ALBERTA to spend $100M on operating rooms to shorten wait times
CBC March 4, 2020
The Alberta government will spend $100 million constructing and renovating operating rooms in Edmonton, Calgary, Grande Prairie and elsewhere, Premier Jason Kenney says.
The investment is part of a re-organization of Alberta operating rooms to equip more urban hospitals to handle complex surgeries, Health Minister Tyler Shandro told reporters at Edmonton's Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute on Wednesday.
"Albertans are going to get quicker access to surgeries they need closer to home," Shandro said.
Wait times for some essential surgeries rose between 2015 and 2019 to become unacceptably long, Kenney said on Wednesday.
"Albertans want, expect and deserve the highest quality health care that their tax dollars can buy," he said.
The money will cover upgrades of operating rooms in Edmonton's Royal Alexandra Hospital and the University of Alberta Hospital, including the addition of a new operating room.
Calgary's Foothills Medical Centre will see upgrades to 12 operating rooms. Surgical suites in Grande Prairie, Rocky Mountain House, Edson, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat will also be renovated.
The changes will allow Alberta Health Services to shuffle more routine procedures to smaller hospitals in Fort Saskatchewan, Edmonton's Grey Nuns Hospital, and the Sturgeon Community Hospital in St. Albert.
Tweaking where surgeries are performed
The changes are part of a new provincial surgical care initiative, which aims to shorten wait lists by spending $500 million in the next three years. The approach is similar to a Saskatchewan program that ran between 2010 and 2014 to whittle down wait times.
Dr. Verna Yiu, CEO of Alberta Health Services, said Alberta will need more doctors and other health professionals working in the province to tackle the growing number of planned surgeries. That news comes at a time when family doctors are in an uproar about the government's changes to how they are paid.
The government had already announced in last week's budget it intends to double the number of surgeries performed in private clinics. By 2023, 30 per cent of Alberta surgeries would be done outside of hospitals, if the government achieves this goal.
In its 2019 election platform, the United Conservative Party pledged to reduce surgery wait times to no more than four months within four years of taking office. Its goal was to reduce the number of people waiting more than three months by 75 per cent by the end of government's first term.
According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, wait times for non-emergency coronary bypass surgery, hip replacements, knee replacements and cataract repair all rose between 2014 and 2018. For cataract repair, in 2014, 71 per cent of Alberta patients had surgery within 112 days of referral. By 2018, only 49 per cent were in the operating room within that 112-day goal.
Alberta did improve access to urgent hip fracture repair surgeries during that time. In 2018, 94 per cent of patients were under the knife within 48 hours.
Critics question privatization plan
NDP health critic David Shepherd said Wednesday the government will have trouble staffing more operating rooms when its policy decisions could drive health-care workers out of the province.
no money in the budget for raises to nurses and other public sector workers.Many family doctors are upset about government changes to doctor pay and the finance minister has said there's
"(Shandro) is making enemies of the very doctors and physicians that need to perform these surgeries, not to mention the nurses and the other people that provide support, as they look to reduce the number of nurses across the province," Shepherd said.
Sandra Azocar, executive director of Friends of Medicare, questioned how the government intends to spend the rest of the $500 million it has budgeted to improve surgery wait times. Although she welcomed a $100-million investment in public hospitals, she questioned how much funding will go to for-profit surgical centres.
She said rejigging where surgeries are offered could force some patients and families to travel and incur extra costs out of pocket.
Outsourcing more surgeries to private clinics was a supposedly cost-saving option recommended by both a blue ribbon report on provincial spending and an Ernst and Young review of Alberta Health Services.
It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, March 06, 2020
SCHADENFREUDE Environmental groups criticize public hearings set to study massive Saguenay LNG project
CBC March 4, 2020
A coalition of environmental groups is asking Quebec's environmental review agency to widen the scope of its hearings into a $9.5-billion project to build a natural gas facility in the Saguenay.
As it stands, the agency, known as the BAPE, will begin public hearings later this month in the Saguenay. The hearings will focus only on GNL Quebec's plans to build a liquefaction plant by a port, roughly 230 kilometres northeast of Quebec City.
