this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
79 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10183 readers
725 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they don't ask for damages the implication is that there's no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.

"And so, we simply applied precedent. There's no magic in the dollar amount. It's a substantial amount because the breach in this case is substantial ...."

Villify these folk however you want but they're the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they don’t ask for damages the implication is that there’s no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.

Reasonable people understand that damage must be caused before restitution, and as you pointed out there is currently zero harm done and a small representation of the Indigenous population in Ontario is trying to sue for 100 million for the bills simply being passed.

"how they were passed without respect to First Nations" is answered simply by "That is how our Government works. Your opinion is heard at election time and the Government does not need to consult you on each individual bill and you don't get to sue over any of it without damage being caused."

As I said, I support protesting and challenging the bills in higher courts. But suing for damages when no damage has been caused to create "Sort of a penalty, if you will, on the Crown for failure to act honourably," is absolutely absurd.

There is a reason why only 9 groups signed on.

Villify these folk however you want but they’re the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>

I am not vilifying anyone. I am pointing out that this is an unsupportable case and gave my reasons why. You are free to challenge my points, and hopefully explain how a case with zero damages shouldn't be immediately thrown out of court.

[–] DriftingLynx@lemmy.ca 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Because what they want is an injunction against a law that has vague limits + goals and a clear path to violating treaty obligations. Carney didn't run with this in the platform, no Canadians were consulted on this.

The harm of failing to consult on such a rushed piece of legislation is the harm. Just think what PP would do with these powers? Even if we believe Carney will act honouably, this legislation opens the door to all sorts of damage in the name of "projects of national interest" for all federal gov't's to come.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Carney didn’t run with this in the platform, no Canadians were consulted on this.

Carney absolutely ran on a platform of Canadian industry independence, and building infrastructure to that end as quickly as possible. If anyone didn't see a bill like C-5 coming as a means to that end, one was not paying attention.

The harm of failing to consult on such a rushed piece of legislation is the harm.

Then I would argue that no harm was caused because bills pass regularly without further consultation from the public. This happens because we elect people to draft, vote on, and pass legislation.

Just think what PP would do with these powers?

Even if we believe Carney will act honouably, this legislation opens the door to all sorts of damage in the name of “projects of national interest” for all federal gov’t’s to come.

Fear mongering helps no one, and is not a valid argument against the legislation.

The Tribes bringing this ridiculous lawsuit to the courts is a waste of time and resources as no damage has been caused by the passing of this bill, and it is absolutely insulting to the idea of truth and reconciliation that they demand $100 million for not asking to pass the bill first to "set an example".

If they do not like how the Canadian Government is doing things they have a legal right to self determination and Governance.