Accountability Now

Well...that wouldn't be a decision made by the Alberta goverment so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up here. The point I'm making is that in the current system the govenment has to base their budget on oil being at a certain price but due to the volatility, they can see large swings up or down. So many people (including myself) state that we should base the budget on a much lower price of oil and then use any surpluses to address additional needs. The problem is that many people talk the talk but don't walk the walk! If the budget was based on much lower prices then Alberta would have to pay its public servants a much lower rate around the national average. So these people want the government to govern accordingly but are upset when it affects them. My point is that you can't have it both ways.

Well a very noteworthy case in Fort McMurray last year which involved your buddy Neil Young showed that the consultation was done and that the First Nations wouldn't be accomodated for the land use. Of course, its like I said there are many dealings that we don't hear about because they aren't making the news like this one did. No...its not true. Your claim was that it applies to ALL land in Canada and ironically you are using the link I posted which also included (although you conveniently ignore) the fact that after the BC ruling with the Hupacasath, the Paul Band in Alberta tried to sue for the same thing. The BC case was even considered in the decision which ended up going against the Paul band which meant the developer was allowed to go ahead without consultation. Here is the text again just so that I'm sure you have read it: So your claim about Aboriginal people having rights over ALL of Canada just isn't true as outlined above. They have rights on crown property alone and not on privtely owned lands. Again...BC has been the site of more Aboriginal success simply because of the lack of treaties....as stated in the quote above. Aboriginals cannot hunt or fish in various Crown areas like Provicial and National Parks. Also, they are not allowed to hunt on private property without persmission from the property owner. There are areas that resistrict this 'absolute' right over all lands that you seem to think exists. Your claim that about it being ALL land is just not true. No. This is only the solution in areas where land/resource development is happening AND is found to be affecting that local FN group and thus deserve the accomodations. There are various FN groups that aren't near or affected by such development and therefore won't be entitled to these accomodations. Having said this, many FN have to start rethinking their abilty to stay in their area based on the limited economic substainabilty. There also needs to be more considerations of changing the Indian Act to allow for greater individual rights within the FN to allow for accountability within the group.

Which point are you requesting a link for? Your comment was that aboriginal rights exist on all land in Canada. That is not true. The vast majority of land in Canada was ceded by treaty. Your go to point is in the one spot in Canada that is highly notable because no treaties were ever signed. More importantly FN have a hard enough time proving aboriginal rights on crown land never mind trying to prove it on private lands. The courts have no problem telling the Crown what to do but this becomes a much stickier mess the minute they impose that onto private lands. Here's a good example showing the difference between BC and the rest of Canada: Again...your comment about it being ALL land in Canada just simply isn't true. As stated above, your point is largely true in BC because of the lack of treaties.

We only have to got go as far back as the last provicinal election to see how drastically wrong the polling can be in Alberta. Having said that there probably is more of a back lash now but a new problem exists for the 'other' parties in that they will split the vote enough to allow the PC's to remain. The most problematic thing about this whole thing is that everyone in Alberta is crying about how we should make our budgets on non-oil related revenues. I totally agree with that however that means that teachers, doctors, public servants and anything else related to provincial expenditures need to readjust their salaries to below or around the national average if that is the case. The PC's made some recent moves to get off the oil teet (not far enough in my opinion) but now the backlash of the same people who first wanted them to do it. Baffling. With that said, if the PCs do go down, they can only blame themselves as they sold themselves out to the teachers union in order to beat the Wildrose in the last election.

Not to those who can follow a conversation. Its not a drive by when you've made multiple posts on the topic. Thanks. Oh facepalm! Are you still struggling with this conversation? I've already explained this. There are times when the Crown consults with the FN and both sides agree that little to no impact is made and so therefore no claim or accomodation is required. I trust we don't hear about these cases very often because these one don't make the news. There are other cases where the the Crown and the FN disagree on the severity of the impact and it goes to court, where it is then decided that the claim is weak and little to no accomodation is required. Its a linear situation jacee. On one end you have little to no impact on the FN which requires little to no accomodations. Higher impact requires more accomodations. By all of Canada, you do mean Crown land...right?

This is just another fine example of how you can't follow a conversation. We were discussing how Accomodation doesn't necessarily follow Consultation. Your pal On Guard was caught up on the word 'if' which of course implies two sides of the coin. You stepped in as quoted above and spoke on the non-absolute value of if saying the accommodation depends on the severity of the claim. I then said or no claim at all meaning if there is no claim then there is no accommodation illustrating my point that consultation doesn't always lead to accommodations. No where did I state that accommodations were given without warranted claims yet you jump to that conclusion because everything is racist if it doesn't favor the First Natikns. Please try to keep up and possibly respond with logic and not emotion the next time. Oh...still waiting on you to retract your claim about this being racist! Of course your self smearing looks good on you.

