First Nations ban pipelines to west coast

[Smallc]

Yeah, alright. Aboriginals who work on reserve don't pay taxes. I have family working on a reserve. They don't pay any tax. The reserve owned companies don't pay any tax. The aboriginal leaders don't pay any tax. Nice try.

[charter.rights]

Yeah, alright. Aboriginals who work on reserve don't pay taxes. I have family working on a reserve. They don't pay any tax. The reserve owned companies don't pay any tax. The aboriginal leaders don't pay any tax. Nice try.

As I said, you don't know squat.

Aboriginal corporations are not "Indians" under the Indian Act and are treated just like ours are. They must pay tax, submit CPP and EI on behalf of their employees just like other corporations do.

Indians working off reserve but living on reserve still must pay tax, as well as businesses who do work off reserve. Indians who work on reserve do not pay tax that is true, but there are few businesses on reserve and other than the Band Administration, most Indians pay tax even when they live on reserve.

Goods delivered to an Indian on reserve do not pay HST. However, goods purchased off reserve by an Indian for use off reserve are taxable. When goods are taken back to the reserve, the Provincial RST is exempt, but Indians still must pay the federal portion of the HST.

You don't know squat. I work with this stuff every day and you have been lying.

Edited December 6, 2011 by charter.rights

[jacee]

??? There have been a bunch of land claims settled. Like, on every place that has a treaty and numerous others that did not have one. Most of those that have not settled claims have foundered on the extinguishment clause. Can't say I blame them, why give up that particualr source of gravy when the alternative is standing up on your own legs with a much flimsier safety net.

I just hope the First Nations understand they will very likely screw themselves out of a whole shitload of money and jobs with this pipeline.

It is going to be built, with or without their participation.

As stated, there are other routes with right of way that is settled and has nothing to do with First Nations.

This is the deadly economic combo that dooms so many First Nations: isolation and nothing worth developing in their tribal lands. There is a ton of tother shit too: mismanagement, paternalism from DIAND, serious social issues etc. But the firs two are ballbusters.

The pipelines can help, but the First Nations involvement or permission isn't mandatory. I really hope they understand that.

There's very little truth in what you say.

This issue isn't about specific land claims.

This is about the rights they hold on all of the land, and the 'duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate their Aboriginal rights'

So quite the contrary to what you have said, their involvement is required, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Obviously they have moore knowledge of their rights than you have.

And so do others here.

Nobody's saying they don't have rights.

Everyone knows that most of BC, without treaties, is unceded land that never left Aboriginal possession.

Existing rights of way don't matter, unless there's an existing written agreement with First Nations covering a new pipeline.

The Crown has a duty to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal groups with claims to and and Aboriginal rights

prior to taking action that may adversely affect those interests.

This duty varies according to the strength of the claim and degree of the harm, and cannot be delegated to third parties. (Supreme Court re Haida 2004)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_Nation_v._British_Columbia_(Minister_of_Forests)

Also the First Nations have already turned down money and Enbridge has given up negotiating.

They will likely have to go to court.

Edited December 6, 2011 by jacee

[cybercoma]

As I said, you don't know squat.

Aboriginal corporations are not "Indians" under the Indian Act and are treated just like ours are. They must pay tax, submit CPP and EI on behalf of their employees just like other corporations do.

Indians working off reserve but living on reserve still must pay tax, as well as businesses who do work off reserve. Indians who work on reserve do not pay tax that is true, but there are few businesses on reserve and other than the Band Administration, most Indians pay tax even when they live on reserve.

Goods delivered to an Indian on reserve do not pay HST. However, goods purchased off reserve by an Indian for use off reserve are taxable. When goods are taken back to the reserve, the Provincial RST is exempt, but Indians still must pay the federal portion of the HST.

You don't know squat. I work with this stuff every day and you have been lying.

Not to mention that Aboriginal populations are younger than the population at large. Last estimate I saw had 34% being 14 or younger, meaning they're not working age. How many more are retirement age or older?

The Natives-Don't-Pay-Taxes argument is a red herring. Many people don't pay taxes, but we don't take away their services.

It's not about individuals, it's about what we've decided to fund as a society and how we decided to raise revenues for it.

Edited December 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[Shwa]

The Natives-Don't-Pay-Taxes argument is a red herring. Many people don't pay taxes, but we don't take away their services.

It is a huge red-herring and every time I hear it, I hear sheer ignorance.

Those making the argument are usually completely unaware that half of the Aboriginal population live in urban areas. Reserve populations account for about 1/3.

Oh, lookit, I can make a cite:

Aboriginal peoples of Canada: A demographic profile

[charter.rights]

It is a huge red-herring and every time I hear it, I hear sheer ignorance.

