We pay while Indians live in luxury

[geoffrey]

No one should have status based on blood lines or DNA. Bottom line.

So I take it you don't believe in inheritance?

Isn't that what it is....inheriting land. If my parents own land, and I inherit it, no one would have a problem with that. If they sell it, and I inherit the money, no one would have a problem with that either.

That's ridiculous. Inheritence isn't the choice of the receiver, it's the choice of the giver. Person x owns something and gives it to y. That's fine with me.

Specifying rights for particular DNA combinations is strictly racist and should be abandoned. People here are accusing me of being a racist when I'm promoting equality of right between all races. Then we have those on the 'progressive' side saying that one colour of people should have more than another.

Grow up people, abandon your 18th century beliefs already.

[Riverwind]

I concur with your legal summary 100%. Excellent summary.

Rue, you are making no sense. Section 25 was added to the 1982 constitution because many constitutional experts feared the charter would override aboriginal treaty rights. Section 25 would not have been necessary if these rights were really unchangeable. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that law is nothing more than what society agrees on. This means any society ultimately has the right to create whatever laws it wants and the intent of long dead kings and the text of archaic documents means absolutely nothing if the people living today decide that they want a different type of law.

Let's put it another way: assume the SCC ruled that Six Nations was entitled to $1.5 trillion in compensation for lost land. Do you honestly believe that majority of Canadians would accept "we can't change the constitution because of the magna carta" as an answer? The constitution can be changed and if we can add in a charter of rights that outlaws discrimination but allows for affirmative action and aboriginal rights then we can write a constitution that extinguishes old treaty rights. You don't have to be lawyer to understand this - this is just common sense.

I am surprised that your have bought into this peice of aboriginal propoganda.

[Rue]

Rue, you are making no sense. Section 25 was added to the 1982 constitution because many constitutional experts feared the charter would override aboriginal treaty rights. Section 25 would not have been necessary if these rights were really unchangeable."

I have no idea what point you are trying to make legally by referring to s.25 and the 1982 Consitution Act. I never suggested existing aboriginal and treaty which are protected in Canada’s Constitution, were absolute. However what you fail to understand or choose to ignore is that any law passed by a provincial, territorial or federal legislature and/or any decision of a provincial, federal or municipal government that could be construed to either interfere or ‘infringe’ upon aboriginal/treaty rights can be judicially held to be of no effect.

Yes legislative assemblies could continue to enact legislation and representatives of the Crown could continue to make decisions within their respective jurisdictional areas that infringe aboriginal and treaty rights, but to be able to succeed they would have to be able to properly argue the infringements were justified and the onus is on them not the aboriginal peoples to show they are justified.

To show ample justification there would have to be compelling and substantial public-policy reasons, i.e., public safety, conservation or appropriate development of a natural resource. Even then aboriginal interests would still have to be compensated.

It is conceivable an n infringement of an aboriginal or treaty right could be justified if it was also consistent with the special fiduciary relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, but that would be highly unlikely.

It is a fact the Supreme Court of Canada has created a legal test to determine if a specific aboriginal or treaty right can be infringed by legislation or other governmental action. This legal test has 2 questions; i-would the contemplated action constitute an infringement?, ii- if yes to i, can the infringement be justified by the Crown?

So with due respect, I have no idea why you are quoting s.25 because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about our what aboriginal people on these posts have tried to explain to you and others time and time again but no one wants to listen to.

"Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that law is nothing more than what society agrees on. This means any society ultimately has the right to create whatever laws it wants and the intent of long dead kings and the text of archaic doc"

Now that is just downright silly. Law is not just about what society wants. It is a tad more complex then that. We have an entire system of laws that has nothing to do with society but deals with laws between individuals. Society does not have the ultimate right to create whatever laws it wants. Try use some common sense. There are limits to all laws. This is precisely why we have a Charter of Rights, a Constitution and have subscribed to legal treaties from the United Nations or other international conventions that supercede our domestic laws. There are limits to all laws.

