Supreme Court to Decide Metis Claim

[saga]

She:kon!

The Supreme Court of Canada has no jurisdiction over international agreement disputes.

All treaties will be honoured or the consequences will have to be faced. In Canada that means removing future development or interference with infrastructure that passes over our territories. It also means inconvenince and unpheaval for Canaadian citizens.

You should also study the Constitutional documents, since legally, Canada doesn't exist as a sovereign nation. You can't change the constitution because it is not yours to tinker with. And given that the Crown does recognize our sovereign right and the promises made between us, it is more likely that any amendments would futher entrench our physical and property rights. The recent UN Declaration on Aboriginal Rights spells out the future direction that people will take. It is about recognition of aboriginal rights, not reducing them.

O:nen

Absolutely ... if it was me doing it!

However, if you followed our rough calculations above ... I think Riv is no longer viewing it as impossible.

I think Canadians can handle it ... and how wonderful it would be to be able to really do it right.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The Haudnosaunee are not like other nations. We're not willing to sell out our interest in the land for a few bobbles and bracelets. That's all the money they offer represents and while they may value it, in some cases more than life itself, as Kayenke'haka I value the land 100 fold more. Stopping urban sprawl, maintaing viable farmland and reducing pollution is much more important than taking some cash, going on a spending spree and then becoming dismissed by Canadians once again. Canada MUST present the vacant lands back to us and add new lands to our territory in exhange. If that cannot happen then settlers living on our territories will be offered the chance to leave or to stay and become citizens. The taxes that they might have paid will be in turn paid to us, and revenues from resources and industry will be diverted into the National holdings.

If you want our agreement then there MUST be equity in it. Otherwise we will not negotiate ourselves into a loss.

Canada doesn't have a choice. We have changed the rules under which land reclamations will be made. There are no courts, no commissions and no outside influences in the exercise of our right to the land. There are no other side deals, no buy-outs and no graft. We just take back the land and since it was ours in the beginning, Canada must prove to us beyond any doubt that we leased it or sold it and that it has been paid in full. We know what to do with land once we take it back and we have always prospered under our own power as a sovereign nation.

“Brother! – If you wish us well then keep away; don’t disturb us.”

Red Jacket, Seneca Sachem May 1811

O:nen

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that there are some basic facts being overlooked here. First of all anything that the government of Canada did in the past is history, and nothing can change that. No amount of money will change a damned thing. All that can reasonably be done is to mitigate the damages to the degree we can come to terms with. With that in mind it requires that both parties be realistic in their desires. If one party is being unreasonable it can be expected that a resolution will not be forthcoming. Secondly the what needs to be remembered is that fair compensation is the only viable means of legal recourse. The definition of fair may not be what First Nations want, but it is what they can reasonably expect.

What I think would be a fair package would be this. Assume the claims to be valid for starters and then simply calculate the value of the land at the time of the original loss of treaty right. That is the point at which the loss occured and that is the sum total of the monetary value lost. In addition there is an outstanding and ongoing loss due to that unpaid debt so the sum total should be enhanced with the known historical fees for interest from the time of loss until its repayment. The relatively small sum of money orginally lost would be greatly enhanced through this means. Of course I would put a cap on payments, and the entire sum would be subject to taxation due to the fact that the entire mess has now been converted into a contractual legal contest. In the end I would estimate that the average First Nations person would not recieve a dime anyway because of the entirely foolish system of government that they currently have means that all money would go to the tribal councils and not individuals. So the way it will work is that Canada will see a few hundred millionair chiefs leaving the reserves to move to somewhere else having screwed theri people out of damned near everything they got in the first place and the average tribal member will be worst off than they were in the first place.

I wish luck to all you people who think that the citizens of Canada owe the first nations people a damned thing. I hope you all enjoy the results of this stupid arguement because there will be no winners, all will lose. Nothing will be accomplished that will benefit most Canadians. The members of the bands will get screwed as well.

The only real answer is to give them self government and let them choose how to live themselves. Money has no place in this arguement, but since it seems that some people think that it does I wish them all the luck in the world. I am now convinced that the best way fir the gvernment to deal with this problems is to create legislation that would serve to avoid resolving the problem for at least a generation. Just blow them off because they don't want to be reasonable. Which is probably what will happen. If the government loses the case they will simply appeal the solution. Have no fear people, the fat lady has not yet begun to sing.

