First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[cybercoma]

Because they don't get enough money to maintain what they have. Sewage treatment facilities require staff and maintenance. Reserves do not operate like municipalities. They need to cover all levels of government with their funding. They run and staff their own schools, medical clinics, etc. The funding they get is wholly inadequate for this.

[Guest Peeves]

Because they don't get enough money to maintain what they have. Sewage treatment facilities require staff and maintenance. Reserves do not operate like municipalities. They need to cover all levels of government with their funding. They run and staff their own schools, medical clinics, etc. The funding they get is wholly inadequate for this.

Without prejudice, how can that be determined when so often tribal books are not audited nor expenses verified, nor wages proportionate, nor employment opportunity viable,?

The funding they get may well be effected by tribal malfeasance in many cases from what I'm reading.

[cybercoma]

Without prejudice, how can that be determined when so often tribal books are not audited nor expenses verified, nor wages proportionate, nor employment opportunity viable,?

The funding they get may well be effected by tribal malfeasance in many cases from what I'm reading.

It may be in some cases, but the fact is that many Reserves have their book open, they're audited regularly, and many of them are under co-management. Moreover, they can't just spend money on whatever they want. There's specific guidelines from AAND on what money can be put towards. The auditor generals' reports also indicate that financial is inadequate. While there is without a doubt some dishonest Chiefs, it's not so widespread that it is causing quite literally half the Reserves to have boil water advisories for months at a time (some of them years). The problems are too common and too widespread to be an issue of corrupt Chiefs. The common denominator is inadequate funding to run these municipalities, as well as handling provincial and federal level responsibilities at the same time.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It may be in some cases, but the fact is that many Reserves have their book open, they're audited regularly, and many of them are under co-management. Moreover, they can't just spend money on whatever they want. There's specific guidelines from AAND on what money can be put towards. The auditor generals' reports also indicate that financial is inadequate. While there is without a doubt some dishonest Chiefs, it's not so widespread that it is causing quite literally half the Reserves to have boil water advisories for months at a time (some of them years). The problems are too common and too widespread to be an issue of corrupt Chiefs. The common denominator is inadequate funding to run these municipalities, as well as handling provincial and federal level responsibilities at the same time.

I am not sure what the cause of the problems is or was, and I am convinced the Government of Canada doesn't either. That is why I believe there are issues in the first place. It always has taken two to tango and we know what a bunch of rocket scientists we elect on a regular basis so its not a stretch to imagine there will be problems in negotiations! I fault both sides on this one, there had better be enough room for all the responsible people to have a seat at a table and a bed in a room for as long as it takes to get OUR collective shit together and resolve the issues.

I suggest locking all the stake holders up someplace until they resolve their differences, period.

[charter.rights]

I am not sure what the cause of the problems is or was, and I am convinced the Government of Canada doesn't either. That is why I believe there are issues in the first place. It always has taken two to tango and we know what a bunch of rocket scientists we elect on a regular basis so its not a stretch to imagine there will be problems in negotiations! I fault both sides on this one, there had better be enough room for all the responsible people to have a seat at a table and a bed in a room for as long as it takes to get OUR collective shit together and resolve the issues.

I suggest locking all the stake holders up someplace until they resolve their differences, period.

The solving of First Nation issues is not a negotiation. It is a dictatorship. See Attawapiskat for an example.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The solving of First Nation issues is not a negotiation. It is a dictatorship. See Attawapiskat for an example.

Well CR, what can I say ? A way to solve the issues MUST BE found. Why not lock up the two sides and demand resolution ? It is way past time to deal with the issues.

[charter.rights]

Well CR, what can I say ? A way to solve the issues MUST BE found. Why not lock up the two sides and demand resolution ? It is way past time to deal with the issues.

Because the government doesn't play fair (see Attawapiskat for example).

In land claims negotiations the government has a take it or leave it approach. Six Nations is currently back in court over Plank Road claim and others since the government brought 5 years of negotiations to a standstill. Not only did they refuse to put in a negotiator with a mandate to solve the problem but they threw in a final offer (without even a serious primary offer) that was less than 1% of the value of the actual claim, without any explanation on how they arrived at the figure. The Supreme Court set out a formula for accessing the fair value of land in today's terms and the government refused to abide by it.