Your comments show a crude simplistic idealization of what law is. Law is not simply about majority rule. Never was, never will be. You are confusing the creation and application of law, with political will and political interests.

"Let's put it another way: assume the SCC ruled that Six Nations was entitled to $1.5 trillion in compensation for lost land. Do you honestly believe that majority of Canadians would accept "we can't change the constitution because of the magna carta" as an answer? "

You of course completely missed the point and are therefore making a faulty analogy. I raised the Magna Carta Act, because legally it set the precedent that still prevails to this day that aboriginal rights preceded the current Canadian government system of law and were never extinguished by the preceding Canadian laws and ran and still run parallel to them. The Canadian Legal System contrary to what you may believe can not and has never attempted to try suggest legally that aboriginal rights from legal treaties no longer exist.

"The constitution can be changed and if we can add in a charter of rights that outlaws discrimination but allows for affirmative action and aboriginal rights then we can write a constitution that extinguishes old treaty rights.:

Again you have completely missed the point. To change the constitution and delete aboriginal rights, you would need to have the unanimous agreement of all 12 provincial governments, the three territories and the federal government. Neither the federal government, territorial governments, or the majority of provinces would ever agree to that because as I repeated at the beggining of my response, such an attempt would never make it pass the Supreme Court of Canada test.

More to the point if the Supreme Court of Canada suddenly decided to ignore its test and look the other way, Canada would then have to remove itself from the United Nations

and become an outlaw state as it would violate numerous international human rights conventions it now voluntarily subscribes to. So no, your simplistic belief that all anyone has to do is ignore aboriginal rights and they go away is ludicrous not to mention absurd.

"You don't have to be lawyer to understand this - this is just common sense."

Uh not its as far from common sense as it gets for the above reasons I have explained. This idea that if you cover your eyes and ears and mouth, aboriginals will simply go away is far from common sense and with due respect I will go so far as to say is idiotic.

"I am surprised that your have bought into this peice of aboriginal propoganda.

"

Your last comment is racist in nature. Why is it "aboriginal propaganda". I am Jewish. If anything its Jewish propaganda as I am not aboriginal but Jewish. More to the point I am Canadian first and foremost and the last time I looked aboriginal peoples were Canadian if not more Canadian then me. So why do you feel the need to classify my response as "aboriginal". The fact that I stated what I did is based on the fundamental applications of Canadian law.

As I have tried to explain to you and others in the past, you may have distinct opinions about aboriginal rights but your opinions are not based on the law. I think you would love to use the political system to over-ride the law, precisely because the aboriginal peoples have a legitimate legal arguement and you can't beat it legally.

I have long since given up the notion people like you will ever respect the moral arguement in the aboriginal position as to their rights. That aspect of it seems to have been trampled in this resentment against aboriginals for having the nerve to ask for what they are morally entitled to. However from a purely legal point of view, I would expect you to understand you can't ignore the law, simply because you don't like how it works.

For myself, as a lawyer and a Canadian, I see both moral and legal arguements that prevail in favour of the aboriginal peoples. It is not a matter of buying into any propaganda. In fact if anything I think you have bought into this propaganda that aboriginal people are asking for something unfair by asking our legal system to be applied and not ignored because your political agenda conflicts with the law.

No on this one, I am sorry, I think you are way off base.

[Who's Doing What?]

As a lawyer can you not see how racist Canadian laws are, in favour of natives?

No tax, extra rights and freedoms? Being allowed to get away with terrorist-like actions that would have members of any other race incarcerated? Where does this belong in a democratic equal society?

The answer is simple. It doesn't belong.

[Riverwind]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make legally by referring to s.25 and the 1982 Constitution Act. I never suggested existing aboriginal and treaty which are protected in Canada’s Constitution, were absolute.

You jumped into a debate and supported someone who was making the assertion Aboriginal Rights are absolute and used Section 25 to support their argument. My response is that aboriginal rights are in the constitution because a majority of Canadians decided to put them there and that a majority of Canadians could remove them from the constitution if they wanted to.

