurney’s questions to his sponsor, Mr. Case, about how this is going to work. All I got was propaganda.
I write this after watching the "On The Line" episode in full.
I enjoyed the first session with Tristan Hopper; I had read of his book (but not the book itself) previously and it remains on my "To Do" list to purchase. A good interview between two friends.
Ah! Your interview with Mitch Case .... Wow! A great interview.
I confess, Matt, that I am (and have been for many decades) much more aware of Metis organizations than you. I say that not as a matter of pride but simple fact. I live in Alberta and I recall that many decades ago (I am now seventy-four) this was a topic matter in elementary and junior high school. Since that time I have dealt with the Metis nation in Alberta (sometimes something so simple as to open an office hall door - with the sign, "Metis Nation of Alberta, District something" - and ask where the washroom was in the building). There are a number of Metis settlements in Alberta and, from time to time, they make the news with evacuations, appeals to government of this or that and so forth.
My son-in-law is Metis. I mentioned that I live in Alberta. My son-in-law grew up in Saskatoon and his memory of "natives" (his word) was the stereotype drunken Indian as he saw a great deal of that in Saskatoon. As a result, although he is himself Metis when he came of age he refused to seek recognition of his status. His mother is status Metis; his sister is status Metis; his niece is status Metis; his daughter could be status Metis; but he refuses to this day to seek that status. Because he saw many individuals who reflected badly on being a native.
All I can offer from my son-in-law's experiences is that we, in the rest of Canada, need to think about that. As Mitch Case made clear, Truth and Reconciliation is important but ignoring people is incredibly detrimental
Seems The Line is doing a shameless catch up to a First Nations group to try to get with the program, you know (clearly stated and speaking for many of us) the one the rest of the country has been negotiating, openly, publicly declaring as part of the long progressive path to reconciliation.
Israel might take some lessons.
I never understood how The Line has secured support from a Métis group when there is never ever any mention or opinions from Métis, Inuit, Frist Nations…. Unless of course it was a snippet, a reference capitalizing on the fuck Trudeau campaign. The giddy irreverence of The Line is tired old news just like the blabber mouthing of Conrad Black’s Alma matter.
We need real raw journalism/opinion in these troubling times. Please!
Bud, you are replaying to me wherein I was commenting on an "On The Line" video. All well and good. But ...
If you look at the most recent video from "The Line" wherein G & G responded to various reader questions they touched on the idea that the concept of an old fashioned newspaper, as comprehensive as that document was, simply is not possible in the new digital world. They noted further that one can obtain a lot of that sort of content but you have to subscribe to outlets that provide sports, politics, yada, yada, yada. "The Line" is primarily opinion [and damned good opinion, I say].
I agree with what G & G said and now I will add my comments. Most sites are opinion based simply because the cost of running an old fashioned newspaper with the staffing and various related costs is simply prohibitive so, again, you have to go to a multitude of sites. I expect that at some point (time frame undetermined) a grouping of such sites will occur and something that approximates some aspects of the old fashioned newspaper will arise. But between now and then you have to look at a multitude (i.e. many and costly, of course) sites to get what you used to get delivered to your doorstep. Until that point, the legacy media are still kinda, possibly, perhaps around. Until they are not. Put differently, until the government stops trying keep the zombies alive it won't be economic for startups to try to replace the zombies.
The post-nation state's problems will not be solved and we are on an inexorable path to dissolution. An amusing suggestion from an American was posted in the Calgary Herald.
Panned broadly by Nenshi nuts and the inhabitants of the People's Republic of British Columbia, it is telling in that the Yanks are beginning to think, "What if..."?
What remains unclear from second segment with Mitch Case:
First, since Mr. Case admits he doesn't really know anything about what actually happens in other areas where industrial/resource development happens, I am entitled to disbelieve his hearsay accounts that the companies show up and talk only puppies and unicorns and don't disclose any risks unless the information is screwed out of them. It also has to be said that many of these studies the companies don't want to talk about, which supposedly show poor health outcomes from industry are activist junk science and ignore risks like cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and obesity among the local residents. So there might be some justification for the companies taking a sunnier view of what they propose.
