Aboriginal Land Claims

[Ottawa Core]

i've just recently joined the board and have perused the native issues currently open for discussion but they seem to devolve into racist tit for tat name calling and denigration of the personalities involved. i'm opening this topic in the hope that all the intelligent and thoughtful folk here would enter their valued perspective on the issue of land claims (without the rancour).

one must admit, with the media coverage skewing the caledonia situation into a localized dispute, albeit relevant to the nation as a whole, that the current manner our government has for handling claims is due for a review. maybe we could start it in this citizen's forum. the portfolio being handled by minister prentice doesn't seem to be putting out much information as it regards the six nations claim or anything else for that matter. please, if you could provide your opinions as to how this department is doing, good, bad, or indifferent your input would be appreciated to all those interested in this very significant issue.

[jbg]

It seems to me that many of the recent claims are in the nature of extortion. The FN (and US equivalents), knowing full well that real estate is extensively developed, improved, and subject to institutional lenders' mortgages as well as being occupied by owners, is seeking a massive rakeoff in exchange for some highly dubious "rights".

[Ottawa Core]

It seems to me that many of the recent claims are in the nature of extortion. The FN (and US equivalents), knowing full well that real estate is extensively developed, improved, and subject to institutional lenders' mortgages as well as being occupied by owners, is seeking a massive rakeoff in exchange for some highly dubious "rights".

this is a well noted position. in that this thread is an attempt to resolve issues besetting our manner of resolving land claims i would surmise that you would not allow for any sort of land claim whatsoever. if we follow your feeling on this would we have a team of sooth-sayers within the department determining from their sense just whose claim is warranted to pursue, or should claims be abolished outright?

[jbg]

It seems to me that many of the recent claims are in the nature of extortion. The FN (and US equivalents), knowing full well that real estate is extensively developed, improved, and subject to institutional lenders' mortgages as well as being occupied by owners, is seeking a massive rakeoff in exchange for some highly dubious "rights".

this is a well noted position. in that this thread is an attempt to resolve issues besetting our manner of resolving land claims i would surmise that you would not allow for any sort of land claim whatsoever. if we follow your feeling on this would we have a team of sooth-sayers within the department determining from their sense just whose claim is warranted to pursue, or should claims be abolished outright?

No. The claims should be reduced to levels proportionate with the value of the surrendered or stolen land, with values reduced to those prevailing at time of the loss. I would also evaluate based on historical factors such as continuity of occupation, etc.

[Riverwind]

if we follow your feeling on this would we have a team of sooth-sayers within the department determining from their sense just whose claim is warranted to pursue, or should claims be abolished outright?

A compromise is always the best solution. I think most people recognize that aboriginal groups have been treated pretty badly by gov'ts in the past and would like to see some reconciliation with the descendants of aboriginals living with today. However, there is a big difference between supporting the concept of reconciliation and the willingness to hand out trillions of dollars in compensation. The huge potential cost of claims like the Six Nations claim makes it impossible to discuss any 'reconciliation' based on principles set out in treaties signed 300 years ago. The only real option available to politicians is the transfer of some undeveloped land and some cash compensation that is small compared to annual the budget of the gov't. If that means old treaties get shoved in the trash bin then so be it - most people don't care if the cost of honouring them is too high.

My feeling is things are going to get worse before they get better because the expectations of many native activists vastly exceed the ability of non-native Canadians to pay for. This will lead to a harding of opinions on both sides of the divide and more court cases and violance.

[deirdrie]

how much more do the natives want

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/news/funding.html

[Ottawa Core]

No. The claims should be reduced to levels proportionate with the value of the surrendered or stolen land, with values reduced to those prevailing at time of the loss. I would also evaluate based on historical factors such as continuity of occupation, etc.

okay, we're back on track. no more sooth-sayers working in the department. the present criteria for processing land claims will remain the same but the established compensation would be monetary. i think the claims are a little more complex than that but let's stick with what we know. if we implement your system changes we would have to do an historical analysis of prevailing evaluations at the time set in the application. this seems onerous on the clerical end of things. we'd have to emply historians who would dig into the land values at every time throughout our time here. you have to know how difficult and time consuming that would be.

i'm not sure of how the system is constructed presently. perhaps someone more knowledgeable could supply us with relevant links to the department's procedures. my response to this proposal is that it's too difficult to set the value of a land mass back through time. are there even records dating back to when we hit the shores?

and, how would these times be established? can we just set an arbitrary date or must we have a significant event determine just when the claim will be; such as a treaty, proclamation, order, or other mechanism of agreement between the Crown and the indigenous people over any particular tract or parcel of land.

