charter.rights

Yet the Crown recognizes the independent state of Six Nations and has recognized the Confederacy Government as its legitimate representative. The Royal Proclamation 1763 set out the boundaries and limits of the colonial governments. Canada does not fit in with any of those and must now prove that it gained land legitimately (as in valid surrender). We got away with claiming land for the country because we also made it illegal for Indians to hire lawyers to fight us. Yet now they can and do, it is the government that is on the hot seat. They can't prove our claims to either sovereignty or the acquisition of land because none of it complies with the Proclamation - the last and final word on the issue. The reality is we are a nation without a land base. Aboriginal people are the land title holders and we are indebted to them for our occupation and use. That could mean lots of cash (in the trillions) or the return of vast tracts of land to their possession and governance over.

Canada and Australia - both with substantial aboriginal populations have signed on. It is the consensus of the world community that aboriginal need protection and the Declaration spells out how it will be protected.

And they have been recognized by the courts and by past presidents as sovereign nations.

You might want to read the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is explicit in that indigenous people have a right to their land not to be dispossessed of it by the state. The only one not yet signed on, of course is the US. So the international community believes in the right of self government and indigenous sovereignty.

BTW. Are you willing to give up southern Ontario? It has never been surrendered by Six Nations. The Crown has recognized this and giving them their reserves would mean vacating all of Ontario south of the Ottawa River since under the law -the Royal Proclamation 1763 - these are lands reserved for them, superior title and all.

Incorrect. First Nations own superior title. Treaties merely surrendered native usufruct (as it has been defined by the SCoC that Indians hold a personal and usufructary right) and therefore could not surrender the land as fee simple. The ownership and claim by the government is a sham. However treaties did convey a right to use the land, the promises that natives would continue to be allowed to hunt and fish form part of the treaties....according to the SCoC. The Royal Proclamation 1763 prohibited the surrender of lands by natives to anyone but the Crown. When someone else sought a surrender, or the surrender activities did not meet the specific requirements for surrender (as now defined under Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada) the land remains under First Nation title: “That judgement was given at a time when, in constitutional law, the Crown was single and indivisible. In view of it , and in later cases, I think that the Indian title (by which I mean the ‘personal and ususfructary right’ of the Indians in respect of ‘lands reserved to the Indians’) was a title superior to all others save and in so far as the Indians themselves surrendered or ceded it to the Crown. That title was guaranteed to them by the Crown. Then by treaties which covered much of Canada the Indians did cede and surrender their right to some lands to the Crown and in return the Crown undertook to full the obligations set out in the treaties. Those treaty obligations were obligations of the Crown, the single and indivisible Crown which was at that time the Crown of the United Kingdom. "1982 Lord Denning, British High Court. just months prior to the repatriation of the Constitution. Take note that the title was "superior" to all others, and the Indians surrendered "their right" to some of the lands but that does not imply that title was rendered to the Crown. In fact many of their rights were still with the land in the form of hunting and fishing rights, and travel over the land freely as guaranteed by the Proclamation 1763. There is no court that can hear First Nation case. Canadian Courts only rule according to Canadian law and what we are dealing with is international law, and principles. If the government decided to comply with the World Court for a decision, they would lose and we would be exactly where we are today, only 10 years later and approximately $500 billion in interest more in debt. Where there are lands claims where sovereignty and title are in dispute, the SCoC has recommended that only negotiation can take place. If they had ruled on some very important land claims the government would not win. As WB suggested the payout would be astronomical.So negotiation is the only path to a solution. Now if the government only complied with its own laws, we might get somewhere. But since they are inherently corrupt these issues will continue for along time to come. You simplistic argument aside, if YOU think it has merit then YOU take a First Nation to court and see where you get. Just be prepared to spend about $1 billion and waiting for 20 years to see if you have a valid idea. Can't do that you say. Then stop wasting everyone's time with silly and childish suggestions.

Nope. I don't think so. Where is the outrage in the media when McGuinty makes a decision? None. The only complaints are isolated ones like those found here and most of them are uninformed opinions without any basis in fact. No one takes hem seriously. However, McGuinty does find favour among the big Toronto corporations and well that is all that matters. If Toronto stays Liberal there isn't much the rest of the Province is going to say to change it. Money speaks.

