Atleo calls for end of Indian Act within five years

[Hydraboss]

I must say ... you've certainly got a burr up your butt. Have you tried colon cleanse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Combination_enema_and_douche_syringe.jpg

Sorry, wrong time of year. Deadline for submission was April 30 at midnight.

[charter.rights]

I must say ... you've certainly got a burr up your butt. Have you tried colon cleanse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Combination_enema_and_douche_syringe.jpg

He would but he says it doesn't taste that good...

[Hydraboss]

Right up your alley. Tell me another...is the government here to help me?

Not only is the government helping you, it's babysitting you. Has been for generations. The rest of the world is experiencing this whole crisis where adult children are beginning to live at home into their 30's, but forgets to look in their own backyards at the reserves where fully-dependent families are spending their entire lives on handouts. My kids are 12 and 13 and they get an allowance. Thank god I won't have to pay that forever like we do to indians on reserve. At least my son and daughter will learn to stand on their own two feet.

[charter.rights]

Not only is the government helping you, it's babysitting you. Has been for generations. The rest of the world is experiencing this whole crisis where adult children are beginning to live at home into their 30's, but forgets to look in their own backyards at the reserves where fully-dependent families are spending their entire lives on handouts. My kids are 12 and 13 and they get an allowance. Thank god I won't have to pay that forever like we do to indians on reserve. At least my son and daughter will learn to stand on their own two feet.

Government isn't help ME....But then again I am not FN.

As far as First Nations people go, their issues are not too far off of our own, compared to remote rural communities. Funny though that corporations and farmers received 5 times what First Nations receive and you don't take issue with that. It isn't you money anyway and if you were paying your share you might have something to complain about. Must be a closet Tory. You sure sound and act like Mr. Falange.

[Jack Weber]

Government isn't help ME....But then again I am not FN.

As far as First Nations people go, their issues are not too far off of our own, compared to remote rural communities. Funny though that corporations and farmers received 5 times what First Nations receive and you don't take issue with that. It isn't you money anyway and if you were paying your share you might have something to complain about. Must be a closet Tory. You sure sound and act like Mr. Falange.

Not only is this clown like Mr.Falange,he's an admitted Albertan secessionist!!!

[bebe]

Not only is this clown like Mr.Falange,he's an admitted Albertan secessionist!!!

I could never figure that out ... I mean where is Alberta going to go?

Up a creek without a paddle perchance?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Done.

Congrats you've just gained a spot on my ignored list you ignorant fool.

[Jack Weber]

I could never figure that out ... I mean where is Alberta going to go?

Up a creek without a paddle perchance?

This clown has got his up his arrogant Albertan ass.He thinks this country owes Alberta.He hates the East and openly admitted to me that he wants either to have the country of Alberta,or join Montana!

A traitor is a traitor...He should be treated as such...

Edited July 22, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

This clown has got his up his arrogant Albertan ass.He thinks this country owes Alberta.He hates the East and openly admitted to me that he wants either to have the country of Alberta,or join Montana!

A traitor is a traitor...He should be treated as such...

No, treat him according to his own standards. You only need to replace the object of his ire, with a similar one I call 'Alberta:'

Not only is the government helping Alberta, it's babysitting Alberta. Has been for generations. The rest of the world is experiencing this whole crisis where adult children are beginning to live at home into their 30's, but forgets to look in their own backyards in Edmonton and Calgary where fully-dependent families and corporations are spending their entire lives on handouts - when their not murdering one another or wrecking the environment. Or being second rate in hockey. My kids are 17 and 19 and they work and go to school. Thank God I won't have to pay that forever like we do to Albertans. At least my son and daughter will learn to stand on their own two feet in an atmosphere of intellectual and political freedom.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Shwa

[g_bambino]

Actually, I was quoting Sec 35 ...

Section 35

(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of

Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed.

http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr6/blms/6-3-2c.pdf

... only to point out that Aboriginal rights were and are existing rights that are recognised in our Constitution, not rights bestowed upon Aboriginal people by Canada nor by the Crown.

Fair enough on the clause; my apologies. But I didn't argue against your claim that the rights are recognised as existing from pre-colonial times; in fact, what I quoted from the Charter says the Royal Proclamation "recognised" aboriginal rights and freedoms, not that it established them. But, rights aren't guaranteed; they're an idea rather than an element of the universe, which means that just because one group felt it had rights prior to a certain date doesn't mean those rights can't be taken away by another larger and/or more powerful group with a different concept of rights.

