Accountability Now

Yes...taxed federally and in exchange given things like education and health care....not a complete free ride. The rest of the stuff is up to them to create an economy and taxation of said economy to provide funds to pay for the rest of the items required. Please stop making your arguments based on the comments section from Rabble. The lands were ceded and surrendered in full with no rights given to the First Nations. The trillions you talk about are speculations based on what the Federal government has made from the ceded land since then even though there is NOTHING in the treaties about sharing the land. It does state that they can use the land for hunting/fishing except for the tracts to be taken up by mining and other resource development. The compensation received thus far is largely as a result of what has happened to their ability to hunt/fish due to these resource development projects, not because they have a land use agreement. The Canada Health Act is for Canadian citizens. The First Nations have often stated they are not citizens of Canada but rather a nation on its own for which we must respect them in nation to nation talks. As a result, our only obligation is to fulfill the treaties and not to the liberal translation that the AFN wants but to the actual meaning of the treaties. If at any point they want in on the Canadian Dream, then by all means they are more then welcome. Again...you purposely leave out the fact that large portions of municipal and provincial funding comes from taxing the people. Its not from Federal funding. So before you continue talking about the different levels please adjust your numbers to reflect apples to apples comparisons

Its a good question. As Cyber points out the amount of total funding that happens comes from municipal, provincial and federal funding. It is up to the First Nation to provide the first two of those. My thought is they feel the Federal government is supposed to supply for all their needs however if you look at the treaties it is very limited.

However, the money for the municipal and provincial taxes come from taxpayers. If the First Nations wish to tax their people to spend on First Nations items then they are more than welcomed to do so. The only comparison that is even close to apples to apples is how much federal funding is spent on both. Even that is not a direct comparison since the First Nations don't consider themselves part of Canada and the money they receive from Canada is as a result of the treaties and not due to national obligation that Canada has to its taxpayers.

You are wrong. Metis will never be and can never be First Nations. First Nations is a legal term applied to that specific group which does not include Metis, Inuit or Non-Status Indians. By your standard, it would be like British Columbians trying to be Manitobans. They can't and won't be however they both can be Canadians. Essentially, the entire group of aboriginals is termed Indian by the 1867 Constitution. The recent SCC finding was about including the Metis as Indians. It had NOTHING to do with making them First Nations. Please read the SCC link provided and see for yourself when it says: Up to this point the only ones called Indian were First Nations, however this ruling changed that. However, as I posted in the other thread, this decision doesn't necessarily change much as per the blog from Pam Palmater: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2016/04/dont-partake-celebrations-over-new-supreme-court-ruling-on-m%C3%A9

No. You're wrong. Indians is the general term used for Aboriginal. First Nations are Indians. Inuit are Indians. And now Metis are Indians. However, Metis are NOT First Nations. From the SCC ruling: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/15858/1/document.do

I'm not sensitive to the choice. I'm ok with either. It is Squid that is not. Having said that you state First Nations is the 'legal' term, however the recent Supreme Court ruling was to determine if the Metis are Indians or not. It didn't ask if they were First Nations

You keep saying that First Nations is the correct term. If its the correct term then why did the Supreme Court not use it? Why do many of the First Nations call themselves Status Indians? The fact is the word is still largely in use and still correct. Its when people use 'them Indians' or 'F***ing Indians' that the negative connotation is applied and generally casts the idea the the word Indian is not correct. An anecdote to add to this (whether you believe it or not). I spent some time up in Prince Albert, SK this summer and asked this question to a number of whites and First Nations in the area and not one person was offended by the term Indian. They were mostly confused and said why would that bother us...that's what we are.

That's funny....the Supreme Court didn't consider the term racist when they deemed all those Metis as 'Indians'

An interesting blog from none other than Pam Palmateer on this subject http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2016/04/dont-partake-celebrations-over-new-supreme-court-ruling-on-m%C3%A9 Don't partake in celebrations over new Supreme Court ruling on Métis just yet You are correct that the Metis determine their membership and as per the above blog, they won't want any more members as it will dilute the 'true indian' Now...having said that....I think the Metis associations may end up seeing a few lawsuits thrown their way if legitimate people are in fact rejected. I have to wonder if that's what will end up happening. I also have noticed a few articles on Metis and First Nations scrapping it out over land claims as they both lay claims to the same lands. That will present a new story line as well.

