$127 Million cut from reservation housing

[Shady]

Then well file a lawsout similar to those filed against Tabacco companies for their share of contributing to lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. That'll probably be in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars.

[WIP]

That's ok that it's tax free. We'll just subtract their tax free earnings over the last couple hundred years, as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars they've received each year over the last couple hundred years, as well as their share of the cost of the use of social services and roads over the past couple hundred years from any monies that the government owes them.

You are like many idiots I talk to, who are totally ignorant of Canadian history, and would lead us into a shooting war on these land claims issues. Conservatives are always trumpeting how highly they respect the rule of law....well, there were a lot of agreements made and treaties signed before Canada became a nation, because unwillingness to do so may have led to the British being driven out and never having the opportunity to turn a colony into a nation. It would be ruinously expensive to follow them to the letter, or to foment a civil war, and that's what compromise is all about.

[Shady]

You are like many idiots I talk to, who are totally ignorant of Canadian history, and would lead us into a shooting war on these land claims issues. Conservatives are always trumpeting how highly they respect the rule of law....well, there were a lot of agreements made and treaties signed before Canada became a nation, because unwillingness to do so may have led to the British being driven out and never having the opportunity to turn a colony into a nation. It would be ruinously expensive to follow them to the letter, or to foment a civil war, and that's what compromise is all about.

Nope, you're the one that's completely ignorant of Canadian history, and especially history that pre-dates the existence of Canada.

[charter.rights]

That's ok that it's tax free. We'll just subtract their tax free earnings over the last couple hundred years, as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars they've received each year over the last couple hundred years, as well as their share of the cost of the use of social services and roads over the past couple hundred years from any monies that the government owes them.

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?

[charter.rights]

Nope, you're the one that's completely ignorant of Canadian history, and especially history that pre-dates the existence of Canada.

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

[charter.rights]

Don't forget, some of the land, like around Oshweken, has been poisoned by decades of clandestine industrial dumping. The real tragedy when it comes to land claims disputes, such as along the Grand River, is that taking the quiet road of going through the courts and talking to the politicians went nowhere, and weren't even considered newsworthy by local media. Until the road blocks went up, and a local developer in Caledonia had his new subdivision occupied, it wasn't a news story, and many people who moved to Caledonia in recent years, didn't know anything about the history, and the chance that they could be stuck in the middle of it.

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.

Edited June 14, 2011 by charter.rights

[Shwa]

Do they pay taxes on that profit?

Do they pay taxes on that profit? Did they pay taxes on that profit 300 years ago? Because, you know, Shady's Law says that "Nobody's stopping them from living like they did 300 years ago."

Under Shady's Law - the very assertion that you raised - not paying taxes, etc., should not be a problem now should it? And they should be able to pack up and pick any old piece of land they want to farm or manufacture goods on or trade with whomever they wanted to or do whatever else they wanted to do, like they did 300 years ago.

Right Shady?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been cited here as the basis for land claims disputes by First Nations. Stangely I find that after having read the document, of all other things the Crown lays claim to all lands within the nation, The crown reserves specific land for the use of First Nations. After this proclamation, other documents describe a means of transferring title to said lands to other than First Nations peoples.

So in my view according to the proclamation, the crown owned all the land as defined within the document. It was the crowns, not native lands that was dispersed following the proclamation. Any questionable title therefore would revert to the "original owner" as defined by said law.

I am sure that I will be told there is another way to look at the issue, but that is how I see it.

[charter.rights]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been cited here as the basis for land claims disputes by First Nations. Stangely I find that after having read the document, of all other things the Crown lays claim to all lands within the nation, The crown reserves specific land for the use of First Nations. After this proclamation, other documents describe a means of transferring title to said lands to other than First Nations peoples.

So in my view according to the proclamation, the crown owned all the land as defined within the document. It was the crowns, not native lands that was dispersed following the proclamation. Any questionable title therefore would revert to the "original owner" as defined by said law.

I am sure that I will be told there is another way to look at the issue, but that is how I see it.

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.

Edited June 15, 2011 by charter.rights

[Topaz]

But what does this mean:

"Above Canadian law" ?

I'm not sure on this but doesn't that mean, when we became Canadians in 1947 from Britian, Canada took over the treaties and the law concerning the First Nation? Thoughts?

[Topaz]

For anyone who wants to know more about what the government is doing for the First Nations and what it hasn't done, I direct you to the senate committee meetings on the First Nations. They are there to tell their story of what was promised and what has and hasn't be done by the government. So far the Tories haven't done much but there's hope the present Minister has compassion to make things right. Canadians can learn many things by watching these hearing on the C-PAC on TV or computer.

[charter.rights]

I'm not sure on this but doesn't that mean, when we became Canadians in 1947 from Britian, Canada took over the treaties and the law concerning the First Nation? Thoughts?

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.

[g_bambino]

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been cited here as the basis for land claims disputes by First Nations. Stangely I find that after having read the document, of all other things the Crown lays claim to all lands within the nation, The crown reserves specific land for the use of First Nations. After this proclamation, other documents describe a means of transferring title to said lands to other than First Nations peoples.

So in my view according to the proclamation, the crown owned all the land as defined within the document. It was the crowns, not native lands that was dispersed following the proclamation. Any questionable title therefore would revert to the "original owner" as defined by said law.

You're pretty much right. The Royal Proclamation is quite specific about the British Crown holding sovereignty over all its North American territories at the time and the way in which that land is split between that reserved for the Aboriginals and that reserved for the colonists. It then proceeds to outline how, as owner of all that land, the Crown is to act as broker of any land sales or swaps between the two aforementioned parties.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III to establish a basis of government administration in the N American territories formally ceded by France to Britain in the Treaty of PARIS, 1763, following the SEVEN YEARS' WAR. It established the constitutional framework for the negotiation of Indian treaties with the aboriginal inhabitants of large sections of Canada. As such, it has been labelled an "Indian Magna Carta" or an "Indian Bill of Rights."

King George reserved the western lands to the "several nations or tribes of Indians" that were under his "protection" as their exclusive "hunting grounds." As sovereign of this territory, however, the king claimed ultimate "Dominion" over the entire region. He further prohibited any private person from directly buying the interest of native groups in their ancestral soil. This exclusive right of purchase he rather reserved for himself and his heirs alone. As detailed in the Proclamation, he set out a procedure whereby an Indian group, if they freely chose, could sell their land rights to properly authorized representatives of the British monarch. This could only take place at some public meeting called especially for the purpose. It was thus that the constitutional basis was established for the future negotiation of Indian treaties in British N America. The Royal Proclamation thereby established the British Crown as the essential central agent in the transfer of Indian lands to colonial settlers.

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Though the Canadian Crown has grown out of and split legally from the British Crown, the Royal Proclamation remains in effect as a part of the country's constitution and thus continues to bind the Canadian monarch and all who live under her sovereignty, including the Aboriginal peoples both on and off the reserves.

[AngusThermopyle]

Most reserves are on barren grounds.

The Chippewas of Rama reserve is another really nice one. I frequently go up there as thats where Leadbetters butcher shop is located, just outside the reserve actually, I love the Cowboy steaks and burgers. The reserve comprises of about 2500 acres located on the eastern shore of lake Couchiching, There are about 1500 members with about half of them living off reserve. This is a beautifull location that many would give anything to live in. Its always a pleasure to visit this area.

Another really nice one is in the Fenelon Falls area, I forget the name of it now but it is also located on a lake shore. I'll have to call my friend who lives up there and ask him what its name is. Really really nice place though.

[charter.rights]

The Chippewas of Rama reserve is another really nice one. I frequently go up there as thats where Leadbetters butcher shop is located, just outside the reserve actually, I love the Cowboy steaks and burgers. The reserve comprises of about 2500 acres located on the eastern shore of lake Couchiching, There are about 1500 members with about half of them living off reserve. This is a beautifull location that many would give anything to live in. Its always a pleasure to visit this area.