Of course, the Royal Proclamation affirms that the larger and more powerful British presence in North America didn't take that route; hence, our constitution continues to recognise native rights. But that recognition simultaneously establishes the rights and freedoms in the sense of setting them down in codified law, thereby protecting them within a larger institution. Which gets me to my ultimate point: the constitution can't be considered valid as an affirmation of aboriginal rights but at the same time invalid as an affirmation of the Queen's sovereignty over all of Canada, including First Nations territories. You can't pick and choose.

[sp]

Edited July 22, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

I'm not convinced that Aboriginal lands and governance can come 'under' royal or colonial jurisdiction, just because the Queen (or our federal government) says so. Our Constitution recognizes and affirms "existing Aboriginal and treaty rights". Those Aboriginal rights don't exist because the Queen (or our laws) said so: They exist because they occupied this land for thousands of years prior and those rights cannot be extinguished, regardless of what our documents say.

I agree with the sentiment, but as a matter of constitutional law, they are, I'm afraid, informative only. What counts so far as actual obligations of the Crown to First Nations is the constitutional thread that begins with the assertion of Sovereign's claim to those territories of British North America, the Proclamation giving an official position to the residents of those lands prior to what amounts to annexation, or probably more properly, the establishing of a protectorate over the "Indian nations".

While I think a lot of Canadians probably were never aware, or had forgotten, the native peoples have not, and many have viewed the Queen as the protector of their rights. This extends far beyond Canada to many of the indigenous peoples who live in Her Realms. I think it was a shock to a lot of Separatists in the run-up to the 1995 Referendum to find out that many of the native peoples in Quebec were quite against this, fearing, and not without reason, that an independent Quebec would not have the same rights and obligations enshrined as were under Canadian law.

Edited July 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[dre]

Bryan, when Trudeau and the boys wrote up the new constitution, they also wrote up the conditions for any amendments or changes.

If you read them you will quickly see that it would require such a high majority among not just the MPs but also the provinces that in the real world it could never happen!

In effect, Trudeau got the Constitution 'cast in stone' so that it would never be changed.Many have wondered since then if this happened deliberately or by simple oversight.

Some lean towards 'deliberate'. For instance, the 'right to property' was left out, to the delight of the NDP! It will never get included under the amending formula. Unlike the documents of other democracies, ours can never change with the times or be improved if it originally had any flaws.

That's why you're getting the laughing comments in this thread. This point has been mentioned many times before. People aren't really laughing at you so much as laughing bitterly about the situation.

I dont believe thats the case. I think if you could get some kind of conensus within the native community that this would be a case where an amendment is possible.

[ToadBrother]

Bryan, when Trudeau and the boys wrote up the new constitution, they also wrote up the conditions for any amendments or changes.

If you read them you will quickly see that it would require such a high majority among not just the MPs but also the provinces that in the real world it could never happen!

In effect, Trudeau got the Constitution 'cast in stone' so that it would never be changed.Many have wondered since then if this happened deliberately or by simple oversight.

Have you read the amending formulas? There's nothing terribly onerous about them. It requires a special kind of majority for any amendment that is going to effect the Federal government and the provinces, but so what? You don't want constitutions easily amended.

[Moonbox]

Have you read the amending formulas? There's nothing terribly onerous about them. It requires a special kind of majority for any amendment that is going to effect the Federal government and the provinces, but so what? You don't want constitutions easily amended.

It depends on the amendment. As long as it wasn't something that screwed one province over the other, it could fairly easily be done.

[capricorn]

I've listened to Atleo speak on Power and Politics earlier. I must say he's a good speaker. What I understood is that the First Nations want to do away with the Indian Act and be treated just like any other province, complete with transfer payments. Is that anyone else's understanding of the overall position and objective of First Nations?

[Smallc]

I've listened to Atleo speak on Power and Politics earlier. I must say he's a good speaker. What I understood is that the First Nations want to do away with the Indian Act and be treated just like any other province, complete with transfer payments. Is that anyone else's understanding of the overall position and objective of First Nations?

If that's the idea...it's an excellent idea.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've listened to Atleo speak on Power and Politics earlier. I must say he's a good speaker. What I understood is that the First Nations want to do away with the Indian Act and be treated just like any other province, complete with transfer payments. Is that anyone else's understanding of the overall position and objective of First Nations?

That sounds like something they would be interested in. Better solution IMO than each group of First Nation essentially becoming their one municipality. There is a question of how to facilitate it though as the First Nations people are spread out so much.

