Accountability Now

If De Beers found diamonds on my land they would pay me significantly less than what natives get because we don't own sub surface rights. Natives don't own the rights either but they get compensated significantly higher only because of image. Nothing more. De Beers even kicks in jobs, incentives, and other great things for the community only because of image. You or I wouldn't get this...would we? That Van Ryswyk sure speaks for a growing majority of Canadians. Just wait until voters start voting them in as independents!!

Anyone can learn the Cambodian language but only a limited few are accepted into law school. So yes it is a matter of What it Takes. The last time I checked, there weren't too many people saying..."Hey...if teaching doesn't work out for me, then I'll become a lawyer as a back up plan." Unfortunately, we hear the reserve being said all too often. Perhaps not people just aspiring to be lawyers but unsuccesful candidates from any profession can use teaching as a back up.

An ecomony can be built around the mine as long as the mine is operational. There are many examples of ghost towns created once the mining operations leave so I would say at best, mining creates a temporary economy. Even this De Beers operation has a limited life span. I understand there may be more opportunities available but who will want to invest in that area after what has transpired in the past year. You are exactly right when you say "effort on the part of inhabitants". The effort shown so far (ie blockades) may limit future investments thus dampening their ecomony.

Did the people of Attawapiskat set up the mine? No...it was De Beers. Attawapiskat sits on its ass collecting royalties because this big corporation cares about its image. There is no economy without outside help. Those diamonds would still be sitting there so don't pretend otherwise.

Its going to be a long time before the native population numbers would 'compel' the rest of Canada to renegotiate. What are you talking about 'us' renegotiating our relationship with Ottawa/Victoria? Do you mean BC's place in confederation?

But eyeball...did you once say that BC was different because a lot of the lands were never ceded or put under treaty? That part makes sense because they are not held back by past deals. The rest of Canada is under treaty so how could they re-visit the terms of their nation's surrender? And...don't say surrender as that ruffles some feathers out there...lol.

Exactly. The system in place entices people to stay when your natural instinct would be to move. (I should say the natural instinct for most)

Yes...i have had many posts of dialogue with her on this matter. The reserve system is the life they choose to live if they live on the reserve. They get certain benefits like tax breaks and housing but at the same time they don't get to own their house and are mostly controlled by the will of the cheifs/council. They get some benefits and they lose some. In my mind it wouldn't be worth it. Kind of like living at home with your parents....

Yup. But asking for more money is not right either. They are failry compensated for the job.

Actually they are compensated for that time. Their salary is an annual salary but paid out over 10 months. Like any salaried position, you get paid to get your job done....not by the hour.

She doesn't actaully claim anything or offer anything concete. I offered the suggestion that the reserve system is broken and she won't actaully address it. Instead she offers truisms that have no bearing on the conversation. However just by stating the truisms she did, it seems fairly clear that she is not in favor of removing or even alterning the reserve system. I guess in her mind the reserve system is what keeps the First Nations from fully assimilating which is the last thing they want to do. Of course if you think the 'stuff it" comment was concete then so be it....

The average unemployment for people on reserves is 25%. Sure...some reserves are economically viable but for the most part they are not. Those people that work off reserve make up the 75% which is considerably lower than 93% like the rest of us. Claiming that the reserve system works is describing it in an idealized or unrealistic fashion....which is the definition of romantacize. The reality is those who are doing well under the current system are not doing so because of the system. These people live in economically viable spots and they personally choose to make the best of it. The system doesn't make them viable....their drive and ability makes them viable. Conversely, people who live in reserves with no ecomonic viablilty (which is the vast majority) don't have this option. Yet...if they want to get their treaty money, then they need to stay. Its a catch 22. Its a numbers game. If the vast majority suffer then there is something wrong. Just because a few are doing good that doesn't make the system right.

Stuff it? That's your professional response? I see your head is back in the sand! You like to romantacize or flat out lie about the situation on the reserves which is why I used facts and figures from the AFN. They seem to get it that the reserve system is broken. Why don't you? Yes...many people that live on reserve find work off reserve. They are called the 75% employed. If you don't want to face facts about the 25% then so be it but don't give me this crap about me spewing stereotypes when it's clearly you ignoring facts. Have fun with that!

Jacee... The issue isn't aboriginals its the reserve system. Both sides are to blame because the natives want it and the government gives it. Your unemployment stats may be correct for off-reserve natives but its double that for on reserve. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/factsheets/quality_of_life_final_fe.pdf Add to the fact all the other shit things that happens to these people on the reserve. You are right...natives off the reserve are becoming more educated and better off which is just proof positive that the reserves are failing these people.