It isn't surprising. Have you seen Zeitgeist - Addendum yet? Zeitgeist - Moving Forward is due to be released in January

Here is what you followed up with: So are you saying the sum of the value of lands, assets, properties and resources cannot be equated mathematically? There is a price on everything in Canada even if it means we owe most of it to First Nations. Our debt can't be wiped out just because you think it might be difficult to come up with the payments. However, in lieu of taking land in lieu of cash owed, Six Nations as recently as last year proposed a perpetual care agreement that would see annual payments made to them (far in excess of what they are receiving from us now) along with full health care, education (including full post secondary education to anyone that wants it), continuous access to capital for infrastructure and support services etc. The federal government turned them down outright. Do you think that they are trying to steal money and land by not acknowledging our debt?

In fact this is (was) illegal under the Royal Proclamation 1763 in that only land could only be surrendered to the Crown, and not the colonial governments. RP1763 We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure. that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida. or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. Since Canada was not within the 4 colonies mentioned in the Proclamation any treaty is suspect unless it contains the Royal Seal. Most do not. This is another myth. There are not valid agreements. In the Chippewa of Sarnia v. Canada, the Supreme Court set out 12 conditions that certified that a de facto treaty had taken place. Most treaties fail the points. As well the Supreme Court has also ruled that treaties are to be interpreted in a manner which would have been understood by the Indians at the time it was signed, and have given their oral history and accounts of the treaties equal or better weight in determining that understanding. Those groups have a valid point despite your poor understanding of it. Under the Chippewa of Sarnia 12 points, one of the key points is that the treaty or agreement must have been signed by the principle men of the community recognized by the community as having that right. Another point is that there must be a record of the community coming to a consensus in agreement to the surrender. No doubt you are referring to the 1844 agreement with Six Nations that Six Nations holds as invalid. It fails the Chippewa test on the above points, as well as a few more in that the community must have been clear that they desired the surrender, and that there was no coercion in their decision. In this case not on was there not consensus, or that the agreement was not signed by the principle men, but there was evidence that there was no intention to surrender land, but only to lease it. And finally in the memos that went back and forth there was clear evidence that the Indian Agent was threatening the use of force if the agreement was not signed. And finally not only does this not represent a treaty for the above reasons, but it was never given Royal assent, nor was it celebrated in ceremony as was custom with all other agreements between the Crown and Six Nations. There was no surrender and no treaty especially since Six Nations rescinded any documents purporting to be a surrender in 1845, just to be sure. First Nations trust are not only monies owed for treaty payments but they are for long term leases and benefits owed with interests to First Nations trust accounts. These accounts total in the $trillions. Overlapping claims demonstrate the complexities of the sui generis aboriginal title. The Supreme Court has ruled that aboriginal title while being superior to all others, is a personal and usufructary right. This means that where there are overlapping claims, it is not sufficient to settle with only one nation but that multiple nations have an equal right to be consulted. Another myth. No where in history did First Nations surrender their sovereignty, ever. The rights conveyed in the Charter (had you actually read it) demonstrate that they are outside of our sovereign control, and their rights cannot be diminished or altered by us for any reason. The long line of aboriginal jurisprudence over the last 30 year points to this fact. As well the Royal Proclamation 1763 is itself a codification of previous treaties, making it a treaty as well. We can't make treaties within our own sovereignty. First Nations are, as the name implies individual and sovereign nations, entitled to self-government, and holding a land base. On the other hand, Canada has no land base and therefore is indebted to First Nations. We are not a sovereign nation but a subordinate of our Sovereign the Queen of Canada. Canada is merely a corporation set out in the British North America Act to protect the financial interests of our corporations, and to provide a unified private army against the potential invasion by the US. Since we have evolved we have become nothing more than manager for big business that are subservient to the US corporate interests. Our indebtedness gives the US control of our economy, as well as our government and it seems that Confederation did nothing to protect anyone's interests. Six Nations has since they before the RP1763 asserted their own sovereignty and control over land and resources. They are sovereign. If you can prove differently, I would like to see it. (Oh and BTW a declaration is all that is need to assert one's sovereignty and Canada has never been able to assert that it is not subject to the Queen of Canada, HRM Armed Forces, HER Legal Insititutions or Her Parliament all of which can over-rule the government)

