charter.rights
-
Posts
3,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by charter.rights
-
-
I've said earlier that the "jobs for life" provision is kind of silly and if that's the sticking point I doubt the public will be very sympathetic to the union.
From what I remember from that last strike, This Mark Ferguson guy made an ultimatum and his Blondness caved regarding being able to bank unused sick days. I don't see Rob Ford doing a similar thing.
The reason it'll end up being a lockout and not a Strike is because of the time of year. Garbage doesn't stink as bed when it's cold out. So it looks like the union will have to hold out 2 or 3 months before people will care about the lack of garbage disposal.
Isn't this 3 out of 4 contracts that have resulted in a work stoppage? That's pretty BS, unless you're 100% pro-union how can you side with CUPE 416?
The outside workers are also responsible for sewer, water and roads. Imagine snow covered roads remaining unplowed, or a water main break that doesn't get fixed. Outside workers are important to the business of running a city.
-
The land claim in Haldimand will be settled once the Liberal party is thrown out of Office. The original land claim which has proven to be false was innitiated by a native group who seized the land in an attempt to make a deal with the provincial Government to allow them to build a casino. The Province purchased the land and it remains part of the property of the Government and has not been sol;d or turned over to the Natives. According to the treaty, this portion of land has never been native land given to them. In a court of law, the natives have been informed of this fact.
It has already been settled. Six Nations gets DCE back. The provincial government is waiting until the dust settles (the $25 million payout to the residents and businesses of Caledonia) to make that announcement.
Six Nation has also restarted the original lawsuit that included the Plank Road claim. The provincial government has already handed over the Burtch Tract as well as some lots that Six Nations has purchase to add to the reserve.
-
He's useful as a source and opinion. Your useful as a biased opinion. Both are welcome but the one that demeans or denigrates loses credibility and you have. Still your views are welcome, and are open to contradiction and differing opinion, unless you are a version of Kijemnido, Kitch Manitou, or Nota.
The one who simply trolls and doesn't add to the discussion is the one that loses.
You left out Shonkwaia'tison...
-
I'm not sure how we'd ever resolve this, but I've only been a half dozen things in my life, and one of them is a historian. Never made any money at it, but it was worth doing. One of the few delights I get out of this poorly-paid gig is coming on chat rooms and knocking the bullshit air out of balloons like yours.
You think I'm just some redneck asshole who delights in tormenting Indians. I am a redneck asshole, but I only torment Indian assholes like you. I spent this Sunday morning teaching my Cree God-daughter's husband how to tape drywall, a skill I developed years back when I was a working guy. We're finishing their basement, and I'm happy to help. Unlike most Canadians, I grew up around Indians and harbour no guilt regarding their outcome. Most of my Indian friends are too busy working jobs and paying off ortgages to pay much attention to centuries-old treaties and waiting for the ship to come in. They get some sweet deals under Treaty Four, and good for them, and I get to go to the pow-wows unmolested. I've been pall bearer at their funerals, they've danced with me at their weddings. I hunt and fish with Indians every year -- they even buy whitey licences to hunt with me.
So trying this white-guy guilt schict doesn't work with me. I haven't said anything on this forum that I haven't said to their Cree Faces hile we're chopping up moose. We have our discussions, but they never insult my credentials because they know how hard and how long I was gone chasing the history thing. They respect my knowledge, and I respect theirs, and while we do disagree sometimes, it never ever descends into belittling each other.
Before you claim to speak for all Indians in Canada, you should meet my friends. While they would agree with you on some points regarding treaties, they have more immediate concerns regarding reserve mismanagement and funding for education.
Spare us the "Noble Indian's Friend" routine. It is old and used by racists to try to intimate they are not bigots or racists..
And obviously since this is YOUR contest you have to stay up late at night to try to invent arguments to counter my facts.
Not only I am historian but I have been certified in many court cases as a professional witness and have an extensive knowledge of First Nation history and legal history. In my 20 years of research (REAL research) I have exposed the inconsistencies of British written history and the deliberate attempts during the Family Compact era at changing history and legal documents to make lazy historians like you think they have it all down. I'm here to tell you, you don't and you have been duped.
Now run along and play with the children. You act like one, you might as well go play with them. You would be much more useful there than here.
