Six Nations Crisis- “Canada’s Pandora’s Box?”

[Riverwind]

Unlike your example of the Turks and Caicos - Canada did enter into an agreement, and they are legitimate - and are considered so by the majority of Canadians.

You can ask any Canadian if they would like the gov't to honour native treaties you will likely find that 70%+ answer yes. Then explain that honouring these treaties as written may cost trillions of dollars and leave millions of Canadians living in under an apartheid system where only natives would have a right to vote. At that point I am pretty sure that 90% or more Canadians would say screw the treaties. Basically you are wasting your time arguing that these treatries should be honoured because a "deal is a deal". they will only be honoured if the price of honouring them is something that the majority of people are willing to pay.

Frankly, I don't think Canadians should feel that guilty about ignoring the treaties because they are founded on racist principals that have no place in our society today. That said I think a negotiated settlement is best, however, the only thing that should put on the table by the gov't should be cash and fee-simple ownership of land purchased on the open market. The total amount of cash and land should be large enough to give the various bands a comfortable economic base. Theoretical value of disputed lands would not be a consideration.

And the only thing that is being asked is that the agreements be honoured. Honouring your word has always been a standard of behaviour in any time frame.

That is the standard for personal relationships. For relationships between groups of people there is no such standard - political convenience is the only standard that exists.

[Riverwind]

Property Taxes from same area should go to Six Nations, as well as taxes obtained through use of resources within the tract.

Excuse me - property taxes are not 'rents' designed to provide profit to selected individuals. They are monies collected only to pay for services such as roads, parks and sewers. The Six Nations band has no right to these tax monies and is simply not qualified to oversee the delivery of these services to the people that pay for them. If you were intellectually honest you would just admit that you want all non-native people living on land you claim to pay rent on top of what taxes they need to pay for services. Do you want to have a bet about how many people would say screw the treaties if they were told that is what is necessary to resolve them?

Id like to see the whole tract of land become a new municipality.

The tract of land is divided into many municipalities because it is a convenient way to deliver services that people need. A single municipality covering many diverse communities would not be able to provide those services as effectively. In other words, combining these lands into a single municipality is a dumb idea that will never be accepted by the residents and any politician hoping to get re-elected.

So there you have it - One Mans idea of a good start to a possible solution.

Do you honestly believe that there is any chance of that solution happening? If it can be shown that Six Nations had this land unjustly taken away then a fair settlement would be a cash payment based on the market value of the land in the 1800s plus interest. You could probably make a case for some additional dollars for 'loss of use' but it would not be much more than the value of the land. The market value of the land today is irrelevant because the land only has value today because it was available for purchase under fee simple terms. Changing those terms would make the land considerably less valuable.

[gc1765]

Immigrants and natives who choose to assimilate in the mainstream culture are almost always economically better off than those that hold on to their traditional cultures. This was a fact of life 50-100 years ago and it is still true today.

There is no reason that one can not be economically successful while retaining their native language, religion and traditions. There are many successful immigrants in Canada who still speak their native language. In fact, many of the settlers learned to speak the langauge of the Natives to help them during the fur trade, but that doesn't mean they stopped speaking english.

You are making allegations that you acknowledge cannot be proven. I can make similar allegations: we can never really know the true extent of the abuse at these schools because there is a huge financial and social incentive for natives to exaggerate or fabricate stories of abuse. Making up stories of abuse is not something unique to natives - have you ever heard of 'false memory syndrome'? People recall childhood abuses after seeing therapists that tell them that all of their emotional problems were a result of abuse as a child. Many people with these false memories still cling to these memories even after they have be proven wrong by irrefutable facts. I think the same thing in going on a massive scale in native communities.

There is just as much financial incentive for the government to deny that these things happened. So why believe one side of the story and not the other, when each side has equal financial motivation to exaggerate or deny what happened? Also, I don't think there is any financial incentive for those who witnessed a murder.

[gc1765]

It could be directly related to these residential school. HOWEVER, your ancestral leaders were as much guilty then as the colonials for having allowed themselves to be convinced...and to go along with the visions the colonials had for the natives.

So far we know the purpose of the colonials, though ill-conceived they may have been.

But what is not clear here is the purpose....or the reason(s) why your ancestral leaders stood by in cooperation and let it happen.

What makes you think that Native leaders co-operated with the idea of residential schools? It was federal law for all Native children to enter residential schools. They had no choice. What were Natives supposed to do?

