Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
Ian McAllister Photo
CONTRIBUTION · 2nd April 2012
Renee Bernard - News 1130
Terrace Daily Note - At 4:45 am pst April 2, the NEB JRP sent an email advising of their cancellation of the Bella Bella Hearings with this short statement and no explanation.

"The Panel will not be sitting on Monday, April 2, 2012 in Bella Bella, BC."

News 1130 posted the following story just before midnight April 1, 2012.

Joint Review Panel cites security concerns.

The Enbridge pipeline hearings scheduled for the coastal town of Bella Bella have been cancelled.

It appears the Joint Review Panel, tasked with listening to oral submissions in BC and Alberta, has concerns over security.

"They feel they are not in a safe environment. That was based on the reception at the airport," announced Heiltsuk First Nation Chief Marilynn Slett to a community gathering on Sunday. "We have received a notice from the Joint Review Panel that they will not be proceeding with the planned sessions."

Earlier in the day, the review panel flew into Bella Bella, in advance of four days of hearings in that coastal community.

A large crowd greeted the panel on the tarmac, and protesters also lined the road into town.

"What we did at the airport was very respectful, strong. It was emotional and powerful but it was respectful and peaceful," says Slett.

NDP MLA Gary Coons says he flew in with the panel, and thought protesters who greeted them were respectful. "I am a bit shocked and surprised that the panel might pull out of the community because they felt threatened somewhere along the line. I couldn't see where."

"There are some meetings scheduled for the morning and I hope calmer heads prevail and we can continue the process," he adds.

"We want to let them know that they are completely safe in our community. It is really offensive to have to go over to convey this to the Joint Review Panel. We are a peaceful people," insists Slett.

View the Article Here
Ian McAllister Photo
Ian McAllister Photo
Ian McAllister Photo
Ian McAllister Photo
Ian McAllister Photo
Ian McAllister Photo
James, did you forget ...
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 10th April 2012
...the Kitimat rally when the Health Minister wanted to move orth0paedics to Prince Rupert and I took the position against the MInister. Or the health rallies in Terrace or the Fed-up rally at the REM Lee organized by one Kevin Falcon which Dan Miller and I attended.

I guess you did forget but I remember the hostility clearly, while I now get to ask, "How did that work out for y'all". There was also one Anti Poverty gauntlet in Vancouver you would have missed.

It was peaceful and without controversy? You are kidding me right? Recall anyone.
Fruitless discussion
Comment by Karen Dedosenco on 6th April 2012
Wow James, another assumption about me whom you know very little. I didn't become interested in politics until the BC Liberals formed government and started making sweeping changes - changes that, to inquisitive and intelligent minds, would make many of them question the logic of a good number of their policies. I gathered what I know by researching articles from both sides of the spectrum, taking a poli-sci course at the college (which I highly recommend), constantly checking facts and using strong logical skills, something many have credited me with throughout my life. I am also not so opinionated that I will not admit I can be wrong or that my mind cannot be changed.

James, you are very observant to determine that I lean to the left...what was your first clue? You say that the NDP "seems to live in a world of give, give, without responsibility for their actions. The(y) also feel that to raise massive amounts of money for their social programs, they must impose heavy taxes on large corporatations.". From this and past discussions I would prefer to discuss politics with those who don't spout unsupported innuendos and aren't so immersed in propoganda that they constantly need to defend their uneducated stance.

Regarding Corporate tax rates and their effect on the economy I suggest you research some legitimate resources such as fact-based government sites and University published articles rather than just uber-biased think-tank spew, media releases and listening to the local coffee shop gang. Also, take some courses at the college - since your are retired, the tuition is free and all you pay for is your books.

Hi Karen, I'm Back.
Comment by James Ippel on 5th April 2012
First and foremost, do not try and convine me you were an apathetic pawn who could'nt tell the difference between one party and the next. You belittle yourself by saying this.
You may not be blindly NDP to the core, but my impression is that you certainly lean to the left. This in itself scares me because the left seems to live in a world of give, give, without responsibility for their actions. The also feel that to raise massive amounts of money for their social programs, they must impose heavy taxes on large corporatations. Looking at it realistically, it is the large corporations that invest money, hire people who pay taxes, and support social programs. It is pretty difficult to argue against this.
Should we tax corporatations to the point that they will no longer be able to show a profit for their shareholders? Should this happen, these companies will go elsewhere to invest their money, and leave us in the cold. How many Union Pensions invest in these large corporations, and are reaping large benefits enabling them to pay out reasonable pensions to their members.
I will agree with you that in some, not all cases, a minority gov't is good for the general popoulace. There would be a give and take scenario that would in some cases greatly benefit society, and in other cases, sadly, would royally screw things up.
For now, I think I have said enough, my poor brain has been overtaxed, but I am dilegently awaiting your answer to my rambling.
Comment by James Ippel on 4th April 2012
Please give me a day to reply. It is late at night and like usual, my brain is in slow mode(no different from normal)

Assumptions and innuendos
Comment by Karen Dedosenco on 4th April 2012
James, you have a bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths. When the NDP were elected in 1991 I was just another apathetic pawn who couldn't tell the difference between one party and the next. You assume that I am exclusively and blindly NDP to the core and that I would welcome a complete sweep of all seats in the Legislature. You are totally wrong there my friend. I am a strong believer in minority governments which, in my opinion, are the most democratic and offer the most balance regarding the needs of all factions including social, individual, economic, business and environmental - to name a few. Majorities (not to be confused with a majority of support) can be dangerous and often result in large groups being neglected and having little governmental representation. I would prefer that the NDP form government but I have no desire to see them win a majority - although if they do they are far more likely to ensure a balance between individual and business needs than their Conservative (including the BC Clark govt.) counterparts.

