From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The pending Memorandum of Understanding between the Carney government and the Alberta governments will reportedly support a new oil pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to British Columbia’s tidewater. But B.C. Premier David Eby continues his increasingly strident—and factually challenged—opposition to the whole idea.

Eby’s arguments against a new pipeline are simply illogical and technically incorrect.

First, he argues that any pipeline would pose unmitigated risks to B.C.’s coastal environment, but this is wrong for several reasons. The history of oil transport off of Canada’s coasts is one of incredible safety, whether of Canadian or foreign origin, long predating federal Bill C-48’s tanker ban. New pipelines and additional transport of oil from (and along) B.C. coastal waters is likely very low environmental risk. In the meantime, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships have been cruising up and down the B.C. coast between Alaska and U.S. west coast ports for decades with great safety records.

Next, Eby argues that B.C.’s First Nations people oppose any such pipeline and will torpedo energy projects in B.C. But in reality, based on the history of the recently completed Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline, First Nations opposition is quite contingent. The TMX project had signed 43 mutual benefit/participation agreements with Indigenous groups along its route by 2018, 33 of which were in B.C. As of March 2023, the project had signed agreements with 81 out of 129 Indigenous community groups along the route worth $657 million, and the project had resulted in more than $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.

Back in 2019, another proposed energy project garnered serious interest among First Nations groups. The First Nations-proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, aimed to connect Alberta’s oilpatch to a port in Kitimat, B.C. (and ultimately overseas markets) had the buy-in of 35 First Nations groups along the proposed corridor, with equity-sharing agreements floated with 400 others. Energy Spirit, unfortunately, died in regulatory strangulation in the Trudeau government’s revised environmental assessment process, and with the passage of the B.C. tanker ban.

Premier Eby is perfectly free to opine and oppose the very thought of oil pipelines crossing B.C. But the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in a case about the TMX pipeline that B.C. does not have the authority to block infrastructure of national importance such as pipelines.

And it’s unreasonable and corrosive to public policy in Canada for leading government figures to adopt positions on important elements of public policy that are simply false, in blatant contradiction to recorded history and fact. Fact—if the energy industry is allowed to move oil reserves to markets other than the United States, this would be in the economic interest of all Canadians including those in B.C.

It must be repeated. Premier Eby’s objections to another Alberta pipeline are rooted in fallacy, not fact, and should be discounted by the federal government as it plans an agreement that would enable a project of national importance.

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, is fighting a Kwikwetlem First Nation’s claim that, if successful, would see aboriginals in essence be given large swaths of land owned by the city.

A Canadian mayor said he will “vigorously defend” the property rights of residents in light of a recent court ruling that gave a portion of a municipality to aboriginals via a title claim they won in court.

Mayor Brad West of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, vowed to residents, “We have, and will continue to, vigorously defend public ownership of these lands, along with private property rights in our jurisdiction.”

“We will ensure the public is kept informed,” he promised in a post on X. 

Port Coquitlam is fighting a Kwikwetlem First Nation’s claim made in 2016 that, if successful, would see the aboriginals in essence be given large swaths of land owned by the city.

The city said that at this time that there are “no civil claims initiated by any First Nations involving private property within the City of Port Coquitlam.”

The city promised in a statement that if the changes are made, it will notify residents immediately.

“While the City recognizes public concern resulting from recent media coverage of the Cowichan/Richmond case, it is important to note that no private lands within Port Coquitlam are currently the subject of litigation,” the statement read.

West’s comments come in light of a recent court ruling in British Columbia affecting property rights, Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), which saw the provincial Supreme Court rule that decades-long land grants by the government were not valid and violated a land title held by the tribes.

The ruling included large parts of Richmond, British Columbia, which is in the Vancouver area, essentially given to local tribes.

There are many other similar legal battles taking place in British Columbia, which, unlike the rest of Canada, has no official treaties in place with local Indigenous peoples but only agreements without legal clarity.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, John Carpay, founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), noted the court “told the people (of various ethnicities) who live in some parts of Richmond, B.C., that the money they paid for their own properties does not guarantee them the right to own and enjoy their own homes.”

Carpay noted that “the fact that aboriginal ethnic groups arrived in Canada earlier than other ethnic groups should be completely irrelevant when it comes to the application of the law.”

“Nobody disputes that different aboriginal tribes lived in this land before the arrival of Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The question is: Why should this fact matter?” he noted.

Carpay observed that when officials and courts apply the “law” differently to come after “Canadians because of their race, ancestry, ethnicity, or descent,” the predictable and inevitable outcome “is strife, resentment, and fear.”