Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

[jacee]

I'm waiting for you to retract your claim about my comment being racist otherwise what's the point with have a conversation with someone so irrational?

I'm waiting for you to provide evidence to support your statement. Otherwise it is just a smear job.

.

[Accountability Now]

I'm waiting for you to provide evidence to support your statement. Otherwise it is just a smear job.

.

You smeared yourself when you threw out the race card. Even eyeball agreed that the comment was not racist. So go ahead jacee...step up and admit that you've misunderstood the arguement once again and instead of debating it, you decided to go emotional.

[jacee]

You smeared yourself when you threw out the race card. Even eyeball agreed that the comment was not racist. So go ahead jacee...step up and admit that you've misunderstood the arguement once again and instead of debating it, you decided to go emotional.

You can't back up your statement?

Try again:

jacee, on 13 Apr 2015 - 12:58 AM, said:

"if" is not an absolute either.

Accommodation is based on the strength of the claim, adjudicated by the courts if necessary.

Accountability now said:

Or in many cases, no claim at all.

Provide evidence of accommodation in "many cases" with "no claim at all ...

Or is it just another drive-by smear job?

.

.

Edited April 17, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

You can't back up your statement?

Try again:

Provide evidence of accommodation in "many cases" with "no claim at all ...

Or is it just another drive-by smear job?

.

.

This is just another fine example of how you can't follow a conversation. We were discussing how Accomodation doesn't necessarily follow Consultation. Your pal On Guard was caught up on the word 'if' which of course implies two sides of the coin. You stepped in as quoted above and spoke on the non-absolute value of if saying the accommodation depends on the severity of the claim. I then said or no claim at all meaning if there is no claim then there is no accommodation illustrating my point that consultation doesn't always lead to accommodations.

No where did I state that accommodations were given without warranted claims yet you jump to that conclusion because everything is racist if it doesn't favor the First Natikns. Please try to keep up and possibly respond with logic and not emotion the next time.

Oh...still waiting on you to retract your claim about this being racist! Of course your self smearing looks good on you.

[jacee]

No where did I state that accommodations were given without warranted claims ...

Gee it certainly looked like that's what you were saying, and such drive-by smears are frequent here.

However, if that wasn't your intended meaning, then I do retract my statement about broad brush racial comment.

Now will you please provide evidence to support your claim of "many" cases of "no claim at all"?

What does that even mean?

And ... you are aware that Aboriginal rights exist on all of their traditional territories (ie, all of Canada), not just those with specific land claims or reserve lands ... right?

But the strength of Aboriginal rights claims may vary.

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Gee it certainly looked like that's what you were saying,

Not to those who can follow a conversation.

and such drive-by smears are frequent here.

Its not a drive by when you've made multiple posts on the topic.

However, if that wasn't your intended meaning, then I do retract my statement about broad brush racial comment.

Thanks.

Now will you please provide evidence to support your claim of "many" cases of "no claim at all"?

What does that even mean?

Oh facepalm! Are you still struggling with this conversation? I've already explained this. There are times when the Crown consults with the FN and both sides agree that little to no impact is made and so therefore no claim or accomodation is required. I trust we don't hear about these cases very often because these one don't make the news. There are other cases where the the Crown and the FN disagree on the severity of the impact and it goes to court, where it is then decided that the claim is weak and little to no accomodation is required.

Its a linear situation jacee. On one end you have little to no impact on the FN which requires little to no accomodations. Higher impact requires more accomodations.

And ... you are aware that Aboriginal rights exist on all of their traditional territories (ie, all of Canada), not just those with specific land claims or reserve lands ... right?

But the strength of Aboriginal rights claims may vary.

By all of Canada, you do mean Crown land...right?

[jacee]

Oh facepalm! Are you still struggling with this conversation? I've already explained this. There are times when the Crown consults with the FN and both sides agree that little to no impact is made and so therefore no claim or accomodation is required. I trust we don't hear about these cases very often because these one don't make the news. There are other cases where the the Crown and the FN disagree on the severity of the impact and it goes to court, where it is then decided that the claim is weak and little to no accomodation is required.

