First nations patiences waning

[jbg]

No, not at all. I was just wondering because it says she's your hero right below your name. I guess that's just sarcasm like your claim that you aren't a far-right Republican.

Good catch. I had forgotten about my on-line description.

[g_bambino]

Excuse me?

See the Constitution Act 1867: The provinces have jurisdiction over non-renewable resources, forestry, and the production of electricity within their borders.

[eyeball]

If that's the case then we should have jurisdiction over fish in BC, because they've definitely proven to be non-renewable under Ottawa's jurisdiction.

[Accountability Now]

That's a bit of a mishmash of half truths.

Aboriginal subsurface rights exist unless specifically surrendered..

So when they say cede and surrender ALL rights to the land, you still beleive that means they get to keep subsurface rights? Or is this that famous oral history that we keep hearing of? What ever is most convenient....right?

Ahh ... she's just lying you mean.

There's no "majority" in Canada, growing or otherwise, who supports such statements.

But the numbers will tell the tale.

And you can read her apologies here to see if you think she's lying to improve her image.

http://www.kelownacapnews.com/opinion/203683291.html

I'm saying she is being a politician. Just like Trudeau now saying he does like Albertans even though he is quoted as saying otherwise. These people will give you any answer they can to stay elected. She is only sorry because she was caught not because of what she said. In the article she even states that she wants all Canadians to be treated the same regardless of race. This is the main focus point of people against aboriginal claims...is it not? Its evident that she is playing the typcial political role so go ahead and beleive the 'apology' if you want.

The numbers will tell the tale. I don't know if it was purposely done, but Idle No More and this whole movement took a sharp decline once they noticed how pissed off Canadians were getting with them. The only way natives will get anything is if they fly under the radar and go after small victories. Canadians don't notice these sort of things becasue we are too busy working and living our lives to care about some small victory. But raise a bit more noise and people will hear and finally say enough. We will start voting people in that will stand up for Canadians (not English, French, Natives, Germans, etc...but Canadians as a single entity). I trust you will not agree wtih this so I encourage you to have the natives beat their drums louder, block more roads, and make more noise. It will help get our attention.

.

And their children ... don't forget that their children were taken away from them too.

And their hunting grounds....and their way of live...and their reason to live. What else was taken? Please feel free to add it to the Victim pie that natives like to use to make the courts feel sorry for them.

[Smallc]

If that's the case then we should have jurisdiction over fish in BC, because they've definitely proven to be non-renewable under Ottawa's jurisdiction.

The offshore area is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, no matter what is happening there.

[jacee]

So when they say cede and surrender ALL rights to the land, you still beleive that means they get to keep subsurface rights? Or is this that famous oral history that we keep hearing of? What ever is most convenient....right?

I'll stand by what the courts say.

She is only sorry because she was caught not because of what she said. In the article she even states that she wants all Canadians to be treated the same regardless of race. This is the main focus point of people against aboriginal claims...is it not?

Read it and weep! Your hero Van Ryswyk disagrees with you. Her concern is government failure:

http://www.kelownacapnews.com/opinion/203683291.html

I strongly believe that land claims issues and First Nations have not been treated fairly or with respect and my complete comments reflect that. Unfortunately, I wasnt very eloquent in getting that point across and could have been more sensitive in my remarks.

The point I was attempting to make in my online posts were that we are all Canadians, we are one, we are here together and we should all be treated the same, with respect and dignity regardless of your race, creed or colour. I feel that the government not dealing with the land claims issues in a timely manner has created a deep divide within all our Canadian people. I strongly believe the First Nations people have been waiting far too long to have their claims fully addressed and that was the frustration I was trying to relay.

And their hunting grounds....and their way of live...and their reason to live. What else was taken? Please feel free to add it to the Victim pie that natives like to use to make the courts feel sorry for them.

"Feeling sorry" is irrelevant.

Justice is the issue.

