to borrow a phrase from a movie.....the only rights you have are the ones you can defend. It is a solemn and frighteningly true phrase, and one the US, to start with, will have to deal with within their own borders. If a project is big enough money will ultimately win. People have houses expropriated for the "greater good" of the general area. A lot of people gain...lone family has to move.

The governments position is to avoid making decisions that will set a precedent that will hamper them in the future one way or the other. They either become too giving which sets up future expectations or they come down hard which makes them potentially unpopular at the polling stations and in public opinion. Ultimately if money wants something money will get it, if they can sell something economic to the general population then the few will lose. The Canadian gov't will be reluctant to get into a strongarm situation, however, so they will hope to find a way to make it look like everybody's winning. Ultimately it is companies like NOT that offer what appears to be the best possible way of approaching things from the environemental angle. I would suggest that NOT's appeal to the gov't is likely very strong, though big money Clf's is who gets most of the news. In the end, for all of the talk about FN vs corporate, it's all just smoke to create news and for people to get their cut of the pie. It will all come to pass....because ultimately everyone, except for environmentalists, who generally don't live in the area they defend, won't matter, as the endeavours up there will be packaged to look pretty for the environment and most importantly....lucrative.