The past cases will be tried on a case by case basis. It's up to the individual's family that had the scrip or who had the wrong doing to bring it forward. The more of these cases, the more money and more attention to their cause

What's not sensible is that I am 1/64th Metis and I still qualify. So what about the 63/64ths of me that is 'White' and has ancestors who did all these 'wrong doings'. Or what about the fact that I live in Canada and benefit from all these so called advantages that were brought forth due to the Metis scrip. At what point is someone just Canadian??? When I go into the Metis office, I write a declaration that I am Metis and I self identify as Metis from that point on. Its not hard. Again you would be wrong. My brother already has his card and so do my cousins who are from the same lineage. Proving my ancestral connection is the least of my problems when it comes to this. Not to mention, the Metis community wants to expand....its not some secret club. Obviously they want you to be proud of your heritage and promote it but its just a matter of one saying so. Why is it ridiculous?? Is it because you think anyone with a tiny piece of native heritage should be beating a drum and calling down the Canadian government at all times? Or is it just possible.....that a guy from Alberta with ancestral base in Saskatchewan where a vast majority of Metis are from, would/could actually have an ancestral tie to the Metis? You act like I'm from China and that I'm claiming Louis Riel was my dad! Do you still not see the idiocy in all of this? Why should I who has 63/64ths Canadian blood get compensated to the same level as those who are full blood First Nations or even true Metis? How many other Metis in this equation are the same as me? I know at least 5 in my immediate family. Seriously....at what point are we just Canadian? That to me is the ironic thing. They keep saying it was Canada versus the Metis/FN and make it out like Canada prospered/won. That may be the case but here's the kicker....anyone in this country can be on the winning Canadian side. I find the only losers in this equation are those that bury their heads in the sand and continue to believe there are two sides. Many aboriginals have gone on to live good lives and have chosen to be part of Canada. Many others stay on the reserves and choose to stay locked up in bondage both physically and mentally. These so called 'native entitlements' are keeping aboriginals in poverty.

This is a win for lawyers. All this judgement says is that Canada has to negotiate with Metis however there are no treaties or Indian Act to resort back to which state to what level. Each case will be examines on a case by case approach meaning lawyers make out like bandits. To prove your point about this being idiocy....I am a white guy who has 1/64th native blood, however I can track my ancestors back to Metis therefore I qualify for my Metis card. If in fact, they get the same benefits then I won't have to worry about paying for my kids school. And I have NOTHING to do with Native culture. But hey....if the Supreme Court wants to make these rules, then who am I too argue!! Unbelievable!!

Yup still there indeed however I question how much management responsibilities they have. Interesting note, Mac-T was notably absent from the big Oil reunion for what they claim was due to the Final Four. In other words he's been relegated to scout.

Meanwhile....on another reserve in Saskatchewan.... Saskatchewan’s Cote First Nation: What In the Actual F**ck Is Going On? The APTN was actually run off the reserve when they confronted the reserve leaders to ask about this. http://aptn.ca/news/2016/03/24/vanished-money-raising-questions-on-cote-first-nation/ Watch the video on the above link. Certainly this is just one reserve however there is definitely others.

Maybe come up with an example where Aboriginal Right actually applies. Don't blame me for your inability to understand the details involved. Now please go on and take note and ignore me

Look at the very first slide on page 1. Who does it say this report is presented by? Hmmmm....yup Presented by Canada. But let's play devil's advocate, shall we? Lets say it is 'hearsay' as you claim. Then why is the Six Nations publishing hearsay and not issuing proper, factual information on their website especially when it comes to something as sensitive and important as the Plank Road land claim? Are you suggesting that they are not being honest??? Do you honestly not comprehend sentences and just look for certain words. I already said they don't 'have' to wait but they always do. As I already stated, its in both parties best interests to negotiate. Therefore they negotiate first and see what that brings. If the government dismisses their claim then they can proceed to litigation. I can't recall a case where they went straight to litigation. In fact, I have been involved in a few lawsuits with my business and they always send you through arbitration first to see if it can get resolved before court. I'm fed up with people who say they aren't Canadian trying to rape Canada every chance they get because we are supposed to be 'acting in good faith' while they can be deceitful and act however they want. This is hilarious. You do know that you are contradicting yourself. Here are definitions of the two terms you used: Note: worth paying attention to. Ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. Do you ever make sense? With that said, my attacks are on your arguments and your inability to construct a proper one. Additionally they are on your inability to comprehend what is being said to you. But I know how you work, the minute you know you are beaten you then insinuate that people are attacking you. I've seen you do it with me and others so its nothing new.

