Constitutional Reform

[bush_cheney2004]

Ask him. He tried.

....and succeeded in the case of the 1st and 2nd Canadian Regiments. Maybe they were from another Canada?

[Saipan]

But expecting all natives to leave their shitty reserves to go live in Toronto is no more realistic

Why Toronto? Lot of them want to live "their old ways". Sustenance hunting - living off the land 'like their ancestors'. The rest can do like everyone else. Find a job.

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.

No other race "needed" to be forcefuly relocated in Canada, why would they? Didn't they "inherited from their ancestors the ability to move through the snow and ice to come here from Asia?"

Edited September 7, 2011 by Saipan

[charter.rights]

Why Toronto? Lot of them want to live "their old ways". Sustenance hunting - living off the land 'like their ancestors'. The rest can do like everyone else. Find a job.

No other race "needed" to be forcefuly relocated in Canada, why would they? Didn't they "inherited from their ancestors the ability to move through the snow and ice to come here from Asia?"

Dumbest comment of the week.

[Saipan]

Dumbest comment of the week.

Truth hurts, eh.

[charter.rights]

Truth hurts, eh.

Ya right. Dumb is dumb and you take the cake for this week.

[Saipan]

Ya right. Dumb is dumb and you take the cake for this week.

Whenever you're losing debate try name calling. You have nothing more to lose

[jacee]

Why Toronto? Lot of them want to live "their old ways". Sustenance hunting - living off the land 'like their ancestors'. The rest can do like everyone else. Find a job.

No other race "needed" to be forcefuly relocated in Canada, why would they? Didn't they "inherited from their ancestors the ability to move through the snow and ice to come here from Asia?"

OR ... we could obey the law of the treaties and make sure that they are adeqately compensated for all uses of their traditional lands, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

AND ... we could stop the ignorant insults.

[charter.rights]

Whenever you're losing debate try name calling. You have nothing more to lose

Not hardly. I can dance around you but with such an ignorant post, why would I bother. It is a waste of my valuable time.

And it isn't name-calling. I was speaking about your comments being dumb and not accusing you of what you believe to be obvious.

Edited September 7, 2011 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

OR ... we could obey the law of the treaties and make sure that they are adeqately compensated for all uses of their traditional lands, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

AND ... we could stop the ignorant insults.

Saipan doesn't believe in the law. He is an anarchist, don't you know?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

Funny how that works isn't it. Just exactly the same way that the Six Nations swapped out land for dollars with respect to the Haldiman(spelling) !!? tract in Ontario. Those lands were surrendered to the government by and large through a carefully constructed policy created by Joseph Brant, who was in fact a known and accepted representative of the Six Nations. The harsh reality here is that the land was originally bought from the Mississauga ! Its all very complicated as we all know, yet there was both rhyme and reason for things ending up the way they are today. Both sides are out to lunch in my view, in truth no matter who is right and who is wrong the guy that is supposed to pay for all this nonsense had not one thing to do with it. The Canadian taxpaying citizen should not and must not be punished for the perception of wrongdoing more than a century ago. Build a bridge and get over it. There is no pat solution other than to ensure that the current citizen is not harmed in the process. If the folks in charge cannot utilize both due process and reasonable expediency then they are incompetent and should be fired immediately.

This one needs to be handled forthwith. Call your local politician and support the concept of making this a TRUE priority. I tend to think most folks would support the idea if asked.

[fellowtraveller]

The UN's authority exists above and beyond what Canada thinks or wants.

wrong. UN or international authority over sovereign nations like Canada exists only to the extent that Candada surrenders that sovereignty voluntarily. And in the case of First Nations, Canada has not surrendered anything of substance to the UN.

You can rant , rave and scream all you like, but that is the way it is.

[charter.rights]

Just exactly the same way that the Six Nations swapped out land for dollars with respect to the Haldiman(spelling) !!? tract in Ontario. Those lands were surrendered to the government by and large through a carefully constructed policy created by Joseph Brant, who was in fact a known and accepted representative of the Six Nations.

Totally incorrect.

Joseph Brant never held the authority to surrender land. The law of the day required that a formal surrender had to take place meeting the customs, traditions and laws of the First Nation. All surrenders had to have the consent of the full Confederacy Council (50 Chiefs). No surrender has ever taken place in the Haldimand Tract.

