First nations patiences waning

[jacee]

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.

YOU need to STOP the personal ATTACKS!

Here's a summary of Specific Land Claims

http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/PreviewReport.aspx?output=HTML

And here's where you can search them for yourself

http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx

[jacee]

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!

Ya you got all that right!

[Accountability Now]

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?

You have to view the government like a public corporation. They need to expose themselves of all potential liabilities that may come so that their shareholders (ie taxpayers) are well informed when or if it does happen. With that said, having on their Statement does not mean they believe they will be paying it rather that they MIGHT have to pay it. If you read the rest of note 8 it says "This estimate includes projections based on historical rates and costs of settlements for similar claims. They know which claims are on the table from the schools and other land claims so they are projecting based on past costs.

Why don't they just settle and pay it? Again...having this money noted is not them admitting that they owe it to anyone. It still requires a thorough process to ensure the proper due diligence is taken. If a claim is factual and money is owed then the government will be able to illustrate that to the taxpayers and justfy it. Sending money before that would not show such justification and would there be illegal and would most certainly cause outrage.

How do you know that?

Honestly...I don't. It would be nice to know exactly how much because that certainly would solve the problem quicker if we just gave the money. However, that would violate the court system that you so desparately love so much. You often claim that the "Courts will decide....." You have to remember that when things go to the Courts that it tends to cost LOTS. Lawyers, paralegals, judges...etc...they aren't cheap. As a business owner I know first hand what these costs are and MANY times I have settled for less knowing it would cost me MORE to fight it in court. This is why it would be great if both sides could come up with a realistic and fair agreement on these claims without lawyers but we know that won't happen.

Of course...the problem that casues us to go to court is everyone thinks their side is right...even the people who defy logic!

[Guest Kenneth]

YOU need to STOP the personal ATTACKS!

Here's a summary of Specific Land Claims

http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/PreviewReport.aspx?output=HTML

And here's where you can search them for yourself

http://pse5-esd5.ainc-inac.gc.ca/SCBRI_E/Main/ReportingCentre/External/externalreporting.aspx

You see once again you can't do what's requested of you, and yet once again you resort to accusing me of making a "personal attack" where none occurred.

[g_bambino]

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.

That's not particluarly clear: extracting resources from land does not automatically mean from under the surface of the land. Nor does the CBC article state whether or not surrendering all rights to land includes the rights to sub-surface material, which is what AN spoke specifically about and which you said the courts had already said something about. Where is that something? A link to an actual case would be of value.

[Rocky Road]

http://video.theloop.ca/news/top-stories/watch/jobs-in-first-nations-community/2243292374001/#.UUzFjBlAvBB

Here is a video interview with the Chief who said he would "Bring Canada's economy to its knees".

[hitops]

Unh ... mining the diamonds they sit on perhaps?

Jacee you need to get a clue. There is a 0% chance natives could mine the diamonds. The mine exists because non-natives built and oversee everything required to do so. If non-naitves dissapeared, natives could be sitting on top of the world's largest diamond mine, and they would starve to death.

Now they could of course learn to get into business, technology, engirneering etc and be part of that effort just like everyone else. But that's not what they want, they want to sit back and collect because of being born in a certain area. That is not condusive to a prosperous nation, and obivously totally destructive to any kind of long-term viable sense of independence for the native people's.

People like you are doing your best to ensure natives continue to live stagnated, poverty-stricken lives for several more generations. You just don't know it. Like children who don't understand that it's better to be taught to cook rather than be handed the cookie. Instead of looking to what other poor groups did to get out of their slump, you will continue with the same nonsense that keeps them right there, dependent on others forever. It's sad, and it's going to cost all of us.

Edited April 26, 2013 by hitops

[guyser]

It's sad, and it's going to cost all of us.

And if our Govt's had bit the bullet when they should have, it wopuld have been a lot cheaper, would have been resolved, and both sides could have gone on to prosper.

[g_bambino]

And if our Govt's had bit the bullet when they should have, it wopuld have been a lot cheaper, would have been resolved, and both sides could have gone on to prosper.

What do you mean by "bit the bullet" and when should parliament and the government have done it?

[guyser]

What do you mean by "bit the bullet" and when should parliament and the government have done it?

Bite the bullet meaning settled these land claims long ago.Every day the dollar amount rises.

As to when....how about before I paid taxes. Works for me.

I dont know when, but the negotiations will ( and always have) take quite some time and should have been concluded long ago.

[g_bambino]

Bite the bullet meaning settled these land claims long ago.Every day the dollar amount rises.

As to when....how about before I paid taxes. Works for me.

I imagine each claim needs to be looked at individually to discern its validity. Also, it seems that it's not infrequent that a claim settled in court is considered by the involved First Nation to be not settled. Simultaneously, new claims pop up all the time.

[PIK]

Well when these land claims go thru ,what is going to happen to whitemans property ,as in huntcamps. What is going to happen if your land is landlocked by native land ,how is the native going to react? If they get in thier face , it is going to get ugly. So we will see how they act.

[guyser]

I imagine each claim needs to be looked at individually to discern its validity. Also, it seems that it's not infrequent that a claim settled in court is considered by the involved First Nation to be not settled. Simultaneously, new claims pop up all the time.

No doubt, but thats one of the reasons they should have started quite some time ago.

30 or more years ago, this city had a plan called metrolinx and it got scrapped. It would have put rail, highways and other routes in to move people all around the GTA with ease.

Now we have them building it and it is costing an extreme amount of money.

The time to have done this is long overdue. Considering the financial plight most countries are in (ours while not bad is still precarious)it wont be this year or next, but it should get done and like I said, it will be more costly the longer we wait.(unless a total collapse where to come.....maybe we could get off cheap)

[guyser]

Well when these land claims go thru ,what is going to happen to whitemans property

Who's whiteman? What land do the Whiteman own?

