Accountability Now

Hmmmm....I wonder why this article says nothing about Edmonton? Perhaps it's because the pipeline in LNG route are only within BC and have nothing to do with Edmonton. Clearly you are confusing the TransCanada Coastal Gaslink pipeline being discussed in this article with Enbridges crude oil Northern Gateway pipeline. The former brings LNG from NE BC to Kitimat whereas the latter brings crude from Edmonton to Kitimat.

Perhaps the move by Harper is working? It looks like there is a backlash within the BC First Nations to now accept the LNG deal http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-chief-creates-alliance-for-first-nations-lng-supporters/article24634273/

I think its more like restructuring than cutting off but yes at this point the funding has been pulled. No. My point is that 'they' claim they aren't Canadian. They are the ones that wish to deal on a 'nation to nation' level with Canada. Just look at the Manifesto from Idle No More and tell me they view themselves as Canadians. I will be the first to say that not all natives think this way but it certainly is a noticeable amount that do. I have no problems with the fact that they are Canadian but you can't play both sides of the fence which is tactic common when it comes to negotiations. LMFAO....I have done no such thing. I have shown direct examples of how they claim to be a nation state and that is the discussion being had. You conflated the idea and tried to deflect to them being a nation of people. You literally had no constructive point to make so you decided to deflect. Again...why do they keep asking to talk 'nation to nation' if they aren't thinking about equal nation states? Please answer the question with no deflection. Full rights come from contributing to the system....not just taking. A lot of the things that Canadians get from the government are because we have paid municipal, provincial and federal taxes which a native living on a reserve has not done. So no....they are not entitled to the same rights. If you are a status Indian and choose to to live on the reserve then you live under the Indian act. At that point you do not have the right to own property. Also, in turn for accepting the small benefits of the treaties you lose out on the benefits of what other Canadians get by paying taxes. Of course your comment about giving up Aboriginal identity is just not true. They continue to have that identity to this day and show it more than any other group in Canada. Well...it certainly isn't a story that is being covered by a lot of the main stream media. I'm sure if there was more backing to it that the CBC would be all over it based on their historical coverage. I think the case is that its a matter of restructuring but it could turn out to be simply cutting them off. Is it dodgy....no. Its a part of the negotiation. Again, why should Canada offer anything more than what is offered in the treaties? With that said, I think there are only two treaties in BC and the rest like to use their non-treaty status to strong arm the Government and business as seen in the LNG deal. I have probably said it five times now....you can't play both sides of the fence. If you want to play the Aboriginal card as a non-treaty native then why should the Government give you benefits that only result from Treaties? Please answer that one. If there is no more news on this then I would suspect it wasn't much of a story to begin with.

Sounds good. I don't really spend a lot of time researching this stuff but maybe I should. Having said that I did spend a little time watching a few of Dan Barker's videos and I found many of the things that he called evidence to be loose associations that had many holes in it. There isn't an argument that he has made where I thought....yup he's nailed it. So when it comes to 'evidence' I would say I'm skeptical as most of these arguments or evidence seem to be of the nature that if I disprove one small part then somehow that disproves the entire thing.

None of which are recognized as nation states even though they want to think they are. The Government calls them that because they asked to be called that. The Government would call them Teletubbies if they asked them to. As far as you simply pointing this out, perhaps next time you should actually understand what you are trying to point out. The entire context of the conversation was about First Nations thinking they are their own nation and you know that I was talking about a nation state yet you thought you could discredit my comment by deflecting to another definition of nation. I've debated with you enough to know i have you beat when you deflect like that. Kind of like when we were talking about Canadian Natives and you posted a supporting article about Mayans. The entire point of this is that First Nations are groups of people within Canada that are entitled to certain benefits due to the treaties they made. If they made no treaties then they get the advantage of strong arming the government as we have seen in BC however they do not get the benefit of the treaties. Very simple. The only reason they get these benefits is because they are a part of Canada...not separate from it. If they chose to leave then so would the benefits.

