Six Nations occupation at Caledonia

[Temagami Scourge]

Poliwog:

You're a Grade 12? , then surely you know how to better talk to your Elders, boy!

""Why are you under mining my inteligence that is on a debate about indians and whites and fair treatment? ? "

Because you, unlike most appropriate young adults, say filthy stuff like: "Well you sit on your ass saying your poor because you blow it all on booze " in a public forum.

If you want to have an adult conversation, then act like one! I kow that many of your role-models here are hardly worthy of that description, but certain folks like Michael Hardner would make an excellent role model for a young person.

However, If you want to get into it like an adult, then there is no use whining about hurt feelings...you can't be a Girlie-man.

You guys always whine about how you want self government and how you are not given enough by the government, my mother a former banker has even told me how huge an indian check is and I would not doubt it, every month you guys get a big fat check from the government than you go back and say you want more, Canadians will say enough is enough once they relize this is all bull. .

I'm sorry you feel that way boy. I'm even more sorry that your mom misinterprets the purpose of a cheque and then gives you the wrong impresion. That sort of thing breeds racism. On the other hand, you are from Winnipeg, and in my experience in that city, I've not met many "nice" Occidentals there.

[seabee]

To Temegamy Scourge;

I'm just a tad too busy to wade into this fascinating discussion, but I admire the way you enlighten this forum. Keep up the very good work.

By the way, I am not sure that "ethnocentrist" is the best word to describe [anglo-canadian] racist opinions which are abudant in this forum. "Anglo-supremacist" might be more appropriate.

[Riverwind]

I am not sure that "ethnocentrist" is the best word to describe [anglo-canadian] racist opinions which are abudant in this forum. "Anglo-supremacist" might be more appropriate.

It is rather pathetic how people that are fundemantally racists themselves seek to hide that fact by calling other people racist.

[seabee]

people that are fundemantally racists themselve

Who, exactly, are you refering to?

[Argus]

To Temegamy Scourge;

I'm just a tad too busy to wade into this fascinating discussion, but I admire the way you enlighten this forum. Keep up the very good work.

By the way, I am not sure that "ethnocentrist" is the best word to describe [anglo-canadian] racist opinions which are abudant in this forum. "Anglo-supremacist" might be more appropriate.

Odd, though, that all the "ethnocentrist" and bigoted type attitudes he criticses in White Canadians are reflected so abundantly in his own bigoted and ethnocentrist attitudes.

[Temagami Scourge]

Seabee:

"I admire the way you enlighten this forum. Keep up the very good work"

Thank you for the compliment. It is greatly appreciated. I know from reading many of the users here that this thread has been a non-ending bashing of Native people with all the usual tripe about welfare, laziness and urban myth after urban myth.

To me, the funny part is that the moment someone comes on here and challenges these myths and ideas, that person is quickly villified. I'm left with a bunch of people whose only argument is that "you're wrong", with not a hred of proof to support their view. We have people on this site who I've proved all manner of links to all kinds of documentation that supports what I say, and the choose not to read it but imply that I'm still wrong. We even have cases where people on here are arguing with me from two contrary standpoints! In essence, they both think I'm wrong, but they are citing evidence that contradicts what the other says.

That is hilarious. It truly shows the depth of stupidity people sink to when they truly have no clue as to what they are talking about, but cling to urban myth as gospel. If folks approached this issue in a questioning manner instead of an accusatorial one, I'd play that game, but when poster after poster infers that I'm lazy, or any of my family is lazy, or that we are incapable of looking after our selves and our businesses, then there will be a series of verbal head-slaps.

Other than that, this cite certainly doesn't make Occidentals look too good, eh?

FYI: I received a couple of calls from Six Nations wondering if I'll be down this weekend. Caledonians have been telling people at the roadblock that they invited the KKK to rally at the roadblock on friday or Saturday night. I think its rumour, but then again, I never expected people to yell racial epithets at Native people because they are upset by a blockade. I don't begrudge people being upset, but to take it to the extreme they did at Caledonia only shows that liquor and white people don't mix that well.