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, aboriginal land rights are a sui generis right resulting from a number of facts. 1. Land is inalienable in that it can only be surrender to the Crown (and not the government or private corporation or private individuals). As such the only way that land could be transferred was with a defined process that was clarified in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada. Suffice to say that most treaties and purported surrenders never occurred. 2. All land in Canada originates in aboriginal title that was recognized in 1763 at the time the Royal Proclamation was made. This recognition in the RP1763 guarantees that aboriginal lands will not be disturbed or used without a surrender first taking place. It doesn't matter if the aboriginal occupation goes back in prehistory as long as there is proof it existed at the time of the Proclamation. So it is the Crown that must prove that land was actually surrendered since 1763, in accordance with the rules mentioned above. 3. Land is communal in nature in that not only is aboriginal land right individual but also belonged to the community and was share among different nations. The Supreme Court refers to this as a usufructary right and it is important in that the Crown not only has the onus of proving that land was surrendered by a particular band but that all bands in possession (sharing the land) also surrender their right to use it. This is the hardest thing to prove and it is one of the main reasons that the government continues to stall settlement of lands claims. In a very important judicial review by the British High Court just months before the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, Lord Denning clarified that the Crown of Canada is the same Crown that made the treaties with First Nations, and the one that makes us responsible for the protection of aboriginal rights identified in the Proclamation 1763, and is binding on us 'as long as the gras grows and the shine will shine'. He wrote that aboriginal title is a "title superior to all others" and even when treaties were made they retained their personal and usufructary right to all the land. As such this means that regardless if treaties surrendered or ceded land to the Crown it was not a transfer that we would consider fee simple, but that rather the surrender was an agreement to share the land, with natives retaining their personal and communal rights to continue to use surrendered lands, albeit in in a more limited way. And so, that is the nature of Canada: it is all still aboriginal land in which we have obtained certain rights to use it for settlement, or for the government to harvest and extract resources. However, the surrenders did not anticipate lands being used for development on an industrial scale and so these uses are outside of treaties. The Courts have upheld that the government and developers must consult with aboriginal people before development is commenced and that consultation must be extensive and meaningful, accommodating the natives interests, and reconciling their continued right to use the lands with the potential of development. Sometimes this has led to compensation and other times it has led to stand-offs and protests that ultimately killed the development, or criminalized the protesters. In any case governments must consult and there continues to be a reluctance by the government and lower courts to comply with the law, as if they are above it. This attitude will lead nowhere but to future economic disruptions and protests. The bottom line is that we have no rights to land in Canada and only by the grace of treaties, or the Honour of the Crown are we even permitted to live here.

I think people are over rating the hatred for McGuinty and I suspect there will be some very disappointed PCs come the next election. The one constant fact about McGuinty is that he is like Teflon in that very little has stuck to him, and he seems to recover the most bizarre issues. Then we have Hudak and Horvath that provide an alternative....like nothing.... Harris so screwed up this province and its finances that I don't think Hudak will recover...yet... If he has a chance it will be a minority government which will be lame to say the least. However, McGuinty still has a lot of people in Toronto who still love him, while Hudak has many urbanites that just don't trust him. With guys like Hillier on the team who could blame them?

Wars were fought over less. International court would be good if Canada would comply with its rulings. They won't because they would lose most land claims. You do also understand that all of Canada is First Nations land? Treaties did not give us the land. All they gave us was a usufruct to certain parts of it, and legally all the land is still theirs. So what would YOU do when the government tells you to get lost in order that all the treaties are dissolved and all the land reverts back to exclusive FN land. Would you comply?

I get it now. You can't count that high. But don't believe for a second that the Feds can't count hat high. They are well aware at how much everything is worth...and even though they have tried to minimize it they can't convince much smarter FN accountants that $25 million even comes close to a $500 million value.

I didn't ignore your point. It would make a difference if the government told FN to go there and accepted the outcome. In any case we would probably be in the middle of a native revolution if Canada ignore our responsibilities. So your point is moot. It was Jerry's suggestion that it was a viable option. I merely suggested it wasn't.

I can tell you they wouldn't accept Ellesmere Island. What you seem to forget is that they hold the superior position. So any negotiation for settlement wold see our side looking for crumbs. It is OUR debt. WE OWE THEM. Get it? That makes anything but payment in full open to a negotiation that would see the federal government begging for them to take something else in return. And you can bet it will be no $25 million for a $500 million value property, like the Welland Canal flooding. I asked this before and I'll ask it again so you can get a good mental picture. 875,000 acres of Six Nations land on the Haldimand Tract was illegally occupied. In 1824 the land was valued at $5.5 per acre. In 1824 dollars that would make the 875,000 acres worth about $5,000,000. Now add compounded interests (the rates are recorded in INAC documents and were fixed each year by an Order In Council until 1980, when the Bank of Canada rates were applied semi-annually). My initial estimates come to about $22 trillion. Maybe you can have a go at it? Alternatively you could try estimating the fair market value today using cost per acre of rural and cost per urban area, which I believe will multiply the value by tenfold.

Man are you ever out of touch. It was Jerry that suggested that we force the natives to take their complaints to the international courts. All things considered the UN Declaration is like the Charter in that the Court would have to considered the rights of Indigenous people in consideration of the lands we have stolen, abused and treatied for but not paid for. All things considered Canada can't even win a seat on the UN Security Council. What makes anyone think they would find favour in the World Court, especially since the Crown - the Sovereign - admits they are culpable in the theft of land, the genocide perpetrated against aboriginal people and the continued abuse of their rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter? We can't win a legal battle we have acknowledged we have failed in the beginning.

"Trillions" it is. Chances are if we counted all the illegal occupations and then added the value to those lands that are occupied illegally and then bought them outright it could easily be in the 10s of trillions of dollars. What we can't do is ignore that we owe it. What is owed to date is recorded and must be accounted for in full. We do know that the Six Nations trust account on its own merits ruins between $200 billion and $1 trillion. That alone could break the bank of Canada if it were paid out in cash. However, Six Nations has been clear that they are not interested in receiving it all back in cash and would prefer the land and pieces of the resources and development occurring on their unceded land. To me that might be a reasonable compromise, given the fact that they are not against development and development could produce jobs and revenue for the area. So it would be another win-win for Six Nations and Ontarians, as well. Regardless of whether the money can be paid back in cash or land assets, the reality is we owe the debt to First Nations. Yet people whine and complain about tax payers money being used to pay our debt. Funny, there were not too many that complained about the billions we gave GM or the billions spent on wasteful government spending. Seems the government wants to create more debt not less and it is even funnier that you support that while denying FN what we owe. That would make you pretty much conflicted in your ideology. However I have come to expect that from non-thinking conservative types. The thinking ones know their responsibilities. The blind ones do the complaining but refuse to accept their debts.

Just ignore the little man behind the curtain. Argus doesn't get out much. That's what happens when you only aspire to become a mail clerk.

Fancy that! A Charter of Rights that Protects all people. What is this country coming to?

The Charter recognizes that First Nations are not Canadians and protects them from unscrupulous dealings. Hence Sect. 25, and 35 provides that we cannot remove those rights, or reduce them in favour of other rights we may have, as well as recognizing that the existing treaties are still valid. My argument if still intact. It is your ignorance that is killing your argument. Jerry, we can't change our relationship with First Nations without also destroying what Canada has become. Canada does not want to go to international court, either. Just take a read of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Not only would we lose, but we would end up having to pay out what we owe immediately putting us in peril. No, your ignorant solution would destroy Canada (which may not be a bad thing) and open the doors for unregulated corruption, and take-over by the US. I'm sure you wouldn't want that, now would you.....

the stimulus wasn't meant to provide jobs. It was created to make more debt, which in turn means we owe corporations much more than we did before the crash. That gives them power, and will cause our government to capitulate to the US corporations the next time we want to go it alone. Harper's $1 billion party for G8/G20 ultimately did the same thing. It just created more debt. NO jobs. No real benefits. Just another $1 billion plus interest added to the burgeoning Canadian debt.

Not math challenged at all. I know numbers and while they are overwhelming it would be possible to make a dent in we started paying it back in large amounts. Most Canadians would have a problem with that sice natives would no longer be the scourge of society. Instead Canadians would become less able to abuse and control the Indians. They fear the Cowboys would meet Custer's fate. However, we could negotiate with them over resource profits, and joint management of key resources. That would be a start. But doing nothing is not an option since the debt we owe them will double in the next 20 years or so. I'm not willing to leave my grandchildren that kind of debt. Nor am I willing to see my GC paying for our inaction. The honour of the Crown demands that we respect our commitments and obligations. Or are you one of those that refuses to abide by the law?

Nah, that is not the issue. Band elections under the Indian Act are held every 2 years, so they are more accountable to band members that MPs and MPP are to us. Funding pays for common services and cannot be given to individuals. And taxation is not an option unless the Band Council- you know the ones accountable to the members - impose it. Not likely. Instead if we just paid the Bands what we really owe them, they could manage their resources and services on an equal footing. Who cares what a chief makes. It certainly isn't any of your business and if their private businesses do that well, they they are entitle to the profits. If the band members have a problem with that, let them take it up with their Chiefs. They have less than a year to decide.

Can't do that. The Indian Act is a book of rights in a manner of speaking, and identifies how the rights protected in the Charter will be applied. Certainly there are aspects that could be amended but it would be impossible to do without some sort of regulation that prevents us from imposing on their rights. First Nations are not Canadians and cannot be made so against their will. I would bet that any negotiation to make them Canadians would come with a hefty compensation and further rights protected under treaty or by amendment of the Charter. So you solution is not only unworkable, but it is lame.