Nikki Skuce another fact bending radical environmentalist.

 

 

Its seems that when it comes to environmentalism the facts are not always of importance, what is important is getting the radicals in society to believe a false narrative, so they will riot or protest at every opportunity they get. Its a way to get all the shit disturbers exited and angry, most of them could not care less about facts. So Nikki (funded by the Tides foundation) just needs to load the media with fabricated stories to get the end results, a public outcry.

 

Such again was another example of any lie will do, and is justified when Nikki Skuce just made up, invented her own version of the facts then had the Narwal publish them. In a story titled
“B.C. voters support mining reforms that protect the environment, make polluter pay: poll“

 

Really? Is that what BC Voters think, or is that words put in their mouths? Or done to manipulate the beliefs of BC Residents?

 

 

OK note that the survey was done on behalf of the BC Mining Law Reform network, who are in fact let me quote “The core or backbone of this group, is they are a “project” of yet another “eco-radical activist group” called “Environmental Law Center – University of Victoria” Reference: BC Mining Law Reform – Eco-Radical Organizations for a full rundown on just who these people are, it will blow your mind. You have Northern Confluence who is nothing other than a website owned and run by Nikki Skuce.

 

Nikki Skuce and her Northern Confluence is also a cofounder of BC Mining Law Reform, Ugo Lapointe  from MiningWatch Canada is the other cofounder of BC Mining Law Reform.

 

Before we get into the poll results, have a serious look at just who they polled! Never forget the saying they got the gold mine, we in the north got the shaft, thanks to traitors like Nikki Skuce “Nikki Skuce is Ottawa-born and moved to Smithers” made her living as a full time protestor. This is how facts are easily manipulated, ask the people who have never seen a mine in their life, these are the same people who think every grizzly is Gentle Ben and every deer is Bambi.

 

Look at the income bracket under 75 grand a year, holy smokes, ask the filthy rich who would never have to do an honest days work day in a mine or ask those far to rich earning over 75 grand a year. Whatever happened to asking ordinary BC citizens?

 

4 out of 5 people live in Metro Vancouver, about as many of them have seen a timber wolf, or a grizzly in their life, now your asking them to place judgment on something they know little to nothing about? You would get the same results if you asked about saving anything other than misquotes, and only because most of them have met with a mosquito.

 

So this is just a coverup that the working class might not even be represented here. Seriously I am a pensioner and earn well under 50 grand a year and I live comfortably. If you want to ask BC what you think, then do not ask 331 out of 1,385 adult respondent and declare it the results of “across the province.”

 

831 out of 1385 were out of Metro Vancouver, add 223 from Vancouver Island and we now have 1054 for the lower mainland and 331 representing the rest of BC.

 

The only real result is a poll out of 331 people who actually live where mines are developed, so the results are heavily skewed.

 

 

 

As for the poll itself, the actual question were also known as the type you would call “leading the witness” if it was a courtroom. The questions all look like ones anyone would naturally say yes to, so that was the end result anyways. The citizens questioned were never informed that we already have a rigorous independent joint harmonized BC-CANADA Environmental Assessment as mandated by the BC Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992) respectively. The questions lead people to believe that  we not not have protections in place when in fact BC has the most stringent regulations found anywhere in the world.

 

So if you started each sentence by saying “BC has the most stringent regulations found anywhere in the world” then asked the question would you still get the same results? Obviously not.

 

• All things considered, to what extent do you agree or disagree with – Mining companies should be required to get permission from private landowners, municipalities, and First Nations before doing any business on their lands
• All things considered, to what extent do you agree or disagree with – Mining companies and their shareholders should be required to pay to clean up the environmental damage they cause
• All things considered, to what extent do you agree or disagree with – Some mine waste pollution is inevitable and the benefits to BC as a whole outweigh any accidental impacts to the local environment or communities
• All things considered, to what extent do you agree or disagree with – Before the government leases land for logging or mining, it should modernize land-use plans with communities and First Nations to ensure the protection of water quality and fish habitat
• All things considered, to what extent do you agree or disagree with – Minerals and metals from BC will help with our transition to a clean economy if we can ensure it happens responsibly
• If a candidate in your riding supported changing mining laws and regulations to include stronger environmental protection and local permission requirements, would you be more likely to vote for this candidate, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would this position not impact the way you would vote?
• The federal government has committed to protecting 30% of land and water by 2030 to conserve biodiversity. Some Indigenous governments have put forward proposals that help meet these conservation goals. Do you support or oppose a mandate for the BC government to create new protected areas with Indigenous peoples even if that means reducing areas available for mining
  and forestry?

 

Below is the so called survey from Nikki Skuce.

 

InsightsWest-Data-PR_Oct2020_NorthernConfluence

 

The following is the results after its been manipulated in their political blender of facts and fiction.

 

“October 21, 2020 (Smithers/Vancouver) – Four out of five British Columbians (80%) would support the BC government creating more protected areas with Indigenous peoples to meet the target of protecting 30% of the land and water by 2030, “even if that means reducing areas available for mining and forestry.”

 

And before the government leases land for logging or mining, the same proportion of British Columbians (81%) say “it should modernize land-use plans with communities and First Nations to ensure the protection of water quality and fish habitat.”

 

Those findings are the result of Insights West’s recent survey done on behalf of the BC Mining Law Reform network and Northern Confluence in mid-October, with 1,385 adult respondents across the province.“

 

Below is another article that deals with another Nikki Skuce telling lies with the intent to create a false impression of  Seabridge Gold’s the proposed KSM Project successfully completed a rigorous independent joint harmonized BC-CANADA Environmental Assessment over a seven-year period (2007-2104) as mandated by the BC Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992) respectively.

 

Nikki Skuce – False Representation of the North