First nations patiences waning

[Rocky Road]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-attitudes-hardening-on-aboriginal-issues-new-poll/article7408516/

Looks like their approach is alienating the Canadian Public.

[Boges]

That Ipsos-Reid poll was cited earlier in this thread. I was about to do it until I saw it already.

I wonder how this can be portrayed as propaganda by the #IdleNoMore movement

[Canuckistani]

That Ipsos-Reid poll was cited earlier in this thread. I was about to do it until I saw it already.

I wonder how this can be portrayed as propaganda by the #IdleNoMore movement

I missed that, can you post it again?

[Accountability Now]

Idle No More doesn't align themselves with the Cheifs or with Spence. They have come right out and said it. Its kind of funny actually because the Cheifs and Spence keep saying they are doing this to support INM but they're support is not welcome.

[Boges]

IdleNoMore is like Occupy Wall Street. There's no centralized leadership so anyone can say they support it if they want.

[Boges]

I missed that, can you post it again?

Rocky Road just posted a link to a Globe article about it a few posts earlier.

[Michael Hardner]

IdleNoMore is like Occupy Wall Street. There's no centralized leadership so anyone can say they support it if they want.

Or the Tea Party...

[Topaz]

I notice that the poll was of 1000 people, which really isn't that many. I also, don't think non-natives, know why the FN is fighting for. I agree with them on the environment and what Bill C45 is going to do to the land, water and air. It's pretty safe to say , the Canadians have always been against the FN and their government support, so these people have a uphill battle to start with. I also, don't think Harper is willing to try to get along and do the right thing so its going to take the next election to get things done..

[Boges]

I notice that the poll was of 1000 people, which really isn't that many. I also, don't think non-natives, know why the FN is fighting for. I agree with them on the environment and what Bill C45 is going to do to the land, water and air. It's pretty safe to say , the Canadians have always been against the FN and their government support, so these people have a uphill battle to start with. I also, don't think Harper is willing to try to get along and do the right thing so its going to take the next election to get things done..

I think polls are bogus but most of these polls sample about that many people. They scientifically pick people from different areas to try and build an idea of what the masses think.

I'm sure if the poll said 80% of Canadians support the plight of Natives, you wouldn't be criticizing the sample size.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Boges

[Rocky Road]

Idle No More doesn't align themselves with the Cheifs or with Spence. They have come right out and said it. Its kind of funny actually because the Cheifs and Spence keep saying they are doing this to support INM but they're

support is not welcome.

makes me think that honest humility would be a far better strategy instead of overblown ego tripping

[jbg]

I don't understand the question; an "exception" to Canadian independence?

The question I have is whether the Queen would directly negotiate practical construction and/or amendments to FN treaties, or would that fall down to the PMO and Parliament?

[Smallc]

The Queen would not and could not.

[g_bambino]

The question I have is whether the Queen would directly negotiate practical construction and/or amendments to FN treaties, or would that fall down to the PMO and Parliament?

Smallc is right; she would not. But, that's because it would be unconstitutional; nothing to do with sovereignty. She could discuss treaty matters with First Nations representatives in private; but, still, all she could do is pass whatever information she gleaned and her opinion on to Cabinet (altogether exercising her Bagehotian right to be consulted, engourage, and warn), which makes the political decisions.

[jbg]

Smallc is right; she would not. But, that's because it would be unconstitutional; nothing to do with sovereignty. She could discuss treaty matters with First Nations representatives in private; but, still, all she could do is pass whatever information she gleaned and her opinion on to Cabinet (altogether exercising her Bagehotian right to be consulted, engourage, and warn), which makes the political decisions.

I had always thought the constitutional footing of FN relations was different.

[Bryan]

I had always thought the constitutional footing of FN relations was different.

It's not treated like it is it different, but it should be. The treaties (the original ones at least), ARE with Imperial England, of which 'we' were just a colony. It would never happen, but it would be very interesting to see a Prime Minister tell First Nation groups that feel the treaties aren't being upheld to take it up with the Queen.