[Renegade]

Go check out collections Canada : http://collections.ic.gc.ca/aboriginaldocs/stat/statmain.htm

They have many of the amendments that go into the treaties. I suggest you try reading through this stuff this time, instead of giving it a quick skim.

Hey TS, this is what, your fourth attempt to provide a link which reinforces your position that Natives are owed perpetual welfare, social, and housing benefits in return for land they gave up? And you point me to an index of ammendments? The ammendments your point to are ammendments to the Indian Act and Constitution Act. There were no amendments to Treaties.

Since you claim to be such an authority, how about your point the specific legal document you think definitively grants Natives such benefits as a trade for land. Better still quote the excerpt on this forum for all to see. But you won't will you? Why? Because such a document or excerpt does not exist.

"Yes, I too know the answer. and actually no, I think there are a few more benefits beyond hunting and fishing."

Finally...you get it!

Actually you must not be reading my posts. I've been consistent. Go see my post from May 2 2006, 02:32 PM. I said the same thing there.

Perpetual welfare isn't a treaty right,

Good golly TS!! We are finally making progress. I'ts only taken you a couple of days to acknowledge it. This has been one of my points. If it isn't a treaty right the Canadian Government has no obligation to provide it.

but on the other hand, its also doesn't say that housing, medical assistance and education are not included.

Well it doesn't explicitly exclude a car-a-year for life, or free all-expense paid annual vacations either. I agree it isn't a legal document, but it is the reference you posted to support your argument. If that's the best reference you can come up with and it doesn't even mention the benefits you purport are owed, than I have to conclude, as any reasonable person would, those are not obligations.

I guess you are incorrect again, because the government keeps maintaining those aspects of the treaties -albeit at the barest minimum.

Using the $9.1 billion yearly figure you posted above, each household is paying on average $900 yearly toward native benefits. You may consider that the "barest minimum" but I, and I think most people, consider that overly generous. Enjoy it my friend, it won't last forever.

""You would think they would have explicitly mentioned important benefits like that if they were included in the treties wouldn't they?" ?"

Not necessarily. They didn't include info that some treaties pay four dollars a year, others 5 dollars a year, and others nothing. Speaking of which, I'm somewhat surprised that you missed the four dollars per year in the Robinson-Huron Treaty.

Actually they did include it. Did you happen to miss the word "annuities"? So again I have no problem if the government lives up to the wording of the treaties and pays you your four dollars per year, and stops all the insane level of benefits it is under no obligation to provide.

[scribblet]

To Temegamy Scourge;

I'm just a tad too busy to wade into this fascinating discussion, but I admire the way you enlighten this forum. Keep up the very good work.

By the way, I am not sure that "ethnocentrist" is the best word to describe [anglo-canadian] racist opinions which are abudant in this forum. "Anglo-supremacist" might be more appropriate.

Odd, though, that all the "ethnocentrist" and bigoted type attitudes he criticses in White Canadians are reflected so abundantly in his own bigoted and ethnocentrist attitudes.

I agree, and this thread is starting to degenerate into name calling. As soon as someone starts throwing around the race card and calling names, then its over. No point in discussing anything when that starts. Mind you,, the basis of this whole thing is the race card when you think about; it is simply about privileges and apartheid given to a group of people based on race and ancestry which would not be tolerated in any other situation.

All the arguing in the world over treaties and who's the biggest racist, natives or the white guys doesn't change that fact.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

Since you claim to be such an authority, how about your point the specific legal document you think definitively grants Natives such benefits as a trade for land.

They are all in the Indian Act and Constitution Act amendments. Some of the negotiations points are in the National archives too. In particular, now that you've skimmed the Robinson-Huron Treaty, you'll note that Robinson made a provision that if ever the number of "Indians" reaches less than 2000 or so in the treaty area, then the government reserves the right to take back land apportionate to the number of "disappeared" Indians.