Its a linear situation jacee. On one end you have little to no impact on the FN which requires little to no accomodations. Higher impact requires more accomodations.

Link pls?

By all of Canada, you do mean Crown land...right?

Interesting that ... again it's a question of strength and nature of claim:

Aboriginal rights exist on all traditional territories, jurisdictional and economic interests, within current ownership.

Aboriginal title ... ownership may exist in some places yet to be adjudicated, exists one place in BC now.

I believe there is some private property in that territory. Not sure about that.

Eta

Ah ... a Link ...

http://www.millertiterle.com/what-we-say-article/aboriginal-title/

The Tsilhqotin Nation notably omitted areas of private property from its claim to Aboriginal title, which means that the relationship between Aboriginal title and private property has not been resolved with any certainty.

If anyone wants to sell, they'll likely have a buyer.

.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Link pls?.

Which point are you requesting a link for?

Interesting that ... again it's a question of strength and nature of claim:

Aboriginal rights exist on all traditional territories, jurisdictional and economic interests, within current ownership.

Aboriginal title ... ownership may exist in some places yet to be adjudicated, exists one place in BC now.

I believe there is some private property in that territory. Not sure about that.

Your comment was that aboriginal rights exist on all land in Canada. That is not true. The vast majority of land in Canada was ceded by treaty. Your go to point is in the one spot in Canada that is highly notable because no treaties were ever signed. More importantly FN have a hard enough time proving aboriginal rights on crown land never mind trying to prove it on private lands. The courts have no problem telling the Crown what to do but this becomes a much stickier mess the minute they impose that onto private lands. Here's a good example showing the difference between BC and the rest of Canada:

So the elephant was being talked about, albeit before an appellate tribunal and not a court. More recently, in December of last year, there was certainly a full discussion about private land in the Hupacasath decision.

This case arose from the sale of Weyerhaeuser's assets to Brascan. Included in this sale were 70,000 acres of private land on Vancouver Island, which Brascan sought to remove from a Tree Farm Licence after the sale was finalized. This removal required the consent of B.C.'s forests ministry, which was granted. The Hupacasath, whose main community is in Port Alberni, challenged the minister's consent on the basis that they had not been consulted, and the land was in their traditional territory. Again, the issue arose as to whether there was any requirement to consult, since the lands were private.

The B.C. Supreme Court held that Aboriginal rights and title could exist on private land, and ordered that Brascan not do anything to change the prior use of its private lands, while the Crown was directed to consult with the Hupacasath.

The Hupacasath decision was considered, and distinguished, by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Paul Band appeal in April of this year. In that case, the Aboriginal group sought to require a developer holding private land adjacent to its reserve to consult with it before proceeding with the development, on the basis of their assertion of Aboriginal right and title interests on the developer's private land. Although that Aboriginal group was not successful, the case may have limited application in B.C. because the Paul Band, like all Alberta bands, was subject to a treaty.

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Aboriginal-Rights-on-Private-Land-The-Elephant-in-the-Room

Again...your comment about it being ALL land in Canada just simply isn't true.

Eta

Ah ... a Link ...

http://www.millertiterle.com/what-we-say-article/aboriginal-title/

The Tsilhqotin Nation notably omitted areas of private property from its claim to Aboriginal title, which means that the relationship between Aboriginal title and private property has not been resolved with any certainty.

If anyone wants to sell, they'll likely have a buyer.

.

As stated above, your point is largely true in BC because of the lack of treaties.

[jacee]

Which point are you requesting a link for?

Your unsupported claim of "many cases" of "no claim at all" and thus no accommodation.

Your comment was that aboriginal rights exist on all land in Canada. That is not true.

Yes it is true.

Read your own link:

http://www.mcmillan.ca/mobile/showpublication.aspx?show=101749

The B.C. Supreme Court held that Aboriginal rights and title could exist on private land, and ordered that Brascan not do anything to change the prior use of its private lands, while the Crown was directed to consult with the Hupacasath.

The vast majority of land in Canada was ceded by treaty.

Treaties allow non-Indigenous people to live on and manage the land, but Aboriginal rights - jurisdictional and economic rights, varying in strength - continue to exist on all traditional Indigenous lands.

