First nations patiences waning

[jacee]

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.

The issue arises regarding lands under claim, or where a claim might apply under a treaty or Aboriginal right.

What happens is that while claims are not yet completed, resources are being extracted - logging, mining, gas, oil, etc.

Losing revenues, environmental damage, etc.

Blockades, injunctions ... not a happy process and through many court cases what was designed by the courts was this:

The Legal Duty to Consult

The legal duty for the Crown to consult with First Nations arises from the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights set out in Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The purpose of such protection has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown”. Accordingly, the duty to consult is an aspect of the reconciliation process which flows from the historical relationship between the Crown and Aboriginal Peoples and is “grounded in the honour of the Crown”.

The duty “arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it”. The Crown’s duty to consult is proportionate to the strength of the Aboriginal claim that has been asserted; it is not a duty to agree, nor does it give First Nations a right to veto, but rather requires “good faith on both sides” and requires the Crown to make a bona fide commitment to the principle of reconciliation over litigation.

http://www.blakes.com/english/view_disc.asp?ID=106

Where there are no treaties, land was never ceded or surrendered and Aboriginal title may exist. Where there are treaties, rights were still retained to sustain themselves from the land.

So in both cases, there is reason for the Crown to know that development activities may affect an aboriginal title or right. The strength of the claim may vary, and thus so does the depth of consultation and accommodation required.

Edited January 26, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

The duty "arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it".

You completely ignored my previous post on this:

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.

Edited January 26, 2013 by TimG

[Notthewookie]

Yeah. Lets forget about taking personal responsibility and be done with anyone who says we should

[g_bambino]

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.

Okay. But, you were talking about the British, treaties, and mineral rights. Do First Nations claim that treaties give them the right to the minerals in the land? Or, just to the land itself? As far as I know, it's the latter; though, that does give them control over minerals; the access to, specifically.

[TimG]

Do First Nations claim that treaties give them the right to the minerals in the land?

My original point is the courts have discarded any notion of what the treaties intended and substituted their own judgement for what is fair. I used the example of mineral rights which are included in the definition of "aboriginal title" by the courts but I do not feel that the British ever intended to include those rights when they reserved lands for Indians back in 1763. I don't think it was specifically stated because it would have been absurd (in the mind of a Brit at the times) to suggest that natives had anything other than surface rights to the lands reserved for them. Edited January 26, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

My original point is the courts have discarded any notion of what the treaties intended and substituted their own judgement for what is fair. I used the example of mineral rights which are included in the definition of "aboriginal title" by the courts but I do not feel that the British ever intended to include those rights when they reserved lands for Indians back in 1763. I don't think it was specifically stated but it would have been absurd (in the mind of a Brit at the times) to suggest that natives had anything other than surface rights to the lands reserved for them.

Can you google us up some info to support your speculation on mineral rights?

You are right that the duty to consult and accommodate doesn't rest entirely in the treaties: It exists where there are no treaties too. It's a matter of the honour of the Crown. You can call it fairness, but it's more like the integrity of the justice system at stake.

If land claim processes and negotiations are being intentionally delayed while the land is being logged, mined, having subdivisions, factories, roads, pipelines etc built ... where's the justice in that? ... the honour?

The Supreme Court designed the duty to consult and accommodate to hold the governments to account for ... yes ... fair dealing.

Because they weren't.

[eyeball]

Like so many other BIG constitutional issues, the solution of what to do should be fairly deducible by starting with the question WWJD. I mean, everyone is squabbling over and invoking a constitution that effectively points in that direction right from the get go so...I just don't get it. OTOH why should a poor atheist from Earth even want to bother trying?

[Canuckistani]

Jesus said render unto Ceasar - he wasn't interested in politics. He'd tell us to share and share alike, I think, which I would interpret as every Canadian gets the same deal, no preferences based on race. He'd certainly tell us to help the poor, and a lot of natives are poor and so would get helped, but not based on race. The same help would be available to 2nd Nations people as well. Early Christians were basically commies, so I don't think true Christians fit into a modern capitalist economy all that well.

[eyeball]

He also said do unto others yadda yadda. In any case I'm pretty sure the tables full of money in this issue would have drawn his attention.

[g_bambino]

I used the example of mineral rights which are included in the definition of "aboriginal title" by the courts...

The Supreme Court has said First Nations automatically have the rights to the minerals in reserve lands?

[TimG]

The Supreme Court has said First Nations automatically have the rights to the minerals in reserve lands?

If the can prove 'aboriginal title' they have rights to the minerals.

[eyeball]

If the aboriginal title is to North America wouldn't that be inferred, between the lines so to speak?

Before answering though, put yourself in their shoes for a moment.

[g_bambino]

If the aboriginal title is to North America...

"Aboriginal" is not and never has been a monolithic entity; there is thus no "aboriginal title" to North America.

[Rocky Road]

http://sikhactivist.net/silent-no-more-a-sikh-response-to-the-idle-no-more-movement/

Silent No More: A Sikh Response to the Idle No More Movement

[Accountability Now]

http://sikhactivist....-more-movement/

Silent No More: A Sikh Response to the Idle No More Movement

That's not surprising as they share a common enemy with the Brits. Its like I said, anyone who has a gripe with Canada or Britain or if their life just sucks in general....now is the time to say it by joining in with Idle No More. Seriously....that movement lost me when Occupy got on board.

[jacee]

Oh I expect the INM movement lost you before it even started.

Some good general info for those who wonder about FN funding:

How does native funding work?

Why does the federal government fund First Nations?

In 1867, the British North America Act made "Indians and lands reserved for the Indians" an exclusive federal jurisdiction, making the federal government responsible for providing programs and services that most communities in Canada receive from provincial and municipal levels of government. These include education, health and social services, roads, housing, water and waste management.

