shortlived

it is called a dictionary. law says if the word is not case defined it is the dictionary definition circa 1867 or 1863-66.

Most are. To a large extent they were unilateral pomps. What's that you don't like my opinion? Oh they are. Particularly the Cree, and Six Nations. Not including unceeded lands. The people have not been extinguished. They are a nation and as many of them do, in recognizing their right to self determination, they are. You just have a political bias because it conflicts your intersts, their legitimacy is an entirely different matter, you are either corrupt or ignorant. There is no sole exclusion requiring sole jurisidiction. They have their own jurisidictions. The treaty arrangements were not the crown making a deal with the crown. Land surrender is not surrender of state. Also treaty which is violated reverts any concessions granted by treaty. If you break the deal you don't keep the prize. The deal was broke. Meaning to keep the prize you need a new deal. No actually it doesn't. First nations don't need to abide solely by the laws of Canada, they have their own jurisdictional powers. Likewise they have international rights. They are not subjects to the crown because the crown was extinguished starting progressively in the 1950's. It is effectively an annex, unilateral imposition upon another culture is not recognised by international law, civil jurisdiction of a people cannot be altered during occupation legally.

Accountability now, look beyond the paper to the events themselves.

"had visible injuries when she called 911." I am wondering if she left the premises after she was told to leave, I think the assault charge would be in question. If so as I'm sorta wondering if use of force to eject someone from your properly is legitimate use of force? Now if they weren't having rough sex, then, I would definitely call any visible damage to her breasts to be indicative of sexual assault. Although it could have been incidental to the "pushing assault" which would have been legitmate use of force to remove her from the place after refusing to vacate the premises on notice of the owner. it seems a refusal to vacate can illicit the ability for the person charged with the property to use force to remove the trespasser. the sexual assault thing is something else entirely though and more info is needed on that.

It seems that the stated assault was after a notice to leave the premises. I'm not sure of trespass law in quebec. Although I am curious why she was at his house for two days and wasn't wearing her bra or underwear when the stated assault took place ??? " He allegedly ripped up a bra and a blouse that she held in her hands as she packed her bags." ???? "one of the alleged victim’s breasts in an “aggressive way” and brought down her pants, breaking the button and the zipper,"

Are you ignoring the fact gasoline is not oil? The federal government giving money to oil companies that give money to alberta is subsidized by the federal government.\ You see oil companies would pay federal tax rather than receive a federal subsidy. Getting a tax deduction through subsidy is still a subsidy much like people living in the north get a living in the north credit. It is a subsidy. Your denial of this is ignoring the simple truth. Yes oil companies pay some taxes to the federal government but they are selling Canadian materials to do so, it is canadas wealth to begin with. And no those royalties do not go to the federal government they go to alberta so yes the federal government does subsidized Albertan oil companies. Its giving a separate corporate tax rate to oil companies. You are in denial if you don't see that. Alberta ain't spending on the rest of Canada. They don't even have enough to pay their own bills.

The HTF appears to be sitting at about 16.5 billion now but alberta is writing a deficit.. how is that? Oh and what is albertas provincial debt? subtract even only the municipal debt and that is down to 9 billion what is the province at? The 4 billion + deficit in alberta easily out paces any gains in the AHTF. this year alone if actually not borrowing money the fund would be non existant.. You can't put on the illusion of "surplus" when the federal and provincial debt is well over 1 trillion dollars today as a result of intentionally uneconomical fiscal policies. Albertas debt is higher than its oil surplus fund. It is a borrower country, how is that possible... squandering money. This while Alberta has ridiculously high prices, why? Because there is money there no other reason. The rosey future isn't there change is coming denial of the ever increasing environmental pressure that will rain down on the oil sands, as well as the reality of new technologies reducing oil dependence such as natural plant fibre processing and carbon materials, as well as non fuel based batteries for vehicles and even aircraft... this is just the world we walk towards. micronuclearization is here. oil is a false messiah. we need to look to the future. we need to choose the right path.

Gasoline is bought from the US not alberta. US refineries make the money from gasoline consumption not oil. Refining makes way more than oil extraction. Yet there is a Big Oil Mafia controlled monopoly out of the US that won't let Canada produce its own gasoline supply. What does a gas tax have to do with alberta oil? Alberta oil is oil not gas.

Kindly post a link to your figures. except that they are subsidized. You give someone a buck its giving someone a buck. It changes the tax treatment.

It is a valid point. That is like saving money and not taking on a deficit. Government always deficit spends you can't expect them to have the interest of the future in mind with that mentality. I think only the liberals during the last government were able to not deficit spend and manage a surplus budget. Something the Tories have never done. If those economically conservative people can't balance the budget, how can you expect them to balance the environment for the future.

Wow 3 billion royalties on an industry that makes 70 billion dollars annually in alberta and comprises over 25% of provincial GDP that is so much Canadians are getting, oh sorry Albertans are getting for our collective resources being eaten up, and our environment being ruined, and our health being ruined, for American companies, and now Chinese profits. Bear in mind alberta was "created" by the federal government, it was only populated by first nations who are the real owners of the land, not the province of Alberta. For an industry that is going to collapse over the next 20 years you sure have high expectations. The problem is all the resource and wealth going to the US rather than Canadians, only alberta is seeing money from the environmental damages being caused nation wide by Alberta oil excavation. This is a federal forum and having only one province benefit from damages to the rest of Canada, out of province workers who come back and cost other provinces millions for the health damages caused by the toxic environments of the Athabascan are just costs not input into how Alberta is costing other provinces while selfishly advancing solely its own interests. Alberta isn't a team player. Canada doesn't need it. Fueling unneeded oil industry is fueling the destruction of our environment which will increasing cause environmental damage like forest fires, there are costs that come on nation wide because of the oil sands extraction. Albertas not paying to fix those problems, its not even paying to fix its own environmental problems at home, it is spending the money on ignoring building an economy that can exist without oil, while letting the environment get destroyed. Totally irresponsible. Look at what the oil producers in the middle east are doing, they are diversifying their economies and investing in a non oil based future. http://www.undp.org.sa/sa/documents/ourwork/pr/long_term_strategy_2025.pdf