[Canuck E Stan]

What makes you think that Native leaders co-operated with the idea of residential schools? It was federal law for all Native children to enter residential schools. They had no choice. What were Natives supposed to do?

How about they set up roadblocks and protest until they get some "action"?

[betsy]

They had no choice. What were Natives supposed to do?

I'm really curious about this. As I've said, there's hardly any explanations about the leaders' side of the matter.

If native leaders held the status of being able to negotiate, bargain and sign treatise, I can only assume that they were not so helpless regarding the residential school fiasco.

Show me historical reports or investigative findings, anything that showed the leaders at least tried to stop it....anything that backs up your claim and negates the simple statement from a credible link I gave, on which I base my assumption.

Simple personal opinion on this matter is not good enough.

[jbg]

They had no choice. What were Natives supposed to do?

I'm really curious about this. As I've said, there's hardly any explanations about the leaders' side of the matter.

If native leaders held the status of being able to negotiate, bargain and sign treatise, I can only assume that they were not so helpless regarding the residential school fiasco.

Show me historical reports or investigative findings, anything that showed the leaders at least tried to stop it....anything that backs up your claim and negates the simple statement from a credible link I gave, on which I base my assumption.

Simple personal opinion on this matter is not good enough.

If the current quality of band chiefs is any guide, the sole interest of these "leaders" was obtaining booty. They may not have been helpless about "the residential school fiasco" but they didn't care either.

[gc1765]

Show me historical reports or investigative findings, anything that showed the leaders at least tried to stop it....anything that backs up your claim and negates the simple statement from a credible link I gave, on which I base my assumption.

Maybe this will help:

Initially, Indians were generally in favour of the Bagot Commission's proposals on education, since they still wished to co-exist with the new settler society and knew that education was the key to their children's futures. However, once the assimilationist flavour of the program became evident, opposition quickly increased. They also opposed the restrictions on eligibility to receive treaty payments. This was viewed as interference with internal band matters and as a way of ultimately reducing all payments. There was, in addition, strong resistance to the notion of individual allotment of reserve lands, as many feared — rightly — that this would lead to the loss of these lands and to the gradual destruction of the reserve land base.

The formerly progressive and co-operative relationship between band councils and missionaries and humanitarian Indian agents broke down in acrimony and political action by Indians to see the [gradual civilization] act repealed. Indian people's refusal to comply and the government's refusal to rescind the policy showed that the nation-to-nation approach had been abandoned almost completely on the Crown side.

Link

Residential school policy was strongly opposed by Aboriginal people. Despite the opposition, and evidence of abusive situations, nothing changed for decades. The damage to thousands of Aboriginal people, once children and now adults, continues to the present day. Bad policies always claim victims. But the effects of bad education policies seep through the decades, from child to parent to family to community, and from one generation to those that follow.

Link

It would appear that Native leaders were in favour of education, but not assimilation.

I'm not sure why it matters though. What is worse, implementing these policies or not objecting to them? The government had the power to end residential schools, Native leaders did not. If they voiced their objections, do you think they would have been heard? What about non-Natives who objected but went unheard (for example Dr. Peter Bryce)? It was the law at the time to attend residential schools, and those who objected would be removed forcibly. Should they have resisted, using violence if necessary? Wouldn't that create a situation like in Caledonia?

[saga]

Show me historical reports or investigative findings, anything that showed the leaders at least tried to stop it....anything that backs up your claim and negates the simple statement from a credible link I gave, on which I base my assumption.

Maybe this will help:

Initially, Indians were generally in favour of the Bagot Commission's proposals on education, since they still wished to co-exist with the new settler society and knew that education was the key to their children's futures. However, once the assimilationist flavour of the program became evident, opposition quickly increased. They also opposed the restrictions on eligibility to receive treaty payments. This was viewed as interference with internal band matters and as a way of ultimately reducing all payments. There was, in addition, strong resistance to the notion of individual allotment of reserve lands, as many feared — rightly — that this would lead to the loss of these lands and to the gradual destruction of the reserve land base.

The formerly progressive and co-operative relationship between band councils and missionaries and humanitarian Indian agents broke down in acrimony and political action by Indians to see the [gradual civilization] act repealed. Indian people's refusal to comply and the government's refusal to rescind the policy showed that the nation-to-nation approach had been abandoned almost completely on the Crown side.