But in an open letter, 42 environmental and community groups say the BAPE should study the proposed Saguenay facility alongside plans to build a 780-kilometre pipeline, which would feed the facility natural gas from Western Canada.
They also want additional hearings held in Quebec City and Montreal, so local concerns aren't drowned out in the process.
"We fear that if there are public hearings only in Saguenay, people from all across Quebec will go there, and then it will be less equitable for people in Saguenay," said Alice-Anne Simard, director of Nature Quebec, one of the groups behind the letter.
"We know that many people all across Quebec want to take part in this process because this is such an important project for the future of this whole province."
View photos
Priscilla Plamondon Lalancette/Radio-CanadaMore
In addition, the groups are expressing concern about the impartiality of the environmental review process.
It was revealed recently that one of the two BAPE commissioners in charge of the review, Denis Bergeron, worked for 16 years as a consultant in the chemical industry.
The environmental groups are proposing that a third commissioner be appointed.
Their demands, however, failed to convince the BAPE to change course, at least for the time being.
The agency defended the impartiality of its commissioners in a statement released Wednesday. It also said it is rule-bound to hold public hearings in the community where a project is slated to be built.
"The BAPE has a lot of respect for host communities," the statement said.
Long list of environmental concerns
The project — both the port facility and the pipeline — has divided many in the region, and the province as a whole.
Premier François Legault has been vocal in his support of the project, claiming it will help reduce emissions globally by facilitating exports of LNG, which emits fewer emissions than coal.
But environmental groups argue the project will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. And their concerns don't end there.
"There are, in addition, concerns about local environmental and social impacts of the project along the pipeline route, on endangered species such as the caribou, as well as impacts on the Saguenay River and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, where ships would transport the gas liquefied by the plant," said Caroline Brouillette, a researcher with the environmental lobby group Équiterre.
View photos Julia Page/CBC
For its part, GNL Quebec maintains its plant will be carbon neutral, and will emit 85 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than similar projects because it will be powered by hydroelectricity.
"The Project aims to support the fight against climate change in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the globe by offering transition energy that is cleaner than those currently in use, such as coal and fuel oil," GNL Quebec said in a statement.
Brouillette said that argument is not good enough.
"Rather than reduce emissions from coal, it is likely to slow down the transition to renewables," Brouilette said, referring to solar and wind energy.
The BAPE's public hearings begin March 16.
QUEBEC LIKE BC OPPOSES ALBERTA OIL PIPELINES BUT WANTS LNG
CBC March 4, 2020
A coalition of environmental groups is asking Quebec's environmental review agency to widen the scope of its hearings into a $9.5-billion project to build a natural gas facility in the Saguenay.
As it stands, the agency, known as the BAPE, will begin public hearings later this month in the Saguenay. The hearings will focus only on GNL Quebec's plans to build a liquefaction plant by a port, roughly 230 kilometres northeast of Quebec City.
But in an open letter, 42 environmental and community groups say the BAPE should study the proposed Saguenay facility alongside plans to build a 780-kilometre pipeline, which would feed the facility natural gas from Western Canada.
They also want additional hearings held in Quebec City and Montreal, so local concerns aren't drowned out in the process.
"We fear that if there are public hearings only in Saguenay, people from all across Quebec will go there, and then it will be less equitable for people in Saguenay," said Alice-Anne Simard, director of Nature Quebec, one of the groups behind the letter.
"We know that many people all across Quebec want to take part in this process because this is such an important project for the future of this whole province."
View photos
Priscilla Plamondon Lalancette/Radio-CanadaMore
In addition, the groups are expressing concern about the impartiality of the environmental review process.
It was revealed recently that one of the two BAPE commissioners in charge of the review, Denis Bergeron, worked for 16 years as a consultant in the chemical industry.
The environmental groups are proposing that a third commissioner be appointed.
Their demands, however, failed to convince the BAPE to change course, at least for the time being.
The agency defended the impartiality of its commissioners in a statement released Wednesday. It also said it is rule-bound to hold public hearings in the community where a project is slated to be built.
