Prince Rupert mayor sides with Eby over Smith on Northern Gateway pipeline reboot
OTTAWA — The mayor of northern British Columbia's busiest port city says he's following Premier David Eby's lead in taking a wait-and-see approach to rebooting the cancelled Northern Gateway Pipeline project.
Prince Rupert Mayor Herb Pond told the National Post on Friday that he's reserving judgment until he sees a new proposal on the table.
'I'm a little bit (more) with Premier Eby… Until there's a project and a proponent, we're not going to spend much time on it,' said Pond.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
11 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Telus strikes back at Cogeco and defends Joly's decision to uphold CRTC's wholesale internet rules
'So it's always been in our DNA to compete and be present across the country,' said Benhadid. During the interview, he often highlighted Cogeco's business model, which includes investments abroad, notably its failed attempt to conquer the Portuguese market two decades ago. 'Cogeco's strategy is to compete in the U.S., outside of Canada,' said Benhadid. The Telus executive's comments came a few days after the CEO for Cogeco told National Post he wanted to 'ring the alarm bell' because he never thought that 'such a damaging, dangerous decision' as the one Joly made on Aug. 6 'would or could be made.' 'We had high hopes that this new government would make better decisions for business and the Canadian economy,' Frédéric Perron said. 'And what we saw last week, by the minister's decision, is more reminiscent of old Trudeau era, superficial policies.' Many key industry players expected Minister Joly to announce her rejection of the CRTC's decision. But for Telus's CTO, these comments came as a surprise. 'I am surprised, because objectively they don't stand in front of the economic theories test,' Benhadid said. At a time when Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to see Canadian companies invest in Canada, several players in the telecommunications industry say that Joly's decision will not encourage them to do so. Financial analyses they're citing, including from Bank of America and National Bank, predict that such decision would lead to 'a decline in future investments in telecommunications infrastructure.' This file has also become a political melodrama in some corners of Parliament Hill. Since Joly announced her decision on a hot and dry summer evening last week, she has remained silent and did not offer any other comments than the statement she released. On Thursday afternoon, the Bloc Québécois asked the minister to review the decision. 'Maintaining this status quo makes no sense, especially since even two of the three major telecommunications players opposed it. By doing so, Minister Joly will prevent smaller telecommunications players from becoming competitive and growing, and it is the citizens who will pay the price,' said the Bloc's Industry critic Gabriel Ste-Marie. But for Telus, the regulatory issue is settled, and its leadership team is ready to move forward. The company recently announced it will expand broadband services in Ontario and Quebec with $2-billion investment in areas that don't already have fibre. 'So the areas that companies are saying they're not going to invest in we will. And after five years, they will have access to this fibre,' he said. 'So, their strategy is to not compete in Canada. Their strategy is to do something else. And now they're trying to justify their strategic choices.' National Post atrepanier@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.
Vancouver Sun
2 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: Did government pull its punches in the Cowichan Tribes court case?
Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court issued what has been called a bombshell decision, finding that fee simple title (private ownership) in certain land in Richmond is 'deficient and invalid' because of a finding of Aboriginal title. Attorney General Niki Sharma jumped immediately to announce an appeal after considering the nearly thousand-page decision 'over the weekend.' While many are quick to question the judgment, precious little attention is being given to what positions government actually took in the case. So while the attorney general said in a media release that 'we disagree strongly with the decision' and are '…committed to protecting and upholding private property rights,' this issue warrants a close look. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. One of the most important issues in this case was whether Aboriginal title was 'extinguished' when the fee simple title (private ownership) was created over the lands by the Crown in the 1800s. Yet the court expressly noted B.C. did not argue this, stating: 'B.C. does not argue extinguishment. Rather, B.C. says the content of any Aboriginal title rights that the Cowichan may have today is necessarily limited by the fee simple interests.' Similarly, the federal government also backed off this issue. The court stated: 'Canada initially pled extinguishment but abandoned its reliance on this defence in its amended response to civil claim filed Nov. 22, 2018.' If B.C. and Canada are in support of protecting private property rights, one may ask why they would pull their punches on this key legal issue. To answer that question, one should look at the little known 'civil litigation directives' that both governments have established to guide their lawyers in court cases involving Indigenous groups. The B.C. version of the directives was established by Premier David Eby when he was attorney general. They state : '… the attorney general of British Columbia has developed these directives on civil litigation involving Indigenous Peoples (directives), to ensure government lawyers take an approach to litigation that upholds the honour of the crown and crown obligations to Indigenous peoples and seek negotiated resolutions that uphold Indigenous human rights and Aboriginal rights … unilateral extinguishment is not consistent with the honour of the crown or with the UN Declaration (see Articles 8 and 28). The province will not advance arguments based upon the unilateral extinguishment of Aboriginal rights.' B.C. is not alone on this. The corresponding federal directives state : 'The principles discourage certain long-standing federal positions, including relying on defences such as extinguishment, surrender, and abandonment.… Reconciliation is generally inhibited by pleading these defences. 'When considering pleading these defences, counsel must seek approval from the assistant deputy attorney general.' There are various reasons why the court reached the conclusions it did in the Cowichan Tribes case, and one of the six defendants (the City of Richmond) did argue extinguishment of Aboriginal title (which was rejected). But one may also wonder what would have happened if the two senior levels of government had in fact stepped up to make similar arguments. In any case, before anyone gets too critical of the decision, they should understand that the court can only work with the arguments advanced. And when governments choose to self-limit arguments they are otherwise fully entitled to make, they should be extra cautious about criticizing the decision after the fact. Robin Junger is a former chief provincial treaty negotiator, former deputy minister of energy and is now a lawyer with McMillan LLP.
