Constitutional Reform

[charter.rights]

Here's the next lines:

You owe us the fruits of your labour

Just because we say!

The contract is forever 'cuz we

Remember it that way!

"So keep giving us your money

So we all end up like Greece!"

You may say I'm a dreamer

But at least I buy my own.

Of course, you are a dreamer.

[Tilter]

I get that you may not very be smart, but it might help to look in a book now and then, or learn how to use a search engine BEFORE you make inept comments.

First Nations have never been conquered. In fact if you read the treaties and the Supreme Court rulings that go along with them, you will find that we ended up with the shorter straw. Those treaties apparently are binding as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows.....forever.... Aboriginal rights on the other hand are exempt from the kinds of stipulations, laws and regulations that most of us are plagued by. Their freedoms are much more desirable than ours. Their potential much greater than our potential - not being saddled with unfair taxation, and burdened with the rules under which we create our opportunities. They still hold title to much of Canada, and hold extensive rights over the balance of it. We are the renters. We are beholding to First Nations. And as their legal rights are justified and quantified by the courts, we stand to lose much more than we have gained.

I would suggest that you like the rest of us, are a loser in those deals. But given your ignorant statements that are beyond the justification of a decent education on aboriginal issues, I would suggest that it is pretty predictable on first glance.

What I stated was & is a fact--- the Aboriginals in North America were defeated. They might not like to admit it & if you are blind to actualities you will agree to the weak statement of land ownership. The land under cities like Toronto, Vancouver or for that matter, any town village or hamlet in Canada was not imported from Europe or outer space but was taken from the Aboriginals long ago. The might have received a few beads in exchange but there is no doubt--- the "relieving" of Canadian land from Aboriginal people is in fact a defeat of them, not by treaty but by fact.

My forefathers arrived in Canada in the 17th century and so I now have many relatives of what are called "natives". I do not try to claim any special rights or tax breaks because of this relationship because I have lived in, prospered and served Canada and except for those available to any other Canadian, I have not received any special funding, rights or tax breaks than any other Canadian resident and also believe that no other Canadian resident should receive any special rights.

By the way, I am likely better educated than are you, have likely read more books than have you and also have lived in this country longer than have you-- don't try to stuff that "uneducated or unread" crap up my butt--- or I'll literally kick yours.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Tilter

[fellowtraveller]

Canada is a signatory to international conventions and our courts do recognize international law. An Aboriginal person from Peru oversees Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure it meets UN standards. This is a result of court orders.

Our governments may negotiate in bad faith, but the courts are not anymore, and the judicial branch of government does have jurisdiction.

Your comments suggest you think Canada can continue to abuse Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal people without consequence and that isn't so.

You are also delusional if you believe that Canada has abrogated any of its sovereign rights to the UN or any other international body.

The judicial branch does not have jurisdiction, it exists to interpret and enforce legislation formulated by the government, not the other way around.

My comments suggest nothing of the sort, I am simply pointing out that you are wrong.

[charter.rights]

What I stated was & is a fact--- the Aboriginals in North America were defeated. They might not like to admit it & if you are blind to actualities you will agree to the weak statement of land ownership. The land under cities like Toronto, Vancouver or for that matter, any town village or hamlet in Canada was not imported from Europe or outer space but was taken from the Aboriginals long ago. The might have received a few beads in exchange but there is no doubt--- the "relieving" of Canadian land from Aboriginal people is in fact a defeat of them, not by treaty but by fact.

My forefathers arrived in Canada in the 17th century and so I now have many relatives of what are called "natives". I do not try to claim any special rights or tax breaks because of this relationship because I have lived in, prospered and served Canada and except for those available to any other Canadian, I have not received any special funding, rights or tax breaks than any other Canadian resident and also believe that no other Canadian resident should receive any special rights.

By the way, I am likely better educated than are you, have likely read more books than have you and also have lived in this country longer than have you-- don't try to stuff that "uneducated or unread" crap up my butt--- or I'll literally kick yours.

ROTFLOL Mr. Internet Tough Guy?

Wrong. You have merely repeated common myth that does not resemble legal reality. Most of the land Canada sits on has never been ceded, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that conveys an absolute aboriginal right - a plenum dominum, absolute title - over land. The result is that WE have to negotiate with the affected First Nation, before we can move forward, regardless if we knew beforehand whether or not the affected First Nation holds an interest in it.

