CEOs: Aboriginal say in natural resource development

[jacee]

Aboriginal rights exist on all traditional Aboriginal lands - ie, all of Canada - regardless of 'land claim' or 'title' issues. This new reality is now playing out primarily in remote areas where resource extraction development is in progress.

Business is now on board with the law - Supreme Court rulings upholding Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share of revenues - but smooth implementation requires better government involvement.

Since provinces are responsible for resource and other development, they are or should be the main players in facilitating the 'consultation and accommodation' with First Nations.

CEOs see need to bolster aboriginal say in natural resource development

Canada's aboriginal communities have found a powerful ally in the discussion about tapping the country's natural-resource wealth Big business wants them at the negotiating table, and is urging the federal and table, and is urging the federal and provincial governments to lend a helping hand. hand A new report due Monday from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives prepared for Canada's premiers in advance of their meeting later this month, urges governments to make aborigina communities full partners in developing energy and mining projects. Governments should help train a growing aboriginal workforce and develop new ways to support aboriginal communitie

At the same time, Ottawa put an extra $13.6 million into supporting aborigina participation in environmental assessments — an acknowledgment that First Nations demands must be dealt with in order for many projects to proceed.

But First Nations are appalled at the changes to environmental assessment and fisheries, saying they will erode federal oversight of the land and weaken aboriginal say in how natural resources are developed. Plus, many First Nations oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline and are speaking up to demand larger roles in mining and hydro developments in other parts of the country too.

Sharing resource revenues is likely to be a key theme at the Assembly of First Nations annual meetings this week in Toronto, with chiefs comparing notes on how aboriginal communities can speak with a more powerful voice.

This legal right to share in development planning, jobs, contracts and revenues is the long overdue route to sustainability and health of Aboriginal communities, I believe.

I applaud business for pressuring governments to fulfill their responsibilities in facilitating these processes.

[eyeball]

CEOs: Aboriginal say in natural resource development ABORIGINAL RIGHTS NOW A FACT OF DOING BUSINESS

Okay, but I still expect a good part of the business of natural resource development - the process that CEO's and national governments (First or otherwise) use to pave the way - will be weighted in favour of the interests of those who are conducting it.

I doubt the new reality will really be all that much of a change in the scheming of things.

[Canuckistani]

So let's see - Aboriginals are entitled to the same govt expenditures as any other Canadian, plus whatever extras the Indian Act calls for. And we give them a part of the resource revenues. Sweet deal if you have the right genes. At what point do we just start calling then Canadians++ or C++ for short?

[bush_cheney2004]

So let's see - Aboriginals are entitled to the same govt expenditures as any other Canadian, plus whatever extras the Indian Act calls for.... At what point do we just start calling then Canadians++ or C++ for short?

When First Nations get to legislate a "Visible Majority Act" ?

[Shady]

So let's see - Aboriginals are entitled to the same govt expenditures as any other Canadian, plus whatever extras the Indian Act calls for. And we give them a part of the resource revenues. Sweet deal if you have the right genes. At what point do we just start calling then Canadians++ or C++ for short?

Good question. It'd be nice if they started contributing to the country. They reap the benefits of everybody else's work.

[cybercoma]

Good question. It'd be nice if they started contributing to the country. They reap the benefits of everybody else's work.

You don't reap any benefits at all from living on their lands, eh?

[westguy]

You don't reap any benefits at all from living on their lands, eh?

at substantial cost for their benefits

[cybercoma]

at substantial cost for their benefits

Your definition of substantial needs revision. The gains FAR exceed the costs. In fact, the First Nations are bearing the costs of our exploitation of their ancestral lands.

[jacee]

Good question. It'd be nice if they started contributing to the country. They reap the benefits of everybody else's work.

I see you know little about your own country, how it came to be, what its legal foundation is.

Their 'contribution' is the land itself ... time for us to finally pay them what's due according to our original agreements with them, instead of trying to destroy them including murdering their children en masse.

Learn about your country, Shady.

Learn the truth about your country.

This is the truth: They own it.

It's nice to see them finally getting what's owing.

[jacee]

Okay, but I still expect a good part of the business of natural resource development - the process that CEO's and national governments (First or otherwise) use to pave the way - will be weighted in favour of the interests of those who are conducting it.

I doubt the new reality will really be all that much of a change in the scheming of things.

Got a link or any clarification of your theory?

This is by order of the Supreme Court and can be enforced by the court if not satisfactory.

[bleeding heart]

I'm just a little surprised that some people feel personally victimized by the evil Natives.

That makes me laugh. At them.

[Canuckistani]

Your definition of substantial needs revision. The gains FAR exceed the costs. In fact, the First Nations are bearing the costs of our exploitation of their ancestral lands.

And are benefit ting from us developing those lands and creating a modern economy on them.