The problem in my opinion is that the current system was either created as OR evolved into this welfare system which is supported by both the natives and the federal government. The natives are so hell bent on keeping the treaties as it gives them items that the treaties offer however in return they are forced to live in godforsaken lands where econimic prosperity is nearly impossible. For most the options are unemployment and possibly substance abuse but they get their piece of flesh from the white man! Add to the mix, the natives are not permitted to own their house when living on the reserve. So there is zero sense of ownership and pride in owning something which further leads to the willingness to be idle. I believe the system of treaties has failed these people but of course anytime you bring up removing the treaties its like asking for their first born. They hold on to these things feeling that letting these go would be like giving into the white man. The reality is that keeping them is suppressing them. As a forward way of thinking, I would suggest they negotiate something that will actually benefit the natives using the treaties as leverage. Something that will bring them into the 21st century by creating a different base which makes natives motivated work. The removal of treaties would have to be a phase out thing where they would eliminate treaties in 'x' amount of years. The current system is getting both sides no where fast and the thought that shelling out more money for the cheifs to handle for these people is even worse.

This one is over too now. http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/native-elder-ends-hunger-strike-over-muskrat-falls-hydroelectric-project-1.1232309

The hunger strike is over. I guess these real hunger strikes are much harder than the fake ones Spence did. I don't think there are any nation to nation talks yet... http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130409-132709.html

I have often heard natives or people arguing on their behalf use the this line saying the 'trust' pays for it. However if you looks on the Indian Affairs website it shows an audit done in 2009 or 2010 that clearly shows the trust to be around $2billion. I can't remember what the interest earned from this account but obviously this account isn't paying for much considering the government dishes out $11billion per year.

Well said.

No...I said mine would be peaceful. I'm just using his place and would not be harrasssing him. Ok...if you don't want it at his house then lets do it at his place of work, or his kids school or how about at the hospital. My point is that protests don't have an all encompassing free pass. They need to abide by certain laws which are in place to ensure people aren't being harrassed while the protesters are getting their point across. If you can't get that then no analogy will work. Its funny though....for the most part you need to inconvience people (or harrass them) so they will actually take notice. For example, the native blockades on the highways. If they went to the parks and did these protests, it wouldn't of made the sixth page. Block a road for an hour and whamo....you are front page. So...its a price versus reward thing. You know that blocking a road is illegal but you are willing to pay that price to get the reward that it may bring. My point is that you know its not legal so don't whine about it when you get caught. Its a price you need to pay to get noticed.

Jacee....what is the limit to 'consulting". For example, if the government decides to put a big highway through and tells the bands about it...can they proceed even if the bands don't approve? In other words does consult really mean consent?

I agree. The treaty rights are something that are owed to them as that was part of the deal for them to surrender the land to the Crown. They are owed those rights. My thought however has always been that these 'treaty rights' are screwing them over. For natives to obtain most of their treaty rights they need to live on the reserve (right?). Most of these reserves are tucked way out in the middle of nowhere meaning finding jobs or other ways to sustain a living is not practical. It forces them into a welfare state just to get the few extra perks from the treaty. Add to this...they aren't owners of their own property. The band owns the houses which means they have any vested interest in it. So no job, no sense of ownership....all for some free education and medicare. If i was a native on the reserve I would walk away and get the real thing. Shortlived...I think you have this one backwards and I also think you know it too. You never did respond when I asked about where in the Roylal proclomation did it say it was the Indians land. Not to mention, the Royal Proclomation was as you put it for east of the Appalachians. There are a number of other treaties in place that cover the western parts where they have surrendered and ceded all rights to the land. Its NOT theirs anymore. They can use the land but its not theirs. Natives can travel there and hunt if they want but ultimately its Crown land and utlimately the Crown will decide its uses. Ok...so you do admit the deed was transferred. Its funny....it the same breath you say they were tricked into giving their land and now you say it was given peacefully. The natives were conquered. They realized for their sake that they better strike a deal because if it wasn't the Brits from the East then it would be the Yanks from the south. It wasn't until some of the later treaties that the natives realized they could negotiate a little. I often hear natives complain about 'being tricked' into these treaties. Isn't that another way of being beaten? Being smarter than someone in a deal is conquering them. Of course the Brits thought they were smarter at the time because they only spent $700k in total to obtain all the land versus the US spending $20million. In the long run though....the Yanks have us licked as they just push their natives under the rug and we get a lifetime of footing bills. Like most invasions....it would have been better for all if force was used rather than persuasion.

That was the first blockade. The second one was about a family saying they never got compensated for their trap lines which the band was compensated. I would say ask Spence where that money is but we all know the answer to that. Definitely wanting 'more' http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/02/11/diamond-mine-hit-by-second-attawapiskat-blockade/

Nope. De Beers had a well documented impact agreement before going into Attawapiskat. The blockade resulted from 'wanting more'. The Papaschase blockade in Alberta was by a non-recognized band that had its day in all courts. No agreement needed there.

Ok...give me your home address. Me and 50 of my buddies are planning on having a peaceful process between 1am and 4am this Tuesday night. I trust you won't mind. IOW....There are rules to protesting whether you like it or not. If you choose to ignore those rules then face the consequences...the same way I would face the consequences of having one in your house without asking.