There are limits to all laws. This is precisely why we have a Charter of Rights, a Constitution and have subscribed to legal treaties from the United Nations or other international conventions that supercede our domestic laws. There are limits to all laws.

You misunderstand my point - I am not talking about normal laws. I am talking about changing the constitution and when comes to changing the constitution a society can make up whatever rules they please.

Again you have completely missed the point. To change the constitution and delete aboriginal rights, you would need to have the unanimous agreement of all 12 provincial governments, the three territories and the federal government. Neither the federal government, territorial governments, or the majority of provinces would ever agree to that because as I repeated at the beginning of my response, such an attempt would never make it pass the Supreme Court of Canada test.

The current amending formula only requires 7 provinces and 50% of the population. The supreme court and the queen are required to accept any change that has been passed by following that amending formula. However, even if unanimous consent was required it is still possible for a majority of the population to extinguish all aboriginal rights should they choose to do so. I agree it is not likely, however, it still possible.

Canada would then have to remove itself from the United Nations-and become an outlaw state as it would violate numerous international human rights conventions it now voluntarily subscribes to.

Right, now you are definitely oversimplifying things. Give me one example of a state which is a 'international outlaw' for insisting that all citizens must be treated equally no matter what their ancestry? There are countries that get away with the most horrific human rights abuses yet they are allowed to sit on the UN human rights committee. A carefully crafted change that severly limited the practical meaning of aborginal rights without eliminating them entirely have little affect on Canada's international position.

Your last comment is racist in nature. Why is it "aboriginal propaganda".

It is propaganda because way too many aboriginal activists try to claim that Canadians have no choice but to give them whatever privileges they demand. That is not true. Canadians do have a choice - we can take them away if we want to. The only question is whether it is wroth the effort.

I have long since given up the notion people like you will ever respect the moral argument in the aboriginal position as to their rights.

You do not have a monopoly on morality. Two wrongs do not make a right and there are plenty of ways to address historical wrongs that do not require the creation of feudal fiefdoms across the county. In anycase, I would prefer a negotiated settlement along the lines of what Campbell has been doing in BC. I only get into these kinds of arguments when I am faced with people presenting an uncompromising pro-aboriginal position that refuses to acknowledge that the majority of people living the country have rights too.

Out of curiosity, what would you do if an international court ruled that the palistinians had 'aboriginal title' to the state of Isreal?

[gc1765]

3) Most native privileges are not tangible assets that can be inherited (i.e. permission to hunt at night with lights). Nobody except natives are allowed to inherit special rights.

It doesn't matter if it is a tangible asset or not (assuming that this is specified in treaties, though I'm not sure if it is or not). If I sell land to my neighbor with the stipulation that I be allowed to use it for certain purposes, and that my children etc. be allowed to use it, no one would have a problem with that.

That's ridiculous. Inheritence isn't the choice of the receiver, it's the choice of the giver. Person x owns something and gives it to y. That's fine with me.

How is it ridiculous? If (God forbid) your parents should pass away, you would recieve their assets based on your DNA. Where's the difference?

[Riverwind]

It doesn't matter if it is a tangible asset or not (assuming that this is specified in treaties, though I'm not sure if it is or not). If I sell land to my neighbor with the stipulation that I be allowed to use it for certain purposes, and that my children etc. be allowed to use it, no one would have a problem with that.

If your neighbor defaulted on debt then the land would be seized by the creditors and they would no longer be under any such obligation. The gov't could also expropriate the land and provide fair market value but be under no obligation to honour the access rights granted to the children.

[gc1765]

If your neighbor defaulted on debt then the land would be seized by the creditors and they would no longer be under any such obligation. The gov't could also expropriate the land and provide fair market value but be under no obligation to honour the access rights granted to the children.

Presumably, we are talking about "Crown" land, and thus the "neighbor" is the Crown, who as far as I know has not defaulted on any debt that would require land being seized from the Crown.

[geoffrey]

That's ridiculous. Inheritence isn't the choice of the receiver, it's the choice of the giver. Person x owns something and gives it to y. That's fine with me.

