jacee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 Aboriginal people were placed under the crown in that document. Any of it could be abolished and Canada would still exist.They are allies, not subjects of the Crown.The Queen privately renewed the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty in 2010. She didn't ask Harper's permission, didn't even invite him. Just quietly reaffirmed the treaty with her allies. . Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 They are allies, not subjects of the Crown. The Queen privately renewed the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty in 2010. She didn't ask Harper's permission, didn't even invite him. Just quietly reaffirmed the treaty with her allies. . No, you're wrong. Every Canadian is a subject of the Crown. Quote
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 They are allies, not subjects of the Crown.The 1763 proclamation makes it clear they are subjects. The Queen privately renewed the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty in 2010.The queen commemorated the signing. Legally it has no relevance because she has no authority to make any legally binding commitments on behalf of the Canadian government. Quote
dre Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 You cannot fund reserves and root out corruption because free money is the cause of corruption. Reserves need to support themselves by taxing their residents and this would give residents and incentive to root out corruption. If funding is required it could go to individual natives who would have pay taxes to the reserve. None of that is true. Corruption happens for a whole host of reasons, and governments supported by taxation have plenty of it too. Like I said... the best option is for bands to bring in outside expertise in dealing with finances and investment, and try to attact businesses onto reserves. This is probably the model you will see moving forward. And in any case standard of life, income, and employment for natives is improving. Theres no reason to tear the system down and start again from scratch. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 But not every subject of the crown is a Canadian. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 None of that is true. Corruption happens for a whole host of reasons, and governments supported by taxation have plenty of it too.Corruption happens for many reasons but free money guarantees it. Like I said... the best option is for bands to bring in outside expertise in dealing with finances and investment, and try to attact businesses onto reserves. This is probably the model you will see moving forward.The trouble is some reserves are too remote and will never be viable yet governments shower money on them and are surprised when corruption and social dysfunction are endemic. And in any case standard of life, income, and employment for natives is improving. Theres no reason to tear the system down and start again from scratch.As long as some reserves are in locations that can never be viable there is a need to dismantle the system. Quote
eyeball Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 Corruption happens for many reasons but free money guarantees it.Not as well as power that's been bought and paid for. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Accountability Now Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 They are allies, not subjects of the Crown. The Queen privately renewed the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty in 2010. She didn't ask Harper's permission, didn't even invite him. Just quietly reaffirmed the treaty with her allies. . Those treaties were originally made in US territories made with Iroquois in the US. Why would the Queen ask Harper for permission to do something that was based on US soil? Quote
dre Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 The trouble is some reserves are too remote and will never be viable yet governments shower money on them and are surprised when corruption and social dysfunction are endemic. As long as some reserves are in locations that can never be viable there is a need to dismantle the system. Nonsensical. The fact that "some" reserves may not be viable is not a reason to dismantle the entire system including the majority of reserves that are. And youre conflating numerous issues, and hopping from one to the next as each one gets picked apart. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 No, that's not true. Anything can be rendered legal if the political will exists. I dont think there is any serious political will in Canada to throw out the constitution, which overrides the wishes of any particular political party. Just ask Harper. BTW, I see he lost yet another round today on mj laws. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) [The Queen of Canada] has no authority to make any legally binding commitments on behalf of the Canadian government.Are you sure about that? The monarchy gives the law in Canada power. She's the only reason we have laws. Edited June 11, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 I don't think there is any serious political will in Canada to throw out the constitution That's not what I said, but, nice try. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 That's not what I said, but, nice try. What you tried to say was we could abolish native rights through some sort of political will and somehow not end up in court. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 What you tried to say was we could abolish native rights through some sort of political will and somehow not end up in court. We could. You can change parts of the Constitution without throwing it out. I thought that would be obvious. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 We could. You can change parts of the Constitution without throwing it out. I thought that would be obvious. Treaties are legal items. If you break em you end up in court. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 Treaties are legal items. If you break em you end up in court. You're not listening. I'm not surprised. It would be a short court case, as it would be a change to the Constitution and not a simple statute. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 You're not listening. I'm not surprised. It would be a short court case, as it would be a change to the Constitution and not a simple statute. The minimum you need to change the constitution is 7,50. And for the issue you are suggesting, forget it. Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 The minimum you need to change the constitution is 7,50. And for the issue you are suggesting, forget it. You'd need the unanimous agreement of all 11 Crowns. I didn't say it would be easy, but with the political will it would be quite legal and pretty much unchallengeable. Quote