I'm actually a little embarrassed for you on this one. I clearly posted the link to the WRITTEN summary back in post 214. I have quoted the part of the quote that you need. Let me know if you need help learning how to click on a hyperlink. Sure they can. Just like the government of Canada can decide to not negotiate. They both can also decide to hit their heads against a brick wall. The reality is First Nations and Canada will ALWAYS negotiate first as it normally results in a win-win situation. The decision to go to litigation comes after the Federal Government dismisses their claim. I understand this requires common sense to understand, so it may be difficult. Yup....I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know how to click on hyperlinks or actually read the information provided. I certainly can see how you would get so frustrated. A little advice for you jacee....stop basing your arguments on what you see from the comments section in the article. Read the actual article and see what makes sense.

No....hearsay is information that one cannot substantiate. When the Six Nations (one of the sides involved) published to their website a copy of the summary provided by the Government of Canada (the other side) which includes comments about the Government of Canada's position in direct, clear language.....well....that's not hearsay. You mean what was actually written on the summary report. Or quoted by Ron Doering or Barbara MacDougall, the two direct negotiators for the Federal government. Hearsay is someone claiming these people have said something but they have nothing in writing nor direct quotes. BIG difference as I have shown both of those apply here No confusion here. If you actually read up and comprehended what was being said then you would know that the 1995 lawsuit did not go straight to litigation. It had various stages where the litigation was pushed aside in favour of negotiations. For litigation to continue, the federal government needs to DISMISS these claims. That's why you end up going to litigation! Yeesh. Now...to further drive home my point, the one claim that you keep blabbing on about (Plank Road) could not have been accepted or rejected because it was tied to the lawsuit. Now since you don't care to believe me, take a look at this statement from the AANDC website: So PLEASE....for the love of everything holy....stop your incessant whining about why has the Federal government not accepted or rejected the claim. Their position is clear and has been stated in writing and verbally that they feel their is no legal bounds for this particular claim however it doesn't matter any more as the process that deals with it is no longer applicable. I have no problems what so ever with honoring the treaties but the problem isn't about honoring what is actually said...its about being forced to honor a liberal interpretation of what is actually said. The comments about 'intentions' have been used by the native side far more than the Canada side. I often hear about how the oral history needs to be brought into the equation when that oral history directly contradicts what was agreed to in the written treaty. Even in this case, if we look at the cold, hard, objective facts you would see that the Six Nations have no legal claim to this land. The Haldimand Proclamation was a poor piece of work that contained many errors which had to be corrected by the Simcoe Patent. However, even with the patent it offers a very limited deed that does not include the right of alienation. There are reports of Joseph Brandt rejecting the Patent because of this. They knew this then and they know it now but they are playing the legal system in hopes of a windfall. The reality is they know the courts favour the poor downtrodden 'Indian' which is why they are proceeding. The claim for the Burtch lands may have originally been brought forth by their belief in the Haldimand Proclamation however it will end up going to the Six Nations because the Province of Ontario is giving it to them based on the conflict resolution in Caledonia. The Province of Ontario has the deed which it will give to the SIx Nations.....so ultimately they don't have to rely on the false notion that the land belongs to them because of Haldimand.

