jennie

I don't think there is any disagreement about that obc. You are right ... it is the laws at the time that apply to decisions about land title and rights, and I have never heard anyone dispute that. One thing many people are not aware of is that the British/Canadian law at that time specified that any surrenders of land to the Crown must have the approval of the native people. However, the Indian Agents and other government agents often ignored this requirement and got surrenders signed by whomever they could get to sign, often by questionable means. There has to be evidence that the whole band was consulted and the majority agreed to the land surrender. If you have specific information about a case you are aware of where this disagreement happened, I would be interested. This is the first time I have heard that concern. They won't be told to get off their own land. The courts try to do that, but it is ridiculous in my mind. "Hey you ... get off your land ... we are sending in the miners" ?? There is another law that many people are not aware of: Prior to any development or other use of traditional and treaty land (land under claim), the Crown must consult with the First Nation and come to an agreement about land use. The government never does it, just sends in the police instead. The government is breaking the law in the case of all four blockades in Ontario right now. First Nations people repeatedly call for the government to consult, but it won't. These confrontations could be TOTALLY avoided IF the government followed the law.

Yes I got that, and I know who he is. He is using polygamy as a reason to dismiss some cultures because of HIS perception of what they are like. It is subtle, but it is propaganda, not academic writing. I stand by my comments.

I would be happy to answer your question. Which one was the question? I answered your question: Reserves are, I believe considered federal property and not subject to provincial authority (traffic laws, etc.) unless by agreement. So yes, you may see some things there that you would not elsewhere. So your point is that if they don't wear a helmet, Canada has a right to keep stolen land? What is your point?

Well I can't speak for all of the farmers but the one I saw on CTV said he tried growing something else (on a government program) but the taliban blew up his crops. Personal security is definitely an issue. But clearly he would prefer not to be doing business with them if there was another way ... like for medical morphine which we are short of and will need more of as the baby boom ages.

http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/newsroom...&SbjctID=21 Well some people might get upset ... the UEL's maybe? There are lots of cultural organizations represented ... from Canada's whole immigrant history. Very interesting.

I think this is a very reasonable request ... "stop development on Crown Lands". They know there will be lands to be returned, and that they will likely be the 'Crown Lands' in the Haldimand Tract or nearby. Developing on those lands at this point in negotiations is a blatant insult. I don't know what development is involved. I am glad there seems to be some movement from the government on that ... willingness to talk about ... ... maybe talking about it ... big step for the governments. biggrin.gif Ori:wase : Media Release : Communiqué: For Immediate Release Sept. 6, 2007 Confederacy optimistic but, wants halt to development on crown lands within tract GRAND RIVER TERRITORY SIX NATIONS- Six Nations Confederacy Council negotiators are optimistic movement may be coming from Canada, in right of the crown, over Six Nations land rights. However, at the same time Confederacy Royanni (Chiefs) are calling for a halt to all development on crown lands within the Haldimand Tract, while negotiators work on a formula to determine how the amount of restitution to Six Nations, will be arrived at. Royanni met in a full day’s session with Canada and Ontario representatives at the Oneida Business Park Thursday. Six Nations Confederacy Council lead Negotiator, Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton said he is optimistic with Thursday’s discussions. “Canada realizes we have land rights here and it is now a case of developing a formula that will determine what restitution will be or is worth.” Chief MacNaughton said the Canada has not ever adequately explained how it came up with the $125 million offer it made several months ago. “There was a ballpark figure thrown out of $125 million, with no explanation, that is not and has not been satisfactory. There was no formula used, there is no satisfactory explanation.” As a result he said , “it will be up to Haudenosaunee Six Nations, to gain, come up with a solution. We will be working for the next 30 days on a formula .” Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton says Six Nations Haudenosaunee want to see an end to direct action being taken by developers on disputed Six Nations lands. “Canada and Ontario see the civil actions, our people take against development on our lands as direct action that threatens the talks. However, they do not see that their developers are committing the same kind of action on our lands. Development of Six Nations lands, without our permission is direct action that we do not take kindly to,” he said. He said “the table has agreed there must be discussion started to stop development on lands the Crown holds under its Ontario Reality Corporation. There is land there, without third party interests, that once cleared of development could be returned to Six Nations.” Chief MacNaughton said, The Confederacy is also developing a process to work with developers who are caught up in a void being created by Canada and Ontario’s failure to resolve Six Nations land rights. The Six Nations Haudenoniso (Confederacy Council) will continue to work towards a peaceful, fair resolution of its more than 200 year old land rights issues throughout Southern Ontario. Mohawk Chief Allen MacNaughton Confederacy Council Lead Negotiator

This one is over, the other two can be merged. My mistake.