Second, are the Metis yet another sovereign government, with its own laws (as Mr. Case alluded), we have to negotiate with in order to get anything done? Who actually speaks for the Metis "nation" so we can tell when their consent has been granted, that the accommodation proposed is acceptable....or not? Is it Mr. Case's call, by himself, or some other activist, or is there is a transparent grass-roots process that the proponent, and the government, can get a deal with that both know will be binding?
How many Metis rely on the Sault fishery that the other 40,000,000 of us must yield to their traditional lifestyles? How much of the blame for the dysfunction and misery in aboriginal and Metis communities is down to the sins of our fathers and how much is down to learned helplessness? A lot of vague stewardship and ways of knowing mumbo-jumbo tied together with "you-know" every few words. No, I don't know what "justice" would really look like in the opinion of the Metis and I still don't know after listening to this segment.
Excellent summary of the weaknesses of this infomercial. They will be consider you an outlier, but you are not.
Misters Gurney and Case have already decided that the average person is stupid and, therefore, the 50% of the population below average are dumb and dumber. This is the tripe served at dinners to smug progressives who believe in an epistocracy. The same pseudo-intellectuals who underestimated Mr. Trump, to our detriment.
Historians should understand better than anyone how history repeats itself.
Subscription ends in February. Seven months and counting.
I suspect the reason there were so few comments, lively or otherwise is because everyone knew it was going to be an infomercial. Which it was, but I wanted to hear what the other side says, even if they’re paying for it. (If not for the interview itself, then as an acknowledged partner.)
The fundamental problem I see with the obligation of the Crown to consult and accommodate indigenous and Métis groups is determining when such C &A has been adequate to green-light the project. Under current Canadian law, the regulator and ultimately Cabinet (because the regulators is a creature of the Executive) make this determination: you have been heard and in our opinion the accommodation is adequate. Case closed. If an interest group believes it wasn’t heard or didn’t get the accommodation it wanted, it can sue in Court, and then the Court decides.
But the indigenous group doesn’t decide *itself* whether the C & A was adequate. Other people get a vote, too. “We listened, we accommodated. We evaluated your arguments. We got approval. Now shut up, take down your barricades, and go away.”
But now under the consent model, the industry *and Cabinet* have to convince every indigenous group that the project is in *their* interests, not just the larger public interest. The indigenous communities, all 633 of them plus various Métis nations and Inuit get to be the judge of what *they* approve.
It gets worse. *Who* decides? How is that consent given legal force? Can it be contested or withdrawn within any indigenous nation after the fact? After the money starts to flow and the shovels go into the ground. In the C & A model this doesn’t matter. The project was approved based on the process. The fact that one or more bands, or factions within a band, change their mind doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t their minds that approved it. But under a consent model, if they change their mind, the project gets cancelled. So being sure who exactly gives consent will become very important.
Governments in democracies generally like to go through band councils elected under the Indian Act. It feels right to us. We don’t like dealing with feudal oligarchies of aristocrats who know what’s best and don’t have to listen to their people, only the powerful families. In the case of Coastal Gas Link, the Wetsuwetn tribal chiefs agreed with the band council, and with all the other bands along the route. But then there was a putsch, where these chiefs were ousted by a gang of cronies who opposed it, with results as we know. Was it colonialist and imperialist for our government to take the opinion of democratically elected band councils, or should we have said, “Sure, we’ll respect whatever your traditional governance says”?
Under C & A it didn’t matter what the new cronies said. The pipeline was permitted. But under consent, these chiefs could have rescinded the permit and stopped the project....even if the band council was still for it, which it was.
Now sure, we can say, let the indigenous people work this out for themselves in their own way without colonialist interference. Fine, but that will mean no one will invest in anything, because no investor can be sure that his project won’t get derailed at the next putsch, aka a “feast.” Leaving the aboriginals to it is not, in a rocks-and-trees economy, cost-free for the rest of us. Maybe we don’t want to be a rocks-and-trees economy anymore.