Link

Residential school policy was strongly opposed by Aboriginal people. Despite the opposition, and evidence of abusive situations, nothing changed for decades. The damage to thousands of Aboriginal people, once children and now adults, continues to the present day. Bad policies always claim victims. But the effects of bad education policies seep through the decades, from child to parent to family to community, and from one generation to those that follow.

Link

It would appear that Native leaders were in favour of education, but not assimilation.

I'm not sure why it matters though. What is worse, implementing these policies or not objecting to them? The government had the power to end residential schools, Native leaders did not. If they voiced their objections, do you think they would have been heard? What about non-Natives who objected but went unheard (for example Dr. Peter Bryce)? It was the law at the time to attend residential schools, and those who objected would be removed forcibly. Should they have resisted, using violence if necessary? Wouldn't that create a situation like in Caledonia?

I am in favour of indigenous self government ... they did it for thousands of years and we have a lot to learn about democracy from them, particularly the Haudenosaunee Six Nations Confederacy. Participatory democracy is amazing ... and we have the ability to do it now with tools like this discussion board.

Residential schools ... Canadians need to be aware that our government is about to try to shove this under the rug again with a paltry payout to everyone who attended (which avoids public airing in court) and a whining statement that is no apology and is an insult to all of us. NO it is definitely not dealt with and it is not even history yet as it has not been understood well enough yet. If it was understood, there would be no questions about land rights and governance rights.

Canada, right now, could be brought up to the International Court on charges of genocide ... attempting to destroy a people ... for the purpose of stealing their land and resources. The genocidal policies include the Indian Act that criminalized their religion and traditional governance (1924, at gunpoint at Six Nations, and again enforced violently in 1959), the unlawful surrenders of land (so traditional people could no longer sustain themselves on their land, nor sell it to gain economic independence), and 100 years - 6 GENERATIONS of abuse and attempted destruction of spirit.

Some residential schools operated in some provinces since the early 1800s, and the Canadian government made residential schools mandatory for indigenous people living on reserves in the 1880s. The last residential school closed in 1986. This is not ancient history. Government policy was assimilation ... all indigenous children were to speak only English and be Christian and grow up to be good Canadians. The children were beaten, had needles pushed through their tongues for speaking their own language, were horribly horribly abused in the name of Canada. MANY died. Many babies born from sexual abuse by staff mysteriously died. Many ran away ... but they could not go home or they would be captured again, so they went to the city streets. Parents were told that if they did not send their kids to the schools, their kids would be taken away from them permanently ... and many were. The children were psychologically abused, turned against each other with threat and punishment ... their culture, and connections and social behaviour were ALL attacked to break the culture by breaking individual spirits of children ... those who did not submit ... it could only be called torture ... perhaps death. Parents had no say, no power, no recourse, and for their spirits had been damaged too ... six generations of destruction by Canada.

The story has not NEARLY been told yet. Canada seems to conveniently forget its criminal acts, and that is not good enough for me ... for my country ... I expect better!

Which is all leading to ... they want their land back, and proper compensation for its use for 200 years, so they can be economically independent. They want self governance. How they do it is none of our business. We have meddled quite enough ... but I do believe they should also be given Canadian citizenship IF THEY CHOOSE since that is what we tried to force down their throats ... dual citizenship ... Indigenous Nations and Canada.

...in my opinion.

HATS OFF TO SIX NATIONS ... !!!

Stay strong ... you will be successful because right is on your side!!

[Riverwind]

Canada, right now, could be brought up to the International Court on charges of genocide ... attempting to destroy a people ... for the purpose of stealing their land and resources.

This statement demonstrates how little you know about the issues. Mandatory public education is not genocide. Assimilation is not genocide.

[saga]

ok ... I have a couple more things to add:

The Two Row Wampum Treaty (1600s) specified nation-to-nation status. It was incorporated into the Royal Proclamation (1763) which also addressed land rights. The Royal Proclamation was incorporated into the Canadian Constitution (1982). The legality of the Haldimand Proclamation (1784) which granted 6 miles deep on either side of the Grand to the Haudenosaunee is not in question. It is the legality of the surrenders that is questioned ... but International Law, current Canadian Law and even the law at that time renders most or all surrenders invalid. It was common practice then to write down some land description that may not be specific or accurate, and to accept whatever signatures were available or could be obtained through bribery. Also, the process seldom respected participatory democracy whereby the Chiefs brought the message (offer, etc.) to the people for ratification, even though this WAS part of the Canadian law at the time.