Six Nations update ... province MAY discuss stopping development on Crown Land in the Haldimand Tract (likely to be part of the settlement.) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9799

The sleaze is the Taliban druglords, true. The Afghani farmers are just trying to make a living. They would try something else but it isn't possible right now.

Meet Ruby ... the 'criminal' who sat in front of the earth mover with her 'criminal' husband Floyd. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6194247107440891215

I am REALLY glad this is on the radar for the provincial election. That may just have something to do with the Six Nations press release too (below). The province wants to look good, and ALL of the permits and approvals for development ... like the half dozen or so already halted by Six Nations Sharbot Lake ... all the blockades ... all have authorization from the province Tyendinaga- quarry license/toxic highway waste/condo Sharbot Lake- uranium mining (feds have a role too?) Grassy Narrows - logging Six Nations - greenfield development YES it is very good that this is on the radar for the election ... there could be some solutions generated. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070905/...iginal_issues_1 Occupations and barricades mean politicians can't ignore native issues: Chiefs Wed Sep 5, 1:39 PM By Chinta Puxley TORONTO (CP) - Ontario's next premier will need to quell growing frustration and anger among the province's aboriginal communities to avoid the sort of occupations, blockades and protests that have marked the past year, say native leaders who are plotting their own campaign strategy. Ongoing occupations in Caledonia, Ont., and the southeastern Ontario community of Sharbot Lake, as well as the Aboriginal Day of Action this past summer, have brought native issues to the fore like never before, said Angus Toulouse, Ontario regional chief with the Assembly of First Nations. "There is a lot of frustration, there is a lot of despair, there is a lot of hopelessness and there is a lot of anger (among) our people and especially the youth who are lashing out," Toulouse said. "Things have to change." No matter who wins the Oct. 10 provincial election, the victor will face a hefty task in rebuilding the province's shattered relationship with aboriginals, Toulouse said. The first step will be to working out how to share with aboriginal communities the cash the province takes in from natural resources on traditional native land, he added. "We are not necessarily waiting for a handout," Toulouse said. "It is what is rightfully ours." ... Political leaders say they are taking notice. All three mainstream political parties are talking about aboriginal issues, sounding off about how occupations are handled and how to alleviate the despair and frustration felt by many in the aboriginal community. "We all realize now, as a country, that we've got to rectify these issues," said David Ramsay, Liberal minister of aboriginal affairs. "I think the public pressure is there to get these issues resolved . . . The stars are aligning here." The Liberals have done as much as they can to lower the temperature in Caledonia, south of Hamilton, and bring the federal government to the negotiating table, Ramsay said. The province is also working on a way to share wealth with aboriginal communities and has put Ramsay in charge of a ministry, rather than just a secretariat. But it remains clear "it's an area where governments have a lot of work to do," he said. The Progressive Conservatives are vowing to improve living conditions in aboriginal communities by pushing Ottawa for help and facilitating land claims, but they do so with a caveat: illegal occupations won't be tolerated. The NDP has promised better consultation with aboriginal people about how traditional lands are used and what permits are granted, as well as sharing the proceeds from any exploitation of their traditional land. Conservative Leader John Tory - a vocal critic of the Caledonia occupation since it began more than a year ago - said serious problems like high dropout and suicide rates and a lack of health care are being overshadowed by illegal occupations and infighting between different levels of government. "Caledonia is really not an aboriginal issue," said Tory, who has long said the Liberals should have put an end to the occupation when it first began. "It's an issue of respect for the law and an issue of a civil society." ... NDP Leader Howard Hampton said pointed questions are also likely to confront candidates in northern Ontario, where the future of mining and forestry development depends on the support of aboriginal communities. "What we've seen in the last four years is a bureaucrat sitting in an office tower in Toronto will make a decision that has very significant impacts on the lives of aboriginal people and there is no consultation," Hampton said. "Aboriginal people are not prepared to put up with that." Howard Hampton is the only one who nailed the (legal) requirement of consultation http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....&pid=248548, but the Libs will be 'talking about talking about it' with Six Nations, so they may be able to steal his thunder. Tory has no ideas at all on this issue, to be polite. (I would have said "stick to education, John" but he messed that up too now.)