Regarding the robo-call issue, I really hope you are not of the mind that if the election results weren't compromised that this is a non-issue. There is strong evidence that election fraud took place and whether the Conservatives would still have a majority or not has nothing to do with it. The law was broken, someone tried to manipulate the outcome of a federal election and they must face charges whether it be partisan supporters, a particular party or the government in charge. To allow this to go unpunished would be setting a precedence for future elections eroding the purpose of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please do not assume that people with left-wing tendencies are devoid of common-sense (studies have proven quite the opposite) . I do not assume that just because a person votes on any particular side of the spectrum that they do not have legitimate and reasonable reasons to do so - although there are many exceptions amongst supporters of all stripes.
My apologies to Karen
Comment by James Ippel on 3rd April 2012
You are absolutely correct when you say that PM Harper was elected with only 39.62% of the vote and that is not a majority. When the NDP were elected to Gov't in BC with only 39% of the vote you accepted it as the "Majority" did you not? Oh, excuse me, this is different isn't it, your party of choice won then did'nt they!!!
The last report I heard on the " robo-call " investigation is that there were maybe 1,ooo legitimate complaints relating to this issue-hardly something that would change the outcome of the election, and this was Canada wide.
As for agreeing with Barry- "FORGET IT".
Divine Right was rule without representation but in Canada we have a governing body elected by the people. It may not be the majority of the people, or even the majority of the voters, but I go back to the time that 39% of the voters put the NDP into Gov't in BC, and that was acceptable to you.
What you are telling me, and all other people in the country is that if your side wins it is OK, but if the other guy wins who you don't agree with it immediately becomes "undemocratic."
Have a nice day.

Hearings a charade
Comment by Karen Dedosenco on 3rd April 2012
James, I'm getting the impression that you agree with Barry but are trying hard not to submit to his interpretation of the issues.

Whether Harper's win was democratic or not, I hold my judgement until after the 'robo-call' investigation is complete . I would also like to point out that it was not a majority of voters that elected the Harper government but an electoral system that is proving to be seriously flawed in a multi-party state. - 39.62% is not a majority in my books.

It is easy to conclude that the JRP hearings are a farce when Harper himself has stated that the pipeline will be built come-hell-or-high-water. The one's that I can see who are being threatened are the people of Bella Bella, not the JRP panel.

It is Harper's charade that makes a joke of this whole process and increases the risk of strong retaliation - Barry was only pointing out the obvious so if you want to name anyone for advocating violence look at your Prime Minister.
No Kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by James Ippel on 2nd April 2012
Helmut-What gauntlet of protesters did you ever walk? There are a few of ous old farts around that are still not too senile to remember you had it easy as a polititian, and that you did'nt get embroiled in controversy.
Protests are fine, as long as they are peaceful. The display in question may have been peaceful, but very intimidating. Perceived threats are as real as real threats. If the natives wanted to show respect and be respectful, they would have lined the highway, and quietly held their signs of protest showing their objection to the pipeline.
Barry, you say you have not heard of anyone advocating violence, yet from what you say, I think you are advocating violence.
You quote the Magna Carta-a protest against the rule of Kings that was peaceful and successful. (Divine Right)
The American Revolution-caused by Taxation without Representation.
The French Revolution-A protest against the rule of Kings. (Divine Right)
The Russian Revoution-A protest against the Monarchy. (Divine Right)
All, except the American Revolution, ruled by "Divine Right" and were overthrown.
It may be scary for you to accept the fact that the Conservative Gov't was democratically elected, not by a majority of " Canadians", but by a majority of "Voters".
Why would you even suggest that the" JRP Hearings are the forgone conclusion that we think they are?", thereby suggesting the panel members have reason to fear for their safety.
A JRP over reaction!
Comment by Helmut Giesbrecht on 2nd April 2012
Having walked a few gauntlets of protesters in my time I think the JRP members need to develop some backbone. If the public thinks the process is fixed; if the government decides to change the rules, why would you not expect that it becomes necessary to show just how passionately people are opposed to the project? How can you expect this kind of display not to happen? Making them drive down the road with protesters on either side of the road is a pretty good visual display.

First nations are always respectful with dignitaries and visitors but they will definitely let you know in no uncertain terms how they feel. This reaction by the JRP panel members just shows how little the panel members know of First Nations culture and traditions.
Divine Right?
Comment by barryeng on 2nd April 2012
Somewhere along the line Prime Minister Harper is going to have to realize that he cannot rule Canada by "Divine Right". The whole concept of determining what is done, without the consent of the population affected resulted in the Magna Carta, and the American, French and Russian Revolutions, and now the Arab Spring.

I truly and sincerely hope that it doesn't come to that point in Canada, but given Harper's unconditional support for the Enbridge disaster, despite all the opposition to it, I am afraid that it might. If the JRP Hearings are the foregone conclusion that we are starting to think they are, it is possible that the members on that panel do have to fear for their own safety.

No one I have heard of is advocating violence, but maybe the JRP is privy to information that we, the public, don't have.