"The BAPE has a lot of respect for host communities," the statement said.
Long list of environmental concerns
The project — both the port facility and the pipeline — has divided many in the region, and the province as a whole.
Premier François Legault has been vocal in his support of the project, claiming it will help reduce emissions globally by facilitating exports of LNG, which emits fewer emissions than coal.
But environmental groups argue the project will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. And their concerns don't end there.
"There are, in addition, concerns about local environmental and social impacts of the project along the pipeline route, on endangered species such as the caribou, as well as impacts on the Saguenay River and the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, where ships would transport the gas liquefied by the plant," said Caroline Brouillette, a researcher with the environmental lobby group Équiterre.
View photos Julia Page/CBC
For its part, GNL Quebec maintains its plant will be carbon neutral, and will emit 85 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than similar projects because it will be powered by hydroelectricity.
"The Project aims to support the fight against climate change in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the globe by offering transition energy that is cleaner than those currently in use, such as coal and fuel oil," GNL Quebec said in a statement.
Brouillette said that argument is not good enough.
"Rather than reduce emissions from coal, it is likely to slow down the transition to renewables," Brouilette said, referring to solar and wind energy.
The BAPE's public hearings begin March 16.
Advocacy groups, First Nations to weigh in on Alberta environmental review case
The Canadian Press March 4, 2020
CALGARY — Alberta's top court is allowing a dozen submissions to be heard from advocacy groups and First Nations in the province's constitutional challenge to Ottawa's revamped environmental assessment rules
Alberta's United Conservative government has argued no new pipelines would be built under the Impact Assessment Act, part of the contentious Bill C-69.
It filed its challenge to the Alberta Court of Appeal last fall asking whether Ottawa was within its authority in imposing the new regulations.
Justice Patricia Rowbotham said submissions from six interveners would be allowed on Alberta's side, along with another five in support of the federal government.
She also granted intervener status to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which says it does not support either party.
Ottawa challenged the taxpayer group's application, as well as a joint application on the Alberta side from the Independent Contractors and Business Association and Alberta Enterprise Group. Rowbotham decided both should be heard.
The other interveners on Alberta's side are: Woodland Cree First Nation; Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; Canadian Energy Pipeline Association; Explorers and Producers of Canada; and Indian Resource Council
Interveners for Ottawa are: The Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence Canada and Mining Watch Canada jointly; Nature Canada; Ecojustice; Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.
The governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan are also intervening.
In a news release, Ecojustice called the Impact Assessment Act a "balanced, hard fought" piece of legislation that was the product of much collaboration.
"We're arguing that the Impact Assessment Act and its regulations are constitutional and that they're a proper exercise of federal jurisdiction over their part of the environment," Ecojustice lawyer Joshua Ginsberg said in an interview.
No hearing date has been set for the case, but Ginsberg anticipates it will be some time in the fall.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on March 4, 2020.
OPINION | If you're going to evoke the legacy of Peter Lougheed, get it right
This column is an opinion from Sara Hastings-Simon, a research fellow at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.
Last week, the Government of Alberta announced a new policy in the Throne Speech that was not detailed in the budget.
Evoking the legacy of Peter Lougheed, there was a promise that "Alberta is prepared to invest directly and support companies and Indigenous groups, when necessary, to assure the future of responsible resource development."
But, if we truly want to be "like the government of the late premier Lougheed," we can't simply invest public money to grow production of oil from the oilsands as he did.
Context matters, and much has changed in the decades since.
Instead, we should apply the same thinking to the different situation we face today.
In doing so, the history of Lougheed's approach can guide us in making public investments that open up access to more of Alberta's natural resources, from hydrogen to lithium to agri-food and more, just as his investments in the oilsands was critical in unlocking that industry.
The Alberta context
The global context in both periods is complex, with the oil embargoes and restructuring of the international industry in the 1970s, and the energy transition today, but there is a clear difference in the Alberta context.
While today the oil industry in Alberta is dominated by oilsands production, when Lougheed came to power in 1971, the oil industry in the province was one of conventional oil. So much so that there were limits in place to oilsands production to protect the conventional industry.