[Accountability Now]

Read it and weep! Your hero Van Ryswyk disagrees with you. Her concern is government failure:

I did read it and I can also read between the lines. Its called lip service. Saying what ever she can to save herself. Its the same way that Flanagan tried to explain context after what he said. Same way that Trudeau tries to explain the context of his remarks.

I can't beleive you are that naive or stupid to believe she actually backs the new comments she makes. How do you go from saying this:

It’s not the status cards, it’s the fact that we have been paying out of the nose for generations for something that isn't our doing," reads one post on Castanet, an Okanagan area website. "If their ancestors sold out too cheap it’s not my fault and I shouldn’t have to be paying for any mistake or whatever you want to call it from my hard-earned money."

....to now saying she sides with the natives? Go ahead and believe it Jacee. I always knew your head was in the sand.

She is defintely not my hero because my hero wouldn't be back peddling on this. My hero is a guy like that radio DJ in Red Deer that tore up his status card becasue he was ashamed of what natives are doing today. That takes balls and you certainly didn't see him make up some story after he said it.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Accountability Now

[Accountability Now]

"Feeling sorry" is irrelevant.

Justice is the issue.

These people have been compensated for the schools and an apology was made. Has justice not been served?

I've been following your posts on the Caledonia thread. You clearly stand by the compensation paid to victims there. So how is this different.

[g_bambino]

I'll stand by what the courts say.

Can you show what a court has said on the matter?

[jacee]

These people have been compensated for the schools and an apology was made. Has justice not been served?

I've been following your posts on the Caledonia thread. You clearly stand by the compensation paid to victims there. So how is this different.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is still in progress. I'll await their report/recommendations. Certainly further funds need to be allocated for investigation, location and possibly repatriation of the children who died in the schools.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/report-on-residential-school-deaths-should-serve-as-wake-up-call-to-canada-1.1162345

And certainly justice has not yet been served on the' land claims' issues, as Van Ryswyk points out. And unless voters left right and centre make it an issue, it won't be resolved any time soon. Governments drag their feet because there's no political payoff.

We've paid out billions and billions of dollars for governments and bureaucrats to drag their feet and NOT resolve claims, much more over the years than settlements would have cost.

eta ...

Maybe someone here can help make sense of this.

Looking at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development 2012 financials:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1343917447368/1343917513262

Settled claims (note 7) $519,626,000

Provision for claims and litigation (note 8) $10,964,626,000

$10b PER YEAR for negotiation and litigation of land claims!!!!

And what do we get for that money every year?

I certainly haven't heard $10b worth of announcements of settled claims every year!!!

That's 20 times the cost of those already settled!

Edited April 24, 2013 by jacee

[eyeball]

The offshore area is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, no matter what is happening there.

That explains why virtually nothing's happening out there now. I guess it didn't matter that the federal government also had jurisdiction in the rivers and lakes that ocean going fish also live(d) in.

It's this 'no matter what' aspect of Ottawa's rule that needs to be challenged and nobody is in a better position to do so these days than aboriginal people, like the Haida who definitely seem to have a few different ideas on who has jurisdiction over their offshore area.

[Accountability Now]

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is still in progress. I'll await their report/recommendations. Certainly further funds need to be allocated for investigation, location and possibly repatriation of the children who died in the schools.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/report-on-residential-school-deaths-should-serve-as-wake-up-call-to-canada-1.1162345

Just like further funds need to be allocated to the victims in Caledonia that have suffered long term damage. But you wouldn't back that notion now would you?

And certainly justice has not yet been served on the' land claims' issues, as Van Ryswyk points out. And unless voters left right and centre make it an issue, it won't be resolved any time soon. Governments drag their feet because there's no political payoff.

We've paid out billions and billions of dollars for governments and bureaucrats to drag their feet and NOT resolve claims, much more over the years than settlements would have cost.

