Once again, lawyer/judges – at the instigation of taxpayer-funded aboriginal and environmental groups – have dealt a major economic blow to Canada, using ‘aboriginal law’ rulings to torpedo a project that the Canadian people had already spent a small fortune investigating and approving.
There is now less and less need for elected officials, as courts have taken the responsibility to balance all of the competing interests that used to be fought out in the political arena – the difference being that elected officials had to face the judgement of the Canadian people over their decisions, while lawyer/judges simply go on their merry, well-paid way, no matter how flawed or unacceptable to the people their decisions may be. Lawyers now not only dominate our politics, they are trying to manage our economy and balance competing social and economic interests, while not having to answer to the people of Canada:
‘Court kills Northern Gateway pipeline’
“The Federal Court of Appeal says the Canadian government failed in its duty to consult with ‘aboriginal people’ before giving the green light to a controversial pipeline proposal to link Alberta’s oilsands to British Columbia’s north coast.
“The court has quashed federal approval for Enbridge’s $7.9-billion ‘Northern Gateway’ project in a written decision dated June 23 but released Thursday by ‘JFK Law’, which represents a ‘First Nation’ involved in the appeal.
“The judgment says the government neglected to discuss subjects of critical importance to ‘First Nations’ by ignoring many of the project’s impacts and offering only a “brief, hurried and inadequate” opportunity for consultation.
“The pipeline proposal received federal approval in 2014 but has been mired in legal uncertainty ever since.
“Eight ‘First Nations’ {Gitga’at ‘First Nation’, Gitxaala ‘Nation’, Haida ‘Nation’, Haisla ‘Nation’, Heiltsuk ‘Nation’, Kitasoo Xai’Xais ‘Nation’, Nadleh Whut’en and Nak’azdli Whut’en}, four environmental groups {‘ForestEthics Advocacy’, ‘Living Oceans Society’, ‘Raincoast Conservation Foundation’ and ‘B.C. Nature’} and one labour union {‘Unifor’ (UAW)} launched the legal challenge, which was heard by the appeal court in October.
“Northern Gateway would involve the construction of more than a thousand kilometres of pipeline from northeast of Edmonton to Kitimat for shipping to international markets.”
–‘Court kills Gateway pipeline’,
Canadian Press, June 30, 2016
http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/169599/Court-kills-Gateway-pipeline 
“The three-judge panel that heard the appeal was split 2-1.
“In the dissenting opinion, Justice Michael Ryer says the Crown’s reasons for concluding it had met its duty to consult were based on a number of factors, including that ‘First Nations’ were encouraged to participate in the process and were entitled to receive funding to do so {They had no excuse for not participating in the hearings. Some of them went so far as to refuse to participate; now, two foolish judges rule that they weren’t ‘adequately consulted’? What ignorant nonsense. Things like this can’t help but undermine Canadians’ confidence in their judicial system…}.
“Many of the ‘First Nations’ concerns were accommodated as well in the 209 conditions attached to the project by a joint review panel that found it was in the public interest in December 2013, he wrote.
“It also has the support of a majority of the affected ‘First Nations’, 26 of which accepted the project proponent’s offer to acquire an equity interest in the project.”
“The company will consult with its ‘First Nations’ partners and commercial proponents before deciding its next steps, he wrote.
“The Calgary-based energy company and its 31 aboriginal equity partners asked the ‘National Energy Board’ for a three-year extension to the 2016 construction deadline to allow for more consultation. But the ‘First Nations’ who oppose the project, many of them located on B.C.’s north coast, say extra time won’t sway their position.
{See: ‘Chiefs Keep Pushing…’:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/chiefs-keep-pushing/ }
“The Northern Gateway Pipeline first submitted a preliminary information package on the project to the energy board and the ‘Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’ in late 2005… {Eleven years of taxpayers and the company paying for this process, and everyone involved getting well-paid for basically accomplishing nothing…}”
–‘Northern Gateway pipeline stymied after court quashes approval’,
Canadian Press/Vancouver Sun, June 30, 2016
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/northern-gateway-pipeline-approval-stymied-after-court-quashes-approval 
Aboriginal Industry Profile: ‘JFK Law’
‘Working Together for Justice and Reconciliation’
“Based in British Columbia, ‘JFK Law’ provides legal advice and services with an emphasis on aboriginal law and constitutional law across Canada.
“Driven by a passion for justice, we offer creative and practical legal solutions and work towards meaningful change.