You won't see the passage in the treaty where the government agreed that if the number increased, then the land would increase as well. This did indeed happen in the late 1990's when Nippissing First Nation received more land north of highway 17, between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay. I remember the surprise on many peoples faces because they didn't know that that was an agreed item, but nippissing is good at keeping up on the provisos.

Additionally, you'll be surprised to know that Robinson also promised the Native signatories that towns like Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie were only temporary settlements, and that as soon as the minig is complete, then the land will revert to Native use.

You see, there was also an expectation on the Crown's part that no white people would ever live in such a hostile environment such as the Canadian Shield, so they made this promise to the Natives. however, that is obviously not the case now since north Bay, Timmins, Kapuskasing etc have all sprung up too, be we can negotiate that fall out later.

"Better still quote the excerpt on this forum for all to see. But you won't will you? Why? Because such a document or excerpt does not exist"

As I said, they are not in one single document in one place, but the best place to list all the various benefits are the amendments, and as you've noteed, there are many, many documents there...so feel free to begin your research.

[Temagami Scourge]

Taxpayer Criblet:

I agree, and this thread is starting to degenerate into name calling.

Gee, i didn't see you saying this in the first ten pages, when people were gladly rhyming off myth after innuendo about Natives? Where were you then, taxpayer?

I'll tell you. you didn't care...hell no, you were an active participant in making anti-Native statements, but as soon as a Native got on this site and started myth-busting, NOW there is a problem with the thread degenerating.

That is also racist, but you cry whenever I point that out, so sorry for hurting your taxpaying feelings.

As soon as someone starts throwing around the race card and calling names, then its over.

Oh...you mean "Well these treaty benefits are all race-based", or "they only get their monthly welfare because of their race" or any of the other crap you and your buddies have dragged up. Give me a break. Since I've been here, I'VE been called lazy, a welfare bum, a racist and a host of other names.

What is the worst I've said? Caledonians are drunks? Where is the racism in that?

No point in discussing anything when that starts.

Actually, why not call a spade a spade? Just admit that I've got you non-plussed by my superior knowledge of this subject area, and have shown you up at every instance through superior intellect.

Nothing wrong with that. You'd be in great company, I'm sure. You can even call me boastful....that would be the truth.

Mind you,, the basis of this whole thing is the race card when you think about; it is simply about privileges and apartheid given to a group of people based on race and ancestry which would not be tolerated in any other situation.

See what I mean? You've made the above point again and again, I've skillfully rebuked it again and again, but you come back and hold to the same myth.

You wouldn't be from Alberta, would you? They seem to have the exact same problem expressing coherent thought too.

All the arguing in the world over treaties and who's the biggest racist, natives or the white guys doesn't change that fact.

Naaa. I'm just arguing that you are wrong. simple as that. If you changed your tack, then I'd do likewise, but you don't, so I won't.

That rhymed!

[Riverwind]

Mind you,, the basis of this whole thing is the race card when you think about; it is simply about privileges and apartheid given to a group of people based on race and ancestry which would not be tolerated in any other situation.

See what I mean? You've made the above point again and again, I've skillfully rebuked it again and again, but you come back and hold to the same myth.

You have done no such thing. Your responses have basically been: natives are entitled to special (race-based) benefits because some of their ancestors signed treaties which requires the gov't to provide these benefits to their ancestors in perpetuity. That is not a refutation - it is simply a claim that apartheid is perfectly justified if there are some dubious historical documents that say apartheid is ok.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

"You have done no such thing. Your responses have basically been: natives are entitled to special (race-based) benefits because some of their ancestors signed treaties which requires the gov't to provide these benefits to their ancestors in perpetuity. That is not a refutation - it is simply a claim that apartheid is perfectly justified if there are some dubious historical documents that say apartheid is ok"

You can whine all you want, but all I'm doing is explaining Canadian law to you. You might not like it, as I don't, but it is fact, and it is based on who was here first to extinguish land rights. Just because the first people here happened to be Natives is sheer fate. As I've also said (and which you clearly forget because it screws you up), I don't believe our shared government looks to give people money just based on their physical appearance. I think they give out money to erase interests and make a free and clear legal path for themselves.