Those making the argument are usually completely unaware that half of the Aboriginal population live in urban areas. Reserve populations account for about 1/3.

Oh, lookit, I can make a cite:

Aboriginal peoples of Canada: A demographic profile

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

[Tilter]

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

How about the Cigarette kiosks? do they pay taxes

Edited December 6, 2011 by Tilter

[charter.rights]

How about the Cigarette kiosks? do they pay taxes

It is not required under the law for First Nations to collect taxes on goods sold on a reserve. However, the packaged smokes manufactured by federally licensed places like Rainbow Tobacco in Kahnawake and Grand River Enterprises in Six Nations pay hundreds of millions in excise taxes every year. These smokes are also sold along the bag varieties in the smoke shops.

So the answer is "yes, they do pay tax in the Cigarette Kiosks" since excise taxes are collected along with the purchase of Native brand cigarettes.

[fellowtraveller]

I searched Google and couldn't find anything, so I'll ask you once more to back up your claims with a citation please.

Thanks!

I was only able to get 84,600 results, maybe I should have invested several more seconds to understanding a fundamental issue in the land claims process in Canada.

Drop back when you're done reading and up to speed on this issue.yawn, lol

[fellowtraveller]

There's very little truth in what you say.

This issue isn't about specific land claims.

This is about the rights they hold on all of the land, and the 'duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate their Aboriginal rights'

So quite the contrary to what you have said, their involvement is required, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Obviously they have moore knowledge of their rights than you have.

And so do others here.

Nobody's saying they don't have rights.

Everyone knows that most of BC, without treaties, is unceded land that never left Aboriginal possession.

Existing rights of way don't matter, unless there's an existing written agreement with First Nations covering a new pipeline.

The Crown has a duty to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal groups with claims to and and Aboriginal rights

prior to taking action that may adversely affect those interests.

This duty varies according to the strength of the claim and degree of the harm, and cannot be delegated to third parties. (Supreme Court re Haida 2004)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_Nation_v._British_Columbia_(Minister_of_Forests)

Also the First Nations have already turned down money and Enbridge has given up negotiating.

They will likely have to go to court.

blah blah blah.

You wish and hope they will go to court. You assume and wrongly assume that the holder of the right of way needs First Nations permission for a new line on an old right of way. Kinder Morgan doubled their capacity a few years ago on this very route and their only obstacles were an enhanced environmental review in Jasper National Park and a cursory review in the rest of BC.

Enbridge will simply build the pipeline on the one of the existing rights of way between Alberta and the coast to Kitimat or Prince Rupert. There are two: one highway and one railway. There won't be anything the First Nations can do about it. Period. Please don't bring up any more nonsense about anybody stopping the Candian govt from shipping oil offshore on soveirgnty grounds, we've heard quite enough of that drivel already.

Oh, and Kinder-Morgan will also expand their existing pipeline on their existing right of way from Alberta to Vancouver. And quickly too.

Edited December 6, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[Shwa]

I was only able to get 84,600 results, maybe I should have invested several more seconds to understanding a fundamental issue in the land claims process in Canada.

Drop back when you're done reading and up to speed on this issue.

Well, 84,600 results and you still haven't found how the mysterious "extinguishment clause" is causing the Indians to impede land claims settlements? And here I thought you understood the fundamental issue of the land claims process in Canada.

Surrender and Certainty - Settling Comprehensive Land Claims - Parliament of Canada (emphasis is mine)

A long-standing issue associated with comprehensive claims has been the federal policy requirement that Aboriginal groups surrender their Aboriginal rights and title to lands and resources in exchange for defined rights set out in a land claim settlement. The dominant theme underlying federal policy in this matter, described in national interest terms, concerns the need to achieve “certainty” with respect to land and resource rights and interests. In 1995, reports of both the federal fact finder mandated to explore alternative models and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples(43) suggested that certainty as to land-related rights might be achieved without this “extinguishment.” United Nations bodies have urged Canada to abandon the practice.

[Shwa]

blah blah blah.

You wish and hope ...Enbridge will simply build the pipeline on the one of the existing rights of way between Alberta and the coast to Kitimat or Prince Rupert.

There, fixed it for you oh Great Carnac the Magnificent!

[jacee]

blah blah blah.

You wish and hope they will go to court. You assume and wrongly assume that the holder of the right of way needs First Nations permission for a new line on an old right of way. Kinder Morgan doubled their capacity a few years ago on this very route and their only obstacles were an enhanced environmental review in Jasper National Park and a cursory review in the rest of BC.