[Ottawa Core]

I think most people recognize that aboriginal groups have been treated pretty badly by gov'ts in the past and would like to see some reconciliation with the descendants of aboriginals living with today.

no, that's not relevant in this thread. we are not dealing with reparation, that's a completely different department. this is how to ensure fairness for land claims throughout the department's purvue (coast to coast to coast).

However, there is a big difference between supporting the concept of reconciliation and the willingness to hand out trillions of dollars in compensation. The huge potential cost of claims like the Six Nations claim makes it impossible to discuss any 'reconciliation' based on principles set out in treaties signed 300 years ago.

i can only speculate on the six nations claim. i haven't seen any documents. i've heard wild assertions, but these are not backed up with official documentation. however, if their claims are based on 300 or 400 year old documents (and their oral history has been established as valid by the supreme court) then we must accept their evidence as supplied. if we have records establishing that previous treaties or agreements have been superceded then that invalidates their claim. case closed. if we have no records that do that, their claim is valid. awarding them compensation is the next step. what are the criteria for awarding compensation?

The only real option available to politicians is the transfer of some undeveloped land and some cash compensation that is small compared to annual the budget of the gov't. If that means old treaties get shoved in the trash bin then so be it - most people don't care if the cost of honouring them is too high.

we must honour our agreements no matter how old they are. it's a principle and foundation of our civilization. we can't just throw them out at a whim, there has to be legislation passed in parliament to give us that right. until that happens, until the citizens of canada comprehend the claims (and i'm still not prepared to acknowledge these wild claims are true) we have to continue the process in existing law. if the political will, as the people know and understand it (as put to the electorate through our parliamentary representatives) is to invalidate previous claims with a stroke of a legislative pen without due compensation and acknowledgement that the historical claim carries some weight we'll lose faith with a large segment of the population and ALL of the goodwill built up in the native communities.

My feeling is things are going to get worse before they get better because the expectations of many native activists vastly exceed the ability of non-native Canadians to pay for. This will lead to a harding of opinions on both sides of the divide and more court cases and violance.

let's try to limit ourselves to analysis of the issue, not our personal feelings. i want to make this discussion strictly based on reviews of existing law/policies. no matter what any of us feel, we're trying to make the situation understood from a departmental point of view. from the grunts in the department. they have to follow the law. let's see if we can see how easy and/or hard the process is and how to make it fairer and speedier.

[Ottawa Core]

how much more do the natives want

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/news/funding.html

these budgeted governmental programs are not land claims. i want to concentrate strictly on land claims with this thread. as i've indicated previously, i'd like everyone's thoughts on how the department processes the claims not if it's right or wrong to process them at all. as it is, no matter how much other substantial social programs are out there supplying whatever funds our government has established for the native communities, it's not relevant to the focus i'd like to maintain here.

[Riverwind]

no, that's not relevant in this thread. we are not dealing with reparation, that's a completely different department. this is how to ensure fairness for land claims throughout the department's purvue (coast to coast to coast).

You can't evade the issue. "Fairness" is a word that is open to interpretation. A "fair" solution in the eyes of a non-native living in downtown Toronto is going to be different from a "fair" solution in the eyes of someone running a pro-native website in Ottawa.

we must honour our agreements no matter how old they are. it's a principle and foundation of our civilization.

Our civilization is based on many principals which sometimes come into conflict with each other. It is not reasonable to demand that an agreement be honoured for the benefit a small number of people if doing so causes real harm to millions of others - that is against the principal of equity among citizens. It is not reasonable to honour agreements that divide citizens based on their ancestry - that is against the principal that everyone in society is equal. The bottom line is you cannot claim that honouring old agreements is a principal that trumps all other principals. This is a complex problem and cannot be solved with simplistic platitudes.

i want to make this discussion strictly based on reviews of existing law/policies. no matter what any of us feel, we're trying to make the situation understood from a departmental point of view. from the grunts in the department. they have to follow the law. let's see if we can see how easy and/or hard the process is and how to make it fairer and speedier.