Vancouver Sun
3 days ago
- Vancouver Sun
'Dangerous decision': Telecom CEO blasts Joly's decision to uphold CRTC's wholesale internet rules
OTTAWA — A week after allowing Canada's three major telecommunications companies to resell fibre optics to Internet service providers on their respective networks and those of smaller players, Canada's industry minister is facing harsh criticism from the industry. The uproar is coming first and foremost from her hometown of Montreal, where three major telecommunication companies are headquartered and where the frustration is still intense. 'I am in shock. In shock. I am profoundly disappointed,' said Cogeco's CEO Frédéric Perron in an interview with National Post. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The Montreal-based company is not thrilled with the new minister's first consequential move. So much so that he wanted to 'ring the alarm bell' because he never thought that 'such a damaging, dangerous decision' as the one she made last week 'would or could be made.' 'We had high hopes that this new government would make better decisions for business and the Canadian economy,' Perron said. 'And what we saw last week, by the minister's decision, is more reminiscent of old Trudeau era, superficial policies.' Within the industry, Mélanie Joly was expected to announce her rebuttal of a controversial decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) that allows, for example, a company like Telus, which is strong in Western Canada, to use other providers' networks to attract thousands of customers in Ontario and Quebec instead of building its own infrastructure. The regulator said the measure was intended to reduce costs for consumers. Cogeco and other stakeholders say there is no concrete evidence to support its assertion 'It discourages investment, weakens competition, and ultimately harms Canadian consumers,' said Robert Ghiz, the president and CEO of the Canadian Telecommunications Association. This was such a hot issue that last year that Joly's predecessor,François-Philippe Champagne, heard the industry's call to overturn the CRTC decision by asking the regulator to 'reconsider' its decision to 'respond to concerns about the business case for future and ongoing investments in infrastructure in less densely populated areas.' At the time, Joly was minister of foreign affairs and a member of cabinet when the order was given . Companies like Cogeco or Eastlink were especially challenging the fact that the big three telecom players in Canada can resell their networks and that they're forced to open it to them. But last week, Joly posted a message on her X account confirming she would uphold the regulator's decision. 'By immediately increasing competition and consumer choice, the CRTC's decision aims to reduce the cost of high-speed Internet for Canadians and will contribute toward our broader mandate to bring down costs across the board,' she wrote. Joly's office did not provide any comments on time for this story. The decision was made the day before Bell Canada's quarterly results were announced. Bell's stock was down that morning, and observers noted a correlation with the minister's decision. In an analyst call that morning, Bell's CEO Mirko Bibic said he was 'disappointed' and urged the government and the CRTC 'to ensure that network builders are fully compensated for significant build costs and investment risks they take in building.' It also came a few weeks after Cogeco announced a new mobile service with an introductory one-year free offer. 'With this decision, the minister is essentially saying it's okay if the Big Three get even bigger. It's okay if the regional, local players suffer, and it's okay if there's a re-monopolization of telecoms in Canada,' Perron said. 'We don't think it's okay. Consumers won't think it's okay, and we'll fight to make sure it doesn't happen.' Cogeco and Eastlink, which announced last week it was 'suspending further planned upgrades to many smaller communities across Canada,' filed an appeal in July asking the Federal Court of Appeal to quash the decision. But in Ottawa, overriding a decision from the CRTC was seen as a 'bold move' and that could 'rattle the cage' not even six months after an election and a new prime minister in charge. Sources said the minister had a duty to ensure the sustainability of institutions and protect the national interest. Champagne, who has since become minister of finance, did not comment for this story. His office confirmed that he attended the cabinet meeting in which the decision was confirmed and that 'Canada's new government has a strong mandate to bring costs down and to build one, strong, Canadian economy.' 'We would have liked to see a lot more courage, and I'm happy to be quoted on that. It seems to me like deferring to the CRTC and maintaining the status quo was the easy way, but not the right way. Sometimes the best decision is the hard decision in life, and we are saddened that the hard decision was not made,' said Perron. Sources in the industry support Perron's comments about the decision. In a statement last week, Rogers Communications said 'the Carney government has declared its priority is to build a strong Canada and this decision does the exact opposite.' A recent PwC study shows that the telecommunication sector directly contributed $87.3 billion in GDP to Canada's economy and supported over 661,000 jobs in 2024. By 2035, the Canadian telecom industry could contribute another $112 billion to Canada's overall GDP, according to the study. But for Cogeco and other players, this decision could threaten these expectations. 'The decision from last week is not sending the right signal, and it's concerning to me,' said Perron. National Post atrepanier@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here .