However, where Aboriginal rights (including title) are found to still apply to private land (usually due to past nefarious conduct of our governments) compensation would likely be the remedy: Rights of both parties are respected.

Your go to point is in the one spot in Canada that is highly notable because no treaties were ever signed. More importantly FN have a hard enough time proving aboriginal rights on crown land never mind trying to prove it on private lands. The courts have no problem telling the Crown what to do but this becomes a much stickier mess the minute they impose that onto private lands. Here's a good example showing the difference between BC and the rest of Canada:

With or without treaties, some Aboriginal rights apply to all traditional Indigenous territories, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the treaties and other agreements. 'Hunting and fishing rights are retained (see Royal Proclamation 1763), and are interpreted as the right to sustain themselves from the land. That may mean sharing in revenues from the land, jobs/training, environmental protections, etc. ... via the consultation and accommodation process.

Again...your comment about it being ALL land in Canada just simply isn't true.

Yes it is true. All of the land in Canada was populated/hunting grounds/defined Indigenous territories pre-contact.

As stated above, your point is largely true in BC because of the lack of treaties.

The nature and strength of Aboriginal rights on particular land varies quite a bit according to treaty and other agreements, strongest without treaty (Aboriginal title), but still existing elsewhere too.

And it's important to note that the solutions to current social and economic problems of Indigenous Peoples lie in the consultation and accommodation processes for uses of their traditional territories.

.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Your unsupported claim of "many cases" of "no claim at all" and thus no accommodation.

Well a very noteworthy case in Fort McMurray last year which involved your buddy Neil Young showed that the consultation was done and that the First Nations wouldn't be accomodated for the land use.

Last month, the band lost its application for a judicial review of federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq’s decision to approve Shell’s Jackpine project. The band had argued that despite holding several meetings with its members, Canada had failed to try to accommodate their concerns.

Federal Court Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer ruled on Dec. 9 that the government had done enough and that First Nations can’t expect to have all their concerns addressed.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1763469/alberta-first-nation-waits-on-provinces-next-move-after-losing-oilsands-review/

Of course, its like I said there are many dealings that we don't hear about because they aren't making the news like this one did.

Yes it is true.

Read your own link:

http://www.mcmillan.ca/mobile/showpublication.aspx?show=101749

The B.C. Supreme Court held that Aboriginal rights and title could exist on private land, and ordered that Brascan not do anything to change the prior use of its private lands, while the Crown was directed to consult with the Hupacasath.

No...its not true. Your claim was that it applies to ALL land in Canada and ironically you are using the link I posted which also included (although you conveniently ignore) the fact that after the BC ruling with the Hupacasath, the Paul Band in Alberta tried to sue for the same thing. The BC case was even considered in the decision which ended up going against the Paul band which meant the developer was allowed to go ahead without consultation.

Here is the text again just so that I'm sure you have read it:

The Hupacasath decision was considered, and distinguished, by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Paul Band appeal in April of this year. In that case, the Aboriginal group sought to require a developer holding private land adjacent to its reserve to consult with it before proceeding with the development, on the basis of their assertion of Aboriginal right and title interests on the developer's private land. Although that Aboriginal group was not successful, the case may have limited application in B.C. because the Paul Band, like all Alberta bands, was subject to a treaty.

So your claim about Aboriginal people having rights over ALL of Canada just isn't true as outlined above. They have rights on crown property alone and not on privtely owned lands. Again...BC has been the site of more Aboriginal success simply because of the lack of treaties....as stated in the quote above.

Yes it is true. All of the land in Canada was populated/hunting grounds/defined Indigenous territories pre-contact.

Aboriginals cannot hunt or fish in various Crown areas like Provicial and National Parks. Also, they are not allowed to hunt on private property without persmission from the property owner. There are areas that resistrict this 'absolute' right over all lands that you seem to think exists.

Your claim that about it being ALL land is just not true.

And it's important to note that the solutions to current social and economic problems of Indigenous Peoples lie in the consultation and accommodation processes for uses of their traditional territories.

