jennie

Sorry ... wasn't sure ... yes Harper seems comfortable in French now, and I hope Prentice too. I don't think being a Calgarian will hold him back at all, from an easterner's perspective. We know that voice has been missing and continues to be needed. He will deal with Quebec honestly, I see no reason why they wouldn't like him. His Cabinet can address that too. I think Canadians recognize a man of quality like Prentice, and would appreciate it immensely. Full support.

I think what Prentice would do is be a team player with his cabinet, whoever that might be, and take full advantage of the expertise of each person.

Do you appreciate your right to inherit land and other property? Are you willing to give it up?

That is the point ... there are no aboriginal rights that are not just basic human rights ... that WE ALREADY HAVE ... inherited property and other financial interests, freedom of speech, religion, culture ... etc etc ... they are all rights that we all have. That is the whole point. They have these rights ... that we all have ... but theirs have not been implemented yet in Canada. We all know the governments have been "working on it". Enough?

Essentially yes ... I would argue there is more interest in maintaining the taxpayer funded "land claims industry of Canada" than in settling reasonably. I conclude it is acceptable in your ideal Canada for people to inherit property rights by DNA, then. Thank you. Maybe so ... but those are not the immediate issues. The immediate blockade issues are environmental ... a uranium mine (Sharbot Lake) ... clearcutting (Grassy Narrows) ... greenfield sprawl development (Caledonia). Absolutely, so we accept "existing aboriginal rights are recognized and confirmed" ... is the law ... with those provisions ... but to be implemented all the same ... DEPENDING OF COURSE ON THE COST and the "balance of convenience" I believe it is that the SCoC uses ... We will all still be here ... etcetc but ... RIGHT NOW ... Do we want armed police defending the borders of territories against others who wish to defend that land against environmental incursion that was approved by our governments? Do we have any better ideas ... for these situations right now? People are listening.

95% DOES CONSTITUTE ANIHILATION, in scientific certainties. This is a fact, not an opinion. But in Canada they never legally surrendered. And that's a fact too. I warn against the current resentful and litigious course of action being advised by such as, jennie, who doesn't wish a different race to advise them, unless it is her advice. I warn against warning people against something that is totally unintelligible and thus of no conseqence whatsoever for anyone ... kindalike a brainfart in the wind Winning largesse from government will be cause to party perhaps but partying already seems to have become a part of the perception of native culture. Is that what you wish to continue? blah blah blah ... Don't talk to me about Canada's Band Council and AFN puppets ... keeping in mind I don't like politicians .... I know nothing about Band Councils AT all. Do You?

I can appreciate your humour ... but of course the reality is that most Canadians know it is going to cost us something. Canadians are not know for being "brutal", though our politics may be. Are you saying no one should have the right to inherit property through family? The 'rights' set out in Treaties are those of the settlers on designated land. No they don't. Some Human Rights are suspended via the Indian Act. Those "archaic treaties" define Canada. We need to honour or renegotiate. We can hardly dispense with the treaties that define our borders and other aspects of Canada, and became incorporated into the BNA ACT and the Constitution. Armed Canadian OPP are blockading three Indigenous Territories. What is that accomplishing for us? Is that likely to keep spreading and become the norm? I think that is why we need to have this conversation. Which laws in particular? The Constitution? "Aboriginal and Treaty Rights are hereby recognized and affirmed" How? ... oh right ... you are going to blockade some Indigenous communities and ... what ? ... screech at them? ... hold them at gunpoint? deny them access to food and water? ... What? ... until they change OUR Canadian Constitution? Well ... obviously you are new to activism ... we need to talk about some other possibilities.

I am glad to hear that (Is that a joke? ). Jim Prentice is a principled and brilliant man. I think Canadians will recognize that beyond where he is from. Bernier sounds interesting ... exposure through leadership ... etc. I personally think Jim Prentice could unite the country and address Indigenous Rights effectively and fairly. That's my honest opinion. I had no idea that a leadership change could occur, interesting discussion, but I would be delighted at that outcome! There is hope! Thanks! You made my day!

I am going to preface this by saying what some already know, just to avoid misperceptions: I DO NOT LIKE POLITICIANS OR GOVERNMENTS ... NONE OF THEM!! I am not 'party' partisan. I believe in free enterprise with strict(er) controls on corporate size and power and on their environmental and human outcomes. I believe in public service and communal social and environmental responsibility. I vote for whomever I like. If I have a 'dogma', it is one of my own design: PEOPLE are what is important ... ALL the people ... EVERY SINGLE ONE (including the politicians ) That said ... I am not trying to convince anyone to vote this way or that way ... I would like to have a conversation as Canadians, about how we want our governments to address Indigneous Rights in Canada. I am not implying anything about what those rights are ... I want to consider all possibilities for ways to accommodate all of our needs for the long haul. Things have happened ... things are happening that are disturbing to Canadians: Blockades are here to stay. Nation-wide protests of our failure to address the backlog in land claims, reneging on financial and land agreements, and most importantly ... in EVERY CASE ... the Crown has failed to consult with Indigenous Peoples about development, resource extraction and other uses of the land. I would like to be able to say it is all the Liberals fault and it is changing ... or vice versa but the fact is Ontario and Canada are walking in unison on this, regardless of political differences. Governments are all walking to the tune of the lawyers' advice on 'limiting liabilities of the Crown'. Period. That is the entire position we as Canadians support through our governments: We support them acting in whatever way they deem will best 'limit the liabilities of the Crown'. I don't care what colour your political signs are or if you have ever formed a government. If you aspire to politics in Canada, if you support the actions of governments in addressing aboriginal law issues, you support the sole purpose of 'limiting liabilities to the Crown' for that is the only position they have assumed. Most Canadians want laws obeyed, treaties and agreements honoured, etc. ... in principle. Can we look at what those are? Just look at the Canadian perspective ... what are the Canadian laws that we, as Canadians, are currently expected to uphold and implement? What are we as Canadians being asked to support? Is it supportable? What can we support? Do we blindly support the law? Are we expected to? Do we expect our governments to? Do they? If not why not? If not, what is our role? This is not an idle exercise. There are currently at least three blockades in Ontario with armed police standing by. I think we have to ask ourselves whether there is a better way. I am asking you to help talk about this, think about this ... Do we want a better way to resolve land disputes? I think most Canadians do. That's why I think it is worth discussing ... because if there ever was a time for our input, it is now.