[jdobbin]

You should also study the Constitutional documents, since legally, Canada doesn't exist as a sovereign nation. You can't change the constitution because it is not yours to tinker with. And given that the Crown does recognize our sovereign right and the promises made between us, it is more likely that any amendments would futher entrench our physical and property rights. The recent UN Declaration on Aboriginal Rights spells out the future direction that people will take. It is about recognition of aboriginal rights, not reducing them.

Canada didn't sign that document if I am not mistaken.

And the U.N. cannot and will not enforce a decision regarding the matter.

[jdobbin]

Canada doesn't have a choice. We have changed the rules under which land reclamations will be made. There are no courts, no commissions and no outside influences in the exercise of our right to the land. There are no other side deals, no buy-outs and no graft. We just take back the land and since it was ours in the beginning, Canada must prove to us beyond any doubt that we leased it or sold it and that it has been paid in full. We know what to do with land once we take it back and we have always prospered under our own power as a sovereign nation.

If Canada is not a legal nation, how can it give back something when you don't recognize its existence?

[saga]

I think that there are some basic facts being overlooked here. First of all anything that the government of Canada did in the past is history, and nothing can change that.

Yes, what Canada did is take responsibility for lawful treaties ... that it must now honour.

The only real answer is to give them self government and let them choose how to live themselves.

Well we certainly agree there! However, there is the matter of the treaties and land and compensation to be resolved first.

Sorry ... the rest was full of ignorant innuendo that I could not begin to respond to.

[saga]

Canada doesn't have a choice. We have changed the rules under which land reclamations will be made. There are no courts, no commissions and no outside influences in the exercise of our right to the land. There are no other side deals, no buy-outs and no graft. We just take back the land and since it was ours in the beginning, Canada must prove to us beyond any doubt that we leased it or sold it and that it has been paid in full. We know what to do with land once we take it back and we have always prospered under our own power as a sovereign nation.

If Canada is not a legal nation, how can it give back something when you don't recognize its existence?

Canada is a nation ... just not sovereign ... without the Queen that is.

[Riverwind]

Canada MUST present the vacant lands back to us and add new lands to our territory in exhange. If that cannot happen then settlers living on our territories will be offered the chance to leave or to stay and become citizens.

The are close to 500,000 "settlers" living on the territory you claim. No matter what the UN has to say about aboriginal rights the UN and other international bodies place a lot of importance on democratic rights. This means that it is irrelevant whether the Canadian gov't "gives" the territory back - the Six Nations simply does not have the population that would allow it to hold onto the territory.

The taxes that they might have paid will be in turn paid to us, and revenues from resources and industry will be diverted into the National holdings.

TAXES ARE NOT RENTS - taxes pay for services. The Six Nations is not capable of delivering services to these communities and therefore has no right to claim the taxes collected to pay for these services.

We just take back the land and since it was ours in the beginning, Canada must prove to us beyond any doubt that we leased it or sold it and that it has been paid in full. We know what to do with land once we take it back and we have always prospered under our own power as a sovereign nation.

How does a band of 20,000+ plus people plan to take back and hold onto land occupied by 500,000 people? Are you expecting the US to provide you with high tech weaponry and endless economic support like Israel? Six Nations could not hold onto the territories even if it got them.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Canada is not a nation by definition. In order to be one it must have a land base - which it does not - and must be sovereign - which it isn't.

All the lands in geographic borders of Canada belong to First Nations and the Canada Corporation (which is all Canada is legally) has no ownership. Instead, the Crown has treaty agreements that provide for the sharing of lands and only those resources necessary for survival. There has been no agreement to allow the mass extraction of resources or the construction of industrial buildings. It was anticipated and agreed that any other requests would first be made by petition to First Nations.

Secondly Canada is not sovereign. It is an incorporated association (a federation) of business people who created a finiancial fortification against manipulation by the US interests.