[Accountability Now]

It's not treated like it is it different, but it should be. The treaties (the original ones at least), ARE with Imperial England, of which 'we' were just a colony. It would never happen, but it would be very interesting to see a Prime Minister tell First Nation groups that feel the treaties aren't being upheld to take it up with the Queen.

The treaties are with the Queen and her successors. Would the PM qualify as a successor?

[Smallc]

No...

[g_bambino]

I had always thought the constitutional footing of FN relations was different.

Not in the sense that any advice they tender to the Crown trumps that which is given by the ministers in Cabinet, who are responsible to parliament. They can use the stature and influence of the monarch or governor general and the weight of the long relationship between First Nations and the Crown to pressure the Cabinet; but, ultimately, political decisions are made by the politicians.

[g_bambino]

The treaties (the original ones at least), ARE with Imperial England, of which 'we' were just a colony.

You mean they were with Imperial Britain; England ceased to exist as a sovereign state in 1707 and Britain no longer has an empire. The treaties today are with the Canadian Crown, i.e. the Canadian state; this was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in England in 1982, when First Nations leaders went there trying to stop the patriation of the constitution. The court said the matter was out of its jurisdiction; the Crown in Canada in 1931 went from being that of the United Kingdom to that of Canada independently and the treaties were now fully within the jurisdiction of Canada.

[ed.: corr., +]

Edited January 24, 2013 by g_bambino

[jacee]

I may have missed some nuances while on 'vacation', but I'll just say that it's important to remember that while our politicians don't answer to the Queen anymore, they are bound by the law.

The duty to consult with First Nations and to accommodate their Aboriginal and treaty rights is the law.

http://www.hilltimes.com/opinion-piece/2013/01/21/lessons-of-attawapiskat-crisis-duty-to-consult-with-first-nations-is-sacrosanct/33381

Lessons of Attawapiskat crisis: Duty to consult with First Nations is sacrosanct

In Harper’s decision to employ a consultative approach as reflected in Haida, let us hope that we can genuinely heal the festering wounds in relations with our First Nations, sowing the seeds for a genuine renaissance in which we all reap the benefits.

____

While this crisis was spurred by the decision of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence to begin her fasting a month ago in protest to the federal government’s omnibus legislation, her actions served as a catalyst to a message the Conservative government chose to conveniently ignore; when making decisions that directly impact our First Nations, the duty to consult is not optional, but a non-negotiable imperative.

The constitutional authority for the duty to consult can be found in the relatively recent Supreme Court of Canada case, Haida v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests). Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin set out a three-part test indicating when this constitutional requirement is discharged: the Crown’s real or constructive knowledge of a potential aboriginal claim or right; contemplated Crown conduct; and the potential that the contemplated conduct may adversely affect an aboriginal claim or right.

Of significance is McLachlin’s insistence that the impugned government action does not need to have an “immediate” impact on land and resources. The mere “potential for adverse impact suffices,” she wrote. “The duty to consult extends to ‘strategic, higher level decisions’ that may have an impact on aboriginal claims and rights,” according to The Lawyers Weekly.

http://www.hilltimes.com/opinion-piece/2013/01/21/old-way-of-doing-business-is-dead/33375

Old way of doing business is dead

If the Idle No More story tells us anything, it is that trying to avoid necessary changes is no long a viable or sensible option.

_____

The arrival of 2013 should leave little doubt anywhere in Canada that most resource development in the country impacts on aboriginal lands and territories—and that the old way of doing business is dead.

What is perhaps not quite so clear is that the federal government is not alone in needing to respond. The provinces have control over natural resources, and often their laws and practices are the source of confrontation.

Nowhere is the clash over resources more prominent than in British Columbia, where an election will be held in three months time. That election could signal whether British Columbia can become a model for responsible, sustainable resource extraction, or will remain a costly battleground for taxpayers, First Nations and industry investors.