-
My 'internet source' on the Gros Ventre is Olive Dickason's "A Historical Reconstruction for the Northwest Plains" in R.Douglas Francis and Howard Palmers's The Prairie West: Historical Readings". Your source seems to be your imagination. And yes, I know what the inside of an Archives looks like, but Native hisotory isn't my field. I rely on standard published works when working out of my field. You really must publish soon, since so much of what you are telling me contradicts the standard version of Canadian history that I was taught back in my undergrad. Oh, but wait, the Family Compact has reached its long dead fingers from the 19th century grave and forced modern historians to write false history. Who knew Bruce Trigger was on the take.
You shouldn't 1. be invoking "I'm a historian" schtick if you are outside your level of expertise, and 2. You shouldn't be arguing with a historian, whose expertise is in the subject being discussed.
-
Wrong, try again. Admit it, you'd never heard of these people before I brought them up. I know where they are, because I took the time to follow up their story. And the Huron were wiped out by disease, eh? So that whole massacre in the winter of 1648-49 by the Iroquios never happened? I guess whitey just made that up to make Indians look bad.
It never happened in the way that it was memorialized.
I guess whitey just made that up to make Indians look bad.Aside from you using racist language, it was the Family Compact that drastically altered history. Many of the old texts come from that era and many of the newer ones rely heavily on their references...which why you are in trouble by relying on texts and not doing the research yourself. I have spent the last 20 years doing research on the Indians of the Great Lakes. The Gros Ventre are just one of the many with similar stories.
And yes the Wendat ("Huron" doesn't refer to the Wendat but was coined by the Jesuits to describe the people they encountered on the north side of Lake Ontario which just happened to be the Mohawk, Seneca and Cayuga) were decimated by the disease that the Jesuits and Sulpicians brought to them. Of those that survived, nearly two thirds went with the Jesuits back to Quebec and the remainder fled into Michigan, being forced out by the increasing excursions of Iroquois hunters into the area. In 1656 the Iroquois struck a treaty called the Two Spoons One Bowl Wampum with the Mississauga from the north to share the land for hunting and fishing. The Iroquois had official control of the land previously occupied by the Wendat and by 1700 had started to repopulate the area. About the same time the Neutrals and the Tobacco were adopted into the Seneca Nation as was customary under the Iroquois Great Law.
You really should stop relying on internet sources for your information. Like the limited resources you have admitted to, the internet is unreliable and dangerously mythical.
-
The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763
"And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."
When I read this I conclude that ALL INDIANS in fact come under the protection of the Crown. Further to this I read into it that those lands that were formerly in the control of "Indians" from that day forward, ALL LANDS are to be controlled by the Crown. Does it not follow then that since the land and the people fall under the dominion of the Crown, they are in fact citizens of this nation.
"...protection of the Crown..."
Yes, but not likely in the way you are thinking.... That is the problem with amateurs reading historical documents. In British - Indian History, very little stands on its own. It is always linked to something else and history.
The concept of "sovereign protection" arose out of the Howard Treaty (Treaty of Albany) 1684 with the Iroquois. Among other things, the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee, Six Nations) sought to prevent the Algonquin from coming down to the north to trade with the settlers, since the Iroquois controlled the trade among the Indians and the Algonquin were refusing to comply. In coming to the south, the Algonquin would be frequently harassing the Iroquois (and vice versa). By demanding protection, the British offer the Iroquois military force and weaponry to prevent the Algonquin from coming into Albany.
The Royal Proclamation 1763 was built upon all the agreements from previous treaties as well as the Silver Covenant Chain (series of treaties still valid today) and the Iroquois were quick to point out the British failures at almost every opportunity. However, the Royal Proclamation protected all Indian lands from surrender or settlement, and did not give the British rights to any of it, outside of their 4 colonies.
And no, Indians are not "citizens of this nation". THIS Nation didn't even exist either in concept or in application and the British were on record of having anything to do with it because of the hostile Indians inhabiting it. However, they won by default Quebec but the only significance of that was control of the St. Lawrence for movement of people and goods into New England / New York.
-
So tell me, what happened to the Gros Ventre?