I was hoping to get some insight from Mr. Gurney’s questions to his sponsor, Mr. Case, about how this is going to work. All I got was propaganda.
I write this after watching the "On The Line" episode in full.
I enjoyed the first session with Tristan Hopper; I had read of his book (but not the book itself) previously and it remains on my "To Do" list to purchase. A good interview between two friends.
Ah! Your interview with Mitch Case .... Wow! A great interview.
I confess, Matt, that I am (and have been for many decades) much more aware of Metis organizations than you. I say that not as a matter of pride but simple fact. I live in Alberta and I recall that many decades ago (I am now seventy-four) this was a topic matter in elementary and junior high school. Since that time I have dealt with the Metis nation in Alberta (sometimes something so simple as to open an office hall door - with the sign, "Metis Nation of Alberta, District something" - and ask where the washroom was in the building). There are a number of Metis settlements in Alberta and, from time to time, they make the news with evacuations, appeals to government of this or that and so forth.
My son-in-law is Metis. I mentioned that I live in Alberta. My son-in-law grew up in Saskatoon and his memory of "natives" (his word) was the stereotype drunken Indian as he saw a great deal of that in Saskatoon. As a result, although he is himself Metis when he came of age he refused to seek recognition of his status. His mother is status Metis; his sister is status Metis; his niece is status Metis; his daughter could be status Metis; but he refuses to this day to seek that status. Because he saw many individuals who reflected badly on being a native.
All I can offer from my son-in-law's experiences is that we, in the rest of Canada, need to think about that. As Mitch Case made clear, Truth and Reconciliation is important but ignoring people is incredibly detrimental
You can get the book for $15 on your Kobo. Balls to Amazon and Kindle.
Seems The Line is doing a shameless catch up to a First Nations group to try to get with the program, you know (clearly stated and speaking for many of us) the one the rest of the country has been negotiating, openly, publicly declaring as part of the long progressive path to reconciliation.
Israel might take some lessons.
I never understood how The Line has secured support from a Métis group when there is never ever any mention or opinions from Métis, Inuit, Frist Nations…. Unless of course it was a snippet, a reference capitalizing on the fuck Trudeau campaign. The giddy irreverence of The Line is tired old news just like the blabber mouthing of Conrad Black’s Alma matter.
We need real raw journalism/opinion in these troubling times. Please!
Bud, you are replaying to me wherein I was commenting on an "On The Line" video. All well and good. But ...
If you look at the most recent video from "The Line" wherein G & G responded to various reader questions they touched on the idea that the concept of an old fashioned newspaper, as comprehensive as that document was, simply is not possible in the new digital world. They noted further that one can obtain a lot of that sort of content but you have to subscribe to outlets that provide sports, politics, yada, yada, yada. "The Line" is primarily opinion [and damned good opinion, I say].
I agree with what G & G said and now I will add my comments. Most sites are opinion based simply because the cost of running an old fashioned newspaper with the staffing and various related costs is simply prohibitive so, again, you have to go to a multitude of sites. I expect that at some point (time frame undetermined) a grouping of such sites will occur and something that approximates some aspects of the old fashioned newspaper will arise. But between now and then you have to look at a multitude (i.e. many and costly, of course) sites to get what you used to get delivered to your doorstep. Until that point, the legacy media are still kinda, possibly, perhaps around. Until they are not. Put differently, until the government stops trying keep the zombies alive it won't be economic for startups to try to replace the zombies.
The post-nation state's problems will not be solved and we are on an inexorable path to dissolution. An amusing suggestion from an American was posted in the Calgary Herald.
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-is-a-land-swap-a-win-win-solution-to-the-canada-u-s-crisis?tbref=hp
Panned broadly by Nenshi nuts and the inhabitants of the People's Republic of British Columbia, it is telling in that the Yanks are beginning to think, "What if..."?