I don't get frustrated with things that are historical facts especially when these facts are still true today. Maybe you do? Close...except the part about Aboriginal law everywhere. Here...this may help you: Nowhere in there does it talk about Aboriginal law as foundation. Even the French Civil law is subject to the Constitution of Canada which again is British. Now...just because the law talks about how to deal with Aboriginals that does not make them 'founding' contributors to the law. If you think that is the case then I guess murderers and thieves would be founding contributors too because the British laws talk about dealing with them too. Only for you it seems. "WE" didn't call them that. "THEY" came up with it on their own as they didn't like being called Indians. Yet they still abide by the Indian Act and are still legally noted as Status or Non-Status Indians. So I guess they can call themselves what ever they want but they are still subjects to the Crown. Great deflection however I haven't. My point from the start is that these group of people who call themselves First Nations have taken that title too seriously and consider themselves to be equals to Canada as a nation state. They want to talk 'nation to nation'. Are you now suggesting that these FNs are really staying "nation of distinct people (FN) to nation state (Canada)? I don't think so and I'm sure neither do you. Their actions have clearly shown that they don't niew themselves as just a nation of distinct people especially with the example of the Iroquois passports. You mean that declaration that was originally only signed by countries with no existing Aboriginal issues thus leaving out Canada, US, Australia and New Zealand. This same declaration which was agreed to in recent times once these countries discovered that this declaration is non-binding. You do know what non-binding means....right? Its not a law. So much for your International LAW!!!! Here...have a read: So please....show me the binding international law that accepts First Nations as nations.

There is no complexity. Three nations started this country. The French backed out in 1763 and no longer had rights to Canada. The Aboriginals signed treaties and ceded their rights to the English. Our constitution is based on the Royal Proclamation and British Common Law which gives Natives rights but is certainly not based on Native laws. In the end Canada was formed as one nation with all (including the natives) being subjects of to the Queen of England. Yet today we still have First Nations who think they are their own country (see Iroquois lacrosse team) and that Canada should be speaking 'nation to nation'. At most they are municipal districts within the nation of Canada...not separate nations unto themselves. You don't see the Province of Ontario or the City of Calgary asking for 'nation to nation' discussions with Canada. Surely the international community doesn't view them as such and you have yet to show proof they do. As asked, please step forward and provide substance to your opinion that the international community sees them as nations.

You are taking that position but doing nothing to substantiate it. As per my request above:

Step up and prove that 'International Law' recongnizes the First Nations as nations similar to Canada, the US, England or other nations that are recognized as such. Also, since you dodged it once I'll ask again....why are First Nations passports not accepted overseas if the "international' community recognizes them?

Reporting....dealing with....negotiating with.....in any of these cases, they don't view Canada as the group to do any of these with since they didn't make the deal with Canada. Hence why they still write to the Queen asking her to intervene.

Didn't ignore anything. International law recognizes indigenous rights....not indigenous nations. We've already seen this when the Iroqoius lacrosse players tried using their Iroqoius passports to get into England. Denied!

Clearly you have nothing to say.

You're right. It's not that they don't want to be a part of Canada, rather they already consider themselves a nation(s) separate from Canada. To them Canada is one nation and they are other nations all reporting to the Crown.

It's up to the individual to respond to the situation, not the group. In fact in this situation, the people going with the group seem to get brought down whereas the individuals who choose to move on do so. I am not speaking about Canadians not accepting First Nations as Canadadians....rather it's the First Nations who don't want to be part of Canada. So if that's the case then why should they expect anything from Canada other than what's in the treaties?

Nope. Québéc can claim they're not a part of Canada but until a referendum comes back to support this notion AND they actually leave then they are a part. First Nations on the other hand claim and act as though they aren't a part of Canada. They act in 'nation to nation' agreements and expect is to honor treaties between two nations. That mindset certainly shows they are not part of Canada. Of course in this situation there are no treaties so why should our nation help them?

They're not Canadians...they're First Nations. They can't decide to be Canadians when it's convenient and then First Nations once development happens.

What treaties give these FN the right to social funding. It was my understanding their are few treaties in place in BC.