Six Nations has no need to defend our borders. The Haldimand Proclamation assigned that responsibility to the Crown in return for our assistance throughout the decades in protecting Canada, and by helping out on the warfront. If you are suggesting that 500,000 citizens would take up arms against us, you would have another thing coming. Their high dependence on urbanization makes them vunerable not necessarily to counter attack by ceasure of their infrastructure. Within a week without power, water and sanitation 99% of the people would be fleeing to safer ground. All this could hypothetically be achieved without even a bullet being fired. Of course our Warriors are well known as well, being tenacious militia. They continue to train US Special Ops and Navy Seals as part of their service in the US military. They could be called into service if the need arises, and many Warriors have the experience and the armaments to defend any territory. At Oka 25 Warriors held 2500 Canadian troops at bay. That makes one warrior worth 1000 Canadian soldiers ......

As to the UN Declaration on Aboriginal Rights, Canada was essentially the author. Canada is already been censored over their lack of action concerning aboriginal rights. A direct assault on us would result in some sort of sanctions being taken against Canada. But that is not all you have to worry about. There are 500 nations in North America and an full frontal attack would result in a backlash so potenet that it would paralize Canada and the US and very likely make Afghanistan look like a kids' parade. The UN would provide some intermediary in an effort to quash the conflict, for sure and the result would be a destablization of the economy and social infrastructure.

Six Nations is as capable of operating public services as any body and very likely at less cost than it is currently being administered. That would result in better services and infrastructure than the Tract receives now. Then the remainder of tax revenue could be used to improve the social and health services in the region. Property and personal taxes are collected on the basis of the nation you are living in. Six Nations has every right to collect the same taxes from people living in our territory. What we do with those taxes is irrelevent, given that underservicing would only place a burden on Canadian taxpayers, or private servicing agencies. I have no doubt that the taxes would be manged properly. You have no say in whether we can collect taxes or not, and those Canadians living on our territories only have the choice of living there or not.

The UN is supportive of democratic rights. Our participatory democratic government system is the oldest continuous democracy on earth. Plus when weighed against the UN position on aboriginal rights being equally important, Canada doesn't have a very rosy future in comparison.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

Canada is not a nation by definition. In order to be one it must have a land base - which it does not - an must be sovereign - which it isn't.

Canada has a land base over which it is sovereign. The theoretical claims of native groups mean nothing in the real world of politics and economics.

Their high dependence on urbanization makes them vunerable not necessarily to counter attack by seizure of the infrastructure. Within a week without power, water and sanitation 99% of the people would be fleeing to safer ground. All this could hypothetically be achieved without even a bullet being fired.

You are quite delusional if you believe that the Six Nations could get away with such actions without triggering a blood bath. The only way Six Nations can control the territory they claim is to have the sovereign gov't of Canada enforce that claim on their behalf. Without the support of the Canada gov't, Six Nations has nothing.

There are 500 nations in North America and an full frontal attack would result in a backlash so potent that it would paralyze Canada and the US and very likely make Afghanistan look like a kids' parade.

Natives have been able to get away with non-violant protests and blockades because most Canadians believe a non-violent political solution is best. If natives became the aggressors and started seriously threaten the livelihood of urban Canadians then you would see the full force of the state be brought to bear. In the short term, native groups could cause damage, in the long term the will of 30 million plus people will prevail and the natives would be the biggest losers in the end.

The UN would provide some intermediary in an effort to quash the conflict, for sure and the result would be a destabilization of the economy and social infrastructure.

The UN is toothless and irrelevant body and would be able to do nothing.

Six Nations is as capable of operating public services as any body and very likely at less cost than it is currently being administered.

I find that statement laughable - there are many examples of corruption and incompetence with native leadership and governance of the territories that they already have. Those stories may not apply to the Six Nations band today but no one will believe you so you will not be able to collect those taxes.

The UN is supportive of democratic rights. Our participatory democratic government system is the oldest continuous democracy on earth.

And what will that mean when the 500,000 non-aboriginal citizens use their democratic rights and vote to rejoin Canada?

[saga]

Canada is not a nation by definition. In order to be one it must have a land base - which it does not - an must be sovereign - which it isn't.

Canada has a land base over which it is sovereign. The theoretical claims of native groups mean nothing in the real world of politics and economics.

Their high dependence on urbanization makes them vunerable not necessarily to counter attack by seizure of the infrastructure. Within a week without power, water and sanitation 99% of the people would be fleeing to safer ground. All this could hypothetically be achieved without even a bullet being fired.