No. This is only the solution in areas where land/resource development is happening AND is found to be affecting that local FN group and thus deserve the accomodations. There are various FN groups that aren't near or affected by such development and therefore won't be entitled to these accomodations.

Having said this, many FN have to start rethinking their abilty to stay in their area based on the limited economic substainabilty. There also needs to be more considerations of changing the Indian Act to allow for greater individual rights within the FN to allow for accountability within the group.

[jacee]

Well a very noteworthy case in Fort McMurray last year which involved your buddy Neil Young showed that the consultation was done and that the First Nations wouldn't be accomodated for the land use.

Of course, its like I said there are many dealings that we don't hear about because they aren't making the news like this one did.

You said "many cases" so I'm expecting you to source that conclusion ... a summary paper or such.

That's one case ... and it isn't over yet.

From your link:

She pointed out that the Jackpine project still requires many permits before it can proceed and the band will see how that process unfolds before considering a move to the Supreme Court.

No...its not true. Your claim was that it applies to ALL land in Canada and ironically you are using the link I posted which also included (although you conveniently ignore) the fact that after the BC ruling with the Hupacasath, the Paul Band in Alberta tried to sue for the same thing. The BC case was even considered in the decision which ended up going against the Paul band which meant the developer was allowed to go ahead without consultation.

Here is the text again just so that I'm sure you have read it:

So your claim about Aboriginal people having rights over ALL of Canada just isn't true as outlined above. They have rights on crown property alone and not on privtely owned lands. Again...BC has been the site of more Aboriginal success simply because of the lack of treaties....as stated in the quote above.

Aboriginals cannot hunt or fish in various Crown areas like Provicial and National Parks. Also, they are not allowed to hunt on private property without persmission from the property owner. There are areas that resistrict this 'absolute' right over all lands that you seem to think exists.

I never said "absolute".

I said "some" Aboriginal rights on all land, and the strength of those rights varies with the legal context.

Your claim that about it being ALL land is just not true.

Yes it is.

No. This is only the solution in areas where land/resource development is happening AND is found to be affecting that local FN group and thus deserve the accomodations. There are various FN groups that aren't near or affected by such development and therefore won't be entitled to these accomodations.

Most are affected by some type of development.

Having said this, many FN have to start rethinking their abilty to stay in their area based on the limited economic substainabilty. There also needs to be more considerations of changing the Indian Act to allow for greater individual rights within the FN to allow for accountability within the group.

Those are their choices.

.

Edited April 26, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

You said "many cases" so I'm expecting you to source that conclusion ... a summary paper or such.

A summary paper....lol...now that is rich. Again...for the last time....most of these cases aren't making the news or aren't even documented simply because they aren't a big deal. Remember...these ones are on the LESS severe end thus not requiring accomodation. Why would they do a summary paper on these? The only ones that make the news are the ones where the Crown and the FN disagree...for which I showed you a notable example.

Here's the thing I don't get about you. I am stating that there are many cases where the Crown does consult with the FN and they agree there is little impact and therefore no accomodation is granted. Hence, it suggests that the FN are reasonable people. However you are suggesting that is not the case which then implies they are not reasonable. Not sure why? To you, its either no business/development OR straight to accomodation which obviously can't be true since the basic definition states consultation and accomodation if/where applicable. Again the if statement is a conditional meaning it doesn't always happen.

That's one case ... and it isn't over yet.

From your link:

She pointed out that the Jackpine project still requires many permits before it can proceed and the band will see how that process unfolds before considering a move to the Supreme Court.

I won't lose any sleep waiting on that one.

I never said "absolute".

I said "some" Aboriginal rights on all land, and the strength of those rights varies with the legal context.

I was referring to your comment of 'all' land as being the 'absolute'. Not 'absolute' rights on the land. The simple fact is there is 10% of the land that is non-crown land to which FN have no aboriginal rights over. Provincial and National parks, private property, etc. Since this is the case, your comment about 'all lands' simply is not true no matter how many times you claim it.

Yes it is.

Nope..its not. What rights do they have in Provincial or National Parks? What rights do they have to hunt or even enter my property. ZERO.

