Stop trains or natives will: chiefs

Originally posted by St Udio


a shutting down of railheads would constitute violence against
public services...if the military is transporting even 1 box of ammo
to some frontier outpost on the stopped train...
then national security has been attacked by saboteurs/terrorists !!!

i would sure be careful in any endeavors...


~peace~

One of the circumstances in this event is the deafening silence from the Harper government. None of them seem interested in either showing interest or solidarity with Fontaine.

Your statement above sends a chill down my spine.

Originally posted by masqua
No, it doesn't sit well. Oka is too clear in my memory, as is Ipperwash.

Do you have links to suggest so that I will know what you know? I need to know why this isn't a terrorist plot. I would need the knowledge that you already have to believe the way that you do. As a mod can you provide this to me rather than have a disagreement with no backing?

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering

Do you have links to suggest so that I will know what you know?

My apologies, CW. I have been remiss and made the grave error of assumption. I was of the wrong opinion that your involvement in this thread was to stir up anger, but obviously this is not the case. My only defense is that I have been kind of 'out of my mind' with concern for todays developments.

Here are some backgrounders on why...

The Oka Crisis

In March 1990, Mohawks at Kanesatake, west of Montreal, set up a blockade to prevent bulldozers from breaking ground for a golf course that would be built on a native burial ground. The Mohawks disputed the land with the nearby municipality of Oka.

LINK

related link



result - the shooting death of Corporal Marcel Lemay of the Sûreté du Québec Police

The Ipperwash Crisis

The dispute goes back to 1942. It was wartime and the federal government expropriated land belonging to the Stony Point band under the War Measures Act in order to build a military camp - Camp Ipperwash. In the years following, the band tried to get the land back, claiming it contained a burial ground destroyed when the camp was built.

Shortly after the war ended, the Department of National Defense said it was willing to return most of the land as long as it could lease back what it still needed for the military base. The offer was later withdrawn.

www.cbc.ca...

Result - the shooting death of Dudley George, protester.

Nine holes for a gold course and a broken promise for the return of lands is just not worth the lives of either men.

In both cases, a heavy handed response from authorities caused the violence when peaceful settlement in the months and years prior to the events could have solved the problems peacefully.

As always, authorities underestimate the resolve that the First Nations people have when it comes to their lands.

So far, today has been good and I am proud of the reasonable actions of authorities, ordinary Canadians and Native Americans.

Thank you mas, I am also sorry for jumping to radical thoughts before examining the big picture. I was really off base by refering to these people as "terrorist". I think that I should have studied the issue before posting. Thanks for your help.....

I would be livid if a group of people built a golf course on my families burial plot...Not cool at all

[edit on 29-6-2007 by ConstantlyWondering]

Thanks, CW... I need to say that my response to you in this thread had been on my mind all morning.

I think we both learned something valuable today.

If anything comes up during the remaining hours of this day, I'll be sure to post them.

Originally posted by masqua
Thanks, CW... I need to say that my response to you in this thread had been on my mind all morning.

I think we both learned something valuable today.

If anything comes up during the remaining hours of this day, I'll be sure to post them.

Well this is another plus about this forum. The US news has buried this human interest story and I have to come to ATS to see what is really happening. I will be looking for your updates..............Thank you for the details and have a safe weekend

Reading through the Globe and Mail this morning, I'm struck by the extensive coverage of the event. Certainly there are individuals angry for being inconvenienced on the final business day of the week, particularly if they were travelling VIA rail or the 401 between Toronto and Montreal.

Canadian National Railways complained about the disruption of their movement of goods, but no doubt the trains are moving today.

All in all, the day went well, with peaceful marches and demonstrations being the norm. CBC News coverage last night was also positive but speckled with some angry comments by inconvenienced travellers (once again only in that Eastern Ontario area which worried me the most)

Major kudos to Police Commisioner Fantino for taking the high road by deciding on a strong police presence rather than a dawn raid in that area. If there was a chance for deadly confrontation, that decision prevented it.

In the end, the OPP managed to survive a day of political policing – what one academic specialist in the psychology of terrorism and social conflict called an impossible situation, where whatever the force did would be labelled wrong in trying to deal with aboriginal grievances that are a political problem, not a police problem.

Commissioner Fantino described it as meat-in-the-sandwich policing, with the OPP being the meat between governments and aboriginal activists.

Benedikt Fischer, a sociologist at the University of Victoria who specializes in policing issues, said the highway and rail blockades could have turned into a nightmare if either the police or Mohawks had made a single mistake.

“Just imagine Ipperwash repeated,” he said, referring to the 1995 land-claim dispute at Ontario's Ipperwash Provincial Park where an OPP tactical squad opened fire on Kettle and Stony Point First Nation protesters, killing one and injuring two.

With the memory of Ipperwash still fresh, Professor Fischer said, it was an easy prediction that the Ontario government and its agencies would be “pacifying and passive” during Friday's National Day of Action.

Mike Webster, a former RCMP officer and police psychologist in British Columbia consulted by the OPP, said the force had largely decided on a negotiations route by the time it called him several days ago to ask for advice on “smoothing out a few bumps in the road.”

The template for police negotiations is generic, Dr. Webster said, but there are unique dynamics in dealing with aboriginals.

“This is Canada's dirty little secret, how aboriginal people have been treated. I've told police before, ‘The best thing you can do is cross the line and stand over there with them.'”

LINK

The one person in this country who no-one has heard speak on this issue is our Prime Minister who seemed to be too busy reigning in our ambassadors for their various personal opinions. Opinions different than his reflect the GW Bush "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" statement.

That is my only outstanding concern this morning.

