charter.rights

You really are dumb. The Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band deals with S. 87 of the Indian Act which the Supreme Court has held that the protection against taxation stems from the Royal Proclamation 1763. You are arguing a lost cause. You have lost the argument already and are still trying to defend it. Go read the Indian Act and then come back and argue that the Supreme Court got it wrong. Dip.

Ya. I already proved that it was a Charter Right derived from the before the Royal Proclamation 1763 but he prefers to argue his nonsense statements and pretend to himself they are facts. No tax. No seizures. Superior title to unsurrendered land. All rights they have and we don't. Pity the whiners, they are so victimized by themselves....

The tax exemption stems from the Royal Proclamation 1763 and before and therefore a right protected under S.25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom Mitchell v. Peguis Indian Band "In summary, the historical record makes it clear that ss. 87 and 89 of the Indian Act, the sections to which the deeming provision of s. 90 applies, constitute part of a legislative "package" which bears the impress of an obligation to native peoples which the Crown has recognized at least since the signing of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. From that time on, the Crown has always acknowledged that it is honour‑bound to shield Indians from any efforts by non‑natives to dispossess Indians of the property which they hold qua Indians, i.e., their land base and the chattels on that land base."

Could be the reason that white Christian conservative in Norway just execute 100 people, too.

You are still being daft. The second sentence follows the first in the same paragraph. We do that in English composition to clarify and reinforce the points made in the previous sentence(s). If the court wanted to make a separate point they would have put it in another separate paragraph. Fair value is more than fee simple. That is what was said...and don't be so obtuse. This is just another of your ignorant points you have tried to make and got caught on it. In general amateurs shouldn't have access to legal documents because with limited intelligence they can't figure out what they mean with simplistic reasoning....

Think.... a d v e r t i s i n g....... Imagine Coke machines, and ticker boards, branded books and sponsors for reading material. Plus any deal for the running of public libraries would go along with a healthy subsidy from the taxpayer, while the contractor reaps the profits from advertising and lower wages.

Canada never was a "white society" and has always been a multicultural one. We are in essence today a metis society. Raulston Saul nailed that one....

Don't be silly. YOU need to learn to read legal documents. Fee simple is just the beginning of the negotiation and the fair value will NOT be based simply on a "fee simple" basis. "fair compensation in the present context is not equated with the price of a fee simple. Which of course means that the fee simple is NOT the final or lesser of a fair value. Fair compensation / fair value doesn't equate with fee simple. Less than fee simple would NOT be fair compensation. That is what the Court held. Gawd you can be daft.

Yes it does "It must be emphasized, nonetheless, that fair compensation in the present context is not equated with the price of a fee simple. Rather, compensation must be viewed in terms of the right and in keeping with the honour of the Crown. Thus, generally speaking, compensation may be greater where the expropriation relates to a village area as opposed to a remotely visited area. I add that account must be taken of the interdependence of traditional uses to which the land was put." This means that compensation [greater than fee simple] may be greater where the expropriation relates to a village area..... That is what it is saying.... It is in the same paragraph and the first sentence flows into the second. Which is what I said earlier: The value of land at the time it was occupied plus loss of use, and loss of benefit plus any accumulated interests from the time of occupation....... From Delgamuukw: "Aboriginal title is a right in land and, as such, is more than the right to engage in specific activities which may be themselves aboriginal rights. Rather, it confers the right to use land for a variety of activities, not all of which need be aspects of practices, customs and traditions which are integral to the distinctive cultures of aboriginal societies. Those activities do not constitute the right per se; rather, they are parasitic on the underlying title. However, that range of uses is subject to the limitation that they must not be irreconcilable with the nature of the attachment to the land which forms the basis of the particular group’s aboriginal title. This inherent limit, to be explained more fully below, flows from the definition of aboriginal title as a sui generis interest in land, and is one way in which aboriginal title is distinct from a fee simple." From: R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court, January 1982 "In view of it, and later cases, I think that the Indian title (by which I mean 'the personal and usufructuary right' of the Indians in respect of ' lands reserved to the Indians') was a title superior to all others save in so far as the Indians themselves surrendered or ceded it the Crown. That title was guaranteed to them by the Crown."

You seemed to gloss over what I just highlighted. Compensation is NOT fee simple and "...may be greater where the expropriation relates to a village...". But that is not the point. The point is the Hounour of the Crwon still requires land to be surrendered under the rules set out under the Royal Proclamation as identified in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada. When they aren't the Crown is required to compensate a fair value, which they have claimed was $5.50 an acre in 1820 and other values for different periods. Compensation is not a government ordered closure. It becomes a negotiation in which the Honour of the Crown is always at stake. $75 trillion for southern Ontario is a starting position but nonetheless a valid and fair one based on the governments own evaluations.

The federal transfers to reserves are part of the Indian monies held in trust by the federal government. Social services are something we pay as a safety net for those who are unable to work. There are certainly some aboriginal people on social services but not disproportionate to our rates for similar isolated and rural areas.