Again...you can't follow the conversation. I really do advise you to read the WHOLE post and not just get fired up when you read the first line. What I posted after this comment was that Dunn never actually said that billions were NOT collected, rather he said they COULD have collected more. The kryptoninte involved here is that your whole argument about not collecting royalties was washed right out the window sine Dunn himself never said it. Please for the love of everything holy, read the next part in its entirety so that we can minimize your confusion. There is no objective number that the government should be charging the oil companies. It goes up and down based on what they feel like they should be getting versus what they think is required to provide incentives for these companies to invest. If you don't agree with this statement then please go back and look at the current AG's statment on this exact situation. Lol. You are really stretching here....aren't you. Valentine was hired to do a report. He doesn't have a job with the government either way after this report comes out. Of course logic would suggest that the main reason people keep their jobs is because they are doing them correctly which is probably why Roy was fired. Keep stretching though as I can see you have nothing else to go on..... Which report are you talking about? Almost everything we have talking about including your post about Jim Roy's recent report was after 1993 when Roy got fired. Lets recap: Your post #349 where you gave an excerpt from "Billions Foregone" was written April 2015. Or was it your Alberta Venutre article written in 2008? Or perhaps your Tar Sands book published in 2010? Or was it Dunn's reports as AG...even though he assumed that office 9 years after Roy was fired? So....which report was written LONG before 1993 when Roy was actually fired? Please provide the citation to the report.

I thought for sure when reading the headline that materials used in the dam caused this but was shocked to find out it was actually from the surrounding decaying matter. Granted the decaying matter would have stayed in place if the dam hadn't flooded the area but still I didn't realize that nature was so toxic. I guess its kind of like oil extraction. Its already polluting the ground but only becomes a problem when you start moving it.

Of course you didn't...its like I said....you have problems with comprehension Dunn again hey? I've already shown you the report issued by former AG Valentine that came out in response to this accusation from Dunn. Here, I'll post it AGAIN: The issue that you keep flopping on is that you think Alberta is actually owed this money as if someone forgot to collect it. That is not the case. Here's another article discussing this. If you want to say that we could have collected more money...that's one thing but saying we didn't collect on money that was owed to us is just wrong. Of course, everyone sees the money that oil companies make and think automatically that we should have more. The reality is these are businesses that make decisions to invest in this part of the world based on the given structure. You always risk them not investing further if they raise the royalties. I think I saw a report showing that at this time, Alberta was 11th out of 100 in the best places for oil companies to invest. After the 2009 royalty increase, we dropped to 44th. The ability to pin down exactly how much we should get is not easy. Its kind of like a game of roulette. You ask too much and the oil companies invest elsewhere. You ask too little and we aren't getting our fair share. Anyone in business gets the idea that sometimes when you bid jobs, you may end up leaving money on the table but you are happy that you got the bid and are making money. Its much better than not getting the bid and going out of business. Again...the current AG Merwan Saher backs up this point by saying:

Continuing with this same argument hey? It hasn't got you anywhere thus far but keep trying. Its not enough though...not even enough for main stream media to cover....just once!! You only hear about it in the Tyee from Nikiforuk or on social media. No where do you hear about this other than in the comments section but hey go ahead and believe what you want to believe. LMFAO!!!! This is so priceless that I may even keep it on hand to quote it from now on. My side lost? If you had read any of my posts before your peanut gallery approach started you woud have seen my comments about the PC's needing to go. As such who is MY side? I still beleive the PCs had the correct platform but they needed to go based on Redford's antics and Prentice calling an early election and accpeting the WR defectors. The NDP pandered to the public which will certainly catch up to them when they realize there isn't enough in the pot for everyone to get what they want. So either a massive deficit is run (which WILL piss off everyone) or promises will be broken which will pissed off the pseudo NDP supporters will be pissed. Either way, I'm sure you will be NDP forever! Right...like about how you said twice that you would ignore me but only to continue jabbering away since you knew I beat you at this? Its tough losing but better luck next time.