When you say race-based, you are forgetting that the "race" you whine about was here and had title to Canada. you make only half an argument, and I use this to my advantage.

[Renegade]

They are all in the Indian Act and Constitution Act amendments. Some of the negotiations points are in the National archives too.

TS, as you've already acknowledged, neither the Indian Act and Constitution Act are treaties or agreements between parties. They are both unilateral declarations by the Canadian Government.

If your point is that the Indian Act and the Constitution Act have given Native groups certain priviliges, I'm not disputing that. But unilateral acts can be unilaterally changed to revoke those privlliges as long as agreements or treaties are not violated.

You have finally acknowledged that there is no provision in the treaty for Natives groups to recieve the perpetual medicare, welfare, and housing benefits they now draw. Yes I agree there are other benefits were agreed to, but the social benefits I mentioned weren't part of them.

In particular, now that you've skimmed the Robinson-Huron Treaty, you'll note that Robinson made a provision that if ever the number of "Indians" reaches less than 2000 or so in the treaty area, then the government reserves the right to take back land apportionate to the number of "disappeared" Indians.

You won't see the passage in the treaty where the government agreed that if the number increased, then the land would increase as well. This did indeed happen in the late 1990's when Nippissing First Nation received more land north of highway 17, between Sturgeon Falls and North Bay. I remember the surprise on many peoples faces because they didn't know that that was an agreed item, but nippissing is good at keeping up on the provisos.

Additionally, you'll be surprised to know that Robinson also promised the Native signatories that towns like Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie were only temporary settlements, and that as soon as the minig is complete, then the land will revert to Native use.

You see, there was also an expectation on the Crown's part that no white people would ever live in such a hostile environment such as the Canadian Shield, so they made this promise to the Natives. however, that is obviously not the case now since north Bay, Timmins, Kapuskasing etc have all sprung up too, be we can negotiate that fall out later.

But I've never disputed that agreements incuded provisions which entitled Native grouips to land, so how is this relevant?

As I said, they are not in one single document in one place, but the best place to list all the various benefits are the amendments, and as you've noteed, there are many, many documents there...so feel free to begin your research.

TS, not only are they not in one document, the are in no documents which constitute agreements between the Canadian government and natives groups.

If what your arguing is that the government made "promises" to native groups, I would say this:

1. The promises were not made in the context of a "land in exchange for benefits" swap. Such commitments can only made in treaties or other such agreement between parties.

2. Promises made by an Act of Parliament are subject to change by Parliament. Don't worry, the government breaks "promises" to us non-native Canadians too. We get used to it. You should too.

[Michael Hardner]

TS:

What is the worst I've said?

Scroll up a bit...

...liquor and white people don't mix that well.

I understand dishing it out to those who have done the same (and I've read a few anti-Indian comments on this board before you came along) but if you want to be better than that, then be better than that.

This immaterial racial slander on both sides can stop at any point in this thread.

The opportunity for dialogue here, as hostile as it can be, should be explored. This discussion really couldn't happen in a coffee shop in Winnipeg so let's treat it as a valuable opportunity to gain some intelligence.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

Your wrong about pretty near everything in your last post save this:

"If your point is that the Indian Act and the Constitution Act have given Native groups certain priviliges, I'm not disputing that. But unilateral acts can be unilaterally changed to revoke those privlliges as long as agreements or treaties are not violated."

