“Mr. Speaker, that was a very comprehensive speech. It actually related to everything I have learned over the last 20 years. I will not say “rights and title” but “indigenous interests”. In relation to indigenous interests, the Prime Minister said the content of UNDRIP would not be affected by a pipeline going to the Pacific coast. However, with the original Trans Mountain pipeline, there were first nations that did not give their consent to the pipeline, yet the project was still approved. Are we expecting something similar with the Pacific link pipeline as proposed?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 98 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 95%Procedure 5%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 81 wordswhat we saw with the Trans Mountain pipeline was the original approval of the pipeline being challenged in court and overturned for the consultations’ not meeting the standard of section 35.1What this means in practice is that where a project is going to impact a proven or claimed aboriginal right, there needs to be consultation or accommodation based on the level of impact.2That is what the law states and that is what would be appropriate for any other project.Procedure · 4 wordsIt is very important.ProcedureClaims · 27 wordsSome of the changes made here would facilitate consultation, happening both before a project site is chosen and throughout the process, through the new Crown consultation hub.3Procedure · 4 wordsThis is critically important.ProcedureClaims · 36 wordsIt is not something we can legislate away.This is a constitutional obligation that we have toward first nations.The processes that have been proposed today would very much help produce a better process for that.