So your comment: "Why don't you get a nice set of antlers and do the world a favour." stands? LWTF, dude, I sincerely hope you aren't as stupid as you are appearing to me. You'd probably jump into a highway by accident rather than living conditions, or sincere pitty for those who havn't tasted your delicious flesh, totally spoiling your meat or alteast a good chunk of it. get a clue the point is, might is right gets people killed. If anyone is getting volunteered people suggesting militancy and violent insurrection should be the first in line to experience it. What exactly am I suppose to be apologizing for, my morality?

as if. get your head checked you aren't interpreting words properly.

Oh that's it.

People like you are just jealous cause they weren't in line first. You are a line butter. Hey if you want to put antlers on and run off into the woods so I can shoot you, you know accidents do happen, but you know I'm not going to actually suggest I shoot you. I said if you want to support might is right and call on the natives to defend their land claims, then I wouldn't be upset or feeling that something criminal had happened if you got shot infringing on native land claims, afterall it is what you advocate for. Use your head while you still got it. You know I'm not saying go get shot, but I am saying if you want natives to use force to protect their land claims, don't expect me to cry for you. The point is simple if the fundamental was native militancy and homicide to protect their claims people like you would be dead. The antlers would just make life easier for people in that context.

http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=6669 I didn't say run off into the woods at night. Dude you advocated might is right, I suggested you get your head checked out, and sized. Nothing cowardly in that.

no I said they have dual sovereignty/nationality /in some cases multisoveriegnty/nationality this isn't monolithic society, people can have rights stemming from multiple nationalities. Canadian citizenship and the charter only applies to Canadian citizens for citizens protections, it does not nullify the rights granted through crown treaties with other sovereignties. Just bear in mind. Natives have vehicles.

What are you talking about?

Why do the OPP use convoys when they arrest someone on reserve? How many land disputes have occurred where lethal force was used or the military was put on notice or called out? there are instances where the rcmp has surrounded meetings of natives in large numbers. Lots of natives have been in jail with all our bad guys.. If these "natives" are so tranquil, why do those things happen? Why is the CF intelligence and counter intelligence operating on first nations groups? I have met quite a few natives who still hunt, much like I have met lots of people who hunt, BUT the important thing here is as I said, many northern (remote) first nations actively hunt as part of their lifestyle.

You said the natives should defend their land, on a basis of might is right, if you are opposing that I suggested you get in the spirit.

Might is not right in a just society. Might is not right in a free society. Your view is uncanadian. Do you really want lots of homicides? Northern natives hunt as part of their life. Why don't you get a nice set of antlers and do the world a favour. That position is only representative of the oppression and occupation mentioned earlier.\ Your view is not one humane people would express. The first nations who compromise 10% of Canada's population need to be respected and that respect includes not lying about the past, and fabricating an alternate history to cover up the abuses of your ancestors.

No you seem to be confused with thinking you think like I do. What are you talking about? What have I said that isn't true? A nation is a people. A sovereignty is recognition of self determination. Both of which our first nations were and are. This is even recognized by the united nations. They are technically special status observer states. Do you not understand those true statements? See and also affirm this http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_61-295/ga_61-295.html now see the failure people of your mind set are creating http://www.firstperspective.ca/news/2686-canada-rejects-un-human-rights-criticism-detailed-in-amnesty-international-report Your view is wrong and corrupt. You are offering nothing but rhetoric, ignorance and greed.

You are coming off as nothing but an uneducated ignoramus in denial. Until you recognize the fact BC and other parts of Canada are under the legacy british colonial rule as a result of occupation and oppression I'm not sure you will have an informed position. Denial and ignorance is all you bring to this discussion. The premise of seeing unethical behaviour from your cultures perspective then trying to apply that to the other culture from your cultural basis does not create ethical conduct. No act is equal, and do be dishnourable to those you see as dishonourable is simply dishonourable. If you don't like it kill it, but creating a corrupt society because you see other corrupt societies is not "good". or ethical, or acceptable.

The person being invaded is more ethical than the invader. they ignored native land rights and they were attacked as they encroached without permission. You try to demonize but yes they had long established trade and relations with other groups. Whiteman showed up and used guns to kill anyone who didn't agree to their terms. Learn a little before you speak. FIrst nations in BC have been far more honourable than the British land thieves. Potlatch and sundance are only some examples of completely by today standards unethical moves to conquer the native peoples by violence. Try to cross the US border without permission and see what happens if you don't submit. You are just blatantly ignoring native land rights and title assuming the British have always had divine right to the land. Ignorance nothing but ignorance.

Yeah and contract requirements granted to one person should be fulfilled if they are ethical. Equality before law does not mean everyone is entitled to the same amount of money, resources, and women. IT IS OWED. Yes so, they have legal status. Equality before the law means equal treatment. This does not mean individuals who have international treaty benefits for their other national status mean that other national status is effected. They have dual nationality. Treaty is between two sovereign peoples, they didn't give up their native nationality when they gained Canadian nationality. You are trying to force an assimilation which doesn't exist. They are dual nationals. Treaty is not an internal agreement or policy, it is treaty between two sovereign peoples. The white paper was rejected decades ago.