This is going to get worse before it gets better. Economic disruption, occupations and loss of development all over the country will be the result of the government's non-conciliatory policy. Insisting that only cash payment will be the result and trying to dictate terms to First Nations while ignoring law of mandatory consultation is causing the problem not trying to solve it.

Revolution is often the only way for government to change its position. When the entire electorate gets tired of being targets of political revolution, only then will the government be motivated to find resolution.

Edited December 31, 2011 by charter.rights

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Because the government doesn't play fair (see Attawapiskat for example).

In land claims negotiations the government has a take it or leave it approach. Six Nations is currently back in court over Plank Road claim and others since the government brought 5 years of negotiations to a standstill. Not only did they refuse to put in a negotiator with a mandate to solve the problem but they threw in a final offer (without even a serious primary offer) that was less than 1% of the value of the actual claim, without any explanation on how they arrived at the figure. The Supreme Court set out a formula for accessing the fair value of land in today's terms and the government refused to abide by it.

This is going to get worse before it gets better. Economic disruption, occupations and loss of development all over the country will be the result of the government's non-conciliatory policy. Insisting that only cash payment will be the result and trying to dictate terms to First Nations while ignoring law of mandatory consultation is causing the problem not trying to solve it.

Revolution is often the only way for government to change its position. When the entire electorate gets tired of being targets of political revolution, only then will the government be motivated to find resolution.

I would not recommend open and blatant revolt. I would advocate taking a serious step toward resolution. Elect a group of representatives stroll down to the House of Commons and demand to be heard. Make them look bad, create optics that favour your position. Get real and get serious.

[prairiechickin]

You're ignoring the fact that the entire land claims process is choked to the point of immobility by bogus land claims started by groups hoping to cash in someday. Last year Federation of Saskatchewan Indians was pressuring the Saskatchewan government for a share of oil and potash revenues because the Indians in Treaty Four only surrendered the land "to the depth of the plow". There was much hot air blown around and the Natives were restless threatening various kinds of revolution and mayhem, but it never actually got to court. That was probably because the phrase "To the depth of the plow" does not appear anywhere in Treaty Four, and that would likely have been a tough thing to get past a judge. But you can't blame the Indians for trying, right? It costs them nothing to stir up the pot with these baseless accustations (much like you are doing), and it makes it appear to the rank and file that they are indeed challenging Whitey for their share of the pot. And it produces yet another angry batch of young Natives who believe they are being denied their birthright. I had a bunch of my students up in arms about it last spring, until I made them go read Treaty Four.

As for your dire predictions regarding revolution and revolt, bring it on. Whatever sympathy non-Native Canadians had built up over the previous decades for the plight of Indians has been pretty much been squandered away due to an endless litany of corruption, mismanagement, and a philosophy of its-never-enough from Native leadership. If you don't believe me, go read the comments section at CBC.ca every time a story breaks concerning Attawapiskat. The Canadian taxpayer has had enough, and one short burst of violence from Natives would wipe out whatever sympathy was left. Harper's Conservatives would leap at the chance to wipe out billions in discretionary funding currently going to Natives, and Canadians would applaud the effort. So bring it on, I dare you.

[cybercoma]

Violence is the only way to get anything done.

[Wild Bill]

I would not recommend open and blatant revolt. I would advocate taking a serious step toward resolution. Elect a group of representatives stroll down to the House of Commons and demand to be heard. Make them look bad, create optics that favour your position. Get real and get serious.

If natives were to make more Canadians mere cannon fodder in their fight against the government, it would be naive in the extreme to assume they would vent their anger at the government and not at those immediately attacking them!

Nobody likes being used as a pawn. The counter reaction could be larger than expected.

Far more effective to target specific responsible politicians. THEN ordinary citizens might actually help!

[NWRS]

Violence is the only way to get anything done.

Strangely enough, violence can be a two way street, but to suggest that us mere non natives used violence to remove a road block would be unacceptable no doubt.