First Nations also lost land and resources through treaties and land claims settlements, which created government obligations to provide aid and services in return.

Providing a comparable range and level of service to First Nations and Inuit is a stated government goal, but according to Canada's auditor general, "Services available on reserves are often not comparable to those provided off reserves by provinces and municipalities," and conditions have remained poor.

In the 2011 report Programs for First Nations on Reserves, the auditor general also observed, "It is not always evident whether the federal government is committed to providing services on reserves of the same range and quality as those provided to other communities across Canada."

The federal government established each First Nation band as an autonomous entity and, therefore, provides separate program funding to each one. With about 630 First Nations – 60 per cent of which have fewer than 500 residents –economies of scale mean that delivering these programs likely will be expensive, compared to when similar services are provided at the municipal and provincial level.

[WIP]

Oh I expect the INM movement lost you before it even started.

Some good general info for those who wonder about FN funding:

How does native funding work?

Why does the federal government fund First Nations?

I saw this article yesterday. I wish it was around 65 pages ago....although that would make no difference to some people. I had already suspected that this funding issue was complicated and convoluted from some other articles I read, but one thing seems clear: if all you know of this issue is one or two factoids offered up by Sun Media, shut the hell up! As for the Sun, National Post, a few other conservative pundits, and I suspect - some powerful business interests intent on creating public hostility to natives for the purpose of making resource extraction easier and quicker.....hope you end up getting the worst of any possible blowback for your evil intentions!

[jacee]

I saw this article yesterday. I wish it was around 65 pages ago....although that would make no difference to some people. I had already suspected that this funding issue was complicated and convoluted from some other articles I read, but one thing seems clear: if all you know of this issue is one or two factoids offered up by Sun Media, shut the hell up! As for the Sun, National Post, a few other conservative pundits, and I suspect - some powerful business interests intent on creating public hostility to natives for the purpose of making resource extraction easier and quicker.....hope you end up getting the worst of any possible blowback for your evil intentions!

That statement warrants repeating with emphasis!

Yes, of course, slagging Aboriginal people definitely has it's foundation in greedy corporate interests and their sleazy 'PR' campaigns to undermine Aboriginal and treaty land rights.

And their bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces in Parliament too, of course.

And some non-union private sector workers brainwashed by bosses and treated so badly they hate and resent everyone else.

Imo

[WIP]

Yes, and I can't recall seeing a media assault intent on discrediting first nations until very recently. Even the Sun newspapers didn't go as far as they are right now. Everything....including the future, will be sacrificed in the interests of expanding tar sands development.

[Smallc]

[g_bambino]

Yes, and I can't recall seeing a media assault intent on discrediting first nations until very recently. Even the Sun newspapers didn't go as far as they are right now. Everything....including the future, will be sacrificed in the interests of expanding tar sands development.

Eeeeeek!

[Accountability Now]

Oh I expect the INM movement lost you before it even started.

No....I actually respected the environmental approach they were taking at first. That doesn't mean I agreed with it but I thought they had a good message. However once the fake hunger strike and illegal road blockades kicked in...I really started to dismiss their validity. Once I saw Occupy's involvement...well it was the last straw. It really became a case of all victoms uniting. It's too bad if they really did want to save the environment but that not really what this fight was about for them which is why I have a hard time supporting their cause.

[WIP]

No....I actually respected the environmental approach they were taking at first. That doesn't mean I agreed with it but I thought they had a good message. However once the fake hunger strike and illegal road blockades kicked in...I really started to dismiss their validity. Once I saw Occupy's involvement...well it was the last straw. It really became a case of all victoms uniting. It's too bad if they really did want to save the environment but that not really what this fight was about for them which is why I have a hard time supporting their cause.

Your side is the one with all the money....dirty money from my pov, since if we are able and determined to exploit all of the carbon locked up in the Earth, that will be the end of civilization and likely the extinction of the human race in a couple of centuries. I'm too old to be an Occupier, but I am sympathetic with their cause and Idle No More, so if it seems to you like the entire left is ganging up against you, it's because unless there is more working together by all sides on the left, we are no match for the money and ruthless power on the right.

[Accountability Now]

Your side is the one with all the money....dirty money from my pov

Here is where we differ....you group this into oil side versus non oil. I have very little to do with oil...actually my business would run a lot better if it weren't in Alberta. Like me...there are a number of people who don't make a living off oil.

I break the sides into responsible personalities versus victim personalities. The Occupy movement was nothing more than the have nots bitching about their lot in life. IDM started out as a responsible approach but quickly became a gripe about what the 'white man' has done. No logical requests or solutions to the problem just blaming anyone they can for their lot in life.

[jacee]

Here is where we differ....you group this into oil side versus non oil. I have very little to do with oil...actually my business would run a lot better if it weren't in Alberta. Like me...there are a number of people who don't make a living off oil.

I break the sides into responsible personalities versus victim personalities. The Occupy movement was nothing more than the have nots bitching about their lot in life. IDM started out as a responsible approach but quickly became a gripe about what the 'white man' has done. No logical requests or solutions to the problem just blaming anyone they can for their lot in life.

Don't make the mistake of presuming that everyone who speaks about INM, speaks on behalf of INM. You shouldn't judge the movement based on who decides to tag along.

The AFN Chiefs, including Chief Spence and those who called for 'nation- wide blockades', for example, were scolded by INM founders who do not endorse such strategies.

http://idlenomore.ca/index.php/item/74-face-and-leaders-of-idle-no-more-is-the-grassroots-people

If you browse the website, you'll get a better sense of what the movement is. You can contact the reps in your province too.