[ToadBrother]

That sounds like something they would be interested in. Better solution IMO than each group of First Nation essentially becoming their one municipality. There is a question of how to facilitate it though as the First Nations people are spread out so much.

And that's where it falls on its head, and why more effort has been put into the "municipal" model. It would be a very daunting thing indeed to make the entire First Nations population into a provincial entity. Not impossible, mind you, but difficult, not to mention the issues it would raise from the provincial point of view. While, strictly speaking, reserves are not part of the province, a lot of the outstanding treaty negotiations have and will involve Provincial Crown land, and I think it would be exceedingly difficult to move to a provincial-style model while there are outstanding treaties and other issues.

Still, in essence the Indian Act creates a governmental system that is based upon native lands, so I suppose if you can work with that model, moving to a provincial model is as much as anything redefining what already exists. Mind you, I'd love to see what Quebec Separatists would think if First Nations within the boundaries of La Belle Province suddenly became part of the Province of First Nations.

[bebe]

Fair enough on the clause; my apologies.

But I didn't argue against your claim that the rights are recognised as existing from pre-colonial times; in fact, what I quoted from the Charter says the Royal Proclamation "recognised" aboriginal rights and freedoms, not that it established them. But, rights aren't guaranteed; they're an idea rather than an element of the universe, which means that just because one group felt it had rights prior to a certain date doesn't mean those rights can't be taken away by another larger and/or more powerful group with a different concept of rights.

I guess that's what I'm questioning, and I'm not sure you've proven your case.

Of course, the Royal Proclamation affirms that the larger and more powerful British presence in North America didn't take that route; hence, our constitution continues to recognise native rights. But that recognition simultaneously establishes the rights and freedoms in the sense of setting them down in codified law, thereby protecting them within a larger institution. Which gets me to my ultimate point: the constitution can't be considered valid as an affirmation of aboriginal rights but at the same time invalid as an affirmation of the Queen's sovereignty over all of Canada, including First Nations territories. You can't pick and choose.

[sp]

It seems to be a legal conundrum, since "all of Canada" as we know it now, didn't exist in those days, and the Royal Proclamation contains this clause:

upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, (underline added)

It seems the Constitution still leaves the question unanswered: Can the King/Queen plant a flag and claim land already occupied? Personally, I don't think so. I think that's why the treaties we have with Aboriginal people are so important - because to the extent that they were obtained with informed consent, they are the legal foundation of our settlement here, not the Crown's flag-planting.

[charter.rights]

I guess that's what I'm questioning, and I'm not sure you've proven your case.

It seems to be a legal conundrum, since "all of Canada" as we know it now, didn't exist in those days, and the Royal Proclamation contains this clause:

upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, (underline added)

It seems the Constitution still leaves the question unanswered: Can the King/Queen plant a flag and claim land already occupied? Personally, I don't think so. I think that's why the treaties we have with Aboriginal people are so important - because to the extent that they were obtained with informed consent, they are the legal foundation of our settlement here, not the Crown's flag-planting.

The problem in understanding comes from the mistaken belief that somehow the Crown must have dominion over all the land and native people in order to recognize and protect them. Incorrect, just as Canadian Armed Forces now protect Afghans from the Taliban, or other insurgents.

Once the Americans kicked their asses out of the US the British had little left over from the Royal Proclamation days. The primary focus of the Proclamation was to declare dominion over the people of the New England colonies and to recognize that certain "Indian" lands were off limits to them. The British needed Six Nations help in securing territory so that settlers would not be attacked and killed on the frontiers. They needed Six Nations to secure trade who could travel into the far reaches of the wilderness and bring back resources in exchange for trade goods.

On the other hand Six Nations needed the British too. They quickly made a military alliance in order to obtain the necessary weaponry and powder to maintain control of the wilderness. They needed the trade goods in order to entice natives that were deep in the wilderness to trade with them, instead of the Algonquin. They took the side in the French-English War that won and as such secured their northern territory from the French. More importantly however, it that they needed the British to control their people who often interfered with, and enticed individuals into giving up vast chucks of land.

So the Proclamation was the answer to a litany of frontier problems, beneficial to both parties.

I know many of you get upset I keep coming back to this, but the Mitchell Map 1757 - issued 6 years before the King's Proclamation (not very long before in those days) identifies and refines the basis for the Royal Proclamation. It has detail and comments that certify the number of treaties and agreements reached. It identifies territory of the native people as they knew in that day. And it is clear about southern Ontario, and the rest of Canada as being outside Great Britians care and control.