The Conservation Board, the government entity responsible for approving new oilsands facilities, had even rejected new oilsands projects on the grounds that they threatened the existing conventional industry.
A shift in government policy to allow for more oilsands production was possible in part because of the decline in conventional reserves that became clear in the early 1970s, as production outpaced the finding of new reserves.
Lougheed acknowledged this threat to the incumbent industry head on. He spoke of the need to make good use of the remaining revenues in light of what he called an eight-to-12 year horizon for conventional industry growth. He even raised royalty rates to increase the government's ability to do so.
Moreover, he did not heed the call of many in the conventional industry at the time who wanted a primary focus on enhanced oil recovery to increase production from this existing industry.
Growing something new
Instead, his investment in the future of resource development was primarily directed toward growing something new in the oilsands, through direct investment in both technology development and construction of the industry.
In doing so, he acknowledged the critical role of the incumbent industry in the economy, both historically and in funding future economic growth, while simultaneously acknowledging the larger opportunity beyond.
While the factors underpinning the threat are different, the oilsands industry today more closely resembles that of the conventional industry in Lougheed's time. Therefore, following the lessons from Lougheed's actions requires more than simply repeating the same investments he made.
Lougheed's public investment in the oilsands was far from support for an existing industry. Rather, it was a strategy that used the public wealth generated by the existing industry to unlock new and different resources in the province.
In doing so, he walked a difficult line in industrial policy, working with existing strengths and competencies within the province but applying them to new challenges that were adjacent to the core activities of the incumbents of the day.
Alberta's natural resource wealth provides an opportunity to make similar investments in today's context. For example, unlocking production of the hydrogen that is abundant in the oilsands resource, or the critical metals and minerals found within the province like the lithium required for batteries, are both new ways to use our natural resources to power the world.
Building on the province's core competencies, including engineering and technical skills, we can responsibly develop these resources. The same is true for the natural resources that support our agricultural system and the potential for significant growth in the agri-food industry.
PETER LOUGHEED WAS A PROGRESSIVE (CONSERVATIVE) AKA A LIBERAL
1984 NEP AND PETROCAN CREATED JOINTLY BY ALBERTA AND OTTAWA
Well respected across the political spectrum in Alberta, Lougheed's government provides important lessons we can use today about the need for direct government investment in developing our resources, but we must get the lessons right.
Lougheed did not shy away from the difficult truth of the future that Alberta faced at the time. He spoke of his despair of short-term thinking, and the need to ensure long-term prosperity for Alberta.
And he understood that investing the wealth that came from the public's ownership in the existing resource industry was critical in realizing this prosperity in new ways.
I believe we would indeed be wise to follow his legacy today in our investments in Alberta's resources.
---30---
SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=LOUGHEED
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=PETROCAN
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=NEP
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=OILSANDS
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=LOUGHEED
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=PETROCAN
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=NEP
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=OILSANDS
Supreme Court of Canada will not hear B.C. groups' challenges against Trans Mountain pipeline expansion
CBC March 5, 2020
The Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear five B.C.-based challenges against the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.
Groups determined to overturn the project — two First Nations, environmental organizations and teenage activists — had argued a previous judicial review of the pipeline's re-approval by the federal government was unfairly denied by a single judge from the Federal Court of Appeal in September.
The Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, B.C. Nature and several youth climate activists applied to the country's highest court for leave to appeal the dismissal last fall.
The Supreme Court declined to grant the leave in a decision posted Thursday. As is custom, the court did not provide reasons for its decision.
For one of the groups, the ruling marks the end of its six-year legal fight against the pipeline.
5 groups were originally among 12
Twelve groups originally filed challenges against the project with the Federal Court of Appeal last year.
On Sept. 4, the court only agreed to take up six of those appeals. It chose just to hear challenges based on the issue of whether the federal government consulted Indigenous peoples adequately before approving the project for a second time in June.