The voice of the Indigenous people was simply not heard ... not listened to ... IGNORED ... that is why they could not do anything. If they tried to organize, revolt, they were killed. LOTS of Indigenous people have been killed by Canada.

I look forward to a day when there will be a national monument to all the missing and dead children from the residential schools and adults from the streets and from resistance and rebellion. It will have to be a big friggin monument to hold all the names!!!

[saga]

Canada, right now, could be brought up to the International Court on charges of genocide ... attempting to destroy a people ... for the purpose of stealing their land and resources.

This statement demonstrates how little you know about the issues.

How is that ...

What do you mean ...

[Riverwind]

I look forward to a day when there will be a national monument to all the missing and dead children from the residential schools and adults from the streets and from resistance and rebellion. It will have to be a big friggin monument to hold all the names!!!

The child mortality rate in remote indian communities was high quite at the time. Before you could come up with a list you would have to figure how many kids would have died anyways.

Frankly, I have little patience for arguments that presume that people living today should feel guilty about what happened generations ago. There was a time when the native groups were independent nations that were politically distinct from the British colonies. However, that time is long gone and attempting to re-create it is a complete waste of time. Natives are simply another ethnic group in Canada that unfortunately have been given too many apartheid like rights under our existing constitution. We should do whatever we can to limit the scope and effect of these race based rights. We should definitely not be granting any new ones.

Obviously, the endemic social problems in native communities have be caused in part by paternalistic gov't policies such as the Indian Act. So that means the gov't needs work to fix these problems. A form of self-government modelled on a municipal or private corporation is certainly worth considering. However, any remedy must respect the multi-ethnic nature of Canadian society which means the rights of an individual citizen can never be based on their DNA/race/ancestry.

[saga]

I look forward to a day when there will be a national monument to all the missing and dead children from the residential schools and adults from the streets and from resistance and rebellion. It will have to be a big friggin monument to hold all the names!!!

The child mortality rate in remote indian communities was high quite at the time. Before you could come up with a list you would have to figure how many kids would have died anyways.

Your initial comment appeared to be a denial of genocide. Are you backtracking on that...

After the age of 5 or 6 or 7 (it was supposed to be 7, but they did sometimes take younger ones too), the kids were only home in the summer.

StatsCan has no data on residential schools available. I am a datahound ... and that is odd.

This would have to be an ethnographic study, reports from family members. They have strong oral traditions, validated often enough for credibility by diaries of the time (eg lady simcoe). However, these are stories of personal tragedy ... very painful ... very private. They will tell it in their own time, when they are comfortable that it will be received respectfully. Who would tell a personal story in a forum where it might be dismissed as fabricated ... (!!)

However, you can search ...residential schools, stories ... for some that are available online.

There is a new book coming out, I believe ... A Little Matter of Genocide... I think that is the title. Can not remember author. Academic study. I just started reading this stuff after the blockade started. I live in Hamilton, and go there and support them on here too, and all Indigenous Nations. It is for their kids and the generations to come and ours too.

[saga]

Canada, right now, could be brought up to the International Court on charges of genocide ... attempting to destroy a people ... for the purpose of stealing their land and resources.

This statement demonstrates how little you know about the issues. Mandatory public education is not genocide. Assimilation is not genocide.

I gather you looked it up.

Attempted destruction of a people ... by imposed assimilation ... genocide.

[saga]

I look forward to a day when there will be a national monument to all the missing and dead children from the residential schools and adults from the streets and from resistance and rebellion. It will have to be a big friggin monument to hold all the names!!!

The child mortality rate in remote indian communities was high quite at the time. Before you could come up with a list you would have to figure how many kids would have died anyways.

(addressed above)

Frankly, I have little patience for arguments that presume that people living today should feel guilty about what happened generations ago. There was a time when the native groups were independent nations that were politically distinct from the British colonies. However, that time is long gone and attempting to re-create it is a complete waste of time. Natives are simply another ethnic group in Canada that unfortunately have been given too many apartheid like rights under our existing constitution. We should do whatever we can to limit the scope and effect of these race based rights. We should definitely not be granting any new ones.

Obviously, the endemic social problems in native communities have be caused in part by paternalistic gov't policies such as the Indian Act. So that means the gov't needs work to fix these problems. A form of self-government modelled on a municipal or private corporation is certainly worth considering. However, any remedy must respect the multi-ethnic nature of Canadian society which means the rights of an individual citizen can never be based on their DNA/race/ancestry.

