jacee

I never said nor do I believe that the Supreme Court can prevent parliament from attempting to change the constitution. Again you want to put words in my mouth so you can debate your chosen issue. Of course you fail to respond to the real issue: Aboriginal and treaty rights exist outside of the Constitution. Changing the constitution cannot change the fact of their existence. People who think Canada can avoid, evade, or discontinue Aboriginal and treaty rights are deluding themselves. If it was possible, it would have been done long ago.

I have made my point, which is simply that Aboriginal and treaty rights exist in Canada and will continue to and parliament cannot change that. Those rights predate Canada and the responsibility for upholding them was assumed by Canada. It is a matter of the "honour of the Crown", the interpretation of which is a Supreme Court matter. Changing the Constitution as it pertains to Aboriginal and treaty rights, even as complex and confrontational and counterproductive as that process might be, would not change anything, just perhaps make things more difficult and more confrontational: Aboriginal and treaty rights would still exist and if Canada failed to "recognize" them in the Constitution, the Supreme Court would still have responsibility for interpreting and applying both Aboriginal and treaty rights. The approach that gbambino and smallc are taking - that parliament can simply change the constitution - is irrelevant and nonsensical since it won't happen as it would be very confrontational, possibly a violation of our international commitments, and it would not change any of Canada's obligations to Aboriginal Peoples anyway.

You said: I said "parliament is not above the law". Same thing.

Please see my previous posts re Sec 25, and re the irrelevance of the nonsensical debate you and gbambino want to have about 'who's bigger. than whom'.

I never made that claim. Those are just words that you and smallc want to put in my mouth so you can trash them, but they are not my words and that is not my point. I merely pointed out that parliament is not above the law, as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court which is itself one of the three branches of government. Aboriginal rights do not exist because Canada chose to recognize them and they can't be removed at the whim of the legislature. This 'who's superior to whom' debate you and smallc want to engage is nonsensical since the three branches of government operate interactively in ways that provide the system of checks and balances on the powers of each. If parliament did initiate removal Aboriginal rights from the Constitution, Aboriginal Peoples have recourse to the Supreme Court, and failing that they can access the International Courts of Justice too.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_25

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0022-e.htm#B.%A0Redefining%20Progress%92%20Genuine%20Progress%20Indicator%20(GPI)(txt) The GPI measures true economic progress with environmental costs included, and makes the quality of growth the focus: Using the GDP is like forecasting your household budget based on gross income and expenditures, without taking into account that the cheap old vehiclesyou bought to minimize expenditures are leaking on your driveway and destroying the pavement that will now have to be replaced. It seems the financial and business community better get on board with GPI measures that reflect SUSTAINABLE development. It's clear the effects of environmental destruction are now kicking in and rendering invalid the outdated GDP as a measure of success. Environmental costs must now be included in calculations for accurat e economic forecasting. The old equations just aren't good enough anymore.

I'm really disappointed in you, smallc, making vague assertions without evidence to support your myth that Canada's parliament can get rid of Aboriginal rights when it chooses to. Granted it's a myth that some hardliners like to cling to but that doesn't make it true.The truth is as repeatedly stated that Canada can only renegoiate treaties and only with "full, prior and informed consent" of Aboriginal communities That's known as FPIC in the business community and they are fully aware and involved in negotiating agreements that allow resource extraction, etc, on traditional Aboriginal lands. Negotiation, as pointed out by a Senate report, is the only viable approach as the alternative is confrontation. Changing the law to get rid of Aboriginal rights isn't even mentioned as it is not legally possible.

Really? The Palestinians are petitioning the UN for their own state. Over 60 percent of them support the initiative AND over 60 percent of Israelis support it too, from reports I've seen.Not only do you misrepresent Palestinians, you misrepresent your own people too. Once it happens, and I do believe it will, perhaps all Arabs will remove themselves from Israel ... but then who's going to clean your toilets? You'll have to import them back in. There are Israeli Jews working for peace and security, supporting the initiative for a two state solution, trying to improve things for the future. Clearly you have no solutions to offer, nothing but recriminations, aggression, revenge and more violence and oppression. Clearly you are part of a hardline minority mired in your own angst and unable to take any constructive action. And clearly you will be left behind as the world moves on without you, Bob, unless you can take a larger view and look forward. Your hardline right wing government will fall to those who CAN work toward better conditions for all and you'll be a small group of reactionaries without hope, without vision and without support. You are like some Canadians who hate Quebec passionately until Quebec wants to leave Canada, and then they hate it even more. No vision, no compassion, no ability to move forward, no positive intentions only anger and revenge. And that NEVER leads to progress.

But can parliament change the treaties? I think not.

I say you are wrong, so you will have to find evidence to back your assertion.If parliament could change the treaties, they would have done so long before now. The rule of law applies to everyone, including parliament.

Interesting tidbit from WmAshley's globeandmail link above: " Both Canada and China support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that indigenous peoples must provide their consent to activities on their traditional territories. This UN declaration is a foundation to build a co-operative relationship between first nations and the governments of Canada and China." And again, traditional territories are all lands occupied at the time of contact, not just the 'reserves'.

That's just not true smallc. When all appeals are exhausted the Supreme Court's rulings are the law and Parliament is NOT above the law. These are treaties, already law, that the Supreme Court interprets when there are challenges. Parliament cannot unilaterally change them. It can negotiate new treaties with a First Nation and only with their consent and their commu nity ratification.