The federal court declined to hear the second part of the overall dispute: arguments centred on environmental concerns and claims of government bias. Several of the applicants argued the National Energy Board didn't do enough to address environmental and marine concerns when it green-lit the project, while the two First Nations said the federal cabinet couldn't objectively approve or deny the project because they own it.
The four teenaged activists had said Ottawa did not fully consider the pipeline's potential impact on climate change before approving the project.
View photos
Maggie MacPherson/CBCMore
The Squamish Nation and the Tsleil-Wautuh Nation were among the groups who succeeded at the federal court in September, but pressed ahead to the Supreme Court of Canada because they thought concerns around bias and the environment should be heard.
"Obviously, this pipeline has become a political issue as much as a legal or economic issue," said lawyer Eugene Kung, who was not named in the application to the Supreme Court but has previously worked to stop the expansion project.
"What the applicants are looking for is just that the laws of Canada be applied when this project is approved. They've said that it hasn't, and that has very real consequences."
CBC March 5, 2020
The Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear five B.C.-based challenges against the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.
Groups determined to overturn the project — two First Nations, environmental organizations and teenage activists — had argued a previous judicial review of the pipeline's re-approval by the federal government was unfairly denied by a single judge from the Federal Court of Appeal in September.
The Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, B.C. Nature and several youth climate activists applied to the country's highest court for leave to appeal the dismissal last fall.
The Supreme Court declined to grant the leave in a decision posted Thursday. As is custom, the court did not provide reasons for its decision.
For one of the groups, the ruling marks the end of its six-year legal fight against the pipeline.
5 groups were originally among 12
Twelve groups originally filed challenges against the project with the Federal Court of Appeal last year.
On Sept. 4, the court only agreed to take up six of those appeals. It chose just to hear challenges based on the issue of whether the federal government consulted Indigenous peoples adequately before approving the project for a second time in June.
The federal court declined to hear the second part of the overall dispute: arguments centred on environmental concerns and claims of government bias. Several of the applicants argued the National Energy Board didn't do enough to address environmental and marine concerns when it green-lit the project, while the two First Nations said the federal cabinet couldn't objectively approve or deny the project because they own it.
The four teenaged activists had said Ottawa did not fully consider the pipeline's potential impact on climate change before approving the project.
View photos
Maggie MacPherson/CBCMore
The Squamish Nation and the Tsleil-Wautuh Nation were among the groups who succeeded at the federal court in September, but pressed ahead to the Supreme Court of Canada because they thought concerns around bias and the environment should be heard.
"Obviously, this pipeline has become a political issue as much as a legal or economic issue," said lawyer Eugene Kung, who was not named in the application to the Supreme Court but has previously worked to stop the expansion project.
"What the applicants are looking for is just that the laws of Canada be applied when this project is approved. They've said that it hasn't, and that has very real consequences."
View photos Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press
The Raincoast Conservation Foundation, one of the groups which lost its bid Thursday, has long been fighting the pipeline on the basis that the project would further threaten B.C.'s southern resident killer whales.
The foundation cannot pursue its legal challenge further, as there's no court higher than the Supreme Court of Canada.
"This scenario should serve as a wake-up call," Margot Venton said in a statement Thursday. "If the government is allowed to shirk its responsibilities [to at-risk species], then there is something fundamentally wrong with how Canadian species protection works in practice."
Rebecca Wold Gage, 13, said she and the other activists were "devastated" they will not have their day in court.
"I feel like I have failed the generations of the future by not being able to stop this pipeline," Wolf Gage said in a statement.
The sixth group whose challenges were dismissed in federal court in September did not join the other five in pursuing leave to appeal with the Supreme Court.
The proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would carry nearly a million barrels of refined oil products and crude oils from Alberta to the B.C. coast every day. The Crown corporation that now owns the line has previously said the expansion will be finished by mid-2022.
A statement from Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said Thursday's decision "clears the way" for the project to be finished, though she said recent blockades at pipeline and rail sites elsewhere in Canada "continue to be a concern" for the national economy.
The Raincoast Conservation Foundation, one of the groups which lost its bid Thursday, has long been fighting the pipeline on the basis that the project would further threaten B.C.'s southern resident killer whales.