Goverments on both sides (left and right) have continually chosen to not resolve claims becasue they feel its in the best interest of Canadians. How can you blame them? Among the few legitimate claims, you have crooks like the Papaschase who still claim this is their land even though your beloved Supreme Court has said its not. You also have anyone with a shred of native blood in them trying to get in on the native title. Hey...I'm 1/16th native and 15/16th white but I want native rights????

Its the govermentment's job to drag their feet and fully evaluate these people OR every idiot with a claim will be knocking. Proof in point is the hunger strikes. Spence does a fake hunger strike. Gets a meeting with PM and GG. Months later you have two more idiots trying the same thing. I feel bad for people who have legitimate claims but these people are sadly drowned out by the Spences, or De Beers blockaders, or Papaschase or any other idiots blocking roads. That's what natives don't get. If they unified and brought a coherent claim and left the idiots at home...then and only then will they get the attention they need. But....if they want the banana republic to keep ruling then so be it. It will only lead to more feet dragging.

[jacee]

Can you show what a court has said on the matter?

Here's a summary of some significant Supreme Court decisions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/08/f-native-rights-rulings.html

Example:

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)

The court confirmed that aboriginal title entails rights to the land itself, not just the right to extract resources from it. The court also ruled that the government has a duty to consult with First Nations on issues concerning Crown land and in some instances may have to compensate them for infringing on their rights to that land.

Another example:

http://www.miningwatch.ca/analysis-platinex-inc-v-kitchenuhmaykoosib-inninuwug-first-nation-case

[Accountability Now]

Here's a summary of some significant Supreme Court decisions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/08/f-native-rights-rulings.html

Example:

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)

The court confirmed that aboriginal title entails rights to the land itself, not just the right to extract resources from it. The court also ruled that the government has a duty to consult with First Nations on issues concerning Crown land and in some instances may have to compensate them for infringing on their rights to that land.

Another example:

http://www.miningwatch.ca/analysis-platinex-inc-v-kitchenuhmaykoosib-inninuwug-first-nation-case

Almost all of these (especially the land claim ones) are in BC where it is clear to both sides that treaties were never signed. So yes....there is lots of room for discussion. All other treatied land should be treated as a done deal.

[jacee]

Almost all of these (especially the land claim ones) are in BC where it is clear to both sides that treaties were never signed. So yes....there is lots of room for discussion. All other treatied land should be treated as a done deal.

What you think "should" be true ... just isn't.

See "Crown land" above, read the rest of the article, google some more, inform yourself of what 'is'.

[Guest Kenneth]

Here's a summary of some significant Supreme Court decisions:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/08/f-native-rights-rulings.html

Example:

Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997)

The court confirmed that aboriginal title entails rights to the land itself, not just the right to extract resources from it. The court also ruled that the government has a duty to consult with First Nations on issues concerning Crown land and in some instances may have to compensate them for infringing on their rights to that land.

Another example:

http://www.miningwatch.ca/analysis-platinex-inc-v-kitchenuhmaykoosib-inninuwug-first-nation-case

You see, here's an example of how you cite laws when they support your agenda and consider them 100% legitimate. Yet you and many of your ilk will just as easily flout or break laws that you disagree with.

[jacee]

You see, here's an example of how you cite laws when they support your agenda and consider them 100% legitimate. Yet you and many of your ilk will just as easily flout or break laws that you disagree with.

What-ever

Have you seen my ilk lately? How's it doing?

Edited April 25, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Just like further funds need to be allocated to the victims in Caledonia that have suffered long term damage. But you wouldn't back that notion now would you?

People have a right to appeal to the courts.

Goverments on both sides (left and right) have continually chosen to not resolve claims becasue they feel its in the best interest of Canadians.

...

Its the govermentment's job to drag their feet and fully evaluate these people ...

It's only in the best interest of politicians to drag their feet - no political payoff, no votes in it for them.

It's certainly not in our best interest to pay $10b a year on stalling and evading settling anything.

[Accountability Now]

It's only in the best interest of politicians to drag their feet - no political payoff, no votes in it for them.

It's certainly not in our best interest to pay $10b a year on stalling and evading settling anything.