Like most Aboriginal people including the Hurons (Who were not the Hurons but the Wendat) in contact with Europeans the majority were wiped out by smallpox. Today they are part of the Blackfeet just as the remaining Neutrals and the Tobacco were adopted into the Iroquois Confederacy.
-
ut suddenly a greater threat was upon them all. The Iroquois were making ever deeper raids into Huron territory, their eyes on control of the fur trade. Since they could not make a deal with the Hurons, they decided to exterminate them. It was a deadly struggle. Many people were killed, captured and tortured. At the same time the new faith in Jesus was spreading rapidly everywhere throughout the nation.
Martyrdom...
That is the kind of Hollywood myth that has invaded real history. I'm not surprised YOU can't tell the difference. Nube.
-
Tell you what, I'll let the people on this site decide which one of us has a better grasp of Canadian history. Or better yet, I'd invite them to go read any real Canadian history books to see which ones better reflect what I'm saying, and the nonsense you spout daily. I'd invite you to read these books, but you're too busy posting nonsense every day to actually read anything that disrupted your set-in-stone version of Native history. You sound like a parrot, you've got six things firmly implanted in your head and that's all there's room for. SQUAWAAAAK, Procalmation of 1763, SQUAAAAAAK, COVEWNANT of SILVER CHAINS, SQUAAAAAK Seventy Trilliion Dollars, SQUAAAAK Supreme Court of Canada -- for someone who claims to not be Canadian you sure seem to like the institutions of Canada when they rule in your favor.
Oh you poor twisted soul.
So this is a competition? You lose for knowing squat. If you are the kind of people teaching our young people, all I can say is Canada is doomed to boredom and delusion.
-
You're fucking killing me with this detail, I'm not a Constitutional Credible Historian,
There, I fixed it for ya.....
Who cares about your grandfather...it is just another of your many red herrings trying to dodge your fallacious attempts to argue history.
Canada was not independent until after 1982, and "Indian" stuff is current, not "convoluted crap a couple of hundred years before we ever got here". Treaties with First Nations are as important as the International Treaties we have made with the US or Great Britain. If you count yourself Canadian then you better accept it. It is part of our Canadian heritage and legacy.
-
The Quebec Act didn't eliminate the entire Royal Proclamation of 1763.
The Quebec Act had no affect on the Royal Proclamation 1763.
The Quebec Act was targeted at French nationals living in Upper Canada, no one else.
It refers only to land ceded to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris 1763 which the Royal Proclamation 1763 identified as a Colony of Great Britain.
...which had been made in respect to certain Countries, Territories, and Islands in America, ceded to his Majesty by the definitive Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris on the tenth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three:...
That all the Territories, Islands. and Countries in North America belonging to the Crown of Great Britain....(Southern Ontario and Indian Lands did not "belong" to the Crown in 1774)
-
So the Canada Crown was indivisible from the British Crown, a 104 years before Canada actually existed, eh? This is wonderful evidence, and I'd like to take this to Judge Judy. She'd yell in your face that you can't sue a country 100 years before it existed, and you'd look sad and remorseful, then sputter out some feeble excuses at the end of the show about how Canada did you wrong, then the show would be over and you'd look stupid. I'd love to run the Proclamation of 1763 through Judge Judy. Let's see what she thinks.
Do you really act so childish when a student challenges you?
The Crowns were indivisible up until 1982. After that the Canadian Crown assumed the responsibilities of the Whole Crown.
-
...the only examples of genocide that I could recall in what is now Canada were Natives wiping out other Natives.
Another huge myth. While there were disputes among different culture groups, mainly over hunting territory and resources, there was nothing nearly as brutal as what the Europeans had been doing to each other for eons. From torture for the fun of it, to Crusades to wars fought over the egos of Kings, the Europeans were a far more dastardly group than any First Nations pre-contact.
Of course you probably got your information from Coles notes. That is about as legitimate as you have been.
-
Treat Four is not a lease, like all the numbered treaties it was a one time sale for all time.
Nope. You obviously don't understand the depth of the treaties.
First Nations retained Aboriginal rights in the lands - to hunt, fish and harvest as they need on lands that had not been occupied. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, First Nations retain a sui generis title in the land. That is the reason why the SCoC held that First Nations had a right to be consulted BEFORE any further development that might interfere with their Aboriginal rights whether or not the government knew beforehand that Aboriginal people were concerned about the interference.