...

•Years of First Nations’ legal victories in B.C. have killed or stalled almost all major metal mining projects since the mid 1990s.

...

No meaningful consultation (influence on development), no adequate accommodation (revenue sharing) ...

No resource or other development.

Edited January 24, 2013 by jacee

[g_bambino]

The duty to consult with First Nations... is the law.

First Nations need not be consulted on absolutely everything. If someone feels some action by the government is unconstitutional, there are many courts that will settle that question for us.

[Sleipnir]

Brazman = Senator Patrick Brazeau

[jacee]

First Nations need not be consulted on absolutely everything. If someone feels some action by the government is unconstitutional, there are many courts that will settle that question for us.

The courts have settled it repeatedly:

Of significance is McLachlin’s insistence that the impugned government action does not need to have an “immediate” impact on land and resources. The mere “potential for adverse impact suffices,” she wrote. “The duty to consult extends to ‘strategic, higher level decisions’ that may have an impact on aboriginal claims and rights,” ...

No doubt the courts will do so again ... and again and again. However, at this point, the provincial and federal governments are missing out on significant resource developments and revenues due to their reluctance, or ineptness, in fulfilling their duty. It is having a chilling effect on all developments.

It will, may already, be more economically prudent for our governments to share revenues 'adequately' with Aboriginal communities than to forgo revenues entirely.

BC and Alberta are both experiencing losses. Ontario is facing the issue imminently with the 'ring of fire' plans.

The companies involved are very aware of the issue, and also aware of the lack of cooperation from governments. Investors are noticing ...

Seems to me there are solutions needed sooner than later.

[Accountability Now]

The courts have settled it repeatedly:

Of significance is McLachlin's insistence that the impugned government action does not need to have an "immediate" impact on land and resources. The mere "potential for adverse impact suffices," she wrote. "The duty to consult extends to 'strategic, higher level decisions' that may have an impact on aboriginal claims and rights," ...

No doubt the courts will do so again ... and again and again. However, at this point, the provincial and federal governments are missing out on significant resource developments and revenues due to their reluctance, or ineptness, in fulfilling their duty. It is having a chilling effect on all developments.

It will, may already, be more economically prudent for our governments to share revenues 'adequately' with Aboriginal communities than to forgo revenues entirely.

BC and Alberta are both experiencing losses. Ontario is facing the issue imminently with the 'ring of fire' plans.

The companies involved are very aware of the issue, and also aware of the lack of cooperation from governments. Investors are noticing ...

Seems to me there are solutions needed sooner than later.

I understand that court cases have come to this conclusion but where in the original treaties does it say that Canada must consult with the First Nations on anything?

[TimG]

Of significance is McLachlin's insistence that the impugned government action does not need to have an "immediate" impact on land and resources. The mere "potential for adverse impact suffices," she wrote. "The duty to consult extends to 'strategic, higher level decisions' that may have an impact on aboriginal claims and rights," ...

The court also said:

The claimant must show a causal relationship between the proposed

government conduct or decision and a potential for adverse impacts on pending Aboriginal claims

or rights. Past wrongs, speculative impacts, and adverse effects on a First Nation’s future

negotiating position will not suffice. Moreover, the duty to consult is confined to the adverse

impacts flowing from the current government conduct or decision, not to larger adverse impacts of

the project of which it is a part.

http://www.qlsys.ca/...s/2010scc43.pdf

The court is clear. Governments have a duty to consult when there are specific projects on aboriginal lands. The government has no such duty when it comes to crafting laws or policies. If aboriginals have a problem with the changes to the waterways regulation then they can bring that up during discussions of a particular project. There is no obligation to consult before country wide regulations are changed.

This is a good example of how natives have grossly inflated their rights as decided by the courts and fooled naive people like jacee into believing that their exaggerations have merit. Bottom line: just because a native claims something that does not mean it is true.

Edited January 25, 2013 by TimG