[charter.rights]

Strangely enough, violence can be a two way street, but to suggest that us mere non natives used violence to remove a road block would be unacceptable no doubt.

There are other ways to conduct a revolution other than through violence, even though violence creates direct and effective reaction. Protests, occupations and blockades have fro the most part been non-violent events, yet highly revolutionary and highly effective. There are other activities that Native people haven't yet employed that will cause government inaction to turn into action.

Our collective sympathy towards or against Natives is irrelevant in their revolution. In fact our collective anger and vocal concern is counted on as fodder for change. The government cannot react to protest, occupation and blockades and continue to ignore Aboriginal or treaty rights. Even the standard police response of charging people with mischief has become a no brainer. They know that it will get thrown out once it gets to court because the right to protest, especially over inequity or failures to consult and accommodate trump their silly charges. The police have been reluctant to get involved because they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Revolution is inevitable. Just be sure of the side you're on. It could be your last choice.

[dre]

It may be in some cases, but the fact is that many Reserves have their book open, they're audited regularly, and many of them are under co-management. Moreover, they can't just spend money on whatever they want. There's specific guidelines from AAND on what money can be put towards. The auditor generals' reports also indicate that financial is inadequate. While there is without a doubt some dishonest Chiefs, it's not so widespread that it is causing quite literally half the Reserves to have boil water advisories for months at a time (some of them years). The problems are too common and too widespread to be an issue of corrupt Chiefs. The common denominator is inadequate funding to run these municipalities, as well as handling provincial and federal level responsibilities at the same time.

That all true I think. But theres the basic question of why a "community" has to be funded at all. The people in that community can sell goods and services to each other, harvest natural resources, hunt, fish, mill lumber, and all kinds of other things. I get that we have responsibilities, but what bugs me is I dont see any real end game, and that hurts natives even more than it hurts us.

Whatever the plan is we need to get on with it.

[prairiechickin]

Revolution is inevitable. Just be sure of the side you're on. It could be your last choice.

Wow, sounds pretty dire. Let's look back for a bit through Canadian history for examples where violence got any group what they wanted. Let's see, we have the FLQ in the 1960's. That worked out well for them now that Quebec is a sovereign nation. Hmmm, before that we had the Regina Riot, that certainly secured the rights of the unemployed for time immemorial. And prior to that we had the Riel Rebellions. These most closely resemble what you're talking about, and I suspect the outcome would be about the same. But at least in the first one at Red River, Riel at least had a semblance of legitimacy since the West had yet to be claimed by Canada. Now Indians only have their own perceived sence of injustice and we'll see how long that holds up once the funding from Ottawa dries up.

[charter.rights]

I get that we have responsibilities, but what bugs me is I dont see any real end game, and that hurts natives even more than it hurts us.

There doesn't need to be an end game. The treaties under which we settled and developed land was to provided services and support as long as "the sun shines and grass grows". In other words, that is forever.

[prairiechickin]

There doesn't need to be an end game. The treaties under which we settled and developed land was to provided services and support as long as "the sun shines and grass grows". In other words, that is forever.

Just to be sure I went back and read Treaty Four again. Nowhere in that treaty does it mention service and support forever. Maybe I'm wrong. You go read it and quote the part that says Canada agrees to support the Indians forever. And just to set the record straight, the part about "as long as the sun shines and the grass grows" was put there by the government so Indians understood that this deal was for all time, that is, the government had no intention of renegotiating treaties one they were signed.

A mythology has grown up recently that the treaties were deals struck between two nations and were intended as a blueprint to share the land in perpetuity. This is pure historic fiction. The numbered treaties were mostly the product of 19th century thinking, and neither side considered the Indians a 'nation' as the term was understood in the 1870s. Indians were a collection of tribes, and the federal government's pursuit of treaties was designed to merely herd the Indians out of the way so immigration, railways, and settlement could take place in the West. Most Canadians considered the Indians to be a dying race, and the entire western reserve system was only intended to last one or two generations while the old folks died off and the young ones were assimilated into Canadian culture. It didn't work out that way, but that was the original intention. So all this nonsense about sharing the land forever is a fiction created by people with a very limited understanding of Canadian history.