The foundation cannot pursue its legal challenge further, as there's no court higher than the Supreme Court of Canada.
"This scenario should serve as a wake-up call," Margot Venton said in a statement Thursday. "If the government is allowed to shirk its responsibilities [to at-risk species], then there is something fundamentally wrong with how Canadian species protection works in practice."
Rebecca Wold Gage, 13, said she and the other activists were "devastated" they will not have their day in court.
"I feel like I have failed the generations of the future by not being able to stop this pipeline," Wolf Gage said in a statement.
The sixth group whose challenges were dismissed in federal court in September did not join the other five in pursuing leave to appeal with the Supreme Court.
The proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would carry nearly a million barrels of refined oil products and crude oils from Alberta to the B.C. coast every day. The Crown corporation that now owns the line has previously said the expansion will be finished by mid-2022.
A statement from Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said Thursday's decision "clears the way" for the project to be finished, though she said recent blockades at pipeline and rail sites elsewhere in Canada "continue to be a concern" for the national economy.
It's up to all Wet'suwet'en people to work through agreement: Bellegarde
The Canadian Press March 5, 2020
VANCOUVER — Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde says it's up to all Wet'suwet'en people to work through the draft agreement struck on Sunday between their hereditary chiefs and senior Canadian officials.
The agreement is the result of four days of negotiations, held in response to the hereditary chiefs' opposition to the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northern British Columbia that sparked solidarity protests and blockades across the country.
A joint statement by representatives of Wet'suwet'en Nation, the province and the federal government acknowledged they had not come to an agreement on the pipeline, and the company was expected to resume its work this week.
But they say the focus of the draft agreement is Wet'suwet'en rights and land title.
Bellegarde says it's an opportunity to resolve unsettled issues dating back to a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized the hereditary chiefs' authority and the exclusive right of Wet'suwet'en peoples to the land, but fell short of recognizing the territorial boundaries.
He says it's up to Wet'suwet'en people themselves to find the balance between hereditary chiefs and elected chiefs, which will take time, and those talks should include all those in the community.
"They haven't had this formalized since 1997 (with) the Delgamuukw-Gisday'way decision," Bellegarde told The Canadian Press on Wednesday after delivering a keynote address during a seminar on the repatriation of Indigenous cultural objects and ancestral remains at the University of British Columbia.
"It's important for them to have that time and space to bear fruit from this agreement and that's the dialogue I've had with the prime minister."
Aboriginal rights and title are already recognized and affirmed through many Supreme Court decisions, Bellegarde added.
"Let's get the executive and legislative branches of government, start to keep up with judicial branch is saying."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 4, 2020.
The Canadian Press
Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version misspelt Wet'suwet'en in the headline and in the story.
The Canadian Press March 5, 2020
VANCOUVER — Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde says it's up to all Wet'suwet'en people to work through the draft agreement struck on Sunday between their hereditary chiefs and senior Canadian officials.
The agreement is the result of four days of negotiations, held in response to the hereditary chiefs' opposition to the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline in northern British Columbia that sparked solidarity protests and blockades across the country.
A joint statement by representatives of Wet'suwet'en Nation, the province and the federal government acknowledged they had not come to an agreement on the pipeline, and the company was expected to resume its work this week.
But they say the focus of the draft agreement is Wet'suwet'en rights and land title.
Bellegarde says it's an opportunity to resolve unsettled issues dating back to a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized the hereditary chiefs' authority and the exclusive right of Wet'suwet'en peoples to the land, but fell short of recognizing the territorial boundaries.
He says it's up to Wet'suwet'en people themselves to find the balance between hereditary chiefs and elected chiefs, which will take time, and those talks should include all those in the community.
"They haven't had this formalized since 1997 (with) the Delgamuukw-Gisday'way decision," Bellegarde told The Canadian Press on Wednesday after delivering a keynote address during a seminar on the repatriation of Indigenous cultural objects and ancestral remains at the University of British Columbia.
"It's important for them to have that time and space to bear fruit from this agreement and that's the dialogue I've had with the prime minister."