It is very apparent that you don't understand the crap that you are spewing. If you would have actually read the line it says PROVISION FOR CLAIMS and litigation (i specifically highlighted the parts that you need to understand). First off, the money has not been spent rather budgeted for as a provision for future claims they believe they will have to pay in the future. In that, yes...there is litigation fees but the major portion is the claim itself.

If you would have actually read note 8 you would see two key points:

1. Claims and pending and threatened litigation cases outstanding against AANDC are potential liabilities that may become actual liabilities when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. To the extent that the future event is likely to occur, and a reasonable estimate of the loss can be made, an estimated liability is accrued and an expense recorded in the financial statements.

2. AANDC has recorded a provision of $10,964,626,000 ($11,988,760,000 in 2011) as an estimate of the likely liability that will result from the above claims. This estimate includes projections based on historical rates and costs of settlement for similar claims. Exposure to liability in excess of the amount accrued is $151,460,000 ($157,505,000 in 2011) and an additional amount of $4,068,722,000 ($3,836,000,000 in 2011) is considered uncertain as the probability of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the future event confirming that a liability existed at the financial statements date cannot be determined.

Jacee...you have proven my point once again. We have people like yourself that see these numbers and start spewing this stuff to anyone who will listen. These people then go on and turn it into an urban legend which then gets the natives resteless once again. This reminds me of the other urbran legend out there that says there is 2 Trilion dollars in the trust when in fact it is currently at 1.15 billion as per this same site. Please stop trying to help your cause and let the coherent professionals do their jobs.

Its no wonder that the government drags its feet....

[eyeball]

Almost all of these (especially the land claim ones) are in BC where it is clear to both sides that treaties were never signed. So yes....there is lots of room for discussion. All other treatied land should be treated as a done deal.

You can dare to hope but if I was a native that got stuck with the shitty deal his ancestors were swindled with...I'd say the time for some real discussion is just getting underway.

[Accountability Now]

You can dare to hope but if I was a native that got stuck with the shitty deal his ancestors were swindled with...I'd say the time for some real discussion is just getting underway.

I wouldn't say discussion because the goverment wouldn't (or should I say) partake in renegotiating something that was already settled and built on for years. Should France come back and say "oh wait....are are actually interested in setting Canada. Please give us back Quebec". Or better yet....should Alberta go into discussion with Saskatchewan to renegotiate the border since a bunch of oil is just on the Sask side?

[jacee]

First off, the money has not been spent rather budgeted for as a provision for future claims they believe they will have to pay in the future.

Ah yes, you are right.

Now why, after all this time, do we have 20 times the outstanding liabilities as we have settled claims?

And, if they can estimate how much they're going to have to pay, why don't they just settle and pay it?

In that, yes...there is litigation fees but the major portion is the claim itself.

How do you know that?

[jacee]

I wouldn't say discussion because the goverment wouldn't (or should I say) partake in renegotiating something that was already settled and built on for years. Should France come back and say "oh wait....are are actually interested in setting Canada. Please give us back Quebec".

That was settled.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France

One assumes that England did fulfill the terms of the Treaty.

Not so with Aboriginal and Treaty rights in Canada.

The treaty terms were not fulfilled, land was taken that wasn't agreed upon or paid for - thus land claims.

Etc.

[Guest Kenneth]

So which tracts of land were "taken" and "not paid for". Be specific; provide varifiable factual information. You always talk in general terms and make vague, unsubstantiated accusations. If you want people to take you seriously you need to make your arguments in a reasoned manner.

[guyser]

- thus land claims.

Etc.

Native Affairs Office, support mechanisms for Natives on reserves and so on and so on.

If the land claims were settled, which they obviously are not , then any of this support would not be needed beyond what the rest of Canucks get.

Careful, it appears you are debating with one who has no desire to listen, but only to push some agenda.

Perhaps one who has the land registry could show us where these titles are held? I doubt it, so far a google link....woot!