Another really nice one is in the Fenelon Falls area, I forget the name of it now but it is also located on a lake shore. I'll have to call my friend who lives up there and ask him what its name is. Really really nice place though.

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.

[AngusThermopyle]

Economic viability is not tied inseperably to Agriculture. As for these areas being barren, well thats simply not true. In fact a great many farms exist in these areas, agriculture also encompasses animal husbandry, not just crop farming. Relatives of mine live up in the Lindsay area and even though its rocky they run a very successful beef concern raising Black Angus cattle. Agriculture is not the only route that can be taken to prosperity though. Point in case is the Rama reserve. Even though they don't farm they are a highly successful community, as I said earlier the area is a very beautifull place to live as well. And no, the Casino is not the only form of income for the community, there are also many small buisnesses and many work as fishing guides, run campgrounds and other such occupations.

The way you put it makes it sound as though the reserves are all located on the surface of the moon or some such place. This is simply not true and is, in quite a few instances an extreme exageration. What really is puzzling though is that you refuse to acknowledge the successes that have been achieved by some reserves and thier occupants. One would think that these would be a source of pride and an example of what can be achieved,not marginalized and dismissed out of hand.

[cybercoma]

This conversation about sustainable agriculture is hilarious too because that's exactly what our government wanted the natives to be doing generations ago, but the First Nations were resisting it. Western farming was not part of their lifestyle. By the time we were trying to push them into that industry to help generate profits from the land, agriculture was moving towards a model of reduced labour and mass production systems. It had little to do with having a sustainable co-operative relationship with the land. When the First Nation's traditional modes of survival and way of life became impossible to continue, they resorted to putting their children in residential schools in the hopes that they could learn the techniques of Western agriculture and ensure the survival of future generations. I'm sure I don't need to rehash what we did to their children in our residential schools.

[cybercoma]

Economic viability is not tied inseperably to Agriculture. As for these areas being barren, well thats simply not true. In fact a great many farms exist in these areas, agriculture also encompasses animal husbandry, not just crop farming.

Pretty tough to engage in sustainable animal husbandry with no means for crop farming. You would have to import fodder, bedding, etc.

[Shady]

Pretty tough to engage in sustainable animal husbandry with no means for crop farming. You would have to import fodder, bedding, etc.

You pass that land on to anyone else, and there'd be farms up and running in a very short period of time. Stop making excuses.

[charter.rights]

Economic viability is not tied inseperably to Agriculture. As for these areas being barren, well thats simply not true. In fact a great many farms exist in these areas, agriculture also encompasses animal husbandry, not just crop farming. Relatives of mine live up in the Lindsay area and even though its rocky they run a very successful beef concern raising Black Angus cattle. Agriculture is not the only route that can be taken to prosperity though. Point in case is the Rama reserve. Even though they don't farm they are a highly successful community, as I said earlier the area is a very beautifull place to live as well. And no, the Casino is not the only form of income for the community, there are also many small buisnesses and many work as fishing guides, run campgrounds and other such occupations.

The way you put it makes it sound as though the reserves are all located on the surface of the moon or some such place. This is simply not true and is, in quite a few instances an extreme exageration. What really is puzzling though is that you refuse to acknowledge the successes that have been achieved by some reserves and thier occupants. One would think that these would be a source of pride and an example of what can be achieved,not marginalized and dismissed out of hand.

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.

[charter.rights]

You pass that land on to anyone else, and there'd be farms up and running in a very short period of time. Stop making excuses.

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.

[WIP]

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.

Also worth noting that, even if we're talking about the Inuit in the Arctic, the traditional way of life is rapidly falling apart because of rapid decline of the winter icepacks and thinning of sea ice.

[Shady]

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.

There's people elswhere in the world that would love to have access to that type of land. Stop making excuses.

[charter.rights]

There's people elswhere in the world that would love to have access to that type of land. Stop making excuses.

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.

[RNG]

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.

I can't talk about Ontario Indian lands, but I have had a great relationship with several really rich First Nations farmers in Alberta that did just fine on "Indian Lands". My son and one of "them" are still great friends.