[charter.rights]

Let's look back for a bit through Canadian history for examples where violence got any group what they wanted.

The burning of the Parliament Buildings 1849

This was when Canada was comprised of only Upper and Lower Canada or, as they are known today as Ontario and Quebec. Unfortunately for Montreal, in the year 1849 there was a riot due to the passing of a very controversial law known as the Rebellion Losses Bill and on the 25th of April the Parliament buildings that were situated in Montreal were burned down by a mob of angry people.

While violence is not to be condoned, rebellion has very much been a significant part of our history in Canada. Events such as the Upper Canada Rebellion 1838-39, the north West Rebellion 1885, and the Lower Canada Rebellion 1849 play pivotal roles in the evolution of Canada and its governments. However, protest - including occupations and blockades - have been the backbone of change in Canada over the years from women's rights to gay and lesbian rights, from the Winnipeg General Strike to the Occupy movement Canada has been about protest and change through it.

As far as Natives go, almost every protest they have engaged in whether they became violent or not, were intended as peaceful objections to government policies and laws, and for the most part have been highly successful. The re-emergence of protest and occupation as a means to effect change seems to have occurred as a test in 1968 when the Seaway Bridge was closed in Akwesasne by the Mohawks protesting duties on goods coming across the border. It continued through the 1980s with more protests over various issues. Most times the government retreated from its policies.

In 1990 the Kanehsatake protests over the clearing of a burial ground forest as a golf club expansion in Oka came to the forefront with 78 days of protest and occupation that turned violent when the Mayor of Oka called in the Surete du Quebec to take down the barricades sitting on contentious Mohawk lands. At the end of the that protest the Mohawks ended up with the land back and no expansion was permitted.

In 1995 there was the Gustafsen Lake protests over rights issues on unceded land, then Ipperwash, Burnt Church and Caledonia. As well as other smaller but effective protests throughout Canada by Native people. The end result has been success for Native people, in changing the government, obtain contentious land back or successfully getting the Courts to recognize aboriginal and treaty rights.

The Occupy Movement has included solidarity with Aboriginal people across Canada. It was successful in raising the attention and discussion of all Canadians on a variety of issues and since this is an on-going movement its further success will be determined. However, being rooted in fairness and supportive of constitutional rights, the Occupy Movement is part of the future of Aboriginal protests, and will no doubt effect change.

True rebellion originates in the minds of those whom are slighted by the failure of government to protect their collective rights. It grows when others are convinced of inequity and decide they want massive change. Perhaps it is time for us to burn down the Parliament buildings once again figuratively speaking, and take back government and the House of Commons for the benefit of all the people. First Nations have legitimate legal grievances and in that they are not alone.

[charter.rights]

Just to be sure I went back and read Treaty Four again. Nowhere in that treaty does it mention service and support forever. Maybe I'm wrong. You go read it and quote the part that says Canada agrees to support the Indians forever. And just to set the record straight, the part about "as long as the sun shines and the grass grows" was put there by the government so Indians understood that this deal was for all time, that is, the government had no intention of renegotiating treaties one they were signed.

A mythology has grown up recently that the treaties were deals struck between two nations and were intended as a blueprint to share the land in perpetuity. This is pure historic fiction. The numbered treaties were mostly the product of 19th century thinking, and neither side considered the Indians a 'nation' as the term was understood in the 1870s. Indians were a collection of tribes, and the federal government's pursuit of treaties was designed to merely herd the Indians out of the way so immigration, railways, and settlement could take place in the West. Most Canadians considered the Indians to be a dying race, and the entire western reserve system was only intended to last one or two generations while the old folks died off and the young ones were assimilated into Canadian culture. It didn't work out that way, but that was the original intention. So all this nonsense about sharing the land forever is a fiction created by people with a very limited understanding of Canadian history.

You have to read the Supreme Court rulings that have defined the government's fiduciary responsibilities to get a clearer picture. The text of treaties is misleading and incomplete.