This is exactly what irks me about the treaty process. As you'll see from the amendments, the Crown took it upon itself to alter the Act to suit its fancy while condemning the Natives. Two major changes to the Act in the 1880's disallowed Ghost dances and the potlatch. These two ceremonies were critical to the prairie and west coast Nations, respectively, and did much to diminish their spirits. The potlatch in particular was a method of renewing leadership vows, acknowledging leaders, creating alliances, arranging marriages and generally solidifying society. This all fell apart and created quite a lousy time for west coast people.

Added to this was the fact that Priests and Reverends came into the community and began convincing people that these ceremonies were devil-worship only exacerbated the splits in the community.

The same thing creates issues at Six nations. The 1924 amendment made the Confederacy Chief system illegal and installed an Indian Act system for Chief and council. Gone were the days when the clanmothers openley condoled the Chiefs with the deer antler headdress, and it became one-man, one-vote. Well, the longhouse people just went underground, and kept the clanmother system alive until it began coming to the forefront recently.

We don't need the government to do stuff on our behalf. Just tell them to live up to their side of the treaties and things will be fine. Remove all canadian laws so we can reassert out own. There is nothing special about that, other than we don't need to keep in-fighting amongst Canadians.

[Riverwind]

You might not like it, as I don't, but it is fact, and it is based on who was here first to extinguish land rights

The natives were not able to exercise control over the territory and the lost it to invaders. The same thing happened to the Angles when the Saxons invaded England in 1066. You can whine all you want about injustices in the past, however, you cannot 'fix' injustices in the past by creating injustice in the present. Furthermore, your argument does not refute the statement that native land claims are simply a form of apartheid that would not be tolerated in any other situation. Your argument simply attempts to justify this apartheid by making dubious claims about rights conferred to people of certain races based on when their ancestors first showed up on this continent.

[Temagami Scourge]

mike:

"The opportunity for dialogue here, as hostile as it can be, should be explored. This discussion really couldn't happen in a coffee shop in Winnipeg so let's treat it as a valuable opportunity to gain some intelligence."

Here Here

Yes, I'm sorry for my part Mike, but I, like many humans, tend to react...especially when it seems like it is one person after another making insulting comment after comment.

The truth be told, there are liquor issues with the Caledonians, and I do refer to them time after time, but that doesn't give me artistic license to condemn all white people.

Forgive my intemperateness.

[Greg]

This immaterial racial slander on both sides can stop at any point in this thread.

Michael is right, and if I were any of you posting in this thread, I would heed his advice.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

The natives were not able to exercise control over the territory and the lost it to invaders.

river...don't confuse the Canadian and American experiences. Americans fought war after bloody war with their native population and soundly beat them. Canada looked at the American method of dealing with Natives, pooh-poohed it as animalistic, and decided to negotiate treaties with the natives instead of fighting wars.

That is why our history is not as bloody as America's. In fact, those old colonists loved to point out how much more "superior" they were to their American counterparts given their different methods. the British loved to point out how all they had to be was be straight with the natives and everything is fine.

The only people in this country who were truly beaten were the French. If anyone has less of a right to be sovereign, its them. They surrendered while we remained allies of the Crown. you should remind them of that whenever you speak about Quebec separatism.

The other hassle is that we have a generation of Canadians who spent saturday morning watching John Wayne movies, and believing them.

The same thing happened to the Angles when the Saxons invaded England in 1066.

The Angles and Saxons fought, they didn't sign treaties. The Romans and Celts fought, and didn't sign treaties. British history is rife with savagery...its too bad it took so long to get it right.

You can whine all you want about injustices in the past, however, you cannot 'fix' injustices in the past

You can if you are supported by Canadian law using legal Canadian documentation, which is what the Treaties represent. If we were beaten by a european army, then I'd have no choice but to agree with you, but we weren't. We made mutually-beneficial agreements that, sadly, your government is ignoring at every step.

Furthermore, your argument does not refute the statement that native land claims are simply a form of apartheid that would not be tolerated in any other situation.