Enbridge will simply build the pipeline on the one of the existing rights of way between Alberta and the coast to Kitimat or Prince Rupert. There are two: one highway and one railway. There won't be anything the First Nations can do about it. Period. Please don't bring up any more nonsense about anybody stopping the Candian govt from shipping oil offshore on soveirgnty grounds, we've heard quite enough of that drivel already.

Oh, and Kinder-Morgan will also expand their existing pipeline on their existing right of way from Alberta to Vancouver. And quickly too.

I think you'd better get some legal advice, and consider the process ...

Opposition to pipeline grows in B.C. as Ottawa, First Nations plan summit

By Peter O'Neil, Postmedia News December 1 201

Ottawa - As Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canada's top aboriginal leader met Thursday to launch a ``reset'' of federal government-First Nations relations, B.C. First Nations vowed to build a ``wall'' to deny Harper's goal of opening up Asian markets to the Alberta oilsands.

Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik'uz First Nation told a news conference in Vancouver she and her supporters would stand in front of bulldozers to stop Calgary-based Enbridge Inc.'s proposed $5.5-billion pipeline project to ship bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. port of Kitimat.

``I have news for you Mr. Harper, you're never going to achieve your dream of pushing pipelines through our rivers and lands,' Thomas said, after announcing that the number of B.C. First Nations opposed to the project is up to 130.

``We will be the wall that Enbridge cannot break through.'

...

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver issued a statement noting that the Northern Gateway project is before a joint National Energy Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency review panel - ``the highest level of scrutiny possible'' under federal law. ``All interested groups, including aboriginal groups, are free to express their concerns,' Oliver said.

`It is a strategic objective of this government to diversify our energy exports; however, al regulatory processes will be followed before any final decision is made.'

The confrontational tone in Vancouver was in sharp contrast to a conciliatory meeting in Ottawa between Harper and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo, where they announced a planned ``Crown-First Nations Gathering'.

It's not clear to me whether the hearings fulfill the Crown's Duty to consult and to accommodate Aboriginal rights.

Edited December 7, 2011 by jacee

[charter.rights]

It's not clear to me whether the hearings fulfill the Crown's Duty to consult and to accoommodate Aboriginal rights.

Hearings do not fulfill the Crown's duty to consult.

Consultation must be directly with the affected First Nation(s), involved a clear presentation of the proposal, identification of concerns, negotiation, accommodation of those concerns and compromise and conciliation where they cannot be fully accommodated to present the least impact on the First Nation rights.

A hearing just doesn't cut it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hearings do not fulfill the Crown's duty to consult.

Consultation must be directly with the affected First Nation(s), involved a clear presentation of the proposal, identification of concerns, negotiation, accommodation of those concerns and compromise and conciliation where they cannot be fully accommodated to present the least impact on the First Nation rights.

A hearing just doesn't cut it.

I do not believe that anything would satisfy you. The reality is such that the oil is literally needed elsewhere, and the pipeline is designed to accomplish this task. The pipeline will be built, the First Nations will graft what they can from the deal, and the entire matter will be resolved with dollar bills. Business as usual.

[jacee]

Hearings do not fulfill the Crown's duty to consult.

Consultation must be directly with the affected First Nation(s), involved a clear presentation of the proposal, identification of concerns, negotiation, accommodation of those concerns and compromise and conciliation where they cannot be fully accommodated to present the least impact on the First Nation rights.

A hearing just doesn't cut it.

That's my sense too.

But Enbridge says it has already offered profit sharing and money upfront, and it's been turned down.

So I guess the two processes have both been going on, although the joint panel review seems to have hardly started.

This is shaping up to be a very key discussion.

[charter.rights]

That's my sense too.

But Enbridge says it has already offered profit sharing and money upfront, and it's been turned down.

So I guess the two processes have both been going on, although the joint panel review seems to have hardly started.

This is shaping up to be a very key discussion.

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

[fellowtraveller]

I do not believe that anything would satisfy you. The reality is such that the oil is literally needed elsewhere, and the pipeline is designed to accomplish this task. The pipeline will be built, the First Nations will graft what they can from the deal, and the entire matter will be resolved with dollar bills. Business as usual.

Correct. But it is not so much that the oil is needed elsewhere as that Canada has a pressing, strategic need to find other customers for the resources that keep our economy afloat now and for the foreseeable future.