The traditional indigenous people have survived, despite attempts, and it is they who want the land and self governance. Yes, the Indian Act must go. The Canadian Band Councils ... at Six Nations, they voted for the traditional Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Council to have power to negotiate land claims. They will regain independence through land and compensation. It is their business how they do self governance ... personally I think we have meddled quite enough.

[Riverwind]

Attempted destruction of a people ... by imposed assimilation ... genocide.

No it is not. Futhermore, call residential schools a genocide is a great insult to the memories of people who have been brutually murdered in real genocides.

Residential schools were set up with the intention of helping natives integrate better into the modern economy. There were numerous problems with the schools ranging from underfunding to lack of oversight, however, that does not change the fact that mandatory public education was intended to help.

BTW - white kids were forced to go to school as well - the big difference is the gov't provided a school in their community so they could still stay at home.

The indian lobby in this country abuses terms like 'genocide' in order bully critics of aboriginal rights and make non-aborigals think they have to give aboriginals what ever they want. Unfortunately, they have been successful cases like yourself.

Answer this question. Would you be willing to give all land you own without compensation to natives in order to settle these land claims? Would you be willing to pay an extra 2-5% GST on all items you purchase in order to pay compensation for past wrongs?

We as a society cannot afford to honour these agreements as written so we have no choice but to say the past is the past and it is not the fault of people living today. That does not mean that we simply ignore the very real problems today. It simply means that when looking for solutions we should not get caught up in legalistic arguments about what long dead people agreed to 100s of years ago.

[saga]

Frankly, I have little patience for arguments that presume that people living today should feel guilty about what happened generations ago. There was a time when the native groups were independent nations that were politically distinct from the British colonies. However, that time is long gone and attempting to re-create it is a complete waste of time.

It is not about guilt. However, remorse and respect and are in order, and restoration of legal rights denied.

The treaties are validated by our Constitution (1982). That is the law. Ignoring them is no longer a possibility. That is why the government of Canada has already recognized title of the Mississaugas Nations to Toronto (2003), and is currently negotiating price.

Natives are simply another ethnic group in Canada that unfortunately have been given too many apartheid like rights under our existing constitution. We should do whatever we can to limit the scope and effect of these race based rights. We should definitely not be granting any new ones.

They are reclaiming their legal right to sovereignty, which has alweays existed but was ignored by Canada because they were to be assimilated. They choose sovereignty, not assimilation. Canada is not granting any new rights, but recognizing existing rights and titles, as per the Constitution (sec35), treaties, proclamations and agreements. Canada was careless about land surrenders ... most are not valid (land descriptions vague, etc.) ... because assimilation was the goal, but it was not realistic. We are a blip in time in Indigenous history, and not a good one in many ways.

Obviously, the endemic social problems in native communities have be caused in part by paternalistic gov't policies such as the Indian Act. So that means the gov't needs work to fix these problems. A form of self-government modelled on a municipal or private corporation is certainly worth considering. However, any remedy must respect the multi-ethnic nature of Canadian society which means the rights of an individual citizen can never be based on their DNA/race/ancestry.

The traditional indigenous people have survived, despite attempts, and it is they who want the land and self governance. Yes, the Indian Act must go. The Canadian Band Councils ... at Six Nations, they voted for the traditional Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Council to have power to negotiate land claims. They will regain independence through land and compensation. It is their business how they do self governance ... personally I think we have meddled quite enough.

[Riverwind]

That is why the government of Canada has already recognized title of the Mississaugas Nations to Toronto (2003), and is currently negotiating price.

The gov't is taking the position that cash compensation should be calculated based on the market price of the land in the 1800s when the band lost access to the land. They have also offered some additional cash for loss of use. The gov't has no intention of giving 'sovereignty' over these lands to the native groups.

It don't have a problem with these kinds of cash settlement if the price is reasonable. I only get concerned when natives groups start demanding that land owners start paying taxes to bands instead of municipal gov'ts or when bands can deprive a municipality of its tax base by purchasing land which is turned into a reserve.

[saga]

Attempted destruction of a people ... by imposed assimilation ... genocide.

No it is not.

Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide

Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;

* ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

* © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All of these things happened to them, one place or one time or another. Forcibly transferring children happened all the time.