Can you explain to me how you came to this conclusion? I never said land claims are a form of apartheid. What are you referring to?

Your argument simply attempts to justify this apartheid by making dubious claims about rights conferred to people of certain races based on when their ancestors first showed up on this continent.

I'll repeat this again:

"You can whine all you want, but all I'm doing is explaining Canadian law to you. You might not like it, as I don't, but it is fact, and it is based on who was here first to extinguish land rights. Just because the first people here happened to be Natives is sheer fate. As I've also said (and which you clearly forget because it screws you up), I don't believe our shared government looks to give people money just based on their physical appearance. I think they give out money to erase interests and make a free and clear legal path for themselves.

When you say race-based, you are forgetting that the "race" you whine about was here and had title to Canada. you make only half an argument, and I use this to my advantage."

I hope the bolding helps make the point far clearer.

[Renegade]

Your wrong about pretty near everything in your last post save this:

"If your point is that the Indian Act and the Constitution Act have given Native groups certain priviliges, I'm not disputing that. But unilateral acts can be unilaterally changed to revoke those privlliges as long as agreements or treaties are not violated."

This is exactly what irks me about the treaty process. As you'll see from the amendments, the Crown took it upon itself to alter the Act to suit its fancy while condemning the Natives. Two major changes to the Act in the 1880's disallowed Ghost dances and the potlatch. These two ceremonies were critical to the prairie and west coast Nations, respectively, and did much to diminish their spirits. The potlatch in particular was a method of renewing leadership vows, acknowledging leaders, creating alliances, arranging marriages and generally solidifying society. This all fell apart and created quite a lousy time for west coast people.

Added to this was the fact that Priests and Reverends came into the community and began convincing people that these ceremonies were devil-worship only exacerbated the splits in the community.

The same thing creates issues at Six nations. The 1924 amendment made the Confederacy Chief system illegal and installed an Indian Act system for Chief and council. Gone were the days when the clanmothers openley condoled the Chiefs with the deer antler headdress, and it became one-man, one-vote. Well, the longhouse people just went underground, and kept the clanmother system alive until it began coming to the forefront recently.

TS, I can't figure out if you are advocating that Canadian law be followed or not. As both you and I have acknowledged, it is quite legal for the government to change the Acts it passes and revoke any benefits. It may irk you , but it would no doubt be legal.

I'm not defending all actions of the government. They many times did stupid things 100 years ago, and many times still do stupid things today. What I'm trying to get clarity on is what our legal obligations are to Native groups we've made agreements with.

Everything I've seen and read, shows that the government can unilaterally recind those benefits, save those which are explictly spelled out in the treaties. So I encourage my govenment to recind those benefits while not violating the terms of the treaty. The fact that it may piss you off, will not cause me to lose sleep.

We don't need the government to do stuff on our behalf. Just tell them to live up to their side of the treaties and things will be fine. Remove all canadian laws so we can reassert out own. There is nothing special about that, other than we don't need to keep in-fighting amongst Canadians.

We finally agree. I don't need my government doing things on your behalf either. Let's leave it to native groups to run their own welfare, medicare, and housing and whatever social programs they want. I'm fine with the government living up to their treaty obligations, and we'll pay you your four dollars yearly.

[politika]

This immaterial racial slander on both sides can stop at any point in this thread.

Michael is right, and if I were any of you posting in this thread, I would heed his advice.

SOrry Greg it will stop, I kinda got a little heated their for a second.

[geoffrey]

The problem is that Indian groups have no money to provide these services, so they'd be back on the provincial welfare rolls quickly. Canadian's don't have much of a stomach for watching people starve to death, no matter how much they asked for it.

One of the only feasible concepts is to remove the reserves and have them become Canadians.

Land claims are a joke, all of a sudden you can make a claim on privately held land hundreds of years after your treaty? Tough, should have mentioned it before in the treaty or original land claims.

