Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Province/Territory:
@B432K254wks4W
No, do not expropriate private land, but instead, grant an easement, with fair and ongoing compensation going to the landowner, indigenous lands only with their cooperation.
Yes, if the landowners are fairly compensated AND that's if the pipeline even goes through to begin with.
@9GVMYT31yr1Y
No the government should respect private property. If a Private company wants to expropriate private property they must compensate a fair market prices
@9F3YN582yrs2Y
No the pipeline is a poor idea, why are we sending raw materials out of the country when we could refine and use them locally to reduce costs to the people that live here. Don’t get me started on how invasive it will be to the remaining wilderness. Stop obsessing over oil and gas, its non renewable and it will run out, its high time to move on from fossil fuels.
@9DB86MG2yrs2Y
Only if the landowners agree to it AND are appropriately compensated
@8V8LQD4New Democratic4yrs4Y
I don’t think the government has the right to take land in order to build the pipe line.
@96R332N2yrs2Y
If the owners of said property allow it and if allowed get paid compensation
@95LSVQV3yrs3Y
Yes, if the landowners are fairly compensated and they agree to give up their land
@9388XWJ3yrs3Y
ask local comunities and experts
@92TFFD83yrs3Y
Yes, unless the land is currently owned by Indigenous Peoples or is unceded land.
@8Y3NCLY3yrs3Y
Yes as long as the company is held accountable to the communities their harming the most
@8XZYC7Y3yrs3Y
Land expropriation is theft
@8VDDZM84yrs4Y
If indigenous are all agreed AND the land owners are properly compensated
@8VCMQ8P4yrs4Y
Yes. As long as the landowner agrees to sell
@8V7LPJX4yrs4Y
Not without fair compensation including a swap of equal size land and move cost included. Also start up costs if required.
@Canadian14yrs4Y
If property owners are fairly compensated and treated with utmost respect re burial grounds and relocation plans etc. Civility and regard.
@8TYJGN54yrs4Y
No, the owners should be given the right to negotiate for compensations and/or sales of the land.
Up to owners and extreme regulations must be met so it doesn’t hurt our environment.
@8TX5JVB4yrs4Y
No, do not build the pipeline and create a plan to replace the oil production in the tar sands with a more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative
@8TRPMHX4yrs4Y
I am unsure at this moment/ don’t have enough information to formulate an opinion
@8T8PGV94yrs4Y
the state should not have the right to expropriate land
@8T38T49Conservative4yrs4Y
As long as the landowners agree
@8SZ4XV24yrs4Y
Yes, but slowly transition to renewable energy.
@8RQCBY64yrs4Y
Invest in more renewable energy projects.
@8QX2HL84yrs4Y
Yes, if the landowners are fairly compensated. I don't like oil but I think Keystone is a better alternative than the U.S. getting oil from Saudi Arabia.
@8PPLF2TNew Democratic4yrs4Y
Same as previous question answer. - Canadian Oil, processed in Canada, for Canadians, Only. End reliance on Imported Oil.
@8PJMGYM4yrs4Y
If landowners consent to allowing the pipeline to be built on their property
@8P9DDJM4yrs4Y
No they should not take the land, but compensate them for digging under their land.
@8P9CY8Q4yrs4Y
We should be focusing our resources on cleaner alternatives.
@8P3F3JT4yrs4Y
Yes but the land owners should be more than fairly compensated. By law They should be offered portfolios of beautiful homes to choose one of , plus fair value market for their home, plus moving and storing expenses and incidentals , travel expenses, etc until they are fully comfortable in their beautiful new homes. And the company should be fully responsible for the safety of all of the assets of the person ie they cannot offer them a space that will not accommodate the person or is not fully to the liking and agreement of the person.
@8HGXPCZNew Democratic5yrs5Y
No, Put an Oil Refinery in Alberta.
@998B7W32yrs2Y
Yes, if the landowners willingly consent and are fairly compensated
@995WHT52yrs2Y
No, do not build the pipeline and shut down all oil production in the tar sands, we should invest in cleaner alternatives
@98Q5DJK2yrs2Y
Whatever would benefit Canadians the most
@98HTVSQ2yrs2Y
This is a hard issue that needs to account for damage that could be incurred and compensation for land needed
@97T4JZCConservative2yrs2Y
If landowners are fairly compensated, first nations are consulted. i would prefer renewables or LNG pipelines, but for temporary or economic success, I could see it as necessary
@97N57G3Conservative2yrs2Y
No. Come up with a plan with the people living in those communities that everyone agrees on before continuing with work on the pipelines. When done right the pipelines can be a really great opporitunity for a lot of people in Canada
@92JJNYM3yrs3Y
Yes, but as a lease agreement with landowner so they are fairly compensated including dividends on future profits, and only if the land is not already in-use (farming, business, trails, etc) at the landowner's discretion.
@8T3PKYW4yrs4Y
As long as landowner agrees to sell. Not forced
@29N6YNM4yrs4Y
Pay landowners above market value. Use the oil royalties the restore affected lands (replant forests, animal migration causeways, etc). With these costs known in advance, the project will not be so lucrative.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
