Jerry J. Fortin

So your people were not the ones that emmigrated from the United States that were granted these lands under the Proclaimation?

Coersion is what government truely is. In its absence is merely anarchy. While that particular theory of anarchy has its merits it does in fact have little support. The best fix to the situation is through means of direct democracy where at least the individual has the ability to exercise the same amount of democratic coersion as everyone else.

Just a rough estimate of those numbers in the transfer payments I posted, suggests over $5 billion given to, or otherwise spent on the natives of Canada in fiscal 2005-2006. According to this, it is way more than this, there was a report a few years ago pegging total payments at close to double that. Maybe someone could explain where all of that goes. http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=45684 According to the budget documents, the government spends $9.1-billion each year on programs for aboriginal people. The additional $450-million over two years will be spent on improving "education outcomes," improving access to clean drinking water and building and renovating housing on reserves. The budget also sets aside $2.2-billion for compensation for native people who suffered abuses in the residential-school system. Source: Globe and Mail, Jeff Gray http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...iginal/&c=1 Federal Spending on Aboriginal People: Budget Document The government spends approximately $9.1-billion each year to fund programs directed towards aboriginal people. * Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides about $6.1-billion, of which about 80 per cent is for basic, province-type services for First Nations on reserve (e.g. education, social services, income assistance), where the government has primary responsibility. * Fifteen other federal departments and agencies, the largest of which is Health Canada, also provide about $3-billion for a wide variety of programs for First Nations on reserve, Inuit, Métis and off-reserve aboriginal people. * Over the last five years, spending has grown by about 4.3 per cent or $350-million per year. All true but, we are speaking of a very specific band of natives for which I believe Tsi or somebody else has already identified federal expenditures for their private uses. The numbers you are posting are accurate overall, but not relevant in this case. Funding for Six Nations is, you cannot suggest that the total reflects anything besides a generality.

Whether or not those MP's were racist I cannot say, they may have been I guess. Putting that aside I found a real question to be answered. Were the natives allies or citizens? As allies, they have no real right to the land in question, as citizens they do. As allies they may have possession of the land in the form of a lease, this was the track record of the British Empire at the time, they did not give away the lands. In fact the British were very fond of leases, use Hong Kong for a very example. I think that the real discussion here ought to be whether or not these American immigrants can actually lay claim to lands that were clearly not their own to start with. You see this really isn't a case of giving them their land back at all. It isn't a reclaimation of land either. This land was never really theirs until it was given to them by the crown in the first place. What the crown gives it can take away. This exercise in research is proving to be enlightening to say the least.

It seems that there is a great deal of confusion regarding these land claims. The thing to keep in mind is that the available documentation is very old and its authenticity is questionable in some cases. Who can say for sure what the intent was upon which the contracts were formalized so long ago. The only certain thing is that the natives were a conquered people who surrendered their land through legal means according to the victorious governments who signed into agreements with them. Now some of these claims are in dispute. I can readily understand the sentiments of natives who believed they were wronged. They used to dominate the landscape and are now marginalized, their cultural heritage is endangered and their very languages are becoming extinct. This is the lot of the vanquished in history. This is the reality we live in. The victors write the history books, so to be fair we cannot realistically expect the authors to be portraying events in the light of the peoples who were deemed to have lost the engagement. There is no doubt in my mind that the true history of events was written to glorify the victors and demoralize what remains of the vanquished. To come to the point, thats the way things are. When one tribe goes to battle and defeats another they take the possesions of the other in victory. This is the true heritage of the natives in North America is it not? If the dispute is about culture, then by all means apply their own cultural standards to them. If the dispute is about land, then the arguement becomes a legal one since the issue is one of property. In a legal battle both sides are required to respect the ruling of the courts. In this case of native land claims I would suggest the only proper venue is that of the Supreme Court of Canada where no appeal is possible. Now to address the silly verbalizations of violent threats to persons in this land, I would advise folks here that any such incursions would be found to be detrimental to advancing the cause of favourable settlements in the courts for issues in dispute. With all due respect to folks here, rights must be applicable to all citizens. Any "special rights" detract from the equitable disposition of the law and actually subvert from the inate right of a person. No citizens should have more right than another, nor should any privilege be extended to any individual that is not available to another. If our society does not support these principals it is abdicating its democratic authority over the government and in such case no longer serves the best interests of the citizens.