I even showed you the case of the Paul Band that tried suing the private entity for development on private land...and the FN lost.

Those are their choices.

As long as we are affected by their choices (ie compensation for remote, non-viable locations) then it is our business too.

[jacee]

A summary paper....lol...now that is rich. Again...for the last time....most of these cases aren't making the news or aren't even documented simply because they aren't a big deal. Remember...these ones are on the LESS severe end thus not requiring accomodation. Why would they do a summary paper on these? The only ones that make the news are the ones where the Crown and the FN disagree...for which I showed you a notable example.

Here's the thing I don't get about you. I am stating that there are many cases where the Crown does consult with the FN and they agree there is little impact and therefore no accomodation is granted. Hence, it suggests that the FN are reasonable people. However you are suggesting that is not the case which then implies they are not reasonable. Not sure why? To you, its either no business/development OR straight to accomodation which obviously can't be true since the basic definition states consultation and accomodation if/where applicable. Again the if statement is a conditional meaning it doesn't always happen.

I am simply, and still! asking you to provide the information that led you to the conclusion that in "many" cases there is consultation (triggered when a development may infringe on Aboriginal rights) but no need for accommodation.

You have stated repeatedly that that is true, but provided no source. At this point I would accept an acknowledgement that you pulled that info out of your hat.

I won't lose any sleep waiting on that one.

Supreme Court challenges take time, it's true. Aboriginal title took about 10 years, I believe.

I was referring to your comment of 'all' land as being the 'absolute'. Not 'absolute' rights on the land. The simple fact is there is 10% of the land that is non-crown land to which FN have no aboriginal rights over. Provincial and National parks, private property, etc. Since this is the case, your comment about 'all lands' simply is not true no matter how many times you claim it.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said ... intentionally?

I have never said Aboriginal rights are "absolute" anywhere.

I have said the nature and extent of Aboriginal rights on their traditional territories varies with the strength of their claim: treaties/agreements, evidence of pre-contact uses, etc.

All traditional Indigenous territories are subject to Aboriginal rights, regardless of who 'owns' them in our land title system.

In the case of land owned privately, nobody's 'ownership' is likely to be affected by Aboriginal rights, but they may have some say over land uses that affect them.

In cases of proven land claims or title, there may be compensation, other land substituted, or willing-seller/willing buyer scenarios.

"Other land substituted" would most likely be publicly owned land.

As long as we are affected by their choices (ie compensation for remote, non-viable locations) then it is our business too.

They live where they have always lived ... except for government 'removals and relocations'.

.

Edited May 5, 2015 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

I am simply, and still! asking you to provide the information that led you to the conclusion that in "many" cases there is consultation (triggered when a development may infringe on Aboriginal rights) but no need for accommodation.

You have stated repeatedly that that is true, but provided no source. At this point I would accept an acknowledgement that you pulled that info out of your hat.

What about this is so hard for you to understand. There is a spectrum involved where the development doesn't infringe (or minimally infringes) on the FN's rights. At that point the only requirement is the duty to consult....no accomodation.

Consultation

The scope of the duty of consultation will vary with the circumstances. The extent of the Crown’s duty lies along a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum lie cases where the claim to title is weak, the aboriginal right limited, or the potential for infringement minor. The only duty on the Crown in these cases may be to give notice, disclose information, and discuss any issues raised in response to the notice. http://www.duhaimelaw.com/2005/01/30/the-duty-to-consult-and-accommodate-the-haida-decision/

Do you understand what a spectrum means? Not every case that Aboriginal deal with are news breaking, earth shattering cases. Many land claims and issues are discusssed on a reasonable level where they (the FN) realize that they are at THIS end of the spectrum for certain developments and at the other end of the spectrum for other developments. Are you honestly that naive that you think they are doing the full court press every time the crown comes to talk to them? They didn't become successful negotiators by being stupid and unreasonable....although you sure seem to think so.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said ... intentionally?

I have never said Aboriginal rights are "absolute" anywhere.

I have said the nature and extent of Aboriginal rights on their traditional territories varies with the strength of their claim: treaties/agreements, evidence of pre-contact uses, etc.

