charter.rights

There will be a Charter challenge over this one. "Indians" are protected under the Charter, and under the Indian Act from any type of seizure. The only authorization for a seizure must come specifically through a Band Council Resolution (by-law). There was no such by-law and the seizure by the police forces is illegal. Further, Kahnawake, Kanehsatake and Akwesasne, are not Canadian territories. The Royal Proclamation guaranteed that all of southern Ontario south of the Ottawa was their territory and they could move freely without interference. Southern Ontario was never surrendered to us. In Derrickson v. Derrickson the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that provincial court orders were not applicable on reserves. That would go as far as court issued search warrants, and other prohibitions issued by the court. I bet they will get their dope back.

I would disagree. Sure traditional practices have been waning, but mostly from a sedentary lifestyle from forced relocation and urbanization. The global changes however, wouldn't stop the traditional way of life, as Inuit as well as many other nations of people are fully capable of adapting their practices to meet the environmental changes. This is the way it has bend for thousands of years for most native peoples.

Irrelevant. Sure you can grow on rock if you want to import enough soil, but that does not make it valuable. Indian lands are not capable of providing sustainable agriculture, and if you want native people to go back to the way they did things 300 years ago, then our farmers and ranchers better find a new place to live. Consider that most of the world's vegetables and fruits came from native agriculture here in the Americas. They grew all they needed to live good lives. Of course you - a non-farmer - spend all your hard earned dough buying chemically loaded and biologically infested imported foodstuffs served on styrofoam trays. If you had half a clue, you would have understood that sustainable agriculture is a difficult beast, even in Canada with $million worth of equipment and genetically modified plants, farmers can still not grow enough to make it worthwhile. Stop being obtuse. Your slip is showing and you have been caught in another of your many fabrications.

And you are a farmer now are you? You don't have a first clue on what it takes to clear and then start a farming operation on a reserve. Give it up. This is another subject you are a non-expert on.

You have come into the discussion late. Shady was suggesting that the natives could go back to the way they were 300 years ago. Shwa suggest that they could farm and land anywhere. Shady was suggesting that reserves could provide all they need and I asserted that reserves are relatively barren lands unsuitable for subsistence agriculture. In order to grow everything they need, they would have to take over neighbouring farms both for quanity and quality. Growing hay is not subsistence farming. And there are few cattle on reserves because of the contaminated ground water and pollution from neighbouring industry. So we aren't talking about cash crops. We are talking about food gardening and most reserves are not suitable either in size or in soil composition to do that successfully.

We're talking agricultural quality. Rama: rock. Curve Lake: rock Alderville: Rice Lake Savannah - sand and heat do not permit sustainable agriculture. MOST of the reserves are not suitable for agriculture.

It is an appropriate sentence....according to the court. You can't begin to re-try court cases either in the media or in some discussion forum and then expect to eke out your own punishment. You don't have the facts.

The British High Court 1982 Judicial Review of the Canada Act, clarified that the 1930 British North America Act the British Parliament gave the force of law to all the various treaties and that Canada was bound to fulfill its obligation under the treaties. Further the Court declared that aboriginal title was a title superior to all others - a "plenum dominum" - save and except until it was surrendered to the Crown. Non-surrendered land and reserves however, are reserved lands under the Royal Proclamation not surrendered to the Crown and they had every right to take the fruits and products of the land.

Your view is sophomoric. The Proclamation created only 4 colonies: West Florida, East Florida, Grenada and Quebec. This was limited to the eastern seaboard of the continental US. ALL other lands with the exception of lands granted to the Hudson Bay Company were "Indian Lands" and the Proclamation prohibited any claims, patents, use, ownership or interference by British subjects. Even within the 4 colonies there were lands that had not been surrendered by the Indians and they were given free reign to hunt and pass over them. In fact the Royal Proclamation 1763 was a consolidation of a number of previous treaty principles and the main reason for setting out boundaries in harder lines came as a result of the Treaty of Loggstown 1754 which permitted the final surrender. Six Nations conveyed to the British that any further encroachments west of the Allegany River would result in war been declared against the frontier settlers. The Mitchell Map 1757 shows clearly that Six Nations held title not only to southern Ontario, but south to the forks of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers east to Maine and north to the Ottawa River. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that aboriginal title is a sui generis (not understood under common law principles) and it arise out of their possession prior to the Royal Proclamation 1763. The 1757 map gives a good enough legal confirmation that Six Nations held possession of southern Ontario, and has not since surrendered any part to the Crown. In fact the SCoC set out a number of tests in The Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada under which all surrenders had to follow under the Royal Proclamation and native law. Most of the treaties the British and Canada have made since do not meet those tests and can be challenged in court.

Most people don't know that at Caledonia, Six Nations had been petitioning Haldimand County for over two years prior to comply with the law and consult with them. Haldimand blatantly refused and when the bulldozers moved in, so did Six Nations.

You mean like the Royal Proclamation 1763? It is law today just in case your Alzheimers has been acting up again....