,as in huntcamps. What is going to happen if your land is landlocked by native land ,how is the native going to react? If they get in thier face , it is going to get ugly. So we will see how they act.

All dealt with by the courts of course.

Being landlocked by natives wont mean a thing, access to land used for years cannot be restricted by anyone.

[PIK]

Who's whiteman? What land do the Whiteman own?All dealt with by the courts of course.

Being landlocked by natives wont mean a thing, access to land used for years cannot be restricted by anyone.

You have no idea on what is going to happen. It has started already. Courts mean nothing to these people, why because the whiteman is to scared to deal with them and they get away with everything they do.I had them on my own land hunting moose, because they felt they can hunt anywhere, it almost came to blows.

[guyser]

I had them on my own land hunting moose, because they felt they can hunt anywhere, it almost came to blows.

Maybe they had treaty rights to hunt there. If so, that would be legal.

[g_bambino]

[T]hey should have started quite some time ago.

I was under the impression it's being going on since Confederation.

[Guest Kenneth]

Maybe they had treaty rights to hunt there. If so, that would be legal.

You see you just don't get it. Six Nations, for example, has started forcing the issue by poaching on Conservation lands in southern Ontario. The local conservation authorities are so frightened of being labelled as racists or having an Oka-style confrontation on land that they're trying to preserve (or perhaps behind closed doors are threatened with violence), they make "agreements" with the Indians that allow them to hunt. The Indians claim that this is based on some proclamation or another dating from the mid-1700s. The fact that the British gave them the land, and that they sold it back to the Crown or to pioneers suddenly doesn't matter. So on the one hand Six Nations is making claims that they have rights to certain lands based on the Haldimand Proclamation, but on the other they argue they have rights predating to that proclamation, which it would seem to me completely invalidates it.

[guyser]

You see you just don't get it.

Not all of it, true, but I get enough. But do go on...

Six Nations, for example, has started forcing the issue by poaching on Conservation lands in southern Ontario. The local conservation authorities are so frightened of being labelled as racists or having an Oka-style confrontation on land that they're trying to preserve (or perhaps behind closed doors are threatened with violence), they make "agreements" with the Indians that allow them to hunt.

Total BS .

You probably mean The Hamilton Conservation Authority that allowed them to do so? The Cons Auth listened to the presentation and genuinely felt they had a right to hunt there and allowed them 2 weeks (IIRC)

YOu can post some crap about being scared, or violence was threatened, or racism or whatever your silly thoughts can conjure up, but the truth isnt what you wrote.

And you call me a troll. LOL

Got an agenda huh? Thats apparent.

[Guest Kenneth]

Absolutely not. There had been poaching on Conservation land for years until someone came across hunters on one of the propertys only a few hundred meters away from residential properties. The Indians came up with a lame excuse that they were conducting scientific research. This was at the height of the terrorism taking place in Caledonia, so the conservation authority was scared of what could happen so came up with the excuse that there was an over-population of deer -- something that people who live nearby claim isn't true.

[jacee]

You probably mean The Hamilton Conservation Authority that allowed them to do so? The Cons Auth listened to the presentation and genuinely felt they had a right to hunt there and allowed them 2 weeks (IIRC)

And that's the truth.

It's an interesting situation, conservation lands within city limits overpopulated by deer because there are no wildlife corridors out of them, surrounded by suburbia.

The city knows where it stands legally - ie that Six Nations does hold Aboriginal rights on that land under the Nanfan Treaty.

A two week hunt with bows and arrows is a reasonable resolution and a good example to other communities, a win-win.

Those municipalities that approach Aboriginal rights with a 'win-lose' mentality ... believing in error that 'we conquered them and they should just stay conquered' ... create and sustain unnecessary strife for their communities. Our legal reality is simply not what simple minds choose to believe it is.

There is no 'us-them'. There's just all of us and all of the laws that guide our relationships with each other.

Hell, my neighbour thinks his dog's butt owns the 8' strip of public alley behind my lot! I hope his dog's butt likes the thorny flowers I've planted! Lol

[hitops]

And if our Govt's had bit the bullet when they should have, it wopuld have been a lot cheaper, would have been resolved, and both sides could have gone on to prosper.

Biting the bullet would be best accomplished by nullying the Indian Act and all lands claims, and telling them to either join civilization with everyone else or don't but stop asking us for cash. Within a few generations they would learn to deal with real life like the rest of us rather thna blaming others and holding out their hands, and much of the inequalities would dissapear.

You can't raise a people up by handing them things, you can only do it by forcing them to hand themselves things.

[jacee]

Biting the bullet would be best accomplished by nullying the Indian Act and all lands claims,

That's legally impossible.

and telling them to either join civilization with everyone else or don't but stop asking us for cash.

Canada doesn't honour its debts?

You can't raise a people up by handing them things, you can only do it by forcing them to hand themselves things.

They're working on regaining what's owed.

When we're finished paying our past debts, they'll be able to be more self-sufficient.

[jbg]

Simultaneously, new claims pop up all the time.

Same way chickenpox does.

I wonder who is paying their lawyers to bring claims that are at bottom frivolous.

[hitops]

That's legally impossible.

Canada doesn't honour its debts?

They're working on regaining what's owed.

When we're finished paying our past debts, they'll be able to be more self-sufficient.

The past 'debts' were taken out by nobody alive today. That's not how debts work. It's time to stop forcing people who were never perpetrators to pay for people who were never victims.

It's cute that you think somehow settling these 'debts' will fix things. The debts will never be settled in the eyes of those who believe they are owed, no matter how much is given. That's the nature of the victim mentality, nothing is ever enough.