Aboriginal rights and title are already recognized and affirmed through many Supreme Court decisions, Bellegarde added.
"Let's get the executive and legislative branches of government, start to keep up with judicial branch is saying."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 4, 2020.
The Canadian Press
Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version misspelt Wet'suwet'en in the headline and in the story.
Turkey is Learning Why NATO Membership Matters
Sinan Ulgen,Bloomberg Thu, Mar 5 2020
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Since the botched coup attempt of July 2016, a widespread skepticism of the U.S. has pushed Turkish policy makers to conceptualize a world order where Ankara would carve out a sizeable degree of strategic autonomy from the West—despite Turkey’s membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This line of thinking has led to a burgeoning relationship with Russia, crowned by the purchase of the S-400 missile-defense system.
But the escalating conflict over Idlib, where Turkey is seeking to protect its zone of influence against the advance of the Russian-backed Syrian army, has put the feasibility of this vision to the severest of tests.
The hard clash with reality came with the shocking loss of 34 Turkish soldiers to a joint attack by a Syrian and Russian squadron. Ankara’s reaction has been to seek the political solidarity of its NATO allies. A few hours after this incident, Turkey called for consultations under the Article 4 of the treaty. Timely Western support was important for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ahead of his meeting today with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to discuss the fate of Idlib.
But even beyond the political context, the struggle for Idlib has demonstrated in many other ways the benefits to Turkey’s NATO membership. The success of the counteroffensive carried out by Turkish forces after the air strikes against its troops is closely related to a NATO-enabled military posture and Ankara’s participation in the Euro-Atlantic defense ecosystem.
One key example is the way the Turkish army has capitalized on network-centric warfare assets against standalone Syrian army units. A single Turkish F-16 was able to down two Syrian Su-24 jets, not in a dogfight but beyond visual range. An airborne early-warning and control (AWAC) aircraft acquired the targets, relayed the location and other critical information in real time to the F-16 through the NATO standard Datalink. This information was then relayed to the F-16’s air-to-air AMRAAM missiles as they headed toward their targets.
This level of interoperability, coupled with the ability to take full advantage of the network-centric features of strike assets, has given the Turkish army a clear advantage over rival forces in northwest Syria. Turkey’s battlefield advantage even extended against Syria’s modern Pantsir air-defense systems, supplied by Russia. Turkish armed drones have been able to take out these assets with the help of advanced electronic warfare systems.
The next phase of the conflict over Idlib will be shaped by the sustainability of any ceasefire emerging from the Erdogan-Putin meeting in Moscow today. But in reality, there is little likelihood that a ceasefire will turn into a permanent peace. Turkish and Russian goals in Idlib are irreconcilable. Moscow wants to hand over the control of the territory to the Syrian regime; Ankara wants maintain its presence there, to prevent the aggravation of a humanitarian disaster, but also as a leverage for the eventual negotiations over a political settlement in Syria.
Complicating the equation is the issue of Turkey’s proxy groups, some of them linked to jihadi entities, which are considered by Russia and Syrian regime as terrorists. Idlib’s future will be shaped by these ongoing disagreements, and the Turkey-Russia dispute will remain prone to new conflicts.
As a result, Turkish policy makers may be forced to review their position on Turkey’s fast expanding military cooperation with Russia. Of key importance will be the fate of the S-400. It is difficult to imagine that Ankara would fully operationalize this system, triggering U.S. sanctions, at a time when the relationship with Russia has entered a conflictual phase, at least over Syria.
But whether Turkey will take the next step and mothball this strategic weapons system to totally eliminate the threat of sanctions is still unclear. More certain is the emerging appreciation in Ankara of the risks of half-baked attempts at strategic autonomy in a region where the threat environment militates for Turkey’s stronger attachment to the institutions of transatlantic security.
Majority of Canadians unhappy with Trudeau's handling of blockade crisis: poll
OTTAWA — A new poll suggests Canadians weren't happy with Justin Trudeau's handling of the natural-gas pipeline dispute in British Columbia that led to nationwide rail and road blockades mounted in solidarity with Indigenous leaders who oppose the project.