Silly fool. The $35 billion a year we owe them in interest has paid for that and we still owe them billions per year. Maybe you forgot that the raods were built over their land. The landlords have about 250 years of back rent that is owed not only on the roads but on our factories, mines, government buildings and homes. You want to start paying your share today?

Completely tax free. However, those profits go into goods and services - much of it paid to off-reserve retailers - so it is a net economic benefit to not only the First Nations, but also the surrounding communities. I mean...$65 million buys a lot of Nikes, GMCs and dry cleaning....

Why would they. They get someone else to grow the tobacco for them. They just manufacture the smokes and reap the $65 million a year for them.

While Southwold might be "a rich agricultural zone" the reserve isn't. It is sitting on predominantly wooded valley lands, marsh and scrub.

Silly goose. Oneida is comprised mostly of wooded valley lands and marshes unsuitable for agriculture. And there is hardly enough space there for the people that live there.

Name one.

Try one, just one. I visit many of the reserves in southern Ontario and have frequented quite a few in northern Ontario. Most of them are on rock or marsh, neither one suitable for sustainable agriculture. Do YOU know ANYTHING about farming?

You might want to visit a reserve or two before you put your other foot in your mouth. Most reserves are on barren grounds. And the fact is we owe them much more than they have ever received form us. We are dependent on First Nations land and resources, and have used their trust funds to build our infrastructure without (so far) paying back to the trust. Fact.

You'll have to read the reports. the AG has been complaining about First Nations funding and poor services for over 10 years. http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/canada/north/story/2011/06/09/pol-ag-first-nations.html What most people don't know is that funding to most programs is tightly controlled by INAC. Money is allotted to certain programs and before they get a cheque the First Nation must submit audits on how the money was spent....They have to borrow money on a Ministerial guarantee for things like housing, and other infrastructure projects before they get the money. While social services like childrens programs and schools they are funded on 1988 formula that has not kept pace (see the citation above). There is no question that some First Nations get into trouble. However, when INAC has installed third party management the net result is that it cost about 3 times as much as the Band receives for a third party manager to come in. If they had funded the FN properly in the first place it is unlikely they would have ended up in trouble.

All the AG Reports 2008 May AG Report "The funding INAC provides to First Nations child welfare agencies for operating child welfare services is not based on the actual cost of delivering those services. It is based on a funding formula that the Department applies nationwide. The formula dates from 1988. It has not been changed to reflect variations in legislation and in child welfare services from province to province, or the actual number of children in care. The use of the formula has led to inequities. Under a new formula the Department has developed to take into account current legislation in Alberta, funding to First Nations agencies in that province for the operations and prevention components of child welfare services will have increased by 74 percent when the formula is fully implemented in 2010. " 2006 May AG Report "Overall, the federal government's progress in addressing our 37 recommendations on First Nations issues has been unsatisfactory. While the issues are extremely complex, federal organizations had agreed with most of our recommendations and had committed to taking action. We found their progress on 15 of our recommendations to have been unsatisfactory. These are generally the recommendations that are most important to the lives and well-being of First Nations people. We found that little had been done to deal with the serious problem of mould in houses on reserves. We also found that progress has been unsatisfactory in analyzing patterns of prescription drug use and drug-related deaths among First Nations people, implementing comprehensive land claim agreements, eliminating unnecessary reporting required of First Nations communities, and addressing gaps in the Third Party Manager Policy. " There are lots more in the AG Reports that would take way too much time to eke out. These problems are not new and are on-going concerns of the AG.

The AG Report has stated that First Nations are more accountable than any other organization receiving government funding and that their audits often end up on bureaucrats' desks for such a long time and never get read. Because they are there so long, INAC usually asks for them over and over again. Funding is too low. It is generally less than 50% of the mainstream funding per capita. And the fact is that First Nations generally have greater issues and would need more than that per capita funding we allot ourselves for the same services ad institutional funding. I am not directly involved in negotiations but I do advise my First Nation clients on occasion. What I said isn't a consequence or bad faith. It is in response to the government bad faith that is currently going on. Is was predicted in RCAP. However, in many cases those stand-offs occupations and economic disruptions are the impetus for negotiations. While you think it gets media attention, it also gets the attention from the politicians because their lack is to blame and they are legally exposed.

Ask an Albertan.

What do you want a link for the AG's report? Or Conservative policy in not returning land in lands claims? INAC and the Auditor General are doing everything you asked for. They are looking after people, providing for education, health, housing etc. BUT they are funding it at less than half of the mainstream funding and way less than what is needed in some cases to compensate for decades of underfunding. People complain about INAC spending nearly $14 billion every year, yet double will still not be enough to remove the years of the effect that genocidal policies have created. Most Canadians - and that includes Shady - haven't a clue of the actual costs. Regardless the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook since we have received the benefit from stolen lands and resources. Industry, mining and resource harvests have taken place on unceded lands, and any profits and royalties received by the government directly funds our government costs.

That would be all of southern Ontario for Six Nations to start and most of BC, Quebec and the prairies. So is that what you want. First Nations kicking farmers off the land so they can grow, hunt, fish and otherwise sustain themselves? It worked for Zimbabwe didn't it?