But when Indians are off reserve, they have to obey by our laws and right now, they are trespassing. If white people were doing that to protest whatever, we'd all be arrested and charged. But instead, because they are Indians, they can protest and destroy local economies all they want with no repercussion. We need to kick them all off our roads, put them on their reserves. This is the key problem in this thread, people don't seem to care that these Indians are breaking the law. That's all I need to know to go arrest them.

Canada needs some new leadership in dealing with the Indian problem in our country. Someone that will lay down the law that is good for Canadians first and not the Indians like we seem to cater to at every step.

Do these treaties have an expiry date? Let's just not renew.

[politika]

The problem is that Indian groups have no money to provide these services, so they'd be back on the provincial welfare rolls quickly. Canadian's don't have much of a stomach for watching people starve to death, no matter how much they asked for it.

One of the only feasible concepts is to remove the reserves and have them become Canadians.

Land claims are a joke, all of a sudden you can make a claim on privately held land hundreds of years after your treaty? Tough, should have mentioned it before in the treaty or original land claims.

But when Indians are off reserve, they have to obey by our laws and right now, they are trespassing. If white people were doing that to protest whatever, we'd all be arrested and charged. But instead, because they are Indians, they can protest and destroy local economies all they want with no repercussion. We need to kick them all off our roads, put them on their reserves. This is the key problem in this thread, people don't seem to care that these Indians are breaking the law. That's all I need to know to go arrest them.

Canada needs some new leadership in dealing with the Indian problem in our country. Someone that will lay down the law that is good for Canadians first and not the Indians like we seem to cater to at every step.

Do these treaties have an expiry date? Let's just not renew.

Here, here!

You stoll the words right out of my mouth. I do hope these treaties to have an expiry date!

[Renegade]

The problem is that Indian groups have no money to provide these services, so they'd be back on the provincial welfare rolls quickly. Canadian's don't have much of a stomach for watching people starve to death, no matter how much they asked for it.

They wouldn't be on the welfare rolls if they wern't entitled to welfare. Yes, Canadians can somach people starving. People have starved all the time in many nations in Africa and other improvished places. Most Canadians didn't seem to lose sleep over it. Like it or not, to a certain extent, Native people are their own nation on their reserve. While there, they are exempt from Canadian taxes and should be exempted from Canadian social programs as well. They can and should use the money they save from Canadian taxes to set up their own social programs.

Alternatively they can give up their sovereignty and make a deal with the Canadian government to integrate into Canadian society. They would then be entitled to the same social programs as other Canadians, but also have the same obligations such as paying taxes. They would also lose their special privilidges and reservations.

All I'm asking is that it be done one way or the other. The status quo offers native groups all the benefits of Canadian sociiety and then some, without any of the obligations. It's time we as Canadian citizens and taxpayers woke up and put an end of this nonsense.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rene:

"What I'm trying to get clarity on is what our legal obligations are to Native groups we've made agreements with."

well, I've pointed out a number of ways already, but you don't seem to believe me, so I suggest you call or email INAC and ask them. Try by email and post it back for use to see.

Everything I've seen and read, shows that the government can unilaterally recind those benefits, save those which are explictly spelled out in the treaties.

Yeah...I've told you that too. That's why I'm not fond of the Indian Act and the plethora of amendments, because a group of non-natives can change it as they see fit, and without a whit of input from the people most impacted...the Indians.

Kinda makes a mockery of democracy.

We finally agree. I don't need my government doing things on your behalf either. Let's leave it to native groups to run their own welfare, medicare, and housing and whatever social programs they want. I'm fine with the government living up to their treaty obligations, and we'll pay you your four dollars yearly.

buddy...don't tell me this. Write your MP. Hell, just copy the above statement and send it in. let them know you want Canada to remove itself from its current role and just stick to its treaty obligations. Please...and ask your friends to do likewise.