According to the Leger Marketing survey, 61 per cent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the way the prime minister has handled the blockade file.
The numbers also suggest most Canadians blame the federal government for the crisis that erupted after supporters of Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs were arrested in B.C. while trying to block the Coastal GasLink pipeline project in early February — even though the project was approved by the province.
A majority of respondents — 57 per cent — said they believe Indigenous land claims are valid and there was overwhelming support for the federal government to actively resolve them and to consult with Indigenous groups on development projects.
Leger executive vice-president Christian Bourque says this represents a major shift in public support for Indigenous rights issues compared to previous decades.
But when it comes to whether Indigenous Peoples should have a veto on major developments on their lands, the Leger survey suggests opinion is more divided, with 42 per cent of respondents saying Yes while 41 per cent said No.
"I think Canadians have moved forward in aiming for reconciliation, but probably not to the degree that Indigenous leaders would like," Bourque said.
"When (respondents) say they're dissatisfied with the prime minister's handling of the whole rail blockade issue, some of them would want to actually move faster and get the blockade out of the way quicker, but a lot of it is basically people saying, 'Wait a minute here, maybe we did something wrong leading into this.'"
Regional results suggest respondents from oil-and gas-producing provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan registered higher levels of dissatisfaction, while those on the East Coast, Ontario and Quebec were more measured in their response, Bourque noted.
When asked whether the Coastal GasLink pipeline should be stopped permanently or paused temporarily to negotiate further with Indigenous leaders, respondents appeared divided, with a tie of 37 per cent favouring each option.
However, taking Prairie provinces out of the mix suggests a majority of Canadians elsewhere would support a more measured, negotiated approach, Bourque said.
The numbers also suggest those who identified as Conservative voters were less favourable toward Indigenous land claims, he said, noting that the majority of Conservative supporters are in the oil and gas producing provinces.
"That sort of creates a spiral around this issue," Bourque said.
"It has a potential to be divisive: on the one hand, if you're the Liberal government, if you don't go far enough in terms of aiming towards reconciliation, then you might alienate Green party supporters, NDP supporters out there and potentially some Bloc supporters as well. But if you go too heavy-handed into this to try and appease Conservative supporters, then you're losing your left-of-centre support that you desperately need."
When it comes to Canada's efforts at reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, the data suggests the pipeline dispute and resulting rail blockades and protests might have caused damage.
Forty-four per cent of respondents said they believe the recent crisis has been a step back on reconciliation, compared with 19 per cent who said they believed it had a positive impact and another 19 per cent who indicated it had none.
Trudeau said Wednesday he believes Canadians want all citizens to have opportunities and a fair chance to succeed and that his government has been focused on trying to find long-lasting solutions to the LNG pipeline dispute.
"You can't just put short-term band-aids on many of these challenges that people are facing," he told reporters in St-Jerome, Que.
"We do not want to see these problems continuing to jump up every few months in the coming years. We need to make sure we're creating, through dialogue, through peaceful resolution, the kinds of lasting resolutions that we need. And that's why we're continuing to engage, continuing to negotiation, continuing to push towards that peaceful, lasting solution."
It may not be all bad news for Trudeau's minority government, however.The Liberal party's overall polling numbers have remained relatively stable since the October federal election, dropping just two percentage points to 32 per cent since the last Leger survey was conducted in early February.Bourque said he believes this means even though the public may be unhappy with how Trudeau has handled the B.C. pipeline and blockade issue, overall the issue is only cementing the partisan lines that already exist."Responses to the other questions are telling us (the Liberals) adopted the best strategy, which was to take (their) time and try to aim for a peaceful resolution and a getting back to the negotiating table," Bourque said."But it also looks, from a partisan and political perspective, it's becoming tougher and tougher for the Liberal party in Western Canada."
The online survey of 1,540 Canadians was conducted Feb. 28 to March 2 for The Canadian Press and cannot be assigned a margin of error because internet-based polls are not random samples.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 4, 2020.
Teresa Wright, The Canadian Press
Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version said Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs were arrested in early February.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)