All traditional Indigenous territories are subject to Aboriginal rights, regardless of who 'owns' them in our land title system.

In the case of land owned privately, nobody's 'ownership' is likely to be affected by Aboriginal rights, but they may have some say over land uses that affect them.

Jacee....between the two of us, who has notably been on record as being confused about issues? Remember your rant with the race card earlier which you retracted. Remember your claim about the government spending 10 billion per year on litigation? So ask yourself who is doing the misinterpreting.

As for your claim on absolute....I have already said it and apparently I will say it again. I was referring to your comment of 'all' land as being the 'absolute'. Not 'absolute' rights on the land. Would you like me to bold this statement or put it in a different font so that you get it? You made the comment that Aboriginals have rights on ALL of Canada. This is not true:

1. I have shown you that their rights don't exist in Provincial or Nationa parks.

2. I have shown you legal cases outlining how First Nations have fought and lost in court trying to assert their rights on private land.

Yet with these two objective examples, you still come back saying they have rights. I don't think there is any misinterpretation here....I think you are just playing daft.

Your comment about ALL land is an aboslute statement Jacee which just isn't true no matter how you try to misinterpret it.

They live where they have always lived ... except for government 'removals and relocations'.

Right....but the minute we suggest they move from these relocations it now becomes sacred land of their ancestors.

[jacee]

You've provided no evidence of any of those claims.

All land is subject to Aboriginal rights.

That doesn't necessarily affect ownership, but if you, for example, sell your land to a developer, the Duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate may be triggered for the municipality and province.

In the case you cite, the claim was not found to be strong enough. In other cases it may be, and Aboriginal rights on private land will continue to be clarified.

Public land is sometimes included in settlements. Camp Ipperwash is so badly contaminated that it cannot be returned as promised during WWII, so Ipperwash Park was substituted.

Ownership of Sauble Beach is being challenged too.

http://london.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sauble-beach-showdown-between-municipality-and-saugeen-first-nation-1.1958613

Aboriginal rights are still being clarified on a case by case basis, and there are no 'absolute' exemptions of private and public land as you claim.

.

[Accountability Now]

You've provided no evidence of any of those claims.

I have shown you a direct example that was very notable as well as citations from current legal cases showing my point. You just can't comprehend what a spectrum is and therefore choose not to admit where you are wrong.

That doesn't necessarily affect ownership, but if you, for example, sell your land to a developer, the Duty of the Crown to consult and accommodate may be triggered for the municipality and province.

No....it doesn't. The case I showed with Paul Band showed that is clearly not true despite what your opinion is. The Paul Band had no rights over the development as it was on private land. Here you want another one? And this one is in BC!!!

Neskonlith Indian Band v. Salmon Arm (City), 2012 BCCA 379

Two entities, referred to collectively as "Shopping Centres", owned about 61 acres of land in Salmon Arm, B.C., which they planned to develop. The Salmon River crossed the northwest corner of the property, which bordered Neskonlith Indian Reserve No. 3. The property was designated as flood plain under the Salmon Arm Official Community Plan, meaning that development was prohibited unless an Environmentally Hazardous Area Development Permit was obtained. The owners applied to the city for an Environmentally Hazardous Area Development Permit. The city gave notice of this application to the Neskonlith Indian Band, but did not accede to the band's demand to discuss the consultation process. The band commissioned a report that concluded that the site elevation was too low, and created a potential flood risk to them in future. Following a meeting attended by representatives of the band, the city issued a development permit. The band filed a petition seeking to quash the permit. The band conceded that the development would have no immediate impact on its interests, but alleged that future mitigation measures, such as diking and channeling, might adversely impact the band’s rights. The B.C. Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The court of appeal held that local governments have no legal authority to engage in consultation. The court held that the Crown cannot delegate the duty to consult to local governments, which do not have sufficient statutory authority to engage in the "nuanced and complex constitutional process" of consultation and accommodation. The court expressed concern that imposing a duty to consult on local governments would be impractical and would unduly interfere with local governments' responsibilities.