Freedom from taxation stems from the Royal Proclamation 1763 which is an inalienable aboriginal right. Royal Proclamation 1763: "And whereas it is just and reasonable....that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed..." and, "And we do. by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever." As far as land goes, yes we are living on First Nations land. While there are some treaties they do not cover all of Canada, and those that were made have technical errors that will one day be struck down by the courts. In particular, most of them do not meet the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. Secondly, the treaties did not surrender land per se. They surrendered a particular First Nations collective rights for control of the lands for settlement but not all of their collective rights. According to the law those who entered into treaties still hold a sui generis ownership over the land which entitles them to the fruits of the land and to hunt and fish for as long as the sun will shine. These aboriginal rights are the main reason that governments must consult with First Nations over any development that may interfere with their rights, whether or not the issues were known at the time. Those lands that have not been surrendered according to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Royal Proclamation certified that aboriginal people hold a plenum dominum title (super title to all others - including the Crown) which may not be used by us or owned by us without a valid surrender. While the courts have been reluctant to displace those occupying the lands, they have held that the First Nations are entitled to not only the fair cost of the land at the time it was occupied, but compounded interests and loss of use and benefit payments in exchange for a surrender. Because the cost of these kinds of settlements would be difficult the government has in the past opted to return chucks of Crown land to the First Nations free and clear in lieu of the payments. Six Nations as an example has never surrendered southern Ontario. It is still their land even though we reside on it. A fair value (based on Aboriginal Affairs valuations in 1820) for it at the time it was illegally occupied would be about $5.50 an acre. Any settlement for the land based on that fair payment would not be worth $75 trillion which i would be impossible for us to pay out. So the government has opted to begin looking at giving chunks of land in exchange for settlements on those lands. However, that will still not cover the fair cost or fair exchange and Six Nations has proposed a perpetual care agreement which will see their every need civil, social and political taken care of in perpetuity. The government has thus far made no response to that offer. Aboriginal rights are NOT afforded to them under the Canadian Charter. Rather their rights are protected under our Charter as a writ against us from interfering with their rights. They rights stem from before the Royal Proclamation which the court has held was the equivalent to the Magna Carta and is ofter referred to as the Indian Bill of Rights. The Court has held that the Royal Proclamation 1763 is the primary document for the acquisition of land in North America and all treaties and surrenders MUST conform to it. We have no choice nor can the government interfere with First Nations. Their rights cannot be abrogated or derogated no matter how angry you become.

Exactly what the Anglo Europeans attempted to do to aboriginal people.

Try again. If you read the law and the Supreme Court rulings it is very apparent we got the shorter end of the stick. R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court 1982, "Our long experience of these matters taught us how to treat the indigenous peoples. As a matter of public policy, it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws and customs, and never interfere with them except when necessary in the interests of peace and good order. It was the responsibility of the Crown of England, and those representing the Crown, to see that the rights of indigenous people were secured to them, and that they were not imposed on by the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless. " Calder v. A-G of British Columbia 1973 "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."

Of course he said it. That is where the figures came from. You could ask him if you want. Here are 2009 statistics. 20 seconds on google..... Canadian Trade and Investment Activity: Canada–China

In a discussion I had with MP Daryl Kramp last year he stated that we buy about $80 billion a year from China and export about $15-20 million back mostly in grain and raw resources. Their (the Conservative government) goal was to get China to buy more from Canada in the way of finished products as well as to increase their import of our agricultural products. What he was saying is that by encouraging trade with China, not only are we getting cheap goods, but the goal would be to make them dependent on our finished goods and agricultural products. An increase of $20 billion a year in Canadian exports would have a remarkable effect on our economy here....

Here's the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Peter Bachlow and Jewish Family and Child Services The SCoC decision was to dismiss the applicant's appeal.

You might want to look up the legal obligations of Trustees under Canadian (Crown)law. They are extensive and they must always act in the best interests of the trust holders. Always. $2 trillion "in trust" with interests by Order in Council at rates set bi-annually.

You are talking nonsense again. The tables and accrued interests goe back to 1820. However, the trusts in which the Crown promised some FN that they would take control of and invest their money actually began around 1710 and the Crown of Canada inherited all the obligation of the Crown of Great Britain in 1982.

Are you on a lunch break? You sure set out there.... You might want to read the news and in particular read what the courts are ruling when aboriginal issues come to them. We are definitely not in very good shape. The Crown isn't "in debt". They are managing a trust in favour of First Nations that obligates them to provide interest at rates set out by an Order in Council.

"The Crown" owns the courts, the military, the parliament and all Canadian institutions. Its obligation is on itself defined by the Supreme Court as the "Honour of the Crown" which it sees as absolute. There is no need for enforcement since "The Crown" recognizes it obligations and responsibilities. The government on the other hand often needs to be reminded that it is the Crown and not the Prime Minister that is the supreme lawmaker in Canada. In any case, while entertaining, your point is moot. The trust is a legal obligation under Canadian law and enforceable by the Courts and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I kind of see it as the way contracting out of garbage collection went. First it was merely a new group of people doing the same job. Now all kinds of places have limits on the number of garbage bags they can put out and many places have to purchase tags just to put garbage out at the curb. When I was president of a CUPE local, we did an analysis of contracted out vs. municipal worker collected garbage and found that not only were the municipal workers much more efficient, they provided better service. The private contractors that collect my garbage today, leave crap all over the place....if they miss their bin when dumping the recyclables, they just leave them blowing in the wind. I'm not sure that privatization of libraries would be any better.

"The Crown" whom enslaves us the minute we are born and registers our births.

Me too. Want to provide a cite title?

We already have private libraries in Canada. They call themselves "Chapters". And privatization of municipal operated libraries would likely have to take that form.