[jacee]

So let's see - Aboriginals are entitled to the same govt expenditures as any other Canadian, plus whatever extras the Indian Act calls for. And we give them a part of the resource revenues. Sweet deal if you have the right genes. At what point do we just start calling then Canadians++ or C++ for short?

No you're wrong.

Their funding for local government, education, health,

Social services, etc is less than ours, and there are no "extras" in the Indian Act, unless you count kidnapping and 'losing' and killing a lot of their children.

These processes are the correct ones according to our legal treaties with them that allow us to live here. We're just a few hundred years late in upholding our part of the deal we made.

[jacee]

I'm just a little surprised that some people feel personally victimized by the evil Natives.

That makes me laugh. At them.

I guess it's laughable ... but kinda sad how many people don't know the foundation facts of Canada.

Articles like this are informative ... if people care to learn.

[jacee]

And are benefit ting from us developing those lands and creating a modern economy on them.

They haven't benefited much to date. In fact many of their communities have been devastated by industrial pollution that destroyed their way of life and their health, with no benefit for them.

Grassy Narrows, for example ...

http://sketchythoughts.blogspot.ca/2006/07/grassy-narrows-community-resisting.html?m=1

They are beginning to benefit now, due to Supreme Court rulings upholding the treaties, their rights and our obligations.

[jacee]

You don't reap any benefits at all from living on their lands, eh?

Well said!

[cybercoma]

And are benefit ting from us developing those lands and creating a modern economy on them.

I guess all that contaminated drinking water, dilapidated schools and those third-world conditions on reserves is what you're calling "developing those lands and creating a modern economy."

[Guest Derek L]

Aboriginal rights exist on all traditional Aboriginal lands - ie, all of Canada - regardless of 'land claim' or 'title' issues. This new reality is now playing out primarily in remote areas where resource extraction development is in progress.

Business is now on board with the law - Supreme Court rulings upholding Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share of revenues - but smooth implementation requires better government involvement.

Since provinces are responsible for resource and other development, they are or should be the main players in facilitating the 'consultation and accommodation' with First Nations.

CEOs see need to bolster aboriginal say in natural resource development

Canada's aboriginal communities have found a powerful ally in the discussion about tapping the country's natural-resource wealth Big business wants them at the negotiating table, and is urging the federal and table, and is urging the federal and provincial governments to lend a helping hand. hand A new report due Monday from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives prepared for Canada's premiers in advance of their meeting later this month, urges governments to make aborigina communities full partners in developing energy and mining projects. Governments should help train a growing aboriginal workforce and develop new ways to support aboriginal communitie

At the same time, Ottawa put an extra $13.6 million into supporting aborigina participation in environmental assessments — an acknowledgment that First Nations demands must be dealt with in order for many projects to proceed.

But First Nations are appalled at the changes to environmental assessment and fisheries, saying they will erode federal oversight of the land and weaken aboriginal say in how natural resources are developed. Plus, many First Nations oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline and are speaking up to demand larger roles in mining and hydro developments in other parts of the country too.

Sharing resource revenues is likely to be a key theme at the Assembly of First Nations annual meetings this week in Toronto, with chiefs comparing notes on how aboriginal communities can speak with a more powerful voice.

This legal right to share in development planning, jobs, contracts and revenues is the long overdue route to sustainability and health of Aboriginal communities, I believe.

I applaud business for pressuring governments to fulfill their responsibilities in facilitating these processes.

I truly think this is the first sign of the coming apocalypse…………I agree with you that this is a truly positive development and the this would truly be placing the horse before the cart in a long process that will hopefully see (most) aboriginal communities become self sufficient, thus allowing them to wean themselves off of Government assistance and/or reliance.

Grant them the opportunities to truly succeed first prior to cutting them loose………….It worked well for the vast majority of Alaskan aboriginal communities and hopefully we can mirror the same level of success.

[capricorn]

Business is now on board with the law - Supreme Court rulings upholding Aboriginal rights to a say in development and a share of revenues - but smooth implementation requires better government involvement.

That's an encouraging proclamation by the CEOs. Yet, it comes with a cautionary note.

For corporations, which look at potential projects from a cost-benefit perspective, the downside of not having all interested parties on board and pulling in the same direction quickly becomes insurmountable, he said.

"Can you look at this, and construct a road map to completion within a reasonable period of time?'" Manley said.

"Because if you can't get there in a reasonable period of time, or if you can't figure out how you are going to manage all of the different and contradictory interests, the odds are, your capital will be better deployed elsewhere."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/give-aboriginals-fair-say-in-natural-resource-talks-ceos-urge-ottawa-provinces-162516436.html?device=mobile

In other words, "We have only so much time in which operational decisions can be made and when innumerable roadblocks are thrown up we'll pull up stakes and invest elsewhere".

Seems to me that message was intended both for Natives and government.

[eyeball]

Got a link or any clarification of your theory?

You need clarification on human nature and how the physics of power and influence work?

This is by order of the Supreme Court and can be enforced by the court if not satisfactory.

