First nations patiences waning

[jacee]

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?

Clearly the Supreme Court says so, and the government has lots of words on paper ...

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014664/1100100014675

[Accountability Now]

Clearly the Supreme Court says so, and the government has lots of words on paper ...

http://www.aadnc-aan...4/1100100014675

You didn't even come close to answering my question. Where in the original treaties does it show this? I've looked a number of times and don't see it anywhere yet I hear natives continually talking about how we are not living up to the treaties. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[WIP]

Brazman = Senator Patrick Brazeau

What did Brazman do to get placed in the Senate by the Tories? Senators get paid even if they only show up once a year to keep the cheques coming. It's the ultimate payoff for those who have sold their souls for personal gain.

[jacee]

You didn't even come close to answering my question. Where in the original treaties does it show this? I've looked a number of times and don't see it anywhere yet I hear natives continually talking about how we are not living up to the treaties. I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

You'd have to read the Supreme Court judgements for the interpretation.

[Accountability Now]

You'd have to read the Supreme Court judgements for the interpretation.

Ok...so it's not in the original treaties. It's just the bleeding hearts in the Supreme Court and the natives who have inflated their rights through the judicial system. I have zero sympathy when they say they don't get enough as its clear they get WAY more than what was originally agreed to.

[jacee]

Ok...so it's not in the original treaties. It's just the bleeding hearts in the Supreme Court and the natives who have inflated their rights through the judicial system. I have zero sympathy when they say they don't get enough as its clear they get WAY more than what was originally agreed to.

It's in the treaties and related accounts, and the Supreme Court interpretations. You can fight the law if you wish. Seems futile to me.

Here's the key fact: We made treaties with them so that we could live on their land. They retained the rights to sustain themselves - make a living - from the land ... from us.

That's the legal source of our support for them. They also retain resource rights - logging, mining, etc.

Not to say we've honoured the treaties in the past, we haven't.

But our courts are catching up now.

It's a balancing act though: Nobody benefits if our economy goes down the tubes.

Unfortunately, our provincial and federal governments' failure to change their ways is now evident in declining resource development, revenues, investments, etc.

BC is in trouble, Alberta's in trouble, Ontario will be ...

Edited January 25, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

It's in the treaties and related accounts, and the Supreme Court interpretations. You can fight the law if you wish. Seems futile to me.

Here's the key fact: We made treaties with them so that we could live on their land. They retained the rights to sustain themselves - make a living - from the land ... from us.

That's the legal source of our support for them. They also retain resource rights - logging, mining, etc.

Not to say we've honoured the treaties in the past, we haven't.

But our courts are catching up now.

It's a balancing act though: Nobody benefits if our economy goes down the tubes.

Unfortunately, our provincial and federal governments' failure to change their ways is now evident in declining resource development, revenues, investments, etc.

BC is in trouble, Alberta's in trouble, Ontario will be ...

Please define what you mean by their land? They surrendered the land and all rights that we live on. I agree that any work or resource extraction done on reserves should be to their favor.

[Michael Hardner]

Please define what you mean by their land? They surrendered the land and all rights that we live on. I agree that any work or resource extraction done on reserves should be to their favor.

Here's an example:

Ipperwash Wikipedia Page

In 1936, the Province of Ontario created Ipperwash Provincial Park.^[2]

In 1942 during World War II, the Government of Canada wanted reserve land from the Stoney Point Band to use as a base for military training and offered to buy it for $15 per acre. They also promised to return the land after the war ended. The Natives rejected the offer.

Under the War Measures Act, the federal government appropriated the lands from the Stoney Point Reserve and established Military Camp Ipperwash. The First Nations claim that the grounds contain a burial site. As of 2010, archaeological surveys have established that such a site does indeed exist.^[3]

As early as 1993, while Camp Ipperwash was still being used as a summer training centre for the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, a few natives had occupied portions of the camp and the adjacent piece of land. After the summer of 1993, the government moved the cadet camp to CFB Borden. There was growing tension about the base at Camp Ipperwash.

[Accountability Now]

In these situations, I agree that the band should be compensated just as I would expect to be comensated as if I owned land.

Are most cases like this where government or business has gone on reserve lands?

[Michael Hardner]

Are most cases like this where government or business has gone on reserve lands?

Here's the thing: nobody really knows what's going on.

We have the worst combination of outraged protesters, obtuse media, and self-serving politicians while most Canadians either wonder what's going on or they just parrot the words of whatever group usually matches their political colours.

The government and interested groups should use this issue as a test case for building a new process from scratch. Align grassroots protesters with their purported leadership - get politicians to form an all-party response to depoliticize this, and get a list of issues out there for the public to look at so that we can understand what the issues are.

[g_bambino]

The courts have settled it repeatedly:

So? The courts haven't said at all, let alone repeatedly, that First Nations need to be consulted on everything. "We propose raising the budget of the National Capital Commission by $2 million.... Must consult the local First Nation!" Er, no.

[g_bambino]

[W]here in the original treaties does it say that Canada must consult with the First Nations on anything?

By my reading of it, it's in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which outlines that lands reserved for First Nations cannot be bought or taken by anyone else unless via the Crown, which means the Crown has to negotiate the purchase or transfer or whatever.

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. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.--We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure. that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida. or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments. as described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of 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.

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

Royal Proclamation of 1763

Where it's said the government must consult First Nations about changes in legislation relating to waterways, I don't know.

[Accountability Now]

So again...

Here's the thing: nobody really knows what's going on.