As the Supreme Court gives them, to be precise, and that's quite a lot these days. The other branches of gov must abide by the rulings - the law - as must we all. Also Indigenous Peoples have access to the International Court of Justice when Canadian courts are exhausted, and the Supreme Court knows it. The ICJ rules according to the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Harper initially reneged on Canada's commitment to that document but eventually caved to international and Canadian pressure and signed on. It's a very interesting document, created by incorporating relevant parts of many other UN declarations - Human rights, etc. There are no 'new' rights in it: only those that apply to everyone. Most interesting is the fact that one of the contributing documents was one created to entrench rights of colonies/former colonies (like Canada) as they became and consolidated independence. The federal government's influence is in implementation of the laws/treaties of course and they continue as they always have to lie, cheat, steal, commit fraud, stall, obfuscate, bargain in bad faith and use "sharp dealing" tactics (specifically forbidden by the Supreme Court). They do this 'on our behalf', of course.

That's a quote from your first link. Interesting read. Not anti-human though as the quote shows.You'll have to ask those questions of an environmental scientist, which I am not.

They are, and quite effectively it seems to me. It's all a question of method and they are supporting and encouraging positive developments there.

It's all a matter of degree of disruption of earth, and balance isn't it. Have we gone too far already ... is a matter of opinion here but many scientists say we have. " Even the most pessimistic doomsayers concede that humans have the capacity to arrest Gaia's deteriorating condition. Cancer cells can't think, but humans can. Cancer cells can't know the full extent of the harm they're doing to the organism of which they are a part, whereas humans have the capacity for planetary awareness. Cancer cells can't consciously modify their behavior to spare their host's life and prolong their own, whereas humans can adjust, adapt, innovate, pull back change course. Gaia's future, and humans' with it depends on it." Re fool or fuel ... if it fools you, it will fuel you.

Parliament is bound to obey the law. Government consists of three branches - Executive (Privy Council), Legislative (HoC, Senate), Judicial (Supreme Court) Parliament cannot change Crown treaties unilaterally.

@ g_bambino It seems you are looking for absolute answers where they don't exist. The status of Aboriginal rights in Canada is becoming clearer through the courts but is still very much in flux. If you are not familiar with the duty of the Crown to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal rights, a google search on that might be enlightening.That duty applies to all traditional and treaty lands, not just 'reserves'. It's a significant factor re pipelines, forestry and any and all development on the land. It's becoming a significant factor in municipal development also.

It will all become clear ... “One thing we al have in common is that we are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%,” according to posts on the Occupy Wall Street website. ... The new American revolutionaries are no longer interested in talk. They want action." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/occupy-wall-street-will-lay-siege-to-us-greed-2011-09-06 The Bay street plan is similar. People will gather sept 17 and hold meetings, and prepare for when the TSX opens Monday morning (or doesn't. It will be peaceful. There is zero interest in the distraction tactic of engaging with police. We pay their salaries: They work for us. I'm sure they have better ways to spend their time and our tax dollars. We are the 99percent ... More news ... http://www.google.ca/m/search?hl=en&tbs=nws%3A1&aq=f&oq=&aqi=p1g5-k0d0t0&fkt=7314&fsdt=12940&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&q=occupy+wall+street http://www.google.ca/m/search?tbs=blg:1&source=mog&hl=en&gl=ca&q=occupy%20wall%20street&sa=N

No you are wrong, but I suppose your delusions bring you some comfort.

I,m glad to hear that. You certainly had me fooled! What with justifying bombing of women and children, murdering children in their houses, etc., it certainly seemed to me that you thought genocide was an appropriate strategy for Israel to take against them.Maybe you should go back and read your own posts.

The treaties are with the Crown and the Supreme Court - not our governments - represent the Crown. The treaties have the same weight as any international treaty. Treaty Law takes precedence over Constitutional Law, which takes precedence over Common Law. They use the Canadian courts to get Canada to obey its own laws. Beyond the Supreme Court, they have access to the International courts as well. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools resulted from a court action against Canada and is constructed according to International rules and overseen by the UN, just like the Rwanda Truth Commission, etc. Our police do not enter their territory except by invitation/contract.

Because we choose to.

What I see is anti-environmentalist propaganda, I assume perpetrated by those who stand to gain from environmental destruction. If these suicidal environmental looneytoons actually exist, other than in anti-environmentalist propaganda, they would be out in the bush somewhere, not using computers and writing to other humans. There is a certain amout of drama and satirical exaggeration involved in teaching. Don't be fooled by anti-environmentalist looneytoons who interpret such things literally and catastrophize about it. The mainstream environmental movement is very much concerned with protecting the earth and its systems so that our descendants can continue to live here safely , ie, sustainability for human purposes. Having said that, there are still lots of things we don't know about the earth and we may not know when we are making an irreversible error. An Indigenous spiritual leader told me of their beliefs that All of the earth's components have functions in sustaining earth's systems so that life is sustained, that coal, for example is the 'liver' of the earthearth and cleans out toxins. We didn't always understand that gravel moraines and wetlands do the same for water, clean it of impurities that harm life. Indigenous people knew that, at least some who managed to retain the ancient oral knowledge. Will there be one last dynamite, one last drill, one last clearcut that will tip the balance so the earth begins to rumble and shiver and shake and the world as we know it now will change forever? We don't know. Indigenous people say it will.