The British and its successive governments set up the Royal Proclamation 1763 as a legal instrument to guard the nation to nation agreements they had with the Indians (primarily Six Nations through the Silver Covenant Chain agreements). The Canadian numbered treaties violated that legal protection and are still open to challenge in the courts. The Courts have held that not only did the treaties and framers deliberately leave promises out, the negotiation and settlement of the treaties did not follow the requirements of the Proclamation 1763 as required by law. In the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, the courts set of a test to validate treaties and agreements. Most of the numbered treaties (in text) on first glance do not meet this test.

Most of the history available between the early 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s was altered by the Family Compact Movement to reflect the legitimacy of their illegal actions. So you must take the numbered treaties and the interpretation with a grain of salt. In actual fact as the courts have demonstrated they mean a lot more that we are led to believe they mean. Winning land and treaty rights back in court is a full time job and the government in truth and under the fact of evidence have very little to go on.

Edited December 31, 2011 by charter.rights

[WWWTT]

While violence is not to be condoned, rebellion has very much been a significant part of our history in Canada.

I find it odd that you do not mention the American revolutionary war and the war of 1812 where natives helped define/protect Canada or BNA?

WWWTT

[prairiechickin]

The burning of the Parliament Buildings 1849

While violence is not to be condoned, rebellion has very much been a significant part of our history in Canada. Events such as the Upper Canada Rebellion 1838-39, the north West Rebellion 1885, and the Lower Canada Rebellion 1849 play pivotal roles in the evolution of Canada and its governments. However, protest - including occupations and blockades - have been the backbone of change in Canada over the years from women's rights to gay and lesbian rights, from the Winnipeg General Strike to the Occupy movement Canada has been about protest and change through it.

One could argue that the Rebellion in Lower Canada had some sort of indirect effect insofar as the outnumbered English in what is now Quebec realized they would have to merge with the Upper Canadians in order to achieve electoral superiority over the French. This would eventually lead to Confederation, but there was hardly a direct cause and effect. As for the Upper Canandian Rebellion, that was a bunch or drunks on horseback one afternoon and had no lasting effect on anything. The Northwest Rebellion of 1885 did manage to scatter the surviving Metis and gave the government a good excuse to crack down on the Indians, but otherwise had no lasting impact beyond giving John A. Macdonald a good excuse to lend even more money to the CPR to finish the railway. The Winnipeg General Strike gives history teachers a good lecture on labor relations after the Great War, but it again had no lasting effect on labor legislation in Canada. The Occupy movement gave some hippies and other malcontents a lesson in late fall camping, but otherwise was pretty pointless.

Now, if you'd used the example of how the women's suffrage movement led to prohibition, or how the Maritime Rights Movement of the 1920s would eventually bear fruit in the 1950s, you might have an argument for how protest leads to lasting change.

[prairiechickin]

You have to read the Supreme Court rulings that have defined the government's fiduciary responsibilities to get a clearer picture. The text of treaties is misleading and incomplete.

The British and its successive governments set up the Royal Proclamation 1763 as a legal instrument to guard the nation to nation agreements they had with the Indians (primarily Six Nations through the Silver Covenant Chain agreements). The Canadian numbered treaties violated that legal protection and are still open to challenge in the courts. The Courts have held that not only did the treaties and framers deliberately leave promises out, the negotiation and settlement of the treaties did not follow the requirements of the Proclamation 1763 as required by law. In the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, the courts set of a test to validate treaties and agreements. Most of the numbered treaties (in text) on first glance do not meet this test.

Most of the history available between the early 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s was altered by the Family Compact Movement to reflect the legitimacy of their illegal actions. So you must take the numbered treaties and the interpretation with a grain of salt. In actual fact as the courts have demonstrated they mean a lot more that we are led to believe they mean. Winning land and treaty rights back in court is a full time job and the government in truth and under the fact of evidence have very little to go on.

