BC Politics

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

But as Eby said: “I’m interested as much as possible in protecting the rights of British Columbians to sue and to recover damages through the court system.”

Quote:

According to Eby, the province is looking at measures that include putting a cap on awards for minor injuries

I guess when the actual dollar amount of that cap is revealed, we'll know what Eby really means by "as much as possible in protecting the rights of British Columbians to sue and to recover damages through the court system.".

If there is a cap and the right to sue then a litigant would have to prove in court that their injury was worth more and they would have to sue for a specific amount. If they don't get the amount they sue for then they get to pay for their own lawyer and some of ICBC's litigation costs.  I had a fender bender a couple of years ago where someone rear ended me while I was stopped. I had minor whiplash and ICBC settled with me right away because I went on line and researched what the range of awards in court were. They could have saved alot of staff time just writing me a cheque for about the same amount as I got by negotiating with them. In  most No Fault Insurance schemes you get the capped rate and no ability to sue for more.  A set cap with the ability to sue for more if you think it is totally out of line in the circumstances of your personal injury sounds like a good way to go; if that is what he is talking about.

I did a little mind game trying to guess how this would go if it was a negative vote.  My feelings are that Sullivan and Watts would go off first/second.  Then we would have the three Cabinet ministers vs Lee.  Scenario one would have the three cabinet ministers would split the negative votes leaving Lee as the third candidate off.  After that it would probably match the form with Wilkinson winning. Even if Lee survived one round he wouldn't survive the next. Where positive voting divides the votes of candidates of the same ilk (the three cabinet ministers), negative voting does the opposite.

Another point is that if Watt had withdrawn when it was 3 candidates (can they even do that?), then Wilkinson vs Lee may have been a toss-up as well (similiar to if Clark had withdrawn for Crosby).

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

  Citizens in my region of the country cannot change the oiligarchy's plans no matter how they vote. Given the demographics of our Confederation the voters of Central Canada will always take precedence over BC.  

B.C. elected the Liberals in your home province for many years. 

Sorry for confusing you. When I said region I meant coastal BC.  The Interior has voted for right wing parties forever. The Okanagan for instance is an Albertan playground and was safe Reform territory and the Heart of Socred BC before they metamorphosised into the BC Liberal's. Christy went there to find a safe seat in 2013 when the voters on the Coast turfed her as an MLA.  Its been that way for a very long time, when Tommy needed a safe seat he went to the Island not the Interior. My point was that even when the people from the coastal areas win control of the governement they still cannot protect the coast. Protection of our coast crosses party lines. The stupid Conservative ad in the last election that had an Atlantic salmon on a policy about protecting salmon habitat caused them many votes on the Island and Coast.

I am sure that you have regional differences in Quebec as well.

NorthReport wrote:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/wheres-the-limit-for-protesters-...

That's interesting. Just what I have been wondering about myself. From that article:

To me, that sounds like a member of Parliament countenancing, if not downright inviting, people to break the law in the name of halting this pipeline. While civil disobedience has become a form of protest tolerated in our society, most Canadians likely wouldn't be okay with elected politicians condoning this behaviour.

It doesn't matter what most Canadians think it only matters what his constituents think because they are the ones who elected him to represent their interests. 

The war is being fought at a political level now. Kinder Morgan isn't likely to start building until outstanding court cases are resolved and interprovincial disputes ironed out.

That's what I was wondering. Glad to hear it. The longer the delay the less likely it is to get built. 

Federal officials have already raised the spectre of the army coming in to enforce the law if protesters get out of hand. Mr. Stewart, a former public policy professor, says the government could only do that through the Emergencies Act, which is effectively a newer version of the War Measures Act.

Why not name the federal officials? Because they don't have that power.

The Oka crisis was entirely different. Control was not turned over to the army. Quebec just used them to keep the peace, to prevent violence between the two sides as police did not have a good relationship with the FN protesters. 

If the army is called in it will not be to arrest protesters. It will be to prevent violence between protesters and construction workers. For example, to prevent construction workers from playing chicken with a bulldozer and protesters. 

This isn't like G20 when police could arrest a few thousand protesters then just release them. This will last much longer than a couple of days and police getting charged at G20 should put a chill on forceful action against peaceful protesters.

One day, in the not too distant future, Mr. Trudeau might be asked how far he'll go to stop the demonstrations surrounding the Trans Mountain pipeline. And like his father before him, he may invite us all to just watch him.

Cute but no cigar.  The protesters are not the FLQ. There have been no kidnappings of politicians and I doubt there would be.

Trudeau the father did not invoke the War Measures Act independently. The Quebec government requested it. Same goes for the Oka Crisis. The Quebec government asked for help. I very much doubt that BC will do the same. 

The Canadian government will never send in the army against the wishes of the provincial government. Certainly not just for civil disobedience. 

Ultimately Trudeau is right. He governs only by the consent of the people. In a democracy people can withdraw that consent even between elections and on specific issues.

Also, the majority of BCers do not support the pipeline. I suspect most who do don't feel strongly enough about it to demonstrate on behalf of oil companies. The majority of BCs who live along the route are against it. It crosses public land and FN land. FN warriors from across Canada are willing to show up. Activists and protesters are well-financed. 

If enough people, with the support of their provincial and municiple politicians, are willing to stand against it it will not go through. 

Saying it will go through, as Trudeau has, is nothing but bravado. He has suggested that without the pipeline there will be no new protections for the Pacific coast environment. He is holding environmental protection hostage to a pipeline? "Really? Seriously?" as he would say. He seems to be inferring that we can't afford to protect the coastline unless we allow the pipeline to go through. We are a wealthy country. If we can't afford to protect our coastlines how dare we expect poorer countries to act against climate change or prevent over-fishing. Nor should carbon-pricing be a condition of pipeline approval. There is no reason these 3 things must be tied together. Tying them together is a choice and it feels rather bullying to me. 

Is he seriously telling me that Canadian action on climate change and protecting our oceans is predicated on acceptance of a pipeline project through BC? That's sure what it sounds like to me and it is an outrage. I don't think Canada is that broke. 

Pondering would have agreed with you until today's article in business financial post by Terence Corcoran

he is busy portraying people against the pipelines as aggressive militant radicals bent on ".ripping up the Canadian economy " all funded by US dollars namely Hewlitts and Rockefeller to shut the oil sands. he is blaming greens for it all too.

   the article is something I never thought I would hear in Canada.

it is sweeping through conservative social media channels.

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Pondering would have agreed with you until today's article in business financial post by Terence Corcoran

he is busy portraying people against the pipelines as aggressive militant radicals bent on ".ripping up the Canadian economy " all funded by US dollars namely Hewlitts and Rockefeller to shut the oil sands. he is blaming greens for it all too.

   the article is something I never thought I would hear in Canada.

it is sweeping through conservative social media channels.

Who do you think I would have agreed with and why would this article change my mind about anything. I know funding for anti-pipeline activism comes from outside the country. I don't really care what their motives are. The people they are helping are Canadian and are often FN people whose motives are not the destruction of the Canadian economy but the protection of our environment. 

my comment was in respect to yours about military actions. by the time i got it posted you had posted again.

my point being they are trying to militarize dialogue and portray those like yourself too as being "radicals" at best.