Yes...that has been the basis of your argument all along. But yet where is your answer when I clearly asked you to provide one spot....JUST ONE spot where I have said that I have said his numbers are not correct. Where??? Your constant deflection is appalling. The issue over royalty calculations is not easy and the calculations involve a firm understanding of not just numbers but also the ability to create incentives to keep and maintain the oil industry involved. Claims coming from either side do not paint the whole story. I will await your response for my request. Of course you are missing the KEY part to proving links....they need to be of substance. Having a fired guy now reporting to the Tyee doesn't add up to much. I noticed most of the corroborating support is through Facebook, Twitter and other social media but still no main stream, credible source. Your boy Jim Roy made this claim recently before the election. He also made it in 2008 before that election and in 2012 before that election. The guy has his opinion and constantly shares it right at election time to anyone who will listen. My point still stands....why is no one listening...or responding....or given a moments notice to this guy? I am not the one making the claim about Jim Roy...you are. I don't have to provide claims to disprove you especially when your claims are doing nothing to prove your point. So you say "everyone reading this" but then say "imaginery audience". Which is it? Can you please make a point that makes sense? I have no audience. I'm speaking only to you which seems to be a lost cause based on your poor comprehension. Wow....you really don't understand what bias is do you. Did you happen to see who wrote this opinion article in Alberta Venture? Andrew Nikiforuk....the SAME guy who wrote the article in the Tyee. The exact same guy that interviewed your buddy Jim Roy. Anyone who calls the oil sands by the name Tar Sands has laid his cards on the table showing their obvious bias. Of course Nikiforuk went a step further and wrote a book called Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Oh...how awkward....here I am talking about the bias of Nikiforuk and his Tar Sands book and what do you do.....you post a link directly to that book. You certainly are a one trick pony aren't you. As for Fred Dunn....he certainly felt the government could get more more money for its oil. That is no secret. Stelmach even agreed too which is why he tried to hike the rates However, the previous auditor general Peter Valentine seems to disagree that any miscalculation or unpaid royalties occurred (http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAN0724944820080408?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0) Dunn was not viewed as an impartial audtior doing his job within his boundaries. As per below, they felt his involvement into policy matters was overstepping his boundaries. As such they started cutting him out of the loop which pissed him off and created a bias. So the AG before Dunn said there was no issues with collecting the royalties....what about the AG after Dunn? The current AG and the guy who replaced Dunn is Merwan Saher, who was Dunn's right hand man for years. You would think that he would share Dunn's point of view on this however here's an article showing his toned down view on this: A compliment with a bit of a critique in order to push the government to be better. This is probably more along the lines of what an AG should do. However this is the part I like the best: So regardless of your opinion that the determination of royalties in the oil sands is EASY, I would have to say again that you are wrong. Also, Dunn was a bit extreme in his views about the royalties which is shown by the comments and actions of the AGs before and after him. But you keep sticking to that one trick pony.

It's so sad to see the public education system has failed you so much. Your comprehension is absolutely horrible. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say the guy was wrong OR that he was right. I said he made a CLAIM that isnt being substantiated by any main stream news source and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. I beg you...to please find a spot where I have said that his figures are incorrect. Please!!!! Perhaps I should include some basic definitions for you in the future for the word CLAIM so that you don't get so easily confused. At any point that you can provide a journalistic story from a mainstream source then I'll be all ears. Until then your buddy's claim belongs exactly where it sits (ie in third rate news sources and in the comments section) But hey...dont spend time responding to someone you ignored three comments ago. Lol

Wow...I guess I'm not on ignore. I don't need to do the math. There are people out there who are much smarter at this than I am including people who are working on the royalty reviews and have been since 1992 when he last did his. I'm not saying he's wrong but no one is saying he is right, other than his co-Alberta Energy buddy on this site and a bunch of anti-conservative reports. If his numbers are in fact true then main stream media would be all over it and since they are not then the logical fallacy is to believe there is nothing more to the story and that he is right. Journalists will always back away when they know there is more to the story. Of course, since you are so gullible to believe everything you read on the internet, then may I recommend putting you in touch with a friend of mine who has milllions of dollars from the widow of a King in Africa. We just need your account number and a few other personal items to make the transfer! LOL!

As requested, please show what strength there would be to a claim in National and Provincial Parks as well as on private property. My point is there are parts to this country that aboriginal rights do not exist. Some...not a lot but some.