You are quite delusional if you believe that the Six Nations could get away with such actions without triggering a blood bath. The only way Six Nations can control the territory they claim is to have the sovereign gov't of Canada enforce that claim on their behalf. Without the support of the Canada gov't, Six Nations has nothing.

There are 500 nations in North America and an full frontal attack would result in a backlash so potent that it would paralyze Canada and the US and very likely make Afghanistan look like a kids' parade.

Natives have been able to get away with non-violant protests and blockades because most Canadians believe a non-violent political solution is best. If natives became the aggressors and started seriously threaten the livelihood of urban Canadians then you would see the full force of the state be brought to bear. In the short term, native groups could cause damage, in the long term the will of 30 million plus people will prevail and it would be the natives who would be the biggest losers in the end.

The UN would provide some intermediary in an effort to quash the conflict, for sure and the result would be a destabilization of the economy and social infrastructure.

The UN is toothless and irrelevant body and would be able to do nothing.

Six Nations is as capable of operating public services as any body and very likely at less cost than it is currently being administered.

I find that statement laughable - there are many examples of corruption and incompetence native leadership and governance of the territories that they already have. Those stories may not apply to the Six Nations band today but no one will believe you so you will not be able to collect those taxes.

The UN is supportive of democratic rights. Our participatory democratic government system is the oldest continuous democracy on earth.

And what will that mean when the 500,000 non-aboriginal citizens use their democratic rights and vote to rejoin Canada?

Riverwind,

I can not help but notice that your tone regresses to broad based insults when you are most wrong.

You have cynical opinions backed only by stereotype, and you are quite rude.

...! no one will believe you ! such ignorance!

You know nothing.

[Greg]

Riverwind,

I can not help but notice that your tone regresses to broad based insults when you are most wrong.

You have cynical opinions backed only by stereotype, and you are quite rude.

...! no one will believe you ! such ignorance!

You know nothing.

You keep repeating yourself, and it's getting abit old. The incessant trolling, accusations and insults have lead to your banning.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Riverwind <QUOTE>"Canada has a land base over which it is sovereign."<END QUOTE>

I know you believe in this myth, so prove it! Find the documents where British subjects made a unilateral declaration of independence. Find the Constitutional documents that you think prove Canada's sovereignty. Find your nationhood and then come back and make those claims.....if you can.....

The fact is that Canada's constitution, The BNA Act and even the 1982 amendments to enfranchise the Charterof Rights and Freedoms has been approved by the Queen. You are a franchise of the Crown, not legally soveriegn or a nation but a complex corporation former to protect the poplitical and business interests at the top. Have you ever noticed how time and time again your MP's have taken advantage of their positions and manipulated government to serve their business interests? That is what YOUR government was formed for. It wasn't to defend or protect the interests of the ordinary citizen - far from it! It was set up to be a big business federation where elite memebers could remove the barriers that regional and provincial interests would put up. And in fact after about 30 years when they realized that regioanl interests were still winning, your confederation executive enacted the Crows Nest Pass Act which forced east west trade and lowered railway tarrifs (subsidizing the railway) in order to get cheap resources to Ontario and Quebec markets. Yet there is nothing that ever gave Canada a land base. All lands are held in the interest in First Nations by the Crown, via the Royal Proclamation. The Royal Proclamation is protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it exceeds the authority of the Consititution in protecting aboriginal rights.

As to the other stuff it is just theoretical but outlines the potential. We are to be reckoned with one way or the other and I highly doubt that any Canadian would be willing to die to defend a small parcel of land they don't legally own. Any armed conflict would be initiated by Canada as we have buried our weapons of war beneath the Great Tree of Peace. We would however defend ourselves - to the death if need be - should anyone wish to impose themselves on us unrightfully.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

I know you believe in this myth, so prove it! Find the documents where British subjects made a unilateral declaration of independence. Find the Constitutional documents that you think prove Canada's sovereignty. Find your nationhood and then come back and make those claims.....if you can.....

Canada is able to enforce its laws and collect taxes from all territory it claims. That is sovereignty whether you want to admit it or not. Sovereignty is not granted by documents or constitutions - sovereignty is the ability to exercise control over the land.