You clearly live in a dream state of some sort. Treaty Four, and all the others are legally binding documents and are unaffected by the Proclamation of 1763. That Proclamation is a one-way statement by the British Crown outlining its settlment policies vis-a-vis Native peoples. Its not a treaty, and its impact is limited to the area controlled by the British in 1763, that is the St. Lawrence Valley and what is now the Maritimes. The numbered treaties were negotiated AFTER Confederation between the sovereign nation of Canada and the Native peoples of the West. I know many Native lawyers would love to drag the Proclamation into all dealings, but its legally a non-starter anywhere west of Sudbury. It has been used to reaafirm some Native rights in Eastern Canada, but it in no way affects the numbered treaties. They are all stand-alone documents, and what's in there is what you get. Five bucks a year, some farming tools, and a school on the rez. Anything else exists only in your imagination.

[prairiechickin]

Most of the history available between the early 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s was altered by the Family Compact Movement to reflect the legitimacy of their illegal actions. So you must take the numbered treaties and the interpretation with a grain of salt. In actual fact as the courts have demonstrated they mean a lot more that we are led to believe they mean. Winning land and treaty rights back in court is a full time job and the government in truth and under the fact of evidence have very little to go on.

This is the kind of gibberish I get from students near the end of an exam when they don't know any more but still have blank pages staring them in the face. They write the craziest stuff hoping something will stick. I like to sip rum and laugh my ass off while I mark papers. The Family Compact Movement? Where'd you dream this up? And they managed to rewrite a century's worth of history to cover their crimes? Wow, they are good, better than those evil Freemasons.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You have to read the Supreme Court rulings that have defined the government's fiduciary responsibilities to get a clearer picture.

A lay person that attempts to use a SCC ruling will most likely be left to wonder what the answer really is. Legalisms and various terminologies we simply don't use make up a vast portion of legal rulings. They are not to be taken lightly without professional advice.

The text of treaties is misleading and incomplete.

Well we seem to have have a real problem then. You may have defined the issue very well with this sentence.

The British and its successive governments set up the Royal Proclamation 1763 as a legal instrument to guard the nation to nation agreements they had with the Indians (primarily Six Nations through the Silver Covenant Chain agreements). The Canadian numbered treaties violated that legal protection and are still open to challenge in the courts. The Courts have held that not only did the treaties and framers deliberately leave promises out, the negotiation and settlement of the treaties did not follow the requirements of the Proclamation 1763 as required by law. In the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, the courts set of a test to validate treaties and agreements. Most of the numbered treaties (in text) on first glance do not meet this test.

Well isn't that something! The treaties themselves are flawed. Who knew!

Most of the history available between the early 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s was altered by the Family Compact Movement to reflect the legitimacy of their illegal actions. So you must take the numbered treaties and the interpretation with a grain of salt. In actual fact as the courts have demonstrated they mean a lot more that we are led to believe they mean. Winning land and treaty rights back in court is a full time job and the government in truth and under the fact of evidence have very little to go on.

So says you. Who are you anyway? What do you do for a living CR?

[charter.rights]

You clearly live in a dream state of some sort. Treaty Four, and all the others are legally binding documents and are unaffected by the Proclamation of 1763. That Proclamation is a one-way statement by the British Crown outlining its settlment policies vis-a-vis Native peoples. Its not a treaty, and its impact is limited to the area controlled by the British in 1763, that is the St. Lawrence Valley and what is now the Maritimes. The numbered treaties were negotiated AFTER Confederation between the sovereign nation of Canada and the Native peoples of the West. I know many Native lawyers would love to drag the Proclamation into all dealings, but its legally a non-starter anywhere west of Sudbury. It has been used to reaafirm some Native rights in Eastern Canada, but it in no way affects the numbered treaties. They are all stand-alone documents, and what's in there is what you get. Five bucks a year, some farming tools, and a school on the rez. Anything else exists only in your imagination.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court has stated that the Royal Proclamation 1763 is in effect the rule of all treaty negotiations. Again, in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada they ruled that the Proclamation rules must have been followed, and where they were not, the surrender in invalid.

The Proclamation is the Supreme Law of Canada where in concerns our obligation to protecting Aboriginal rights.

Obviously you are the one denying reality.