Beginning in about 1840 the government tried to obtain a surrender of the Plank Road lands, including a mile on either side of the road in order to build a highway. Six Nations refused to surrender suggesting that they would only lease the land. A number of agreements were drawn up by the Indian Agent and Six Nations continued to refuse to sign. By 1844 the then Governor General would not agree to allow leases of the Plank Road and mysteriously a document appeared with the names of 25 men (not condoled Chiefs) purporting the surrender. When Six Nations got wind of the fake document they petitioned the Governor General through a number of letters and records of meetings to rescind the land occupations that were taking place as they had no intention of surrendering the lands. That claim remains unresolved.

There there are a number of tracts in Brantford that are still in dispute as well. Six Nations has documentation that considered the surrender of a small plot to build the Town of Brantford, but the purported surrender was never executed. Lots of land in the Haldimand Tract had been occupied and Six Nations over the last 220 years has demanded that the government remove squatters and settlers.

There have been a number of direct 99 year land leases to farmers and the Mennonites that were illegally converted to title but no surrenders, and Six Nations has all the documentation to back it up.

The harsh reality here is that the land was originally bought from the Mississauga !

Nope. The Mississauga never held title or rights to any land in Southern Ontario. Southern Ontario still is the exclusive title belonging to Six Nations. Under the law, aboriginal title is recognized as having existed prior to the Royal Proclamation 1763. After the Proclamation the only way for us to obtain would have been a direct surrender (treaty) to the Crown. Six Nations still holds their original title.

That means of course that the Mississauga never surrendered any land in the Burlington meeting either. Rather the Mississauga were in S.O. as a result of the Two Spoons One Bowl Treaty they had with Six Nations and it was Six Nations who petition the Crown on their behalf to compensate those whom had settled there. The payment made to the Mississauga was nothing more than a relocation fee.

Its all very complicated as we all know, yet there was both rhyme and reason for things ending up the way they are today. Both sides are out to lunch in my view, in truth no matter who is right and who is wrong the guy that is supposed to pay for all this nonsense had not one thing to do with it.

The "guy paying for all this nonsense" is actually Six Nations. Not only have they lost 220 years of use of the land and resources but the government holds over $1 trillion in Six Nations money in trusts and isn't even paying the interest on the account to Six Nations. Legally unpaid compounded interest must be added to the trust account and with current rates that account will double in less than 20 years. We are on the hook for that for sure but only because we having been paying our debts.

The Canadian taxpaying citizen should not and must not be punished for the perception of wrongdoing more than a century ago. Build a bridge and get over it. There is no pat solution other than to ensure that the current citizen is not harmed in the process. If the folks in charge cannot utilize both due process and reasonable expediency then they are incompetent and should be fired immediately.

The equitable solution is to give all of Ontario back to Six Nations control, letting them collect revenue and taxes from us, then see if the government will act expediently to negotiate with them over our the illegal occupations we are in. But since the government won't give up that kind of power, or face their (our) obligation to negotiated with Six Nations honourably, then Six Nations has no choice in my mind, than to protest occupy and use proprietary estoppel to stop development.

This one needs to be handled forthwith. Call your local politician and support the concept of making this a TRUE priority. I tend to think most folks would support the idea if asked.

I agree. However, what you think is a priority and what is really a priority are two different things. You need a lot more education on the actual issues, the history and legalities before you can make any informed opinion.

[charter.rights]

Mitchell Map 1757

Jeffreys Map 1776

If one zooms in to Ontario you will see that not only before 1763 but after 1763 Southern Ontario was Six Nations Territory.

[charter.rights]

wrong. UN or international authority over sovereign nations like Canada exists only to the extent that Candada surrenders that sovereignty voluntarily. And in the case of First Nations, Canada has not surrendered anything of substance to the UN.

You can rant , rave and scream all you like, but that is the way it is.

Ask Gaddafi about that one. He has not consented to the UN or NATO deposing him from Libia (nor do they care if he consents or not).

Go back dreaming sonny boy.

[Michael Hardner]

The equitable solution is to give all of Ontario back to Six Nations control, letting them collect revenue and taxes from us, then see if the government will act expediently ...