The direction that is most desirable is the elimination of income tax. However to do so an alternative method of government revenue stream generation is required. I will always maintain that the correct means of achieving ths is through the creation of a standard transaction tax. It is possible to do this within the current parlimentary system, however I sincerely doubt it will come to pass. The best way to organize a major change such as this is through constitutional reform. The redesign of government in general would result in a system of fairness that we have yet seen as a modern society. Perhaps through this exercise the direct democracy model could be successfully applied.

I do not support Black Dog's views either. But having said that, Israel is now conducting aggresive military operations outside of her borders. We all know the reasons, but that does not change the facts. I actually side with Israel but am very concerned that this will escalate into at least regional conflict. We all need to step back from the edge before it is too late.

Native Charm if there is no trust and no patience there will likely not be a resolution. If natives choose not to negotiate, that is your business but then you need to relinquish your claims. This is known as a rock and a hard place. The same kind of thinking that got us to this point will not provide the means to get us out of the current situation. We will need to think outside of the box to fix this problem. In order to move forward we need to respect each others positions and undertake a resolution process that serves to bring the opposing parties together for mutual benefit. Unless the parties in question can find benefit from resolution then the entire endeavour is a waste of time and effort. This is a simple reality, people will not enter into negotiations to lose ground only to gain ground. It is a process of give and take that must occur in order to have both parties find and promote benefit for their newly modified positions. This is no simple task we are discussing here. There is a very charged emotional environment here that needs to be reconcilled before a solution can be put forth for consideration. It is possible to create agreement and democratic concensus amongst the parties involved with just a little reasonable intent. That is the challenge that faces us.

I am a very different kind of citizen. He who is not my enemy is my friend. Just to set the record straight, I favour native self government. For more than thirty years I have had this position because I don't think that Canadian society as a whole has the right to determine how your people should live. This is supposed to be a free and democratic country but unfortunately the government of this damned nanny state has at some point in time decided to play big brother. I think that this was a very bad decision on their part and it represents what I choose to call " the sins of the fathers". That is the past, it is history and it is now our responsibility to address the problems and seek a resolution to the issues created by the foolish mistakes of those that came before us. Now having said all of that, you can call me gay if you like. Not true but you are free to say as you please, but once again making possibly inflamatory statements does little to futher your cause. I take no offense and am not in any way troubled by that sort of personal attack. I choose to debate the issues regardless of the abuse I receive for the effort. There are extremists on ALL sides, they are the true problem. Reasonable people can sit down and discuss the problems and attempt to resolve them in an honourable and respectful manner. The only lasting solution is one in which both sides can come to an understanding and agreement with each other. Grey areas are exploited by zealots and extremists, terms of agreement need to be precise and black and white in nature. There are problems to be solved that will require patience and trust on both sides in order to achieve a workable solution.

There is a measure of responsibility for all parties involved. The thing to keep in mind is that this must be resolved by the combatants there is no solution in an enforced peace or imposed ceasefire. We need to take a step back here folks, the brink and the short step to it will result in a long fall.

I have tried and failed to find the evidence that supports native claim to the lands in question. From what I have found it was in fact given to the government of the day by six native chiefs of supposedly the six native nations. The seems to be some dispute as to the credentials of these individuals by the natives, but that does not alter the fact that the government did in fact recognize these people as the representatives of the natives. These people had previous dealings with the government at a time when they were recognized by their own people as leaders capable of exercising authority in the behalf. Now I am more than willing to change my mind, but I will need to see evidence from a credible source that is clearly definitive.

Good Morning Native Charm!. You seem to know a lot about me in your opinion. For instance, you claim to know what is in my mind which has about as much credibility as your land claims. You make assumptions and leaps of faith and miss the point. I never said I understood your points or problems, these are things you believe but are not true. You need to get your act together my friend and at least try to debate based on the facts and the issues. Let us begin this debate based on the reality of events and the current state of affairs. For starters you have knowingly misrepresented my position, and attributed concepts to my posts in the absence of facts. Most recently you have insulted me and used profanity while doing so. These things do little to create any form of credibility and integrity for your position. But we can move on in the hope that you can still decide to enter into a civil debate to advance your cause through carefully crafted arguements designed to convince others of the validity of your statements and the relevance of your points. As citizens of the same lands we share problems that need to be addressed and resolved in a timely fashion. The way to do that is through calm and reasoned debate with an open minded and fair attitude. Now if you truely seek solutions that is the way it will come to pass my friend.

Oh really? The rest of the entire nation... rotting... jealous, desperate, poor, angry... Have you forgotten the jewel of the country, you know, the province to your left? The one with the beautiful scenery and clean water and JOBS, tons of JOBS. Pssst...it's called British Columbia.. but don't tell anyone, we wouldn't want Alberta to feel bad. huh? You know what, you are right! I would gladly see a Northwest Canada formed from the Ontario west border to the Beauford and the Pacific. BC is a very nice place and a little more sensible than the eastern fellas. BC and Alberta already have a few trade agreements and mutual political agendas to work with each other. I apologize, just used to butting up against the eastern bureaucracy from Ottawa. I really wish that Alberta could stay in Canada, but it is simply to costly to citizens of Alberta to have to pay the lions share of equalization. BC now becoming a hve province will some of its dollars head eastward now. Saskatchewan is on the bubble too now, unfortunately Manitoba is somewhat lagging but they are getting better. The territories will only need help for a while while the resources begin to be developed, give it less than a decade before its possible.

Yeah I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court of Canada will just force 500,000 citizens to forfeit all of their property and their Canadian citizenship to a bunch self righteous racists who would basically enslave these citizens. Yup, I figure that the Government of Canada will sit idly by while the court system screws half a million Canadians to death. Hey first nations dude, what do you guys smoke in them peace pipes anyway?

Obviously you don't understand how your political and legal system operate! Every Act has to have Royal Assent from the Crown in order to become law! Canada is still subject to Great Britain. Are you familiar with the following? Covenent Chain Two Row Wampum Treaty of Utrecht 1713, Atricle XV Treat of Paris 1783 Jay Treaty 1794, Article III Treaty of Ghent 1814, Article IX Obviously you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Royal Assent is simply a rubber stamp applied by the Governor General, who is a political appointee chosen by the Prime Minister. The Covenant Chain was a British agreement relevant to American Colonies, there is a hint there in case you were not actuallly reading up on this crap. Go and try to get the Americans to give you some land tommorrow based on that document. By the way good luck with that one. Two Row Wampum, how about a quote from one of your own people..."The chiefs said that some time in the future, a big wind would come and blow the two vessels apart. And those standing with one foot in the boat and one in the canoe would fall into the river of life, and no power this side of the creation could save them." Oren Lyons (Seneca) Faithkeeper, Onondaga Nation Go figure, a very smart person said that. I think he was right. Again though this was a treaty created in the United States. Treaty of Utrecht 1713, Atricle XV, not sure how you figure this comes into play but I am willing to listen? Treat of Paris 1783; again this is relevant to the United States, not Canada. Jay Treaty 1794, Article III; again you should talk to the Americans about going across the border. It seems the Supreme Court of Canada still figures most first nations folks get to pay duty though.... Treaty of Ghent 1814, Article IX; another referance to the United States but hardly relevant to this discussion at all. In fact I fail to see any mention of first nations at all in that Treaty, but it did end the war between what is now Canada and the United States. Your post failed to make any points with me my friend, you still have made no case. But you just keep trying fellas, that is your right.