And by the way you should learn to take anything you read on the subject with a grain of salt. Most of what you have presented here is myth and innuendo. Had you been a real scholar you would have checked out details of your myths long before you repeated them here.
-
Good for Lord Denning and his lofty historical aspirations. Now explain to me why some ruling in a Brtish Court in 1982 should have any impact in Canada.
This case was a challenge by the "Indian Association of Alberta" on the validity of repatriating the Constitution without consultation with Native people. It was properly addressed to the British High Court since they were the ones handing over the entire Constitution to Canada, and amending it to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The framers had conveniently left out the bulk of Aboriginal and treaty rights from the Charter and as I understand s35 was hastily added to soften the opposition.
While this appeal was not successful because the High Court agreed that the Dominion of Canada has long before been given authority to deal with Indians, the case did confirm some very basic tenets of the Royal Proclamation 1763, confirmed by a number of references to Canadian Supreme Court cases.
The case is useful in pointing out that when the Royal Proclamation 1763 was made, the British Crown and the Canada Crown were indivisible and any deal made with British Crown was automatically transferred as a responsibility to the Canadian Crown.
What is important about the excerpt that you erroneously responded to by red herring fallacies, is that both courts concur about the same thing - The Royal Proclamation has long been recognized as a Magna Carta of Aboriginal rights. By prescription, the Charter includes those inalienable rights.
-
There's perhaps the most important philosophical difference between us, CC.
I would ask, how much is the ADVANCEMENT of your society worth?
You have subscribed to 2 fundamental errors.
The first is the old age problem. You ~think~ we know better than natives about how to "cure" their problem. The problem is that WE are their problem is if we just stopped meddling in their affairs, they might eventually be able to sort it all out.
The second fallacy is that you assume that Canadian society would be an upgrade for Aboriginal people. I would disagree that it is. At best it would simply be a lateral move, trading problems of isolation and the residential school legacy for a worldview that condones violence as a means to an end, and for lack of support for our own children, alcoholism and substance abuse that is rampant not only in our poorest sectors but throughout the professions and upper class. We are in a society where all of our institutions are failing, and WE don't know the solutions to that.
In reality First Nations are casualties of our own failed empires. It we get rid of the scum of our societies it won't be long before First Nations benefit as well. The REAL problem is ~thinking~ the victims are to blame for their own failures.
-
In the area where it originally held sway. The British did not control the Yukon Territory in 1763 so why would a pronoucement from the King Of England have any impact there?
The Royal Proclamation 1763 became the basis for all Aboriginal rights recognized by the Crown.
Lord Denning,R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court, January 1982
“To my mind the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was equivalent to an entrenched provision in the constitution of the colonies n North America. It was binding on the Crown ‘so long as the sun rises and the river flows’. I find myself in agreement with what was said a few years ago in the Supreme Court of Canada in Calder v. A-G of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 145 at 203, in a judgement in which Laskin J concurred with Hall J and said:“This Proclamation was an Executive Order having the force and effect of an Act of Parliament and was described by Gwynne, J … as the “Indian Bill of Rights”…its force as a statute to the status of Magna Carta which has always been considered to be the law throughout the Empire. It was a law which followed the flag as England assumed jurisdiction over newly discovered or acquired lands or territories… In respect of this Proclamation, it can be said that when other exploring nations were showing a ruthless disregard of native rights England adopted a remarkably enlightened attitude towards the Indians of North America. The Proclamation must be regarded as a fundamental document upon any just determination of original rights rests.” -
I'll bet you a bottle of rum it isn't. Our painful run at a new Constitution ended in the early 80s, the entire Proclamation thing only emerged in the mid-90s with, of all things, eels. There was a Mig,Ma guy, I forget his name, but he was famous for being locked up for a murder he didn't commit (he was only trying to rob an old guy in a park when the old guy stabbed his accomplis, the story got tangled after that), but then he got caught fishing eels out of season when he got out of jail. Then some lawyer dug up the Proclamation of 1763 where it said Indians could fish, hunt, and generally sustain themselves off the land. Fair enough, but it aint in the Constitution because when that was written the Proclamation of 1763 was but a dusty chapter in history books.