You mentioned expedience. My understanding is that one of the issues in the Caledonia dispute is the insistence on a 'closed door' protest. Wouldn't that setup lend itself to a slower process?

Also, since the agreement requires broad consensus on the First Nations side, doesn't that slow things down too?

[jacee]

wrong. UN or international authority over sovereign nations like Canada exists only to the extent that Candada surrenders that sovereignty voluntarily. And in the case of First Nations, Canada has not surrendered anything of substance to the UN.

You can rant , rave and scream all you like, but that is the way it is.

No country surrenders any sovereignty to the UN. However, we do sign public agreements to uphold UN conventions and respect international law.

We are voluntarily subject to the influence of the UN, and I gotta say ... when you've listened to a UN official "rant, rave and scream" at you about Canada's complicity in assisting our mining companies in committing atrocities (forcible displacement, murders, etc.) against Indigenous Peoples in other countries, you begin to comprehend Canada's current loss of status at the UN. In our most recent Universal Periodic Review, Canada was openly and loudly scorned in the strongest diplomatic terms for submitting a report on progress on Aboriginal issues WITHOUT ANY CONSULTATION WHATSOEVER WITH ABORIGINAL PEOPLE.

[jacee]

You mentioned expedience. My understanding is that one of the issues in the Caledonia dispute is the insistence on a 'closed door' protest. Wouldn't that setup lend itself to a slower process?

Also, since the agreement requires broad consensus on the First Nations side, doesn't that slow things down too?

Considering that it's taken us 200 years and a blockade to even begin to address their concerns - and that we've currently walked away from the table - I think they are entitled to time for deliberation.

[Michael Hardner]

Considering that it's taken us 200 years and a blockade to even begin to address their concerns - and that we've currently walked away from the table - I think they are entitled to time for deliberation.

I concur. There was definitely double-dealing and deception on the part of our government, but looking forward I'm wondering how the process can be improved.

[jacee]

dp

Edited September 7, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

I concur. There was definitely double-dealing and deception on the part of our government, but looking forward I'm wondering how the process can be improved.

Our multi-million dollar representatives could negotiate in good faith, without any "sharp dealing" tactics, according to the Supreme Court rulings - ie, according to the law. For starters, they could get their asses back to the table with a reasonable offer for at least the simplest (of 28) specific claims.

I don't believe there currently is anything for Six Nations to deliberate, though there may be a lawsuit in process. And I would have to say ... was and IS double dealing and deception by our rep$.

[William Ashley]

wrong. UN or international authority over sovereign nations like Canada exists only to the extent that Candada surrenders that sovereignty voluntarily. And in the case of First Nations, Canada has not surrendered anything of substance to the UN.

You can rant , rave and scream all you like, but that is the way it is.

Actually in international law anyone/anygroup can be a state if they simply gain recognition and communicate and accept that status (that is self recognized sovereign status) (now assuming another state/government legally) is another matter in international law from state recognition. Nations are actually "a people" - first nations do not need permission of Canada, they have their own sovereignty which they havn't given away. Territory is not statehood. Territory is more involved with the idea of a country/realm (realms actually do not need to be territorial though as they are ideational . The assumption of an annex or recognition of rights between parties is another matter completely - and deals more with "legal jurisdiction and martial willingness. There are no boundaries except what people are willing to fight for or recognize. There is no greater right of ownership since all humanity has equal rights to all things, it is only respect that may designate willingness to allow use of a portion of land for a given use - bearing the best outcome of that - so as to allow the use if it is beneficial or deny the use if it is worth preventing.

In general only acts that are destructive or damaging, or depleting tend to fill the requirement to use martial force. -- However there is the issue of temporal projection and trust.

The first nations thing is funny because Canada has repeatedly breached first nations treaty, it is more or less void. Canada has very little if any legal rights to most of the territory of Canada other than those that are annexed unilaterally. Even the treaty that gave them Quebec (The Canada's) was breached. All of western Canada was a unilateral annex, because it first just gave the charter for NWT which assumed jurisdiction (unilaterally) then gave that land to Canada - unilaterally).

Taking the line of legal rights for Canada is an incredibly stupid line if you are trying to assert Canadian rights to territory in Canada, because they have very little mostly just a few parts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. (although those rights are not free and clear) US claims are even weaker. They are "martial" not civil legal rights. Meaning only rule of force maintains sovereignty over those territories.. the worst kind of rule.

Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[charter.rights]

You mentioned expedience. My understanding is that one of the issues in the Caledonia dispute is the insistence on a 'closed door' protest. Wouldn't that setup lend itself to a slower process?

Also, since the agreement requires broad consensus on the First Nations side, doesn't that slow things down too?

Exactly why WE should be doing the right thing instead of ignoring their claims and obfuscating the mandatory consultation.

[g_bambino]

first nations... have their own sovereignty which they havn't given away. Territory is not statehood.

Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs? The Royal Proclamation of 1763, a part of the constitution, is clear on just who has sovereignty over Canada:

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, 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...

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

Royal Proclamation 1763

The land very clearly is the monarch's, "under [her] sovereignty, protection, and dominion".

[charter.rights]

Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs? The Royal Proclamation of 1763, a part of the constitution, is clear on just who has sovereignty over Canada:

The land very clearly is the monarch's, "under [her] sovereignty, protection, and dominion".

Nope. You have it wrong.

"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, 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...

"

The parts of "Our Dominions and Territories" only applies to the 4 colonies, Grenada, West Florida, East Florida and Quebec in which many parts of those colonies had not at the time of the Proclamation been surrendered. The Proclamation reserved for those territories within the 4 colonies to the Indians and prohibited forfeiture, seizure, occupation, surrender or use with first obtaining a surrender by the Crown. Even the governors of those colonies were prohibited from dealing directly with the Indians.

Outside of those 4 colonies the territory remained under the sovereign title of the First Nation that inhabited it. The Supreme Court has held that title is a plenum dominum (title superior to all others) until it was surrendered (according to the laws, customs and traditions of the First Nation) by treaty.

In particular no part of Canada south, west and north of a line drawn between Montreal and the French River was of any interest to the Crown prior to and shortly after the Proclamation. Although a series of numbered treaties sought to obtain land from the Indians across Canada, the Indians were smart enough to only surrender some of their rights, while retaining other rights that are now binding on the Crown and the government of Canada. However, southern Ontario and other parts of Canada have never been surrendered or subject to treaties and remain the sovereign territory of the First Nations who occupied them at the time of the Proclamation.

[William Ashley]

Are you suggesting the First Nations people are sovereign but the land they live on is not theirs?

Nope I'm suggesting various first nations are sovereign and everyone has rights to the land they are living on. The reality however is both Canada and those first nations may be willing to mobilize to unilaterally assert their rights to that land. Respectfully unless duress or some other defense or absolute need exists, respecting peoples use of land should occur. However this does not forfeit an attempt to negotiate a peaceable relationship with all entities to provide for ability to use lands to fulfill ones objectives in life.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763, a part of the constitution, is clear on just who has sovereignty over Canada:

It only applies to the Monarchs subjects. Subject status was erased between the 1940s and 1982.

There are very very remote conditions it applies in today. Reapplication is not based on the original intents.

The land very clearly is the monarch's, "under [her] sovereignty, protection, and dominion".

Monarchs under a unilaterial claim. Unilateralism holds very little ethical weight. Unless pure morality exist it is very easy to deny a unilateral claim. Relations of state are however potential effected by whatever position is taken.

Its the type of claim that both first nations take in respect to one another and to third parties that matters - because they shape state relations.

Clearly neither is fundamentally working because it denies universal human rights and creates a construct that is not wholly applicable in both cases. First nations claims are civilly stronger however. Ultimately it rests with any individual to assert their universal rights or exert martial force if required to maintain those rights if a defence or allowance exists.

Most land claims are conditional due in part to the nature of human frailty in mind and the global condition of conflict. Cultural conditions may put on a pedestal martial claims.. as both first nations and European nations did in conquest of territory. It doesn't negate my own rights universally. It does create the potential context of a need for defence however because of those cultures which may try to exert influence or control upon myself.

What is true for me is largely played out in the developmental culture of both parties in what has led to the current situation - however there are various complexities involved.

I'm not about denying rights, as to explain my position, I am for communication so that rational use can be done. The legal frameworks intend to do that but I don't think they wholely protect universal rights, except in a few instances. It is a rather lengthy subject.

Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley