charter.rights

The Supreme Court is in the process of changing that. Last year the government was order to change the definition of "Indian" so that it would not discriminate against the double mothers of aboriginal children. The SCoC has also ruled that non-status Indians and Metis are entitled to the same rights as status Indians....meaning that eventually there will 4 times the number of Aboriginal people all with the same rights....

Your opinion is irrelevant. The land belongs to them and so does their trust account. They are wealthy and will eventually get access to all that money and resources.

You need a history lesson. The Royal Proclamation 1763 is described by the Supreme Court of Canada as being the Magna Carta of Indian Rights. It is entrenced in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as supreme law today. The Canadian Crown inherited all of the deals made by the British Crown. This has already been settled by the Supreme Court. The government (who is NOT the Crown) refuses to comply with the law. Court case after court case forces them into compliance. However, the Supreme Court has said that negotiation is the only practical way of dealing with the thousands of claims and rights issues. Problem is the government tries to act like a bully and so FN usually end up in court costing us $10s of billions every year on land and rights issues that are making their way through the courts.

I was honoured to have been part of the committee that arranged the presentation by the Queen. Somewhere in the archives of this forum there is a posting by me in the fall of 2009 hinting at it. Oh yes...and the "two representatives" were the elected Chiefs of Six Nations and The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, respectively. The presentation was political, not religious. And I heard from someone who is close to the PMO that Harper got a few elbows and was told by the Queen to play nice with the Mohawks. Less than 3 months later Harper announced 3 initiatives that benefited First Nations. No coincidence....

Nope. Mitchell Map 1757. Jeffreys Map 1776 show their territorial possession and the Royal Proclamation 1763 cast it in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Once the Haldimand claim is out of the way ($14 trillion) Ontario will be next. Nice thing about the British was they were immaculate record keepers - even keeping personal notes that are now in the archives that show that Indian Agents and negotiators were trying to swindle the Natives during treaty negotiations.

Its the consequence of 200 years of ignoring our agreements and treaties. While it would be impossible to settle the full amount in cash, perpetual care agreements with the First Nations might be a practical way for us to pay off our debt and obligations.

The $77 trillion is the approximate value of Southern Ontario using the method devised by the Supreme Court of Canada in determining fair value. Southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River is Six Nations territory and they have never surrendered it. Although their current lawsuit against the government over the Haldimand Tract has a value of about $14 trillion. The point is that if JF is really interest in settling the issues, these are a couple of them. Pay the First Nations what we owe to their trust, and settle all lands claims...oops! That would bankrupt Canada....really....

Not that I doubt your sincerity, but does your idea of "settling it" include the full $2 trillion trust and the additional $75 trillion for the lands claim settlement of Ontario? Or how about the sharing of all the resources, including royalties and stakes in the companies?

Apparently too, the Occupiers had about $10,000 left over in their account and donated it to restore the park....

Enbridge cannot supplant the Crown's duty to consultation. Rather resource agreements between developers and First Nations are simple contracts, where the First Nation still holds all control over their lands.

Hearings do not fulfill the Crown's duty to consult. Consultation must be directly with the affected First Nation(s), involved a clear presentation of the proposal, identification of concerns, negotiation, accommodation of those concerns and compromise and conciliation where they cannot be fully accommodated to present the least impact on the First Nation rights. A hearing just doesn't cut it.

It is not required under the law for First Nations to collect taxes on goods sold on a reserve. However, the packaged smokes manufactured by federally licensed places like Rainbow Tobacco in Kahnawake and Grand River Enterprises in Six Nations pay hundreds of millions in excise taxes every year. These smokes are also sold along the bag varieties in the smoke shops. So the answer is "yes, they do pay tax in the Cigarette Kiosks" since excise taxes are collected along with the purchase of Native brand cigarettes.

Add to that that it is estimated that more 1/3 more of Aboriginal people do not participate in or self-identify as Aboriginal in the census. So off-reserve populations could be much higher.

As I said, you don't know squat. Aboriginal corporations are not "Indians" under the Indian Act and are treated just like ours are. They must pay tax, submit CPP and EI on behalf of their employees just like other corporations do. Indians working off reserve but living on reserve still must pay tax, as well as businesses who do work off reserve. Indians who work on reserve do not pay tax that is true, but there are few businesses on reserve and other than the Band Administration, most Indians pay tax even when they live on reserve. Goods delivered to an Indian on reserve do not pay HST. However, goods purchased off reserve by an Indian for use off reserve are taxable. When goods are taken back to the reserve, the Provincial RST is exempt, but Indians still must pay the federal portion of the HST. You don't know squat. I work with this stuff every day and you have been lying.

I work with First Nation business every day. I also sit on a number of financial boards with First Nation business owners. You don't know squat. Aboriginal people pay as much in taxes as we all do.

The reality is Aboriginal people pay as much in taxes as the rest of us. The overall unemployment rate of Aboriginal people is less than the Newfoundland rate. As well Aboriginal businesses pay into the tax base and the economy as much as our businesses do. Aboriginal corporations are not tax free even when located on reserve. One company, Grand River Enterprises at Six Nations paid $150 million in excise taxes alone. That also means of course their gross revenues were about $15 billion, most of which is spent in and around Southern Ontario.

Your girlish fears of a theocracy are unfounded, since the OP is about a democratic process using its people power to support leaders who have faith in their religious institutions. If we are to believe you then we should all fear the Republicans in the US since the majority of them are Christian fundamentalists.

Ya right. The propaganda of the right wing capitalists.....

Ya. Self-determination is a b#tch for capitalists wanting them to rape their economies in a free market.

The fact is that it is highly unlikely the laws will ever be changed, since the amending process requires the consent of Canadians through the Legislatures. Especially when it comes to Aboriginal rights there is much more at stake - international law for example - that will dominate the discussions around any attempts to lessen rights. Rather, the amendment process was envisioned to provide an avenue to strengthen and consolidate rights, not abrogate them. Then there is a doctrine in law that compels the Crown to act in the best interests of Aboriginal people. This doctrine would be violated and the entire trust of Parliament would be brought into question. For that reason alone, there would be no changes to the Constitution....that and the fact that to violate treaties would likely unleash a revolt by Aboriginal people, and Canadians and Americans that support them. I hardly doubt that Canada would have a stomach for a civil war in our own backyards.

You already are. If you didn't want to get called on it then you shouldn't have lied in the first place. You might want to ask for a refund for any education you are receiving. It isn't working.

Try again. There are no "unwritten" conventions. Informal rules are still written down and cannot be changed on a whim. Mostly they are the "Honour of the Crown" procedures that require adherence to protocols and customs that are part of the document parliamentary procedure. But they are ALL written down and cannot be changed on a whim. As I said earlier. You don't know squat.

Don't be stupid, again. Everything is written down in Constitutional language. While interpretations are made by courts from time to time, the laws are still part of the the written Constitution. There are no ethereal clauses....except of course in your "sugar plums" thinking. But of course there are the unsubstantiated statements you make which are in fact lies.

Yup. Nothing is "unwritten" when it comes to the Honour of the Crown.

Sure it is. Just like your attempt to back peddle and say "unwritten" conventions can be changed. There are no "unwritten" conventions and Parliament is bound by the Constitution.