Aboriginal rights go beyond our own rights protected by the Charter. At face value that would appear that we have been subjugated by the Crown where First Nations have not. Despite that persistent ineptness you displayed with your former post, your pretending that aboriginal people have been conquered has no factual basis. Rather it appears that they were much smarter than the framers of the treaties, having convinced the court that what is written is not what is meant. And thus their oral history is given equal or better weight in court than any of our dumber ancestors.

It is highly unlikely that you are as well read as you think you are. You know Archie comics do not count as reading material (although they did at one time qualify as bathroom material). I highly doubt that you are as smart as the dumbest here among you given your propensity for making idiotic non-factual statements. Unfortunately, there are many who share your affliction and more unfortunately there is no cure for their stupidity either.

Edited September 5, 2011 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

You are also delusional if you believe that Canada has abrogated any of its sovereign rights to the UN or any other international body.

The judicial branch does not have jurisdiction, it exists to interpret and enforce legislation formulated by the government, not the other way around.

My comments suggest nothing of the sort, I am simply pointing out that you are wrong.

Canada doesn't have to abrogate authority. The UN's authority exists above and beyond what Canada thinks or wants. Just ask Muammar Gaddafi.

International rights are protected and enforced by the international community.

[Wild Bill]

Canada doesn't have to abrogate authority. The UN's authority exists above and beyond what Canada thinks or wants. Just ask Muammar Gaddafi.

International rights are protected and enforced by the international community.

Are you seriously implying that the UN would send enforcement ships, planes and/or troops against Canada?

Surely you realize that the UN has no forces of its own. It has to ask member countries to donate them for each and any mission.

What's more, these days most countries wuss out anyways, expecting Uncle Sam to do the job and have to pay the bill.

So just where is this UN enforcement going to come from? Even assuming you could get a number of nutbar terrorist nations to back your play, what resources do they have? What would they do if we simply told them to "piss off!" and fired on the first blue helmet that invaded our territory?

What would they do if we simply told them that we considered their actions to be acts of war and immediately suspended all relief, food and aid programs that we give them?

Anybody can make a wish! I'd like a pony! The question is, how do I get one and how can I look after it on a city lot?

You never seem to have anything that is "real world". Always dreams and visions, never reality.

[jacee]

Are you seriously implying that the UN would send enforcement ships, planes and/or troops against Canada?

Surely you realize that the UN has no forces of its own. It has to ask member countries to donate them for each and any mission.

What's more, these days most countries wuss out anyways, expecting Uncle Sam to do the job and have to pay the bill.

So just where is this UN enforcement going to come from? Even assuming you could get a number of nutbar terrorist nations to back your play, what resources do they have? What would they do if we simply told them to "piss off!" and fired on the first blue helmet that invaded our territory?

What would they do if we simply told them that we considered their actions to be acts of war and immediately suspended all relief, food and aid programs that we give them?

Anybody can make a wish! I'd like a pony! The question is, how do I get one and how can I look after it on a city lot?

You never seem to have anything that is "real world". Always dreams and visions, never reality.

International laws and courts exist with Canada's

Support and agreement. It's highly unlikely that Canada would act in the ways you suggest. Aboriginal rights are fact ... and law in Canada and internationally. .

Love it or leave it!

[charter.rights]

International laws and courts exist with Canada's

Support and agreement. It's highly unlikely that Canada would act in the ways you suggest. Aboriginal rights are fact ... and law in Canada and internationally. .

Love it or leave it!

Wild Bill had to create a straw man fallacy because there is no legitimate support for his point of view.

[Tilter]

Are you seriously implying that the UN would send enforcement ships, planes and/or troops against Canada?

Surely you realize that the UN has no forces of its own. It has to ask member countries to donate them for each and any mission.

What's more, these days most countries wuss out anyways, expecting Uncle Sam to do the job and have to pay the bill.

So just where is this UN enforcement going to come from? Even assuming you could get a number of nutbar terrorist nations to back your play, what resources do they have? What would they do if we simply told them to "piss off!" and fired on the first blue helmet that invaded our territory?

What would they do if we simply told them that we considered their actions to be acts of war and immediately suspended all relief, food and aid programs that we give them?

Anybody can make a wish! I'd like a pony! The question is, how do I get one and how can I look after it on a city lot?

You never seem to have anything that is "real world". Always dreams and visions, never reality.

The UN--- funded mostly by the US, Canada the UK & very little else.

Yeah--- I'm waiting to see how many Canadian (Royal Canadian at that) troops Canada will send to that UN vs Canada law enforcement encounter. I guess we could send as many as we sent to Afghanistan --- and :lol: the travel wouldn't be anywhere as tiring for the troops--- some of them could stay in their home towns to fight the good fight.