That is why Six Nations will never have sovereignty over the land it claims - there are simply too few people to control all of the territory. However, Six Nations could negotiate a deal with the sovereign state of a Canada which would give Six Nations control resembling sovereignty over some of the lands that would be protected by the state of Canada. Unfortunately, no such deal will be possible if Six Nations does not recognize the reality that Canada exists, has sovereignty over those lands today and has the power to decide whether it will give the lands to the Six Nations.

As to the other stuff it is just theoretical but outlines the potential. We are to be reckoned with one way or the other and I highly doubt that any Canadian would be willing to die to defend a small parcel of land they don't legally own.

Everyone that is living in the lands claimed to believes they are legally entitled to own those lands. No court ruling or historical documents will change that belief. Also you must remember that in most political disagreements possession always more important than the law.

[jdobbin]

Canada is a nation ... just not sovereign ... without the Queen that is.

The Queen is a mere figurehead though. It's not like her approval is needed for anything. The actual head of state is the Governor General. Political decisions reside with Parliament.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Merriam Websters On-line:

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty

Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein

1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it

2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence

3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Canada's controlling influence is the Crown. The Queen is the only one capable of amending or signing Canada's Constitution AND the Governor General - the Crown's representative IS the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Justice system operates on her behalf and the government must seek his or her approval in order to form or dissolve a government and is a signatory on all international documents.

Canada is NOT sovereign.

"Canada is able to enforce its laws and collect taxes from all territory it claims."

Challenges taken to the Supreme Court have dismissed that claim. Canada cannot enforce all its laws where it concerns First Nation's people. Aboringal rights are exempt.

In the case of Six nations, no OPP or RCMP are permitted on the territory. Your laws have no force and effect.

As well, I am sure you realize your faux pas. Indians are tax exempt - not because your government grants them but we are sovereign nations in our own right.

So the measure by which you just attempted to define yourself as a nation has failed.

Try again.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

As to the other stuff it is just theoretical but outlines the potential. We are to be reckoned with one way or the other and I highly doubt that any Canadian would be willing to die to defend a small parcel of land they don't legally own. Any armed conflict would be initiated by Canada as we have buried our weapons of war beneath the Great Tree of Peace. We would however defend ourselves - to the death if need be - should anyone wish to impose themselves on us unrightfully.

So much for the peaceful process you talked about.

I guess it remains to be seen what will happen. One thing is for certain, it will not be easy to convince Canadians in the disputed areas to vacate their homes as you have demanded.

[jdobbin]

So the measure by which you just attempted to define yourself as a nation has failed.

Defined as sovereign nation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Canada

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

Wikipedia can be authored and edited by anyone. Whomever enter that info was believing the same myths.

O:nen

[jdobbin]

She:kon!

Wikipedia can be authored and edited by anyone. Whomever enter that info was believing the same myths.

O:nen

This is an old argument you make. Everything you don't believe is a myth. There is no legal basis in the world that doesn't define Canada as being a sovereign nation.

The only way a settlement is going to happen is through negotiation. Stop threatening violence.

[Riverwind]

Canada's controlling influence is the Crown....

Irrelevant and you know it. Canada could change the constitution at any time and take all theoretical powers from the Queen without her approval. The Queen is the titual head of government for traditional reasons.

Challenges taken to the Supreme Court have dismissed that claim. Canada cannot enforce all its laws where it concerns First Nation's people. Aboringal rights are exempt.

The SCC made a ruling based on the existing constitution of Canada today - the consitution could be rewritten and the SCC would rule according to the new rules.

In the case of Six nations, no OPP or RCMP are permitted on the territory. Your laws have no force and effect.

Canadian laws still apply on Six Nations land. Police not entering without permission is simply a matter of respecting local juristiction. For example, The OPP cannot go into Quebec or Manitoba without permission for the same reason.

As well, I am sure you realize your faux pas. Indians are tax exempt - not because your government grants them but we are sovereign nations in our own right.

Status indians earning income on reserve lands do not pay some taxes. Non-status indians and non-aboriginals must pay taxes even if they work on a reserve. If the Six Nations was a soveriegn nation then it would collect taxes from everyone living on the reserve.

So the measure by which you just attempted to define yourself as a nation has failed

Hardly. Even if your points had merit they would be irrelevant - a 70 sq mi patch of land with quasi-soveriegn status does not invalidate the undisputed soveriegnty that Canada has over the remaining 4 million sq mi (minus a few exceptions like Hans Island or the border areas with Alaska).