Such malice. Why? There is no need for such. They certainly do have evidence to back up their claims. Of course they do. I am going to start a new thread, though, to clarify what the issues are in general, as they seem to be poorly understood by some here.

Why should our DNA entitle us to take their land without payment?

What is ridiculous is what you just said! It bears no resemblance to the law. (Do you just make your own up as you go along?) They have continuous occupancy of their ancestral lands, legal possession by anyone's terms ... except Canada because Canada behaves as if it is above even its own laws. I repeat: The only lawbreaker here is Canada.

I see no point in continuing a discussion when you fail to acknowledge facts. Case in point: - The reported study is a FRAUD because the public-private jobs ARE NOT COMPARABLE. Find me a study comparing salaries for professionals in each, and we will see who pays the most. - The private sector must pay living wages so their employees do not end up on the social assistance rolls. Why should WE pay the cost for below poverty level employment? The 'comfortable island of wealth' has nothing to do with you or me ... it is the top 5% of the population that has over 50% of the wealth that we need to concern ourselves about ... that and the fact that they are trying to shove their employee responsibilities onto us taxpayers to increase their share of the wealth even more!!! (And you support and promote this?)

THEY ARE STILL HERE ! Their rights are still intact. What you have just demonstrated is our responsibility to honour the treaties if we wish to maintain our right to be here.

Not to worry: Silly servants are called that because they are silly enough to catch up on work on their own time without overtime (overtime pay? in the public service? don't make me laugh!!) I am fully in favour of a holiday in February. It is long overdue!!

Hear! Hear!! And all the other politicians too!

That has been done, though I can't find it right now. It does show evidence of earlier arrivals and later. However, they were all here thousands of years before Europeans. That is all that is required to have ownership of the land. When or how they got here is irrelevant.

Is it now "a social program" to provide a living wage and pension"? I think not. It is the private sector that is getting away with sloughing off its responsibilities onto the public sector, while the profits go to the wealthy. The distribution of wealth tells the story, an increasing gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us, with more and more of the world's wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and the rest of us paying the cost of social services for underpaid private sector employees. Is this your goal? Is this the purpose you espouse? to leave the public with the liabilities of the private sector?

You are mistaken. It is Canada that is breaking the law. ... the Constitution, in fact, by ignoring "the Duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate" as ordered by the SCoC. Canada has no legal claim to the land in question.

The comparison presented of "average" public and private salaries has already been debunked. Without knowing about qualifications, job requirements, parttime-fulltime ... we are comparing apples and potatoes for all we know. My guess is that for comparable educational or professional qualifications, private sector pay is higher. It just happens that the private sector involves more low paying jobs. What a waste of money, whoever pays for the CTF ... they do nothing but BAD research biased to suit their agenda. Unfortunately, policy or program developed from BAD research can never be good policy or program. It is a real shame people cannot get their better service for their money. Misleading people about the facts does no one any good.

Let me get this straight: We have to fund a social safety network so that private sector employers can continue to pay poverty wages while reaping huge profits for their shareholders. BS Sorry ... I do not buy that as the 'ideal' for our society as a whole. It may suit the private sector employers and shareholders as it is just a continuation ... or maybe a throwback to ... the days of the robber barons, but it is NOT what is best for all. It is simply the way of ensuring that the most wealth continues to end up in the hands of the fewest wealthy people and is of absolutely no benefit whatsoever in the progress of humankind.

This is the remaining thread.

So you are an admitted racist?

Harper wants us to believe that he has turned "mainstream, centrist, moderate" but the people of Canada are not buying him in that role. They are very dismayed by the lack of democracy in his leadership, the fact that their MP's are not allowed to speak for the constituents, but only speak for Harper and only when he tells them too, and what he tells them to say. The banning of the media is another sore point that highlights the lack of democracy and communication with the people. Yes we do need a 'conservative' moderate party, but we do not have one yet, imo. Harper is following the Mike Harris model of sticking to his ideology, and then having to backtrack when it becomes apparent his policies simply are not feasible. Again, a lack of democracy because there is no consultation with any potentially dissenting voices. Having said that, there are no other parties or leaders I can recommend either, frankly. I am just anti-politicians and governments in general!! We need a revolution!!

I think this is the way we have to go, making the producers responsible for their products (and packaging) from beginning to end. If this is the beginning of this movement, I applaud!!