The court questioned whether the issuance of the development permit was "Crown conduct" sufficient to give rise to a duty to consult, given that none of the parties had alleged that the city was acting as an agent of the Crown. The court also observed that, on the facts, it was unclear 9

00685133

whether the issuance of the development permit would have any adverse effect on the band’s rights. The court considered that any effect was "uncertain, indirect, and at the far end of the spectrum of adverse effects posited in

Haida".7 Assuming that the city had a duty to consult the band, and that a duty to consult arose on the facts, the court held that the duty had been discharged. The court observed that the absence of a strength of claim analysis did not preclude adequate consultation.

http://www.ratcliff.com/sites/default/files/publications/Consultation%20and%20Accommodation%20Update.pdf

Say whaaaaaaat??? There's that word again. Spectrum. This is a two-fer....I get to show that development on private land can occur AND it shows a case where there is spectrum that allows for consultation but NO accomodation.

Aboriginal rights are still being clarified on a case by case basis, and there are no 'absolute' exemptions of private and public land as you claim.

For the umpteenth time, can you show me what aboriginal rights currently exist in Provincial or National parks? While you're at it....what aboriginal rights do they have for my property.

You do realize that ALL of Canada is a pretty big place.

[jacee]

I have shown you a direct example that was very notable as well as citations from current legal cases showing my point. You just can't comprehend what a spectrum is and therefore choose not to admit where you are wrong.

No....it doesn't. The case I showed with Paul Band showed that is clearly not true despite what your opinion is. The Paul Band had no rights over the development as it was on private land. Here you want another one? And this one is in BC!!!

Say whaaaaaaat??? There's that word again. Spectrum. This is a two-fer....I get to show that development on private land can occur AND it shows a case where there is spectrum that allows for consultation but NO accomodation.

For the umpteenth time, can you show me what aboriginal rights currently exist in Provincial or National parks? While you're at it....what aboriginal rights do they have for my property.

You do realize that ALL of Canada is a pretty big place.

Every claim is assessed on a case by case basis, and yes there is variation in the strength of those claims and thus in the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate.

.

[Accountability Now]

Every claim is assessed on a case by case basis, and yes there is variation in the strength of those claims and thus in the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate.

.

As requested, please show what strength there would be to a claim in National and Provincial Parks as well as on private property.

My point is there are parts to this country that aboriginal rights do not exist. Some...not a lot but some.

[jacee]

As requested, please show what strength there would be to a claim in National and Provincial Parks as well as on private property.

It depends on the treaties/agreements and fulfillment of same in each location.

Do you not comprehend "case by case basis"?

My point is there are parts to this country that aboriginal rights do not exist. Some...not a lot but some.

I don't recall ever seeing any general exemption as you claim, but you are free to provide links to support that.

Specific lands for specific reasons, on a case by case basis, yes.

The example I provided earlier was Camp Ipperwash (federal DND expropriated land) being too contaminated and Ipperwash Provincial Park being substituted to resolve a claim.

.

Edited May 11, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

/british-columbia/bc-first-nation-says-legacy-of-dam-construction-has-poisoned-trout

The chief of a northern First Nation community delivered 90 kilograms of fish to the B.C. Legislature on Monday. He found no takers for his gift after he revealed that the bull trout, harvested from a river where his family has fished for decades, are contaminated with mercury.

'Ya ... it's way the hell out in the wilderness. What does a dam matter way out there? We need the water for the towns, for hydro ... !'

Whadya mean we can't eat the fish in the pristine wilderness ... in Canada?!

.

[Smallc]

So, now you're against green energy?

[jacee]

So, now you're against green energy?

I'm against mercury poisoning.

.

[Smallc]

I'm against mercury poisoning.

.

What power source should we be using?

[jacee]

What power source should we be using?

Well if we keep poisoning ourselves we soon won't have to worry about that at all, will we?

Off topic. Start a new thread.

.

[Smallc]

Well if we keep poisoning ourselves we soon won't have to worry about that at all, will we?

Off topic. Start a new thread.

.

If you're going to criticize one of the greenest forms of energy in terms of polution of all types, you're going to have to come up with a viable alternative.