[fellowtraveller]

A long-standing issue associated with comprehensive claims has been the federal policy requirement that Aboriginal groups surrender their Aboriginal rights and title to lands and resources in exchange for defined rights set out in a land claim settlement. The dominant theme underlying federal policy in this matter, described in national interest terms, concerns the need to achieve “certainty” with respect to land and resource rights and interests. In 1995, reports of both the federal fact finder mandated to explore alternative models and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples(43) suggested that certainty as to land-related rights might be achieved without this “extinguishment.” United Nations bodies have urged Canada to abandon the practice.

so what? There are negotiations on land claim settlements going on today, in some cases for 2 or 3 decades. Your little quote is written in 2009 and refers to a 'suggestion' that extinguishment 'might' not be required. It means nothing, or really less than nothing since many of those claims still are not settled.

Extinguishment is not just a referral to land right, to ultimate control of land and resources. It also refers to an end of negotiation: here is the deal, it will not be reopened, there will be no more salries paid or operating costs covered in perpetuity . That has caused deals to flounder too, and it is easy to see why. Not everybody really wants what comes with self government. It is much, much more than just land and money.

[jacee]

Environmentalists, aborig won't stop pipeline: minister

Oliver calls Northern Gateway 'nation building' project By Peter O'Neil And Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun 2011

"The oil industry's "nation-building" attempt to link Canada's vast oilsands resources to Asian markets can't be stopped by protesters using civil disobedience, federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said Tuesday.

Oh ya? Keystone was.

But did he say "can't" ... or is that the reporters' words? I guess time will tell ...

He said he will respect the regulatory process that Enbridge Inc. must go through to get approval for its $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipe-line, but said the project, if approved by the National Energy Board, shouldn't be held hostage by aboriginal and environmental groups threatening to create a human "wall" to pre-vent construction.

"Look, this is a country that lives by the rule of law, and I would hope that would be the standard going forward," Oliver said.

The "rule of law" includes the duty of the Crown to consult, and to accommodate Aboriginal rights. But the feds don't acknowledge that obligation, though the Supreme Court does. To them "rule of law" means use of force.

Predictably, the feds are going to create a conflict.

They can't win that way.

Edited December 7, 2011 by jacee

[Wild Bill]

Predictably, the feds are going to create a conflict.

They can't win that way.

Oh, I don't know. It keeps guys like me voting for them!

The question is, are there more guys like me or like YOU? If last election was any indicator, I would say you're in the minority. If you disagree, we can just wait and see. If you are still around the day after the next election we can remind each other...

[jacee]

so what? There are negotiations on land claim settlements going on today, in some cases for 2 or 3 decades. Your little quote is written in 2009 and refers to a 'suggestion' that extinguishment 'might' not be required. It means nothing, or really less than nothing since many of those claims still are not settled.

Extinguishment is not just a referral to land right, to ultimate control of land and resources. It also refers to an end of negotiation: here is the deal, it will not be reopened, there will be no more salries paid or operating costs covered in perpetuity . That has caused deals to flounder too, and it is easy to see why. Not everybody really wants what comes with self government. It is much, much more than just land and money.

What some people don't seem to get is that our treaty relationships with Indigenous Nations are the foundation of Canada, an ongoing context of our existence here, as much as our (eg) trade relationships with the US are a part of our ongoing existence.

There is no LEGAL way around it, no end to it, no ignoring it, no more harassing, intimidating, punishing, them. To keep them quiet.

And it isn't just about "land claims".

Aboriginal rights exist on all traditional Aboriginal lands and can't be extinguished. They have a continuing right to sustain themselves from the land.

The Crown (provincial and federal) has a duty to consult with affected nations, and to accommodate their rights.

In their belief, Indigenous Peoples have a duty to protect 'Mother Earth'.

Therein lies the sticking point, as our leaders take no responsibility to protect Mother Earth, only 'the economy', and only for the short term.

[jacee]

Oh, I don't know. It keeps guys like me voting for them!

The question is, are there more guys like me or like YOU? If last election was any indicator, I would say you're in the minority. If you disagree, we can just wait and see. If you are still around the day after the next election we can remind each other...

Um ... check your math WB.

60% of us voted otherwise.

Not sure why you crave conflict, but most Canadians don't.

It's not the most productive strategy.

It's quite immature, in fact.

[waldo]

Environmentalists, aborig won't stop pipeline: minister

stop? Does the Honorable Minister know the environmental assessment "is in the bag"?

errr... delay? Northern Gateway pipeline decision will be delayed until late 2013: 4300 interveners! Oh my...

[Wild Bill]

Um ... check your math WB.

60% of us voted otherwise.

Not sure why you crave conflict, but most Canadians don't.

It's not the most productive strategy.

It's quite immature, in fact.

60% against?

How did you get that figure? I don't recall any referenda about any pipeline?

How do you know that 60% of the people are against the Tory approach to handling the pipeline issue?