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Are you sure about that? The monarchy gives the law in Canada power. She's the only reason we have laws.I am sure that constitutional convention would preclude any exercise of nominal powers that infringes in the prerogative of parliament (in this case, allegedly committing the Canadian government to a legal contract). If the Queen ever tried to exceed her customary limits the constitution includes a clause that compels her to sign any amendment that removes those powers. Edited June 11, 2015 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 You'd need the unanimous agreement of all 11 Crowns. I didn't say it would be easy, but with the political will it would be quite legal and pretty much unchallengeable. I think the only people who might have the political will to try this would be the lawyers who would have endless work from it Quote
dre Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 You're not listening. I'm not surprised. It would be a short court case, as it would be a change to the Constitution and not a simple statute. Not that simple. First the government would have to change the constitution to remove 35, and 25, and a host of other sections that affirm previous Canadian law. Once that was done, it could start trying to legally nullify all the treaties, and rewrite all the rest of the statutes dealing with FN rights. It would still have to tackle each treaty and agreement, and each one of those would turn into protracted court battles that would appealed all the way up to the supreme court. But the actually practical implementation of these changes would be the really tricky point. If you nullify the treaties then reserve land is no longer reserve land. Does it become crown land? Does it become private land owned by its current occupants? Both pose gigantic legal and practical problems. If its crownland the occupants are squatters and you would have to go and force them off.. dismantle their homes etc, just like they would if you or I built a house on crown land. If they are to become private you open up an even bigger can of worms because just giving title to the current occupants screws over all the FN people that dont happen to be living in a house on reserve. Then of course you have to withdraw from international treaties where we have pledged to honor our agreements with aborigionals. And you have to do ALL of this stuff while trying to quell hundreds of violent uprisings around the country. Its theoretically possible, but it would be such a huge mistake, and such a massive undertaking, and the likelyhood of it ever happening is so incredibly remote, that its not even really worth mentioning in a discussion such as this. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Not that simple.You are making more complicated than it has to be. The government routinely rips up contracts and offers compensation in return. The only real issue is what the compensation should be and the government could amend the constitution to give parliament the final say on all compensation for contracts when the cost represents a significant burden to taxpayers. Parliament could then offer terms to end any treaty obligations which would have to be accepted. The only barrier to this is public opinion which is not an issue because we are talking about hypothetical scenario where the Canadian public is so enraged at native demands that they want an end to them. It can also reverse the priority of rights and state that equality rights and the rights of individuals trump aboriginal rights. Obviously, natives would appeal to international venues but carefully crafted compensation packages would blunt these criticisms especially since the vast majority of states in the world don't care much about the issue or would support Canada's position. Edited June 11, 2015 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 You are making more complicated than it has to be. The government routinely rips up contracts and offers compensation in return. The only real issue is what the compensation should be and the government could amend the constitution to give parliament the final say on all compensation for contracts when the cost represents a significant burden to taxpayers. Parliament could then offer terms to end any treaty obligations. The only barrier to this is public opinion which is not an issue because we are talking about hypothetical scenario where the Canadian public is so enraged at native demands that they want an end to them. It can also reverse the priority of rights and state that equality rights and the rights of individuals trump aboriginal rights. Again, lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank. And first of all, the government cant amend the constitution alone. They could try the notwithstanding clause but as dre points out, the riots would be wall to wall, and it would be political suicide for the government, so why would they. Quote
TimG Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) it would be political suicide for the government, so why would they.Political suicide depends on the time. There could be times in the future where such a stance would get votes. But you miss the point: people who want to argue that treaties represent a permanent legal obligation that cannot be removed unilaterally don't understand the law. Natives only have those rights which Canadians choose to let them keep. Right now the consensus seems to be that they should given special status but that consensus can change. As for employing lawyers: the status quo is a goldmine for lawyers. Anything that simplified the rules would be bad for them. Edited June 11, 2015 by TimG Quote
Smallc Posted June 11, 2015 Report Posted June 11, 2015 Again, lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank. And first of all, the government cant amend the constitution alone. No one has said that. The opposite has already been stated. All 11 crowns would have to agree. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.