As reported by the SIX NATIONS!!!! Please check the link if you don't believe me. On the second link, also from the Six Nations website, it shows the summary of the position paper from the Government of Canada which explicitly states on Canada's view on the sixth page. Do you know what hearsay is? Or would you just prefer to deflect so you don't have to admit you're wrong? Do I seriously need to hold your hand through this process? The Plank Road claim was initially filed in 1987 and then included in the 1995 lawsuit which included a number of other claims. As such the government has to address ALL the claims to dismiss the 1995 suit.....not just Plank Road. Yeesh. No....my link does not say that. You went over to another page on the Six Nations site to find this http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/lsuNegotiations.htm Unfortunately that is not discussing the negotiations on Plank Road but rather the negotiations on Welland Canal and other grievances. Can you please try your best to understand the differences? I can't help it that you are easily confused. Not my fault. Perhaps take some time to read what is actually being said and let it soak in. I do recall you having troubles with this in the past where you kept trumpeting claims about Canada spending 11 billion on litigation in Aboriginal Affairs when that wasn't even close to being true. It took me a number of posts to clear that up for you because you refused to actually read what was being said. Real discussions do require comprehension....something that you clearly lack. Yes...all of these things have been discussed in various parts of our conversation but not once have I confused them as you indicate. The simple fact is that you read into what you want to see and have zero ability to follow the conversation. Again, please take some time to understand what is being said and about what comment as that may actually help you. What you mean to say here is that you had no proper argument so you are now making crap up. I understand! Its funny you say this. I decided to watch a number of videos on the Caledonia crisis and I was absolutely amazed by the lack of understanding that natives had. They kept calling the Haldimand Proclamation a 'treaty' which of course it clearly is not. They also have no sense of what an actual deed with the right of alienation is. Again...the frustration with natives somewhat has to do with their confusion and willingness to spew this ignorance to anyone that will listen. The larger part of frustration is their willingness to play the system as the poor downtrodden 'Indian' whenever there is the slightest chance that they can get money or some sort of deal even when they clearly don't have a legal leg to stand on. The entire irony of the whole situation is interesting....it is always expected the Crown is to act in good faith however that expectation of the natives is not there nor is it shown.

I wish you were though... Canada has made its position knows. On February 29, 2009 It has never been formally rejected because Canada agreed to continued to have discussions as that is Canada's preferred method of getting this done. I find it ironic that you want Canada to stop having discussions and just make a decision when the entire native world bangs their collective drum about the importance of meaningful discussion and consultation. I don't know what, if any discussions have been had since 2009 however it would be up to the Six Nations to provide any new information that proved Canada did not act prudently. Its going to be a hard sell considering this road was built to the same standards as other non-native communities of the time. For a summary of the position paper, you can look here http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/CanadaPlankRoadNathanGagePresentation.pdf Lol...and when do you think that will be? The claim was first filed in 1987 and then included in the new claim in 1995. In 2007 the government said: In 2009 the position paper stated above basically held the same stance. Canada's position on this has not wavered. Yet the Six Nations are content with further discussions? Why....because they most likely agree with Barbara McDougall in that there are other issues to be dealt with beyond the land claim. That's a question you should be asking yourself.

Agreed I agree the cheer was loud but it was very uneasy and certainly not without its jeers. I do think that people were in such a good mood that he was possibly forgiven for the night.

How is it nonsense? You claim that it has to be in writing for it to matter yet the First Nations did not accept the Haldimand Proclamation or the Simcoe Patent in writing. Actually, there is some documentation that I have read suggesting they actually rejected the Simcoe Patent because they knew they didn't own the land. jacee....are you just making stuff up now? The Government did reject this claim. As per Ron Doering, the Senior Federal Negotiator: The only claims that are relevant were the four claims being addressed by the 125M settlement: The Plank Road/DCE claim was only discussed because the native occupiers were on that land. A condition of the 125M settlement was that these 'occupiers' would leave that land. Clearly I have enough to make short work of your false claims.

I like Subban but I don't know if he's the 'get it done' type either. There must be a reason that a former Norris Trophy winner is continually left out of Team Canada's starter. Having said that, it would be weird seeing him leave Montreal based on all the charity work he does there. I keep hearing Shea Weber in the Edmonton mix but who knows if that will ever amount to anything. Side note....I was at the final game last night. That was quite an event! Something that should be humbling for anyone on the current team but maybe not....

Was the Simcoe Patent or the Haldimand Claim ever accepted in writing by the Six Nations?

I don't know. Jagr and Nylander both passed up big bucks to play here for less money elsewhere. And they weren't huge stars. I think the Oilers need to trade some of these young guys for a true stud defenseman and then try and add in free agency where they can. If the organization is making the impression they are making the proper steps then I think most free agents would think twice.