Take a good look at the real world (after checking then dollar value of the settlement the "natives" got for the land under Toronto)

[charter.rights]

The UN--- funded mostly by the US, Canada the UK & very little else.

Yeah--- I'm waiting to see how many Canadian (Royal Canadian at that) troops Canada will send to that UN vs Canada law enforcement encounter. I guess we could send as many as we sent to Afghanistan --- and :lol: the travel wouldn't be anywhere as tiring for the troops--- some of them could stay in their home towns to fight the good fight.

Take a good look at the real world (after checking then dollar value of the settlement the "natives" got for the land under Toronto)

Look! The straw man appears!

[g_bambino]

Aboriginal rights are fact...

Of course; but, only in so much as the laws - namely the 1763 Royal Proclamation, various treaties, and the Charter - sets them out.

[jacee]

Of course; but, only in so much as the laws - namely the 1763 Royal Proclamation, various treaties, and the Charter - sets them out.

And the courts interpret and apply them to today ... which they do.

[charter.rights]

And the courts interpret and apply them to today ... which they do.

To the contrary of bambino, the Royal Proclamation 1763 does not "set out" rights. It confirms and affirms them. Aboriginal rights existed prior to the Proclamation and are continued under that principle. And those rights cannot be abrogated.

[g_bambino]

And the courts interpret and apply them to today ... which they do.

Sure. So, what's being debated?

[Machjo]

G&M

This is largely an issue for English-Canadians, not French-Canadians. IMV, Canada needs to reform its constitution to change the federal government's obligations to aboriginals.

-----

I understand that we Canadians - whether French or English, Catholic or Protestant, tend to be pragmatic, polite. Whether Labrador, northern BC, Quebec or Fort McMurray, we accept a special status according to circumstance.

But this special status for aboriginals has its limits, and I think that aboriginals have abused this constitutional limit.

----

Much more fundamentally, aboriginals are smart people, know this land. Yet, too many aboriginals are in jail, illiterate. In this, the Canadian state has failed.

I thought our obligations towards the aboriginals stemmed more from international obligations involving our right to the land in exchange for certain guarantees towards aboriginals, and nothing to do with the Constitution. this would mean that a breach of contract would involve giving the land back. And since this contract is with the crown, the Monarch would unquestioningly havde to agree to it. And then there's the issue of the Monarch preserving its integrity in respect to treaties.

[g_bambino]

I thought our obligations towards the aboriginals stemmed more from international obligations involving our right to the land in exchange for certain guarantees towards aboriginals, and nothing to do with the Constitution. this would mean that a breach of contract would involve giving the land back. And since this contract is with the crown, the Monarch would unquestioningly havde to agree to it. And then there's the issue of the Monarch preserving its integrity in respect to treaties.

The agreement between the parties - the Crown and the Aboriginals - is set out in the treaties and the treaties form part of the constitution. It's not clear, though, what you mean by "giving the land back". All the land within Canada's borders are the sovereign's in perpetuity; the Royal Proclamation of 1763 spells out that First Nations land is "reserve[d] under our [the monarch's] Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion." The only land that I think could possibly be "given back" to First Nations is that which had been reserved for them and subsequently sold by them. Even then, though, there might be cases in which "giving it back" isn't feasible.

[charter.rights]

I thought our obligations towards the aboriginals stemmed more from international obligations involving our right to the land in exchange for certain guarantees towards aboriginals, and nothing to do with the Constitution. this would mean that a breach of contract would involve giving the land back. And since this contract is with the crown, the Monarch would unquestioningly havde to agree to it. And then there's the issue of the Monarch preserving its integrity in respect to treaties.

There are two types of rights protected in the Charter. Aboriginal rights are rights recognized by the Royal Proclamation 1763 (having existed at least from that time) and treaty rights which were added in specific number treaties, or will be added in some future treaty. Aboriginal rights also include aboriginal title to land which is a "plenum dominum" (absolute title above all else) until the land is surrendered. Surrenders must follow a specific prescription laid out in the Royal Proclamation 176 and clarified by the Supreme Court in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada.