Meet our Clients:
White River ‘First Nation’ {a ‘nation’ of 130 people}
“In 2013, ‘JFK Law’ represented White River ‘First Nation’ in a successful judicial review of a decision of the Yukon Government… The court found that the Yukon government breached its ‘duty to consult’ with White River ‘First Nation’ and quashed the decision of the Chief of Mines…”
Mikisew Cree ‘First Nation’ {a ‘nation’ of 2,900 people}
“The Mikisew Cree ‘First Nation’ is a leader when it comes to the protection of ‘Treaty 8’ rights, recognition of ‘indigenous knowledge’, ‘innovative approaches’ to Crown consultation, and negotiations. ‘JFK’ works with Mikisew to develop legal strategies to deal with these challenges… In 2005, Mikisew made history when it won a landmark case at the Supreme Court of Canada, which established that the Crown has to ‘consult’ ‘First Nations’ with historical ‘treaty rights’…
“‘JFK’ represents Mikisew, along with eight other Treaty 8 ‘First Nations’, in a judicial review application against Alberta for enacting land-use regulations about how and when people could access or use vacant public lands that ignored Mikisew’s constitutionally-protected ‘rights’. This case is still before the courts… ‘JFK’ has also represented Mikisew in public hearings for two oil sands mines…”
Gitxaala ‘Nation’ {a ‘nation’ of 1,913 people}
“‘JFK Law’ works closely with Gitxaala ‘Nation’ to advance its ‘aboriginal rights and title’ in the face of unprecedented proposals for oil and gas pipeline projects in its {claimed} ‘traditional territory’. The Gitxaala people are leaders in the legal challenges against the ‘Northern Gateway’ Pipeline Project and are actively asserting their rights in a number of LNG projects…”
http://www.jfklaw.ca/
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Top IMAGE: Alex Panetta–CANADIAN PRESS
See also:
‘Pro-Oil ‘First Nations’ On The Offensive’ {June 26, 2016}:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/pro-oil-first-nations-on-the-offensive/
‘Race-Based Control Of Resources?’ {June 25, 2016}:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/race-based-control-of-resources/
‘What Else Is New…?’ {June 21, 2016}:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/what-else-is-new/
‘Stacking The Deck…’ {May 19, 2016}:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/stacking-the-deck/
‘Americans Using Aboriginals Against Canada’ {May 18, 2016}: https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/americans-using-aboriginals-against-canada/
‘Chiefs Demand Say On Climate Change…Or Else’ {March 25, 2016}:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/chiefs-demand-say-on-climate-change-or-else/
‘Taking The Economy To Court: B.C. Update’ {February 11, 2016}:
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/taking-the-economy-to-court-b-c-update/
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
#ENDRACEBASEDLAWCANADA
Website – News
ERBL inc. Canada News
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com
Website – Featured Stories
END RACE BASED LAW inc. Canada
https://endracebasedlaw.wordpress.com/
Twitter – Daily News (follow us)
https://twitter.com/ERBLcanada
@ERBLcanada
Twitter – Featured Stories (follow us)
https://twitter.com/endracebasedlaw
@ENDRACEBASEDLAW
Twitter – 1NATION1LAW (follow us)
https://twitter.com/1NATION1LAW
@1NATION1LAW
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW
END RACE BASED LAW CANADA
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAWCANADA
ONE NATION ONE LAW CANADA
https://www.facebook.com/ONENATIONONELAWCANADA
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Petition to END RACE BASED LAW
http://endracebasedlaw.net/petition/
mail to: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com
JOIN US IN THE FUTURE OF A UNIFIED CANADA
END RACE BASED LAW Daily News Canada 
Call it what it is
At all times since 1982, the Crown was aware of the potential impact mineral exploration might have on the land with respect to treaty rights. Since that time Ontario had a fiduciary duty to consult and accommodate the FN before it opened the land for staking or at a minimum before it recorded the claims and permitted exploration activity.
October 2009 – The Mining Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14 (the “Mining Act”) was amended to provide in Section 2 that:
“The purpose of this Act is to encourage prospecting, staking and exploration for the development of mineral resources, in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including the duty to consult, and to minimize the impact of these activities on public health and safety and the environment. 2009, c. 21, s. 2.”
The Crown land in question is subject to Treaty 9. To the extent that there are rights to be protected arising from the treaty (harvesting rights) or outside the treaty (respecting sites of cultural significance), the Crown acts as a fiduciary of the First Nation. [50]
The constitutional rights and concerns of the First Nation would govern.” [51]
“It cannot be that the Crown would, at the same time, owe an independent duty to a mining company, to protect its rights in the face of a constitutional concern of a First Nation. The Crown would be in the untenable position of being required to serve two opposing masters, each insisting it can rely on one of two contradictory responsibilities.[51]
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE May 25, 2016
image: http://sovereigntytour.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/VETO.jpg
LikeLiked by 1 person