How is it ridiculous? If (God forbid) your parents should pass away, you would recieve their assets based on your DNA. Where's the difference?

Actually I'd recieve them based on a legal document of them giving it to me. They could also give them to the United Way or something if they so desired. They could also change that document at anytime an give these assets to anyone else.

Inheritence is a transfer of property between willing parties. Not the same as Indian rights.

[gc1765]

Actually I'd recieve them based on a legal document of them giving it to me. They could also give them to the United Way or something if they so desired. They could also change that document at anytime an give these assets to anyone else.

And if your parents didn't have a will, you would recieve them based on your DNA.

[Riverwind]

Actually I'd recieve them based on a legal document of them giving it to me. They could also give them to the United Way or something if they so desired. They could also change that document at anytime an give these assets to anyone else.

And if your parents didn't have a will, you would recieve them based on your DNA.

The problem with indian rights is they are paid for by people who did not agree to the contract. IOW, how would you feel if your parents bought a car by promising that their children would be responsible for making the payments? In that situation the contract would be unenforceable because it tried to bind people would did not agree to it. Someone who sold a car to your parents with those terms would not be entitled to anything after your parents die.

[gc1765]

The problem with indian rights is they are paid for by people who did not agree to the contract. IOW, how would you feel if your parents bought a car by promising that their children would be responsible for making the payments? In that situation the contract would be unenforceable because it tried to bind people would did not agree to it. Someone who sold a car to your parents with those terms would not be entitled to anything after your parents die.

The people who agreed to the contract is the Government of Canada, which still exists and will exist for the forseeable future. In other issues, the Government of Canada is the Government of Canada whether or not the people who actually made the deal are still around. Why should Native issues be any different? For example, the debt was created by the Government of Canada, most of it before I was born, yet I (as a current taxpayer) am obliged to pay it off. If you want to disregard the debt that the government owes Natives because it was made by people a long time ago, then using that logic, the government should disregard the debt it owes to the rest of it's citizens.

[Rue]

Actually I'd recieve them based on a legal document of them giving it to me. They could also give them to the United Way or something if they so desired. They could also change that document at anytime an give these assets to anyone else.

And if your parents didn't have a will, you would recieve them based on your DNA.

The problem with indian rights is they are paid for by people who did not agree to the contract. IOW, how would you feel if your parents bought a car by promising that their children would be responsible for making the payments? In that situation the contract would be unenforceable because it tried to bind people would did not agree to it. Someone who sold a car to your parents with those terms would not be entitled to anything after your parents die.

Your above analogy makes no legal sense. You are comparing a civil contract between two parties with

administrative law that deals with contracts between collective groups not individuals.

The laws are not the same at all and so for you to try suggest the constitutional and administrative laws governing the interpretation of treaties made with aboriginals are the same as a contract entered into by two individuals is absurd. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You seem to completely ignore how the law operates, and when you are told you keep making the same arguement that if you don't like the law, you can just ignore it and start again with laws or rules you like.

That is called wishful thinking and I can't respond to it other then to say your wishful thinking does not and can not change how the legal system works.

[Riverwind]

The people who agreed to the contract is the Government of Canada, which still exists and will exist for the forseeable future.

Again, the gov't can't go bankrupt and depends on the living citizens to pay for its obligations. That is why the gov't cannot morally enter into agreement that forever binds future generations of citizens. Just like parents cannot sign an agreement that binds their children to terms that they did not agree to.

then using that logic, the government should disregard the debt it owes to the rest of it's citizens.

I agree. If the debt was large enough that it was causing undue hardship to the majority of citizens and then the gov't has a moral duty to renege on that debt. This has happened in many places over the years (i.e. Argentina).

Obviously breaking any contract has consequences which means a gov't should not do it lightly, however, no gov't has a moral obligation to forever honour terms of agreements which no longer make sense and are grossly unfair to the overwhelming majority of people that it represents.

[Riverwind]

You seem to completely ignore how the law operates, and when you are told you keep making the same arguement that if you don't like the law, you can just ignore it and start again with laws or rules you like.