The process takes forever because native groups are asking more than the gov't is willing or able to give. From the gov't perspective it is easier to keep talking than to simply say no and risk the political fallout that might follow.

Furthermore, there are not really any clear laws to follow. If this was simply a dispute about property with a non-aboriginal person then there would be no discussions: the non-aboriginal person would have no rights because too much time has passed. Unfortunately, aboriginals claims are a legal swamp with no clear path. The supreme court has basically told the gov't to go negotiate a 'fair' compromise without defining what that might be.

In other words, I disagree with the entire premise for this thread. Talking about what bureaucrats should do to expedite resolutions under current laws is a waste of time if those laws require resolutions that are politically impossible. This is a political problem and we should be talking about what is necessary to bring the political expectations on both sides of the fence close enough to make a negotiated agreement possible.

[Ottawa Core]

You can't evade the issue. "Fairness" is a word that is open to interpretation. A "fair" solution in the eyes of a non-native living in downtown Toronto is going to be different from a "fair" solution in the eyes of someone running a pro-native website in Ottawa.

this is quickly devolving into a philosophical discussion more appropriate elsewhere. i stated that your reconciliation or reparation plays no part in processing claims. fair or otherwise, the departmental staff shouldn't be hindered by nebulous concepts not written in law. if that's the case, the process will amount to endless committees and social affairs outside of the parameters of official policy. i appreciate and admire the defence of your argument but the thread's focus is to clarify and possibly improve the process we currently have in place for land claim processing. bureaucrats don't set law, they follow it. interpretation is outside the grunt work. oh, and thanks for stopping by my site.

In other words, I disagree with the entire premise for this thread. Talking about what bureaucrats should do to expedite resolutions under current laws is a waste of time if those laws require resolutions that are politically impossible. This is a political problem and we should be talking about what is necessary to bring the political expectations on both sides of the fence close enough to make a negotiated agreement possible.

i'll certainly participate in that thread should you venture to initiate it. however, i'm hoping that this thread will lead to actual knowledge of the process as it is presently. any thoughts on altering the process from a perspective of real political change, and all that that constitutes must be considered within the framework of the existing setup. we're not going to revolutionize the department are we?

(that simplistic platitudes was a great line, i'll have to use it, thanks)

[Riverwind]

however, i'm hoping that this thread will lead to actual knowledge of the process as it is presently. any thoughts on altering the process from a perspective of real political change, and all that that constitutes must be considered within the framework of the existing setup. we're not going to revolutionize the department are we?

I suspect you are quite aware of the process as it is. Why don't you post a summary and explain where the log jams are (at least from your perspective).

BTW: I thought this article was quite insightful. I liked the closing comments:

A different, more comprehensive and faster system for addressing native claims and for mediating between the needs and aspirations of indigenous and other Canadians is urgently required. It is time to recognize that the current model for resolving aboriginal claims simply does not work.

[jbg]

BTW: I thought this article was quite insightful. I liked the closing comments:

A different, more comprehensive and faster system for addressing native claims and for mediating between the needs and aspirations of indigenous and other Canadians is urgently required. It is time to recognize that the current model for resolving aboriginal claims simply does not work.

It sure was insightful. This portion of the article also bears repeating:

For close to 40 years, Canadians have relied on the sanctity of the courtroom and the unseen backroom negotiations at the treaty table and claims discussions to resolve aboriginal disputes. Native leaders, winning more often than they lost, have pressed the agenda, but with an increasing sense of urgency, largely because of difficult conditions in their communities.

Other Canadians have become frustrated and angry about the time, cost and outcomes of these processes. It turns out, rather surprisingly, that support for the empowerment of aboriginal people was much thinner than assumed.

Canadians are making their anger public and expressing frustrations in no uncertain terms. (emphasis supplied)

When the negotiations were secret, and ordinary Canadians (or in our country Americans) hadn't the foggiest notion of what was going on, supporting "indigenous" rights was politically sexy. If such support means losing your house, and still owing the mortgage to the bank, it becomes a slight bit scary. Even title insurance doesn't protect the appreciation in values one thought they accumulated.