Satisfactory to who?

[Canuckistani]

I guess all that contaminated drinking water, dilapidated schools and those third-world conditions on reserves is what you're calling "developing those lands and creating a modern economy."

So we're going to keep building them water treatment plants, schools and other infrastructure, none of which they bother to maintain? How about they actually do something for themselves instead of just sitting there with their hands out, playing the victim?

Do we really want to create, or more accurately further develop, a system where by some people in Canada get a share of resource income just by nature of their genetic makeup, without having to lift a finger to do a lick of work to earn it? Will that really do them any good?

[cybercoma]

So we're going to keep building them water treatment plants, schools and other infrastructure, none of which they bother to maintain?

I bet you reacted the same way with the situation in Walkerton too.

And yes. We're going to keep building shit there because that's what we do in the Rest of Canada. It just so happens that when it comes to First Nations the federal government takes the role of provincial and municipal government too. Except when you combine the spending by all three levels of government in the rest of Canada, it exceeds what the federal government spends on the First Nations.

Oh and that include their so-called handouts.

Edited July 17, 2012 by cybercoma

[Wild Bill]

And are benefit ting from us developing those lands and creating a modern economy on them.

This is what has always puzzled me in the claims of many who support the natives. I don't deny that the natives have many claims with validity but this idea that they had a right to ALL of Canadian land just doesn't make sense!

At the time Europeans started colonizing the New World the natives certainly had not surveyed and colonized the entire continent. There were relatively few of them by today's standards. Certainly, there were never enough to cover every square foot of territory. Most of Canada was open and undeveloped, some of it even unexplored by natives, for the simple reason that there weren't that many of them compared to the size of the country!

Yet we are to believe that they have a right to be considered the landlords of the entire country. Certainly, if land had been unfairly taken from the natives, like Kettle Point for just one example, then the native claims are not just valid but obvious. Still, it seems that some take the idea to the point of ridiculous.

Also, this idea of the land in many areas being worth far more due to development never seems to get fair consideration. Look at what happened at the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia. If the natives were to get possession of that land, why should they have a right to all the houses built on it? Should the land not be razed and reforested? Should it not be restored to the condition it was first in when the natives supposedly unfairly lost it?

If a land claim is in a native band's favour in Northern Canada, should they be entitled to any operating mines in that area, for free? How much mining were natives doing when the New World was being colonized by Europe?

I am not trying to deny that natives have legitimate claims. I just can't understand this idea that they are entitled to EVERYTHING!

What's more, most native bands do not possess the infrastructure in people or resources to keep running things like gold mines. Certainly not without buying and using equipment invented and manufactured by people OTHER than natives! I won't deny that there are some natives that can do this but I don't think there are enough of them for the scale of what would be involved.

I also don't see why Canada should be the only country in the world expected to be held to the standards of today for what happened a couple of centuries ago, much of which happened before there was a Canada!

I've always believed that if you personally had no input or power with a decision then you are not responsible for it. This idea that somehow everyone not native belongs to some "tribe" with a collective guilt is totally bananas, as far as I'm concerned! I have enough problem dealing with my own sins. I do not accept responsibility in anyway for those of anyone else!

Frankly, I find the idea of collective guilt due to sharing race a fundamental cause of racism in the first place! Should I refuse to have a Japanese Canadian for a friend because his great grandfather fought for Japan in the Pacific theatre?

After all, is he not of that "tribe"?

[cybercoma]

How would their societies, religion, systems of government, education, etc. have developed had we not completely disrupted them and demanded that they throw everything away and become "civilized"? Their ways of life were completely incompatible with Europeans, yet they were led to believe that it was a partnership the entire time and that Europeans were "sharing" the land with them.

[Wild Bill]

How would their societies, religion, systems of government, education, etc. have developed had we not completely disrupted them and demanded that they throw everything away and become "civilized"? Their ways of life were completely incompatible with Europeans, yet they were led to believe that it was a partnership the entire time and that Europeans were "sharing" the land with them.

How can we possibly debate a "what if"?

What if their culture stayed the same? Scotland had tribal culture over the same few thousand years and they advanced much further than North American natives. Seen any metal Claymores from Iroquois tribes?

What if it had advanced beyond the Europeans? What if they had developed spaceflight and left to colonize the asteroid Belt?

When did you stop beating your wife?

You are arguing something totally separate - a non sequitur. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that many Europeans at that time were scumbags by modern standards, what has that to do to support this notion that natives have a right to ALL the land?

Seems to me you are simply saying "Gee, the Europeans of that time were not nice, therefore we today should give you EVERYTHING! We non-natives are totally responsible for the sins of our fathers, even those of us whose fathers were living in completely different parts of the world at that time!"

So to right the wrongs of long ago we are supposed to punish a completely different group of people today? No wonder racist feuds can last for generations!

I well understand what Bruce Cockburn meant when he sang "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay!"