I think it is possible that the Liberal Party will be going to the polls with an appointed leader. The leadership convention may not happen in time. When the fall sitting begins the Conservatives may attempt to set up a confidence vote and blame the fall of government on the opposition for the purpose of gaining a majority. Regardless of what the polls show at this point, Harrper is intenty upon attaining sufficient power to be able to alter the Senate and the Supreme Court and the only way to do that is with a majority government. All that we have really seen Harper do is set up the provinces to look like fools for not being able to reach a concensus. His power play will be to pit province against province while remaining out of the fray in an attempt to utilize a tactic of justified appeasement in order to acuire a state of solidarity across the land. This will serve to play down any attempt by the opposition to raise specific issues of concern to them by means of doing what is right for the nation. In a sense Harper wants to do some nation building, designed according to his logic and ideals of course. Once again we step into the breech, constitutional reforms are about to be like rubber hitting the road. That will be the only way for Harper to be able to didge the reality of the day, which is his governments lack of social focus. Strange but true, the focus is not on improving the human condition but instead the condition of concentrated power in the federal government. I believe Harpers goal is to download a lot of power to the provinces to avoid jurisdiction issues and expenses. He wants the feds out of a lot of programs because he thinks it will save the government money. It will too. Of course the citizens will have to pay more and the provinces will be where the battles are. It is a way of eliminating the attack Ottawa syndrome in provincial politics. Give them some power and then play out the rope. Watch them dangle for a while and then step in as the grand man and solve some of the problems by taking back some authority.

There are quite a few non-native Canadians who know what our agenda is and they agree with us. Far more than a cheap-labour conservative like you could imagine! They strengthen our cause. I speak for myself and no one else. However it has been suggested on many occassions that many agree with me, including many non-natives who are tired of the status quo. Many of them have awakened from the typical Canadian stupour to find that we were right all along and now they stand with us, not against us. You are virtually alone in your opinion and you hardly repesent a fraction of common opinion. Most fair minded people want this inequity settled once and for all. No more government stalling. No more aboriginal disparity. No more apartheid! We also have Nunavut which defines one of the solutions, although we are not prone to becoming citizens of a non-country with less rights then we currently enjoy. O:nen Your agenda is to extort the citizens of Canada for the sins of our fathers, you attempt to play upon our goodwill. That is your choice, my choice is to oppose your views and gather support as you have done as well to support your opinions. I choose to stand, alone if necessary because I blieve in what I say. Some may agree with me and some may not, that is their right. In a simple point of fact I no of nobody who would choose to support your views my friend. I have only three native friends, two of them at work. They all work and all live off of the reserves and are all educated men. None of them take your side as of yesterday at any rate. They work for a living and pay taxes like the rest of Canadians. Your race has chosen to turn your backs on them because they are Metis, that is your choice. Most fair minded people do wish a resolution to the problems this society encounters within the framework of dealing with our aboriginal peoples. You on the other hand choose to believe you are not Canadian, so you are not in my opinion entitled to a damned thing from this nation of Canada. That is your choice.

Please, save your bogus rhetoric for for those willing to swallow your disseminating doctrine. Your opinion of me being a racist is unsubstantiated. Do you feel you are superior to your American neigbors? Unsubstantiated, really? Haven't you said that you believe you have rights that other Canadians do not have based solely upon your racial heritage? Now consider your answer carefully in the context of the legal definition of racism.

I wouldn't recommend walking onto property around here where I live with a gun and start making demands and statements of claim my friend. Nobody wants to see native mortality rates go up a bit rapidly in that kind of scenario. From what I have read the land in question was actually sold to the government by representatives of the first nations in about 1793. So what is the big deal? It ain't yours no more buddy! You already sold it off.

The big issues of the day? Even the USA doesn't address issues they cannot resolve. Would you spend the lives of fellow citizens in a wasted effort? What of North Korea? What of China? Somolia, the Congo or any number of big issues of the day? Canada, like other nations should concern themselves with the improvement of the human condition of its own citizens before it can speak against or for the citizens of other nations. We need not influence any other nation, we do need to respect their sovereign rights as they need to respect ours. If this nation is attacked by another nation we have the right to defend ourselves, but to undertake a war of aggression against another nation who has caused us no harm is another story. The reality of international politics is simply don't get involved unless you can improve the situation. Since we cannot improve the situation then we should not be involved. All that this nation should be doing is advocating a cessation of hostilities to avoid continued harm to citizens in the affested areas. The politics of the negotiations have nothing to do with us, it has to do with them. Either an agreement can be reached or it cannot but it is the conflicting parties that need to reach that agreement nobody else can do it for them.