[Ottawa Core]

When the negotiations were secret, and ordinary Canadians (or in our country Americans) hadn't the foggiest notion of what was going on, supporting "indigenous" rights was politically sexy. If such support means losing your house, and still owing the mortgage to the bank, it becomes a slight bit scary. Even title insurance doesn't protect the appreciation in values one thought they accumulated.

while i don't necessarily want to curtail all speculation and opinion i would like posts to have a factual or evidentiary base. i can understand our need to chit chat about the extreme cases confronting the office but it does nothing to further our understanding of the processes. if we're going to fix it we have to know how it works.

[Canuck E Stan]

i can understand our need to chit chat about the extreme cases confronting the office but it does nothing to further our understanding of the processes. if we're going to fix it we have to know how it works.

www.ottawacore.com

Maybe you should stop beating around the bush and just come out and tell us what you want said.

[Ottawa Core]

i can understand our need to chit chat about the extreme cases confronting the office but it does nothing to further our understanding of the processes. if we're going to fix it we have to know how it works.

Maybe you should stop beating around the bush and just come out and tell us what you want said.

reread the initial post soliciting your attention. please don't address personalities or surmise counter intentions than to discuss aboriginal land claims. i will not address apparent hostilities, just looking for information we can all share.

[jbg]

while i don't necessarily want to curtail all speculation and opinion i would like posts to have a factual or evidentiary base. i can understand our need to chit chat about the extreme cases confronting the office but it does nothing to further our understanding of the processes. if we're going to fix it we have to know how it works.

I'm way too dumb to understand that. Can you try re-stating?

My point was that the results of secret negotiations that affect the rights of those from whom the discussions are secreted might well offend or alarm those persons suddenly presented with a fait accompli.

[Ottawa Core]

My point was that the results of secret negotiations that affect the rights of those from whom the discussions are secreted might well offend or alarm those persons suddenly presented with a fait accompli.

i am trying to narrowly focus the discussion to emphasise factually based information. i've seen other threads where the personalities launch into diatribes of vitriole if it has anything to do with natives. it is my interest to curtail that form of conversation. points brought up should be validated through sources. suppositions and bias don't help to understand.

as for your point. i'm not sure of the process. if you are saying that the claims negotiations are not public knowledge to the stake holders then please provide evidence that that is the case. i am currently looking over the department to find out the various methods land claims come to their offices. it's quite a long process of discovery. i will eventually post my data but in the interim i can't comment on something that has not been shown to me as valid. i don't want to waste my time chasing rainbows and arguing logic. the JOB of land claims is being done. it's easy to criticize. it's doubly hard when you have set yourself the task of constructively working within the system to ensure the process is accomplished to the benefit of everyone concerned.

could you give an example of where the "secret" process has taken place?

[jbg]

as for your point. i'm not sure of the process. if you are saying that the claims negotiations are not public knowledge to the stake holders then please provide evidence that that is the case.

*snip*

could you give an example of where the "secret" process has taken place?

Whatever was being referenced here:

It sure was insightful. This portion of the article also bears repeating:

For close to 40 years, Canadians have relied on the sanctity of the courtroom and the unseen backroom negotiations at the treaty table and claims discussions to resolve aboriginal disputes. Native leaders, winning more often than they lost, have pressed the agenda, but with an increasing sense of urgency, largely because of difficult conditions in their communities.

Other Canadians have become frustrated and angry about the time, cost and outcomes of these processes. It turns out, rather surprisingly, that support for the empowerment of aboriginal people was much thinner than assumed.

Canadians are making their anger public and expressing frustrations in no uncertain terms. (emphasis supplied)

I did not write that article, but I'm assuming that if the Toronto Star, a paper with a notably left-wing orientation is referring to "Unseen backroom negotiations at the treaty table and claims discussions to resolve aboriginal disputes" there must be some nonpublic activity that some would find alarming.

And Ottawa Core, not once on this forum have I engaged in diatribe, or made a bigoted remark or personal attack.

[Riverwind]

I did not write that article, but I'm assuming that if the Toronto Star, a paper with a notably left-wing orientation is referring to "Unseen backroom negotiations at the treaty table and claims discussions to resolve aboriginal disputes" there must be some nonpublic activity that some would find alarming.