Jennie Our private sector lags FAR behind other developed nations in the amount of resources put into training their own workforce. guyser Cite? Good point! It was a report that I read some years ago, I think from the OECD. Couldn't find the exact one, and this one is a bit dated but ... http://www.statcan.ca/english/studies/75-0...-pdf/e-9042.pdf The effectiveness of Canada's private and public training effort is thus the key determinant of our ability to meet the growing skills gap. In terms of assessing our training performance, a number of trends should be highlighted: l on a per-employee basis, Canadian firms spend less than half as much on training as American firms; l only 31% of Canadian firms do any formal training; This is a bit more recent. They have delved into what sectors of the workforce are getting training or not ... http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-5...-XIE1998001.pdf The odds of receiving employer support for training clearly increased sharply for workers where job tasks included a lot of reading, writing or calculation compared with workers whose jobs had little need for such skills. The ratios indicate that there were much wider differences between countries with respect to literacy uses (Figure 9B) compared with literacy scores (Figure 9A). U.S. personnel most engaged in workplace literacy practices had an 11 times higher probability of receiving financial support from an employer for education or training than those who used workplace literacy practices the least. This ratio, while high, did not differ significantly from the weighted average. The odds ratio was significantly lower in Canada. The wide range in probabilities (5.5 to 16.6 odds) reflected important cross-national differences. Nothing too shocking ... but the lower rate of on the job training in Canada compared to the US seems to be consistent ... and holding.

There are different laws in every town, every province, every country. Big friggen deal. I believe reserves are considered by Canada to be federal land, not subject to provincial authority except by agreement. However, I am not an authority. Are you saying the laws must be the same everywhere in Canada?? GET A LIFE!!! The noise bylaw in my town should be 11 o'clock like yours?? NO FRIGGEN WAY MAN ... YOU AIN'T MESSIN WITH THE LAWS IN MY TOWN. We party til 12.

They might want to keep that to themselves. And avoid space trips. The point is ... a politician with extreme beliefs likely won't be a politician for long ... if he/she keeps talking about them. That's just reality.

Thank you for your contribution, guyser ... I think. (idiot) You will be pleased to know, then, that I am not proposing that we discuss First Nations and Canadian law, for that is a quagmire that releases the uglies from their closets and separates them from their brains, apparently. ALL we can potentially control, and the ONLY THING WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR is what WE do ... what Canada does. So ... my question ... based on previous posts ... is this: Can we ... Canadians ... here ... agree, in principle only if you like, that in resolving land repatriation issues, Canada should be guided by Canadian law? This is a trick question, of course, so that's why I say only "in principle".

Universal day care ... 24 hour ... accessible by any child in trouble at any time ... a safe place. In my dreams, of course. But universal daytime day care is an absolute necessity right now. The $100 is an insult. That's babysitting for a night out, not DAY care. (What does that say about respect for children!!!) Thanks for the rant space. GST ... sounds like a reasonable answer, Dancer I'll go with that too! Environment ... you know my feelings ... Uranium (copper, silver, gold, zinc, etcetc but especially uranium) - LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND!!! Boreal Forest ... LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND!!! Greenfield ... LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND !!! and don't put a development on it either. Brownfield ... Now THERE'S a worthy challenge for someone looking for new frontiers!! Afghanistan ... I agree ... "in whatever format" with hopes that combat can be minimized asap. I have heard from medical people that there is a shortage, a need for morphine. Afghanistan can't do that itself because of security issues. Can we do it with them? Invest, provide security, etc. to allow a legal industry to function? I would see that as a useful goal.

I think I see the light, Posit ... the Wendat were also called Huron by the French, though. (I grew up in 'Huronia', near Wendake) ... as, apparently, were any Iroquoian people above the St Lawrence/Lake Ontario (and below the Algonquins). They did not distinguish Wendat from and Seneca, Cayuga, Mohawk, etc: all Iroquoian peoples above the natural border were call Huron (savages), and those south of the natural border were called Iroquois (black snakes). Makes sense to me, along with the archeology. I have found a fairly-good-for-a-Euro account of the Confederacy. http://www.nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois Some here will question the 'publisher' (not just anarchist! but anarchist! COMMUNIST!! omigod!!! ) But information is just information for one's own musings and judgement, and this, I think is fairly-good-for-a-Euro information. It fits some things I have been told by Haudenosaunee people, and clarifies my own 'oral history' from 'Huronia'. I have no idea who (author) Stephen Arthur is. Let me know what you think ...