This one note on Mitchells Map says pretty much what Great Britain thought of the northern wilderness:

The long and Barbarous Names lately given to some of these Northern Parts of Canada and the Lakes we have not inserted, as they are of no use and uncertain Authority

So the first part of the Proclamation paragraph sets out how it is to be interpreted:

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection,

Note that the British see the native people as living "under their protection", not under their Dominion. So perhaps we can sever this one point for now and agree?

....should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds

Now this is the contentious interesting part. Because one must have a thorough understanding of the history of treaty making and friendship in order to decide how this is to be read. I'll try to keep it brief:

1. The British in the Proclamation are asserting Dominion over occupied areas of North America. Canada was not occupied by British subjects but was being settled by French and Metis. However the north shores of Ontario and Erie were massively populated by the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations) people, the Algonquins and the Mississauga among others.

2. Six Nations was going into Canada frequently to trade and it concerned the British that the Algonquin in particular were coming south to trade and in doing so getting into skirmishes with the settlers. The British asked Six Nations to take control of this problem.

3. The westward expansion of the colonies was occurring at a faster rate then the British could make treaties and it often resulted in bloodshed on the frontier. The British needed Six Nations help to make peace with the western tribes to allow the expansion to occur. Unfortunately Six Nations was often caught in the same trap being pushed out of New York and west and south. There are a number of treaties prior to the Proclamation that deal with these intrusions.

4. Sensing the growing sentiment in the new colonies for self-government the British had to assert that even on the frontiers they were still in charge.

5. The British had no use for the northern parts.

So in essence, because of the unrest and the need to control the frontier, the British made an assertion over the people and their small colonies, since ownership of all other lands were still uncertain.

"...in the Possession of such Parts...not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them."

And further:

...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

So the Proclamation is talking about Dominion over their colonies and prohibiting expansion....

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And...

And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

Note: the "countries described" means those parts "not having been ceded to or purchased", and "reserved" to Indians.

So here we have the following summary.

1. The Governors of the specific Colonies identified shall not create deeds or offer any land outside of their colonies.

2. The British prohibit individual purchase of land from the Indians

3. The British demand eviction of squatters and settlers on land that has not been ceded or purchased by the Crown.

In the history these salient points address the primary Six Nations complaints about expansion, that the British tried to deal with in a number of treaties prior to 1763. So in summary when the Proclamation talks about "Dominion" it is only over the colonies, not over unceded frontier and wilderness occupied by the Indians.

Edited July 23, 2010 by charter.rights

[scribblet]

If that's the idea...it's an excellent idea.

Would the transfer payments replace the billions they get now, or be on top of ?

[Smallc]

Would the transfer payments replace the billions they get now, or be on top of ?

If they were a province, the other payments would no longer exist. They would bet the health and social transfer, the infrastructure money, and equalization (along with other, similar, programs).

Edited July 23, 2010 by Smallc

[charter.rights]

If they were a province, the other payments would no longer exist. They would bet the health and social transfer, the infrastructure money, and equalization (along with other, similar, programs).

Such was the subject proposal by Six Nations Band Chief for a "perpetual care agreement" in exchange for the $200 billion to $1 trillion trust account, and some of the current land claims. Seems though the government rejected it without any consideration. I wonder why?

[Smallc]

Such was the subject proposal by Six Nations Band Chief for a "perpetual care agreement" in exchange for the $200 billion to $1 trillion trust account, and some of the current land claims. Seems though the government rejected it without any consideration. I wonder why?

Probably the $200B to $1T.

[g_bambino]

It seems the Constitution still leaves the question unanswered: Can the King/Queen plant a flag and claim land already occupied?

The question is not "Can the King or Queen?" but "Did the Kings and Queens?" and the answer is: yes. The history is there: North America was explored by and partitioned amongst European monarchs, the deliniations shifting through wars and treaties amongst themselves. As far as the Europeans saw it, the King or Queen was owner of the territory, the aboriginal population, like the colonials, were merely inhabitants. Hence, the Royal Proclamation - a constitution for the new territories gained by George III in the wake of the Treaty of Paris - clearly illustrates that the King had sovereignty over all the land and the authority to divide it and dictate who - aboriginal and colonial alike - was to live where and fall under what government.

It's kind of hard to argue that this document means nothing because it was imposed on the aboriginals population, when its the First Nations themselves who hold the Royal Proclamation in high regard, seeing it as their Magna Carta.

[grammar]

Edited July 23, 2010 by g_bambino