All treaties negotiated under the BC treaty process are secret until an agreement in principal is announced. At that point, the public has an opportunity to voice concerns but they are usually ignored because changing terms of a complex deal can cause the whole thing to unravel. I am not sure there is any other way to do it since negotiating in public would simply make the process take even longer (if that is possible).

I think the concerns about private negotiations could be addressed if the gov't published some clear prinicpals that the set the terms of negotiation for the gov't. i.e. the gov't should make it clear that certain things are non-negotiable and tell the public what those limits are.

In 2002, the BC government tried to use a referendum to set some limits on negotations. Here are the questions:

1. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements?

2. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that the terms and conditions of leases and licences should be respected; and fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests should be ensured?

3. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians?

4. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians?

5. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection should continue to apply?

6. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia?

7. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments?

8. Do you agree that the Provincial Government should adopt the principle that the existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people should be phased out?

The results were an overwhleming 'yes' to all questions.

There has not been a treaty completed since that referendum so we have no evidence that the gov't is living up to these prinicpals.

[Ottawa Core]

could you give an example of where the "secret" process has taken place?

I did not write that article, but I'm assuming that if the Toronto Star, a paper with a notably left-wing orientation is referring to "Unseen backroom negotiations at the treaty table and claims discussions to resolve aboriginal disputes" there must be some nonpublic activity that some would find alarming.

in that lies the trap. we can't substantiate, no matter our political afflilations, just how valid their suppositions are unless they show their sources. as i ask everyone here, the best i could do would be to write them and ask for theirs. without concrete examples of real world situations we're just feeding the rumour mill. i can't say one way or the other whether is is true. if i did, without proof by example, there's always a counter argument based on nothing to discount it. hence, the need for knowledge, accurate, reliable sources.

And Ottawa Core, not once on this forum have I engaged in diatribe, or made a bigoted remark or personal attack.

good, not saying you did. have a look see in the other native threads and you'll come away as shocked as i have. not here, if i can help it.

[Ottawa Core]

i've found a site outlining all the various offices for indian affairs. i am compiling it and will post a link soon. the complexity of this department is astounding.

[jbg]

i've found a site outlining all the various offices for indian affairs. i am compiling it and will post a link soon. the complexity of this department is astounding.

I'd like to know how much each office receives, and hwo each benefits any ordinary FN person.

[Ottawa Core]

I'd like to know how much each office receives, and hwo each benefits any ordinary FN person.

in time my friend. the department is heavily populated. i'm cutting and pasting as fast as i can and as time allows. eventually i will present it in a spreadsheet format. at present it's html tables. i will endeavour to establish the whole department's pay based on public servant class ranges (from low level CRs all the way up to the minister). whatever is funnelled through the department for various programs will be harder to come by. let's see just what kind of a life we pay our people to have first.

[deirdrie]

more racism from ottawa core

Ottawa Core

Joined: 15 Jun 2006

Posts: 303

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:59 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grand River wrote:

My source was mapleleaf website...

how can you read that trash? aren't you ashamed at some of those white folk? how would you like to encounter that response every day of your life? even if you were christ himself, just because your skin was a different colour, you would be vilified and spat upon for being. gathering perspective sometimes takes patience and respect for others. this quality hasn't been, nor do i see it ever coming forth from you.

your innocent search for information you assumed you were entitled to immediately, without the smallest attempt at distinguishing yourself from the racist pigs native people on this site may encounter on a daily basis rolls you into the same type of people you give for your source of white perspective. these extremist views do nothing to help you win friends and influence people.

i think you felt emboldened by neighbour, emo, and bearpaws. people like this should be round up and shot. sorry if that scares you and further adds to your absolutes. associating any credibility to this type, as you have by your responses to them, for them, and with them, tends to make you one of them. you can't undo this.

you jumped in out of the blue and decided that this one incident is cause for you to validate the point you had in your head before you asked any questions. give me a break. innocent questions with a hidden agenda. duh, where have i heard that before?

Grand River wrote:

...the video on the news tonight showing that very incident I asked about dispels that theory and please do not tell me it was an isolated incident.

you, apparently know more about the incident than everyone you were querying now. must have been quite the investigatory account. hope it leads to the worst sort of criminal charges the authorities can muster. oh, were there any authorities in the video giving us their perspective or are we convicted by the media. yeah, that's my canada. yeah team.