This particular discussion is about moral obligations - not legal ones.

[Catchme]

First Nations pay while WE live in luxury!

That's all the commentary this thread deserves!

[Rue]

"As a lawyer can you not see how racist Canadian laws are, in favour of natives? "

Uh no I can't and evidently neither can the Supreme Court of Canada. I think your definition of racist is defective. You are suggesting because aboriginals are merely seeking to reinforce treaties that have been broken somehow they are trying to ask for special rights. I think you have completely missed the boat on what racism is.

Racism is the notion that we can ignore the pre-existing laws and existence of people prior to 1867 who are not caucasian Christians from Europe and whose religion and laws differed.

Racism is placing these people on reserves, entering into treaties with these people then breaking them, and now trying to argue well tough, we are here now, lets just ignore what we did in the past and just start today and ignore what we did.

"No tax, extra rights and freedoms?"

This is where you are just plain wrong. You make this concept of no tax seem like a benefit. Have you even a clue why aboriginals are not taxed? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't make the assumption this is a privilege. If there is no tax, perhaps you should try find out why there is no tax. It makes up for something else taken away from aboriginals. Until you can figure that out, I won't go further on the point. See the problem is you are ignorning the reason why there is no tax. It was not given as a privilege, it was given as an offset for other rights taken away unfairly.

As for your comment that aboriginals have extra rights, again this flows from your lack of awareness of what their rights are. They are not asking for anything extra. In fact if they were, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have made the decisions it already has. The aboriginal legal claims don't ask for anything extra, just what was originally promised to them in treaties that were then broken.

In fact if the aboriginal peoples used the same arguement you are using today, they would in fact ask for more or extra rights. Please don't confuse them with you.

"Being allowed to get away with terrorist-like actions that would have members of any other race incarcerated?"

See the above comment for me is interesting. I lived in Israel. I have seen people blow up. I have seen

people from both sides suffer from terrorist attacks. I have seen soldiers in Guatemala shoot down aboriginal peasant farmers in a corn-field and I barely got out alive having stumbled on to it. I have witnessed the Tonts Tonts Maceaux (I probably spelled it wrong) in Haiti terrorize their citizens when Papa Doc Duvaliers was in charge.

I have seen terrorism and when I see what you refer to as terrorism all I can say is, aboriginal peoples have not engaged in terrorism. They haven't attacked innocent children or public areas.

What you call terrorism are aboriginals occupying land. The reality is we live in a wonderful country where our armed forces and our police, with a couple of exceptions (thank you Mike Harris) and the aboriginal peoples have avoided violence in confrontations. Aboriginal people could have and have never engaged in terrorism. Please do not confuse taking a stand with terrorism. See you really need to meet face to face with the warriors you call terrorists. If you knew who they were and put a person and face to them, you would realize, if they wanted to kill you and engage in indiscriminate violence they would have done it long ago.

"Where does this belong in a democratic equal society? "

The Supreme Court of Canada already clearly answered that question and said in a democractic society we must learn to tolerate and respect one another and to do that means taking responsibility for treaties we entered into then broke. Your use of the word "equal" is selective. For you its "equal" as long as aboriginals give up their right to be equal. Well it aint going to happen. Aboriginals understand the law, they understand how it works, and they know if they wait long enough, the very laws you do not like, will prevent you from making them unequal.

"The answer is simple. It doesn't belong."

The answer for you of course is simple, as long as aboriginals know their place and don't try enforce what we promised them in treaties, everything will be o.k. Well that is wishful thinking. Ignoring treaties we entered into and are obliged to honour, will not solve this problem. The fact that you don't want to accept legal responsibility won't make it go away. Our moral responsibility to obey the treaties we entered into of course belongs. It's who we are. It is what we stand for. If we break our treaties, that makes us liars and I am not interested in being a liar and living a lie.