We have the worst combination of outraged protesters, obtuse media, and self-serving politicians while most Canadians either wonder what's going on or they just parrot the words of whatever group usually matches their political colours.

The government and interested groups should use this issue as a test case for building a new process from scratch. Align grassroots protesters with their purported leadership - get politicians to form an all-party response to depoliticize this, and get a list of issues out there for the public to look at so that we can understand what the issues are.

Touche Michael. I am all for owning up to the promises made. Further to that I have no problems with natives asking for compensation and consulation for activity on their land. But the rest seems like a hodge podge of info!

It certainly would be nice to deal with it once and for all.

[Accountability Now]

By my reading of it, it's in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which outlines that lands reserved for First Nations cannot be bought or taken by anyone else unless via the Crown, which means the Crown has to negotiate the purchase or transfer or whatever.

I'll have to have a quick read over that one. If its on reserve lands than no issues!

[Michael Hardner]

So again...

Touche Michael. I am all for owning up to the promises made. Further to that I have no problems with natives asking for compensation and consulation for activity on their land. But the rest seems like a hodge podge of info!

It certainly would be nice to deal with it once and for all.

And I'm not pointing fingers at either side either. This is just a mess that needs a reboot IMO.

[TimG]

I am all for owning up to the promises made.

The issue is not the promises made but the way courts have re-interpreted these promises to make them much more expensive today. For example, I am fairly sure that the British never intended for natives to retain mineral rights for their lands when treaties were signed - yet those are now taken for granted because of court re-interpretation of those rights.

The net result is I don't care about promises made in the past because the courts have already torn up those agreements. The only thing that matters is a fair resolution that acknowledges the history while finding practical ways to address the real problems facing natives today. Grandstanding over nation-to-nation relationships or claiming that all land subject to aboriginal title is not helpful.

[Michael Hardner]

. Grandstanding over nation-to-nation relationships or claiming that all land subject to aboriginal title is not helpful.

It's not helpful, I think, because it's not practical. As such, abstracting First Nations out of existence by saying "we're all Canadians" is also not helpful. But here we're just comparing the behavior of front-line FN protesters and posters on here.

[TimG]

But here we're just comparing the behavior of front-line FN protesters and posters on here.

The problem are the many native leaders who do think the nation to nation stuff has relevance. The chiefs who boycotted the meeting with Harper did so because Harper decided on the location for the meeting and they felt an equal relationship required that Harper come to them.

There can be no resolution with natives as long as they cling to fantasies based on how things were 400 years ago.

[Smallc]

As such, abstracting First Nations out of existence by saying "we're all Canadians" is also not helpful.

But we are. That doesn't mean that cultural groups don't exist within that.

[g_bambino]

I am fairly sure that the British never intended for natives to retain mineral rights for their lands when treaties were signed - yet those are now taken for granted because of court re-interpretation of those rights.

Is it? Is there a way you can think of to extract the minerals without purchasing or leasing the land those minerals are in?

[TimG]

Is it? Is there a way you can think of to extract the minerals without purchasing or leasing the land those minerals are in?

In BC land owners have no rights to the minerals under their land and are legally obliged to allow the owners of the mineral rights to have access to the property whenever they like. Most jurisdictions separate the mineral rights from the surface rights and compel the surface owner to provide access - they only difference is how they balance the surface owner rights vs the mineral owner rights.

So no - I don't think granting mineral rights was ever something envisioned by the British signing the treaties (after all natives had no need of them at the time and gold and iron was valuable stuff). But the courts in Canada have re-interpreted the treaties to include such rights - which is fine. But it also means that it no longer makes any difference what the treaties originally said - the only question is what is fair given the social context today.

Edited January 25, 2013 by TimG

[g_bambino]

In BC land owners have no rights to the minerals under their land and are legally obliged to allow the owners of the mineral rights to have access to the property whenever they like. Most jurisdictions separate the mineral rights from the surface rights and compel the surface owner to provide access - they only difference is how they balance the surface owner rights vs the mineral owner rights.

And First Nations have the constitutional right to their land until it is bought by the Crown or by a third party via the Crown. So, how does one extract the minerals without purchasing or leasing the land those minerals are in?

[ed.: +]

Edited January 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[TimG]

And First Nations have the constitutional right to their land until it is bought by the Crown or by a third party via the Crown. So, how does one extract the minerals without purchasing or leasing the land those minerals are in?

You don't seem to understand what mineral rights mean. You can purchase land but you do not have the mineral rights. If someone else purchases those rights you are legally compelled to allow them access to your land to access the minerals. You are entitled to compensation if buildings or structures are destroyed but you cannot legally prevent access or charge for that access. Edited January 25, 2013 by TimG

[g_bambino]

You don't seem to understand what mineral rights mean. You can purchase land but you do not have the mineral rights. If someone else purchases those rights you are legally compelled to allow them access to your land to access the minerals.

I understand perfectly what you're trying to say. But, you don't seem to understand that Acts of Parliament don't override the constitution. So, if any company purchases rights to minerals under First Nations territory, they can't access it until a deal for the surface land over the minerals has been made with the First Nation in question, with the Crown as broker.

[TimG]

I understand perfectly what you're trying to say. But, you don't seem to understand that Acts of Parliament don't override the constitution. So, if any company purchases rights to minerals under First Nations territory, they can't access it until a deal for the surface land over the minerals has been made with the First Nation in question, with the Crown as broker.

From that perspective your argument is correct. But being able to block access to the mineral is not the same as owning the mineral rights.