People like you shall reap what they sew. You are a racist and you think you are better than us. I shall undertake a little initiative from this day forward. I will speak against your interests. I will gather political support to begin to give you the self government you want and all the while I will speak against funding for the first nations peoples. You are not Canadian and deserve no Canadian money. Money is nothing to you and that is what you shall receive, nothing. Land is everything to you and of that you shall receive nothing. All because you are not Canadian and deserve nothing from Canadians. It is a fools arguement that you have created and you shall pay for it far more than your father and his father before him. The actions you have undertaken shall be your undoing. When the public finds out what your agenda really is, any support you may have had will evaporate. The words you speak will cease to have any meaning to those in authority and your fears will begin to rule your lives, all because you percieve yourselves entitled and superior to your neigbors.

What are you talking about!!! It was your people that made the bad deals under treaty and don't want to own up to them. It's us that is giving to this country it's always never enough! As far as this bull $#%& of racism if we have certain rights it's about Nation-Nation we are NOT Canadian citizens. Would you expect the same rights as your neighbors south of the border? What I am talking about is putting an end to this crap. You can call it what you want, blame who you want, but the reality is this; I have done nothing to the natives to harm them or cause them grief. I have paid literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to the government of Canada and there will be a fair chuck of change from those dollars that went to natives. Now you seem to want more, and I seem to want to not give any more, can you understand that. I have received no benefit from that portion of funds that you have received from me through the government. I no longer wish to pay you because I receive nothing in return but grief and greed. If natives don't want Canadian citizenship thats fine with me. In fact I think you are right in making that declaration. Now kindly send back every damned penny you were given in error by the government because you have no entitlement to it. After discussing this subject on this forum and trying to reason with some folks that were native I can assure you that you have taken a supporter of native rights and reformed me into somebody that does not support resolutions to native problems. I hope that was your intention because I will now start writing my MLA letting him know just how I feel about the subject. There are not many native folks in my constituency, so you can probably figure that you have just made another enemy due to your racist views. I will begin to speak with my neigbors and agitate to get them to write the MP's and MLA's as well. You have your numbers, and we have ours so let democracy rule fella! On the subject of racism, you either have rights that are equal to everyone elses or you have privileges of entitlements. I hope you realize the difference. If you truely believe that you have entitlements due to your race, then you are a racist. I have no use for racist scum. I will not wish you harm or il will, in fact I wish you the peace that you may find at your own expense. I now advocate cutting the cord my friends, natives want self government they want land they want this and they want that. So be it. Live as you will but I will now advocate no longer funding any first nations to any degree at all. You can keep what you have, but you will get nothing else. The shoe is now on the other foot, and in fact perhaps those that came before me may have stolen from you, but I did not and now you try to steal from me, I think not. Blame who you want, that is your right. Expect no help from me, that is my right.

Not bad for an Alberta Separatist eh?

I have a friend that was at one time in management as I was at one time. He went back to the union and began working for a living, as I did. The nature of his job at the time was such that he was allowed certain deductions for meal expenses. He claimed these deductions on his taxes. This was a cahnge of status for him in Revenue Canada's eyes so they audited him. It seems that he ended up owing them some money, so he paid what was owed and got a better accountant. The next year he made his claims again and got audited again and had to pay them more money. So much for that acountant, he fired him too. The next year his brother in law had some trouble in another province, so my friend helped him out in a business deal. The deal was undertaken in his name to avoid issues with his brother in laws ex-wife. There ended up being some tax issues with GST owed and he got wacked with the tab. They audited him again, and he again owed them money. This time the accountant didn't get fired, but he still had to pay. The point is, these fellas at Rev. Canada have long arms and an entire court system to back them up. Maybe they don't always win, but it will cost money to the citizen anyway.

Get a grip, the government can do as it pleases. Don't like a SCC ruling? Appeal it until some of the judges die off and you can appoint ones with a more favourable position! In this nation anything is possible, because the people want it that way.