Aboriginals do not scare me-breaching treaties does. If my country's word means nothing, in my opinion, I mean nothing. Maybe you want to be part of a social vision where we lie and cheat, I do not. Aboriginal warriors do not worry me. You do. Aboriginal warriors don't threaten my identity-you do. Aboriginals are simply asking we remember who we are. You are basically saying ignore what we don't like. I truky believe we have to honour laws and treaties, even those we don't like. It makes us who we are. Our word is all we have when all is said and done.

[Riverwind]

I truky believe we have to honour laws and treaties, even those we don't like. It makes us who we are. Our word is all we have when all is said and done.

Rue, I have asked you this before and you evaded the question. What would you say if the law and these treaties required you to hand over your own property without compensation to a native band? Would you put your money where your mouth is? I am willing to bet your answer is no. If that is your answer then you have no business lecturing anyone on the sanctity of treaties or law.

I challenge anyone else who insists on blind adherance to native treaty obligations to answer the same question. Would you be willing sign over your own home in the name of meeting these obligations? This is not a hypothetical question because it could happen to the 500,000 people owning homes in land claimed by Six Nations.

My belief is very few people would be willing to make a significant personal sacrifice to meet native treaty obligations. The only reason why honouring these agreements is even a topic for discussion is because too many naive people living in urban centers don't understand the magnitude of the demands that are currently on the table. We are talking about trillions of dollars in compensation. This is insane and we cannot afford it as a society.

Obviously, we can try to negotiate more reasonable terms and this is happening with some bands in BC. However, there are going to be some bands that refuse to compromise and there will come a time when the SCC produces some hairbrained decisions that will force us to end our hypocracy and it is not going to be pretty and will likely make Ipperwash look like a love in.

In my opinion, the best thing we can do today to avoid this bleak future is to be honest with native groups. Tell them that we would like to come to some compromise but there are limits and that changing the constitution is an option. People like Rue who blindly support native demands without any thought to the long term implications undermine the gov'ts negotiating position and make it a violent outcome more likely in the long run.

[Catchme]

"As a lawyer can you not see how racist Canadian laws are, in favour of natives? "

Uh no I can't and evidently neither can the Supreme Court of Canada. I think your definition of racist is defective. ..I have seen terrorism and when I see what you refer to as terrorism all I can say is, aboriginal peoples have not engaged in terrorism. They haven't attacked innocent children or public areas.

What you call terrorism are aboriginals occupying land. The reality is we live in a wonderful country where our armed forces and our police, with a couple of exceptions (thank you Mike Harris) and the aboriginal peoples have avoided violence in confrontations. Aboriginal people could have and have never engaged in terrorism. Please do not confuse taking a stand with terrorism.

Aboriginals do not scare me-breaching treaties does. If my country's word means nothing, in my opinion, I mean nothing. Maybe you want to be part of a social vision where we lie and cheat, I do not. Aboriginal warriors do not worry me. You do. Aboriginal warriors don't threaten my identity-you do. Aboriginals are simply asking we remember who we are. You are basically saying ignore what we don't like. I truky believe we have to honour laws and treaties, even those we don't like. It makes us who we are. Our word is all we have when all is said and done.

Very good post Rue! The majority of Cnadians think like you THANK GOD!

I do not believe they believe First Nations are terrorists, they just want to label all "brown" people as terrorists. Its call fear mongering and fostering racism.

The bottom line is people should NOT have bought their land, if it was tied up in Treaty. It means they fully intended to support the breaking of Treaties. It is not other Canadians responsibilities if people bought land that they now have to give up. It should never have been taken away from the First Nations who had it through Treaty Rights anyway.

If people would have respected Treatty rights long ago, instead of buying land cheap that they knew was treaty land, maybe things could have been settled long ago.

[Riverwind]

The bottom line is people should NOT have bought their land, if it was tied up in Treaty. It means they fully intended to support the breaking of Treaties.

Excuse me - the entire province of BC is currently claimed by native groups. Are you saying that no one should have ever bought land in BC? In any case, it is obvious that you don't own any property so you are demanding that other people make sacrifices to make you feel better.