The Crown did not take dominion over Canada in the Royal Proclamation 1763. Rather the Proclamation took dominion over the 4 colonies and reserved all lands within those colonies not surrender or ceded to us as "Indian Lands". Those 4 colonies were Grenada, East Florida, West Florida and Quebec (surrendered in the Treaty of Paris by France). Interestingly enough the British were not interest in Ontario, the north or western Canada at the time. The Supreme Court has ruled that aboriginal title (which over-rides any Crown claim to land) remains a superior title unless it was surrendered. However, while various numbered treaties surrendered some rights to land they did not surrender absolute title and First Nations retained a broad spectrum of rights over the lands and resources that are presently being refined before the courts. The bottom line determined so far is that those rights require the government to not only consult, negotiate and accommodate native concerns prior to any development, but that development and mining / logging can be held up indefinitely until the full consultation process has been completed. This applies mostly to lands under treaty.

In lands not surrendered, Indians retain full and absolute title to the land. Nothing short of a treaty would be required in order for us to continue to develop those types of lands. However, much of these issues are also before the courts and it would be premature to suggest any outcome. The courts have gone as far as saying that Indians have a right to protest over unceded land and the courts will issue injunctions against the government and developers where no treaty exists, or where a treaty does exist and the duty to consult has not full been executed.

The Supreme Court has held that giving land back to First Nations is not automatic since there has been development and unsuspecting recipients of the land that would interfere with the transfer of land. Rather they have suggested that negotiation with the affected First Nation is the proper avenue in which land or money or a combination of both may be an equitable solution. So far it has been this government's policy to only offer money in any lands claims settlement, even though they have on many occasions swapped land to First Nations' control to settle disputes.

[Saipan]

All the land within Canada's borders are the sovereign's in perpetuity

Some guys like George Washington can change that in a jiffy.

[Saipan]

There are two types of rights protected in the Charter. Aboriginal rights are rights recognized by the Royal Proclamation 1763

How about rights how many slaves one can own?

[g_bambino]

Some guys like George Washington can change that in a jiffy.

Actually, Washington failed miserably at getting colonists in The Canadas to join his little revolution.

[bloodyminded]

No, there was no wall keeping people living in Newfoundland all those years when there was no fish, no oil, and few jobs either. Physically, you can pick up and move somewhere else where economics are better. But it's not that easy to leave behind everything and everyone you know and go out into the world alone, especially when you don't have a lot of money. Sure, some people do it. But many just can't bring themselves to leave everything behind and venture out into the strange world beyond. We are all social creatures. We are all attached to people in our lives. Abandoning them in hopes of a better life can be something of a desperation move depending on your circumstances.

You know, I bitch about the cold weater. I hate it. HATE HATE HATE! So a friend of mine called me on it and pointed out I could just fly south and stay there for six months, or, for that matter, set myself up in the Virgin Islands or somewhere. I do have the money. But frankly, the thought of flying far away from all my friends and family for a long period of time is not all that attractive. So I put up with the &^%$&* snow.

Hear, hear, Argus.

And (I imagine and hope you'll agree) it's not a matter of making excuses; it's simply a matter of human understanding and a bit of empathy.

[Argus]

Hear, hear, Argus.

And (I imagine and hope you'll agree) it's not a matter of making excuses; it's simply a matter of human understanding and a bit of empathy.

It`s a matter of basic human behaviour patterns, and it does little good to point out that there are some who escape them, who leave their communities. There are always those braver or more desperate or whose conditions allow or require it. But expecting all natives to leave their shitty reserves to go live in Toronto is no more realistic than having expected all Newfoundlanders to have left their Island twenty years ago. Sure, many did, but you`ll never find the majority taking off unless conditions simply become unlivable.

So we need to do one of two things. We either need to find some way to make the reserves economically viable entities -- and I don`t mean by giving them welfare, or even giving them a big cheque they can stick in the bank - or we relocate at least the smaller reserves, lock stock and barrel to somewhere which IS economically viable, which has jobs. Either will be expensive, at least initially, but keeping people warehoused for generations is absurd and inhumane. It makes no sense on any level, and the long term costs are far higher.

And by the way, I doubt you`ll get much agreement from native leaders for anything drastic. They seem to be relatively content with their lot in lives, and their only requests are for more money (for them) and more power (for them), along with less oversight.

[charter.rights]

.....or we relocate at least the smaller reserves, lock stock and barrel to somewhere which IS economically viable, which has jobs.

You fail the first principle of understanding the issues. Reserves are sovereign lands not surrendered to the Crown and we can't touch them without first asking the First Nations themselves.

[Saipan]

Actually, Washington failed miserably at getting colonists in The Canadas to join his little revolution.

Why would he? Canada didn't exist then, just a "strip of snow".

[g_bambino]

Why would he?

Ask him. He tried.