You smeared yourself when you threw out the race card. Even eyeball agreed that the comment was not racist. So go ahead jacee...step up and admit that you've misunderstood the arguement once again and instead of debating it, you decided to go emotional.

I'm waiting for you to retract your claim about my comment being racist otherwise what's the point with have a conversation with someone so irrational?

Is this your tail between your legs answer after playing the race card inappropriately yet once again?

So just to recap....since you read it....that six paragraph page is "lenghthy" and "perhaps a little daunting"?

You haven't clicked the link yet...have you? The page linked to this is six paragraphs long and I quoted the first paragraph showing IF APPROPRIATE. The word WHERE doesn't even appear on this page. Try clicking the link and save yourself the embarrassment. But again, your only arguement in this whole thing is trying to differentiate between "IF" and "WHERE" when semantically they are saying the same thing. But hey....if you have that much free time to waste then go for it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...this is hilarious. I already quoted you the exact defition from the AANDC website that clearly stated "IF APPROPRIATE"....you know....since you missed that entire part the first time you decided to speak up. Here it is again: http://www.aadnc-aan...9/1100100014653 I even enlarged the font and changed the color so that you won't miss it this time! Nice try on the petty argument though. It must be tough to have nothing and to try and scramble for something. What's next? Attacking spelling mistakes? The funniest part is that you already acknowledged the 'if appropriate' in your first response. Too funny.

I agree. No I'm not saying that. However the opposite is not true either where Natives cannot expect accomodation to follow every event of consultation. Accomodation needs to follow when appropriate. That's not a what if...they do that already (ie DeBeers). Of course when you look at the treaties that most of these First Nations have signed its states that they are not to block roads or obstruct such progress so I guess if they want to break the treaties then we'd all be better off....including the First Nations.

I always love to see your lack of reading comprehension and general misunterstanding of the topic. We were discussing how the statement reads consult and accomodate IF APPRORIATE. So one one side of that IF involves opportunites to make claims and the other side does not. As such, my statement that many cases do not have a claim is purely a reflection of the IF involved here. In many decisions the government has only had the duty to consult and not accomodate. Now...if you think that is racial then I can honestly say you are beyond hope when it comes to these dialogues. Of course, don't let that stop you from throwing down the race card the second you feel lost.

Or in many cases, no claim at all

Clout is not absolute certainty which is the way you are suggesting

Nope...you clearly missed it as you continue to miss how subjective the "if" really means.

You missed the two most important words in this new phrase...."if appropriate". "The Crown has a legal duty to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate Aboriginal groups when it contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established section 35 or Treaty rights of Aboriginal groups, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Haida and Taku River decisions." http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014649/1100100014653 Hence...consult and accommodate are not one and the same as you seem to wish

Much like many other non-oilfield jobs! Of course I find it ironic that people in these positions fight there way to be compensated based on the oil dollar but won't take a cut when it goes down.

I guess its a question of how much sway Prentice has in the Highwood region as ultimately its those PC members that chose not to elect her. I would like to think that is democracy speaking but maybe its not.

I'm sure she'll end up being an 'advisor' somewhere. Just glad to see the people speak up they way they did. I can't stand when changes happen like this in between elections. If you want to switch then wait until the election so the people can have a say.

Lol. She certainly likes to move the goal posts. However from the UBC website (http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/languages.html) "As First Nations traditionally preserved and transmitted their culture and history through the oral tradition, no First Nations language in Canada had a writing system prior to European contact. Starting in the mid-19th century, European missionaries created writing systems for the Cree and Ojibwe peoples in an effort to teach them about Christianity. Over time, these writing systems were developed and consolidated to encompass more languages. Currently, the Algonquian, Athapaskan, and Eskimo-Aleut language families use variants of the Canadian Aboriginal Syllabic writing system. Some First Nations languages use the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).5 Others have their own systems. Many Salish nations in British Columbia, for example, have their own practical orthographies that are based on Roman characters." Those damn Europeans.

None. Until the Europeans came

Well considering there are over 50 different First Nation languages, I would assume there is more than French. But you're right about one thing, it's no big deal. I mean the First Nations didn't have written language until the Europeans came so it really shouldn't be a big deal.

What three languages do you want? There is English and French which leaves room for one of the 50 aboriginal languages spoken in Canada.