It is from rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown's Duty to Consult and Accommodate. (Pardon me for assuming...). The court has ruled that the Crown MUST consult with First Nations regarding all uses of their traditional and treaty lands, which may be under land claim or otherwise in dispute, but not resolved as yet. It is summarized in this paper: http://www.lawsonlundell.com/resources/The...June%202006.pdf X. Summary and Conclusion Earlier case law (Haida and Taku) confirmed that the Crown has a duty to consult, if necessary, accommodate Aboriginal interests when it has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it. Having a claim in negotiation or submitted definitely means the Crown "has knowledge" of the "potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title", and that should trigger the duty to consult. The numbered treaties, concluded between 1871 and 1923, did not expressly incorporate the concepts of consultation, accommodation and justification in relation to land that is “required or taken up.” The recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Mikisew Cree clarifies that the duty of consultation is triggered when Crown decisions or land use authorizations permit a potential interference with treaty rights. Modern land claims agreements (and agreements currently under negotiation) opt to expressly identify the circumstances in which consultation is required and to define the requirements of consultation. These agreements generally include limiting language to clarify that, once the consultation requirements of the agreements have been met, the federal, provincial or territorial government will have no additional consultation obligations under the agreements. Lawson Lundell LLP 44 www.lawsonlundell.com Thus, the concept of consultation will continue to apply with respect to land and resource decisions on Crown land in the post-treaty context—whether historic numbered treaties or modern land claim agreements. While the numbered treaties differ dramatically in form from modern land claim agreements, there appears to be convergence on the requirements of the Crown’s duty to consult. The sad, and very frustrating thing for Indigenous people and their supporters is that to date, the Crown in Ontario and Canada have ignored this law. They continue to authorize activities on land in dispute that are not in the interests of the aboriginal people who have a claim in on that land. The governments just ignore the law. And that is why we have four blockades in Ontario ... they are asking the Crown to do its legal duty and consult ... and the Crown refuses to respond.

I admit I had not heard that before ... Day's belief that the dinosaurs died in the deluge ('Noah' I assume we are talking about)... I must say that is certainly good for a laugh!! :lol: Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Longhouse ... I don't care ... they are religions ... things you believe ... but when they start trying to explain away the natural world where it doesn't agree with their beliefs and IMPOSE that on others ... well ... it does become laughable. If people don't want their beliefs laughed at, they should keep them to themselves. Afterall, beliefs are personal. My brother and I laugh at my sister-in-laws Shinto religion because there are gods of everything ... may favourite is the god of the toilet. However ... we laugh because it is so true ... so real ... such a practical religion ... a successful trip to the toilet is a gift from god!!

It isn't even land ownership that is the issue re the 4 blockades in Ontario: It is the USE of the land ... land that is already under claim. "Existing aboriginal rights ARE recognized and affirmed". However, the governments have continued to sign permits for mines, developments, clearcutting, etc. without regard to the fact that there is an aboriginal claim on that land. Perhaps, in fact, it is because of it. The governments are trying to make sure that the land cannot be 'returned' to its rightful owners, either because it is developed, contaminated, or otherwise rendered useless. There should not be development or use of lands in dispute until the claim is settled, unless all parties agree to the proposed use. That is the point. They are blockading to prevent uses of the land that they do not agree with, until such time as the claim itself is resolved. I would like to know where our governments think they got a mandate to cause confrontation by continuing to permits uses of land in dispute without consulting the claimants. I do not think the Canadian people would support such a strategy if they were aware of it.

I am not sure what you are on about re your tuition receipts. Did they teach you something that wasn't the truth? Buyer beware! I see that there is no rational argument against what I have said. Perhaps this thread has reached its useful limits, then. There is, in truth, no legal or logical argument for why Indigenous Nations cannot claim the land that is theirs. It is only an economic argument ... one that starts with "Once upon a time Britain made treaties with Indigenous Nations of what we now call Canada..."

So now perhaps we can get back to the thread topic ... Aboriginal Rights, Canadian Rights, Human Rights HOW TO DO IT RIGHT? ... Any thoughts? Can we agree on being guided by the laws of Canada at least?

This is intriguing. Can you provide a reference? It is, of course, of no relevance to land disputes with the government ... but interesting. Incidentally ... this thread was about the CTF's proposal to get rid on the Indian Act. I guess if we have concluded anything it is that perhaps there are other matters to be attended to first ... like Canada's responsibility for land repatriation.

As posit says, the archeology tells the story that the Confederacy existed above and below the lakes. (If you were making war on a northern tribe, would YOU leave the northshore undefended? hardly.) I am sure you will enjoy hobnobbing with the Nazi. Ps ... fal·low (fl) adj. 1. Plowed but left unseeded during a growing season: fallow farmland. 2. Characterized by inactivity: a fallow gold market. n. 1. Land left unseeded during a growing season. 2. The act of plowing land and leaving it unseeded. 3. The condition or period of being unseeded. They moved regularly to allow the land to lie fallow.

?? Sorry if I offended you by quoting you. Seemed appropriate to the issue, though they are different threads. I don't understand your reference to your wasted university education, but if you say so.