The indian lobby in this country abuses terms like 'genocide' in order bully critics of aboriginal rights and make non-aborigals think they have to give aboriginals what ever they want. Unfortunately, they have been successful cases like yourself.

No one bullies me

I found out all this information by myself.

Then I went and offered my support, and I learned a lot more from them.

Answer this question. Would you be willing to give all land you own without compensation to natives in order to settle these land claims? Would you be willing to pay an extra 2-5% GST on all items you purchase in order to pay compensation for past wrongs?

No need to panic. There will be compensation to them for lands that cannot be reclaimed (like Toronto, 2003), and compensation to owners where necessary too. They want the unsettled land back, and sacred land, and they want planning and development function in their legal lands ... things like that. I believe that is what the Paul Martin surplus was intended for ... at least that is where I will tell them to take my share from!!

We as a society cannot afford to honour these agreements as written so we have no choice but to say the past is the past and it is not the fault of people living today. That does not mean that we simply ignore the very real problems today. It simply means that when looking for solutions we should not get caught up in legalistic arguments about what long dead people agreed to 100s of years ago.

This is not a matter for opinion. We must uphold our own Constitution. That is Canadian law, and that is Inenational Law. Canada chooses to negotiate rather than litigate because that is expensive and Canada knows it will lose a legal battle.

This has already taken place for Toronto, and is taking place for Haldimand.

[saga]

I do not know how sunglasses guy got in there. Excuse.

[saga]

That is why the government of Canada has already recognized title of the Mississaugas Nations to Toronto (2003), and is currently negotiating price.

The gov't is taking the position that cash compensation should be calculated based on the market price of the land (Toronto) in the 1800s when the band lost access to the land. They have also offered some additional cash for loss of use. The gov't has no intention of giving 'sovereignty' over these lands to the native groups.

It don't have a problem with these kinds of cash settlement if the price is reasonable. I only get concerned when natives groups start demanding that land owners start paying taxes to bands instead of municipal gov'ts or when bands can deprive a municipality of its tax base by purchasing land which is turned into a reserve.

Yes, it does get complicated. We are very lucky that they are reasonable people. However, we cannot expect to feel no effects at all. I think Toronto will work out ok too ... though there are precedents for the amount and it is not 1800 value, but not today either. They have chosen to reclaim the Toronto Islands, and I think that will work out too. Sovereignty will be up to each group. It is possible ... but they did not want Toronto.

[Riverwind]

Yes, it does get complicated. We are very lucky that they are reasonable people.

Natives who demand huge settlements for archaic treaties are, by definition, not reasonable. IMO, they are extremely greedy people looking to cash in on a genetic lottery ticket that they don't deserve.

Sovereignty will be up to each group. It is possible ... but they did not want Toronto.

Not it isn't. It is up to non-native Canadians to decide what we are willing to pay and the native groups must accept those limits. If native Canadians do not want to accept those limits then the gov't should be willing to walk away from the negotiating table.

BTW: laws can be changed - so can the constitution. So the fact that some native groups may be legally entitled to something according to today's laws means nothing. There must be a political solution.

[saga]

Yes, it does get complicated. We are very lucky that they are reasonable people.

Natives who demand huge settlements for archaic treaties are, by definition, not reasonable. IMO, they are extremely greedy people looking to cash in on a genetic lottery ticket that they don't deserve.

Sovereignty will be up to each group. It is possible ... but they did not want Toronto.

Not it isn't. It is up to non-native Canadians to decide what we are willing to pay and the native groups must accept those limits. If native Canadians do not want to accept those limits then the gov't should be willing to walk away from the negotiating table.

BTW: laws can be changed - so can the constitution. So the fact that some native groups may be legally entitled to something according to today's laws means nothing. There must be a political solution.

If the government walks away from the table, they can take Canada to International Court. The precedents there are clear.

[saga]

Yes, it does get complicated. We are very lucky that they are reasonable people.

Natives who demand huge settlements for archaic treaties are, by definition, not reasonable. IMO, they are extremely greedy people looking to cash in on a genetic lottery ticket that they don't deserve.

Has it occurred to you that your opinions may be incorrect and extremely offensive to some who post on this board ... this board that exists for the purpose of promoting honest and fair dialogue ...

Freedom of speech is not absolute in Canada ... one is not free to promote hatred and your freedom only extends to the point where it interferes with the freedoms of others... like freedom from bias due to genetics ... race in this case.