What would you sacrifice to meet these obligations? Would give up 20% of your income for the rest of your life. Would you end the universal health care system and use the savings to pay back the natives? Tell me what you would give up personally? If you are not willing to make personal sacrifices then you are a hypocrite and you have no business lecturing others on what they should do.

[Catchme]

Funny, I own land in BC that is not up for claims.

And if those who have benefited from Treaties being broken need to step up and sacrifice then so be it.

Maybe the federal government should stop spending billions on the Miltary and devert it to Treaty settlement?!

[Riverwind]

Funny, I own land in BC that is not up for claims.

Really - where is it? Because 110% of BC is claimed by native groups and only the Nisga have a ratified treaty in place. So I suspect you are simply misinformed and that means you _are_ one of those people benefiting from 'broken' treaties. Why don't you find out which band claims your house and sign it over immediately?

You avoided my question: what would you sacrifice personally to resolve these claims? Cutting gov't programs that you don't support is _not_ a sacrifice.

I suspect you will not answer my question because people like you want to live in a fantasy world where you keep your conscious clear by forcing other people to make sacrifices.

[Catchme]

110% heh?

I have checked and its not, funnily enough they did not use this valley it was taboo, and some land is being claimed by more than 1 Band, hence your 110%.

And it is not quite a simple as you make it sound there is a difference between reserve land and hunting grounds. Not going to start with you as you seem to believe what you want.

The money being spent on the military IS my money, just as it is everyone else's in Canada.

Take those billions and resolve Treaties.

[Riverwind]

I have checked and its not, funnily enough they did not use this valley it was taboo, and some land is being claimed by more than 1 Band, hence your 110%.

Interesting, you seem to be a unique situation. There are very few places in BC where that exception would apply.

The money being spent on the military IS my money, just as it is everyone else's in Canada. Take those billions and resolve Treaties.

Why don't you answer the question: what would you sacrifice personally? Cutting programs that you do not support is not a sacrifice. We could save billions by cutting healthcare and education - why not use that money to resolve treaties?

The fact that you refuse to answer the question directly suggests that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is. Kind of ironic that the people who loudly demand the most sacrifice from others in the name of prinicipals are the quickiest to come up with excuses why they should not have to make those same sacrifices. You have a lot in common with the hawks who support the war in Iraq but run the other way when someone asks if they are willing to enlist.

[Canadian Blue]

110% heh?

I have checked and its not, funnily enough they did not use this valley it was taboo, and some land is being claimed by more than 1 Band, hence your 110%.

And it is not quite a simple as you make it sound there is a difference between reserve land and hunting grounds. Not going to start with you as you seem to believe what you want.

The money being spent on the military IS my money, just as it is everyone else's in Canada.

Take those billions and resolve Treaties.

Well for some reason I have a feeling who will be the first to complain if their's a flood and it seem's like their aren't enough troops around to deal with it effectively. Once again, imagine if a major national disaster happened in Canada similar to the scale of Katrina, we need a military to be able to deal with it effectively. But we could just get the American's to bail us out. Once again are military is still not really getting much funding compared to our NATO counterparts, to cut more money would simply result in our military being less effective.

Anyways, if we resolve the treaties and give billion's, are those billion's of dollars going to be accounted for. Are they going to go into the pockets of band leaders, or will they actually go towards social services. Otherwise, we should downsize our navy to using canoes until we know that money is being put to something useful.

Why don't you answer the question: what would you sacrifice personally? Cutting programs that you do not support is not a sacrifice. We could save billions by cutting healthcare and education - why not use that money to resolve treaties?

The fact that you refuse to answer the question directly suggests that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is. Kind of ironic that the people who loudly demand the most sacrifice from others in the name of prinicipals are the quickiest to come up with excuses why they should not have to make those same sacrifices. You have a lot in common with the hawks who support the war in Iraq but run the other way when someone asks if they are willing to enlist.

Bang on Riverwind. As for the hawks who support war but refuse to enlist, my solution to that is a draft. Personally I think that even here in Canada it should be mandatory to do lets say two years in some form of national service. That way people would know the kind of sacrifice that would be involved in going to war, as well as instill some character in people.