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

You don't know tax law.

No one earning an income on First Nations is required to pay income or sales tax. They are exempt under Indian law. Indians living on reserve and working off do not pay tax nor do Indians living off reserve and working on reserve pay tax. The taxation, like I said earlier is based on the territory, not the people. Canada has no jurisdiction and we are not tax collectors for a foreign entity. YOU can even buy smokes on reserve, tax free.

The SCC makes decisions based on applicable law. The Royal Proclamation is valid law and so are treaties. The Charter simply confirms it for the Canadian lawmakers. No Canadian law applies on Six Nations or other Haudenosaunee territory. We have an extradition treaty with the Crown but only for muder or rape. All other crimes are weighed internal to Six Natons and disposed of according to our own set of laws.

Your own legal documents discount Canadian sovereignty. While the Governor General's position has traditionally been not interfering, the laws still remain and only the Crown is sovereign. Canada is a corporation - nothing more.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

No one earning an income on First Nations is required to pay income or sales tax.

Maybe Six Nations has a special deal but the rules are:

In general, Aboriginal people in Canada are required to pay taxes on the same basis as other people in Canada, except where the limited exemption under Section 87 of the Indian Act applies. Section 87 says that the “personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve” is tax exempt. Inuit and Métis people are not eligible for this exemption and generally do not live on reserves.

....

Employment income earned by a Status Indian working on a reserve is considered tax exempt. The courts have stated that factors such as the location of the duties and residence of the employee and employer must be considered to determine whether the income will be considered tax exempt.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) or Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) generally do not apply to purchases by Status Indians if the purchase is made on a reserve or is delivered to a reserve by the vendor or the vendor’s agent.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/info125_e.html

[jdobbin]

Your own legal documents discount Canadian sovereignty. While the Governor General's position has traditionally been not interfering, the laws still remain and only the Crown is sovereign. Canada is a corporation - nothing more.

Who are you talking to about your claim then? The Queen?

[g_bambino]

The fact is that Canada's constitution, The BNA Act and even the 1982 amendments to enfranchise the Charterof Rights and Freedoms has been approved by the Queen. You are a franchise of the Crown, not legally soveriegn or a nation but a complex corporation former to protect the poplitical and business interests at the top.

All countries are in essence complex corporations: there's a CEO, a COO, a board of directors, and a bunch of share holders, so to speak.

Canada used to be a "franchise" of the British Crown. However, that came to an end as early as 1931, but most definitely after 1982. With the patriation of the Constitution Canada became a completely independent kingdom with its own separate Crown, associated with the British Crown only through the fact that both are worn by the same person.

The Canadian Crown is now Canada's CEO: the embodiment of Canada's sovereignty, and the institution in which Canada's constitutional documents and conventions place all executive authority. This means the Queen of Canada has control over the land, and, hence, the Monarch is called our Sovereign - the embodiment of our sovereignty.

But, just as any CEO is created by the governing rules of the corporation, so too is the Crown existent only by Canadian law. If the laws were altered by our parliament, the Crown would cease to exist, and sovereignty would be embodied in some other form of institution - most likely simply the Constitution (as is the case in most republics).

Yet there is nothing that ever gave Canada a land base. All lands are held in the interest in First Nations by the Crown, via the Royal Proclamation. The Royal Proclamation is protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it exceeds the authority of the Constitution in protecting aboriginal rights.

The territories over which the Canadian Crown exercises its authority are the lands of Canada. As First Nations have signed treaties with the Crown, they have put themselves under its power as well, and thus the dominion of the Crown includes the First Nations reserves within.

Further, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is a part of the Constitution, not of the Charter, which itself is only another part. No one part of the Constitution can override another - as was affirmed by an Ontario Superior Court Justice in 2003, who said the Charter can't be used to strike down the Act of Settlement.

The treaties, including the Royal Proclamation, set out the ground rules for how the Crown's lands are distributed between First Nations Canadians and non-First Nations Canadians, and those rules may, from time to time, have not been followed. However, in no way do the treaties make every square inch of Canadian territory rented out First Nations land. It is all Crown land - Canadian Crown land - meaning that it is all under the Queen's control, and she almost always acts on the advice of her ministers - otherwise known as the Cabinet.