You owe Bambino a bottle of rum.
-
You could have said that in the first place instead of tossing in a single case and claiming it was a gold standard for all treaties in Canada. This is a ruling in Ontario, and is relevant to treaties and land surrenders there, and may be used in other provincial courts as a similar case. The thing you have to understand about treaties is that one size does not fit all. Starting in Newfoundland, which made no treaty with the dying Beothuk, treaties across Canada reflect the centuries of Native-European interaction and they change as you move west. Deals were struck across what is now southern Quebec and Ontario and in this region the Proclamation of 1763 has been deemed, rightly or wrongly, to carry some historic weight. While any French deals with the Indians were null and void after the collapse of Quebec, this Proclamation was intended to pacify the Indians by assuring them that any westward progress would be orderly under British rule. Its no accident that the American Revolution took place within 15 years of this Proclamation. Britain was trying to hem in its rebellious colonies to the south and stop them from spilling into the Ohio Valley (which was French territory) and starting expensive wars with the resident Indians. So King George The Tyrant was just trying to cover his colonial tax ass when he feebly tried to calm Native fears before the inevitable revolution in the southern colonies.
So trying to argue that a pronouncement from some long-dead king a couple of hundred years ago (that was actually aimed at what is now the United States) has some legal weight in Saskatchewan is a bit of a logical stretch for me.
S.25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(
any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.(15) The Royal Proclamation 1763 is current law.
-
Look CR, face the facts. Brandt was in fact instrumental in the the deal struck with the Crown, that deal was in fact proposed by Brandt. The deal was simple, support the Crown and get some land. These natives were refugees from the losing side in the quest for American Independence. Those Six Nations people were from the USA, that is a fact. You can say what you want about Brandt, but you cannot ignore the reality of his position. He was designated as a leader and he legally represented those of the First Nations. What is more is that BRANDT WAS ONE OF THOSE SELLING THE LAND.
Incorrect. And his name is Joseph BRANT, NOT BRANDT. He was Mohawk, not German.
The Silver Covenant Chain treaties started about 1686, and continued on up until the Royal Proclamation 1763. The quest for land in the US was actually brokered through Six Nation / Haudenosaunee agents and negotiators.
The Haldimand Proclamation was not a treaty that required the agreement of Six Nations, nor were the Haudenosaunee "refugees". The deal for land in Ontario to be set aside for Six Nations' exlcusive use was made before the Mohawks under Brant ever joined in the war. And in fact more than half of the Six Nations Confederacy remained in the US, while a number of families followed Joseph Brant and John Deseronto to their Ontario lands after the war.
The Haldimand Proclamation was issued as a law for the settlers to get off the Six Nations land. It had no lawful effect on any member of Six Nations.
Earlier, Six Nations and the British made a deal with the Mississauga to relocate back to the North Shore of Superior. They had previously been invited down into Southern Ontario by Six Nations under the Two Spoons One Bowl Treaty of 1656, signed at Taiaiagon (now Toronto). When they met with representatives of Six Nations and the British at Burlington in 1783 the Mississauga demanded gifts as was customary and Joseph Brant convinced Haldimand to pay a sum for the relocation of the Mississauga. History has been twisted to refer to that as the "Haldimand Purchase" however, under the Royal Proclamation 1763 any such surrender was legal unless it consisted of a public and formal signing of a treaty delivered by consensus of the full Mississauga Nation. That "surrender" never occurred.
In the Mitchell Map 1757 it identifies that Six Nations had been in possession of all of Southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River for over 100 years. When they decided to come to the Haldimand Tract (as they had selected) they were merely traveling to their own land. It is noted on the map that the Mississauga became the 8th member of the Confederacy, although there is no written history I am aware of that confirms it. However, Mohawk oral history does talk about the adoption of the Mississauga into the Confederacy and there is a time where there are a number of blended family names between the two nations.
In any case, Joseph Brant had no authority and by 1802 he was exiled to Burlington where he died in 1807.
-
Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 195 D.L.R. (4th) 135, was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario rendered on December 21, 2000. The plaintiff, an aboriginal nation, claimed aboriginal title to a four-square-mile parcel of land in and around the city of Sarnia, Ontario. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, upholding the lower court's judgment although with different reasoning. The Chippewas of Sarnia sought leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision, but leave was denied.
So much for your oft-repeated claim about the Chippawa of Sarnia v. Canada. First of all, the case never made it to the SCoC. The Chippawa lost in the Ontario Court of Appeals. The judge ruled that regardless of the legality of the transfer, the Chippawa never filed claim in the 60 years following the deal, so any right they may have had for redress from the many innocent legal landowners died in 1921.
I stand corrected. The case did go before the Ontario Court of Appeal. In this the Court of Appeal confirmed the test required to certify a valid surrender in the following:
1. Did the surrender procedures set out in the Royal Proclamation have the force of law at the time of the sale to Cameron in 1839 and the subsequent letters patent in 1853?
2. Did the Chippewas surrender the disputed lands to the Crown?
3. If the lands were not surrendered, did the Chippewas nonetheless consent to or affirm the sale to Cameron?
4. Is the Chippewas’ claim barred by any statutory limitation periods?
5. In the absence of a surrender, is the Cameron patent void ab initio or is the remedy subject to the exercise of the court’s discretion?
6. Do the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence apply to bar the Chippewas’ claim to the disputed lands?
7. Does the equitable defence of good faith purchaser for value apply to defeat the Chippewas’ claim? If so, was the motions judge correct in finding that the defence of good faith purchaser for value was subject to an equitable sixty-year limitation period before it can operate to extinguish the Chippewas’ claim to the land?
8. If the Chippewas enjoy continuing and unextinguished rights in the disputed lands, should this court order that the Crown has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Chippewas?
[18].....The motions judge held that the surrender procedures in the Royal Proclamation had the force of law at the relevant time, that these procedures were not followed and that the Chippewas never consented to or affirmed the Cameron transaction....
[19]...Instead, we adopt the view that surrender was necessary as a result of the established protocol between the Crown and First Nations peoples that aboriginal title could be lost only by surrender to the Crown....[20]...we accept the proposition that a surrender required a voluntary, informed, communal decision to give up the land and we agree with the motions judge that the Chippewas never surrendered the disputed lands to the Crown....[23]...The motions judge held that the Chippewas’ claim was not barred by any statutory limitation period. He held further that in the absence of surrender, the Cameron patent was void ab initio and that the defences of laches and acquiescence could not be relied upon. ...
[24]We agree with the motions judge that the Chippewas’ claim is not barred by any statutory limitation period. However, we do not agree that the Cameron patent was void ab initio. In our view, the patent was valid on its face and continues to have legal effect unless and until a court decides to exercise its discretion to set it aside. We are of the view that the principles governing the availability of the relevant public and private law remedies militate against a court exercising its discretion in this case. Finally, we are of the view that the imposition of a sixty-year “equitable limitation period” is not supportable in law. In the result, we are of the view that the Chippewas have no entitlement to the remedies they seek for the return of the disputed lands and that they are left with their claim in damages against Canada and Ontario.Sometimes it is not the outcome that creates precedence but the meat of the cases themselves.
The Chippewas test became the defacto legal test for determining whether or not a valid surrender has taken place.
-
The Canada Citizenship Act was proclaimed on January 1, 1947, to extend to natives, August 10, 1960, the right to vote in federal elections.
I suggest a native (Indian) born in Canada is indeed a Canadian, subject to the laws of Canada. Otherwise a native could not vote, hold office, nor expect Canadian rights.
Nope.
It is illegal under international law to assume ownership / citizenship of anyone. Giving citizenship to Indians does not mean Indians have to accept it. In fact most do not see themselves as Canadians and have no intention of becoming one.
First Nations hold a "special" relationship with the Crown as allies, not citizens.
-
Are First Nations not Canadians?
No.
There has never been a time or circumstance where any First Nation has capitulated to Canada, or applied for citizenship.
They have a unique nation to nation relationship with the Crown.
Another Work Stoppage in Toronto.
in Local Politics in Canada
Posted
No provision. The right to strike includes no snow plowing in the city. However, in the past Unions have agreed to keep plowing the essential main arteries in order to provide emergency services. However, municipal parking lots, side streets and laneways won't be plowed this winter if the outside workers go on strike or....more likely...there is a lockout by the city....