Let's assume for a minute that land claims are settled, what then? Would there be further attempts to coerce the weak minded that native indignities still run rampant? Where does it end?

I'm all for protest but when you disrupt 100 million in goods/services and shutdown major roads & rail-lines you have elevated individuals and their cause above the law and this cannot be tolerated. Regardless of whats at stake here we all live by the law and we must abide by it. I'm certain there are many other groups who have their issues and were they to carry of these same actions they would be dragged off and locked up, accordingly. We cannot pussy foot around minorities and create a two tier system of justice, its fundamentally wrong and serves no purpose other than to make a few bleeding hearts feel better.

A book written by a native writer outlines some of these issues:

The idiom was evoked Thursday by Calvin Helin, author of Dances with Dependency, a book calling on aboriginal people to empower themselves by acknowledging and overcoming their dependency mindset on “Indian industry.” “The ‘Indian industry’ is all of those people who are making a living off of our misery,” Helin said. “Some of them are doing a good, valid job, and a lot of them are out there just exploiting the situation and exacerbating the problems so that they can make more money out of it.” Helin said that the problem in the aboriginal community is that money has too often been regarded as the solution to problems. “You would think with $9 billion a year, we would be able to solve this problem,”

Helin countered, referring to the $9.1 billion annually the federal government puts into programs and services for aboriginals. “If money was the problem, we should have been able to get a long way from where we are now.”

src: www.fcpp.org...

9 billion a year for approx 4% of the population!!! This is not chump change by any stretch and I'd like to know how's it being allocated. How the hell can that much money not be helping. The handling reeks of probable mismanagement and most likely corruption. Their issue needs a grassroots approach starting with their local communities actually trying to make changes instead of lamenting about problems and seeking handouts. Get on with your lives and make changes for the better, stop the whining already.

brill

[edit on 30-6-2007 by brill]

Let's assume for a minute that land claims are settled, what then? Would there be further attempts to coerce the weak minded that native indignities still run rampant? Where does it end?

Two words which are extraneous topics; 'coerce' and 'weak-minded'. These could be tackled seperately, although the first does play a role (inversely and opposite to the one you intended).

On the remainder of the statement, I'm assuming by 'native indignities' you propose the idea that the First Nations population of Canada are indignant over their treatment by European authorities. I'd like to address that portion. First, it should be said that native people never considered land to be 'owned', it belonged to no-one but was available to everyone. It was the European idea of 'real estate', brought over to North America at the moment of contact. The 'purchase' of large tracts of land, in the earliest days, had nothing to do with money. Rather, it had to do with an agreement not to do harm to each other.

All bolding mine.

Historical Basis, 1763-1969

The ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763 reserved an unspecified area of what is now Canada for the use of aboriginal people, and forbade any unauthorized purchase or possession of those lands by non-native settlers. The British government, followed after 1867 by successive Canadian governments, concluded treaties with various groups of Indian people to legitimate European settlement in their lands.
The gradual occupation of Canada by immigrants, with or without treaties, has continued for almost 400 years and has made the native people a small minority within an industrial nation. In some cases native bands that had concluded treaties have lost control of reserve lands, and in others the reserve lands promised according to treaty were not requested or allocated (see INDIAN RESERVES). Native people, many of whom had been nomadic, often found themselves isolated on reserves with little or no access to wildlife and no money, skill or natural resources to make a living from their reserves. For those Indians, Inuit and Métis who did not sign treaties or take reserve land, the impact of being surrounded or overrun by agriculture, industry, cities and "foreign" institutions has been similar to that on the treaty Indians. They have suffered the shock of great change in virtually every aspect of their lives and in their homelands.

In a nutshell, the above sums up the situation well. Add to the mix the fact that the French out of Montreal refused to trade firearms to the Algonkian tribes living in a swath from southern Ontario to the prairies while the British would trade them out of New York, setting up dangerous inequities with more southerly tribes, leading to the Fur Wars (for another thread topic).

Land claims are dealt with by a process established by the federal government to enable INDIANS, INUIT and MÉTIS to obtain full recognition of their rights under treaties or as the original inhabitants of what is now Canada (see INDIAN TREATIES; ABORIGINAL RIGHTS). At the core of the process is negotiation between native groups and the federal government, and in some cases the provincial and territorial governments and other third parties. The process is formally based on legal concepts such as land title, aboriginal rights and treaties, and is intended to make economic and social adjustments between 2 different societies.

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

The key point here is '2 different societies. In the beginning, the native populations were considered heathen (non-Christian) and beneath contempt. The assimilation so called for today was initially discouraged by the Europeans. I would suggest that those sentiments are still (imo) evident today. Many native people still cling to their ancient beliefs, much to the chagrin of good Christians.

15 December 1725 (two agreements signed)

After the cessation of the war in Nova Scotia between the Governor of Quebec and the British in New England and Nova Scotia, two treaties were signed, on 15 December 1725, in Boston. These treaties encompassed all of the Aboriginal peoples living in Maine, New Hampshire, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Primarily, under these treaties, the Abenakis, Micmac and Malecite agreed to "forbear all Acts of Hostility, Injuries and discords towards all the Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain and not offer the least hurt, violence, or molestation of them or any of them in their persons or Estates."

www.manitobachiefs.com...

Over the course of more than a century, nothing much changed. Although there were some treaties which involved goods, much valued by native peoples at the time...

9 October 1783 [The Crawford Purchases]

After the American Revolution, the Governor of Canada, Sir Frederick Haldimand, was faced with several problems. First, an influx of loyalists from the United States, and second an angry Aboriginal population. They were upset over the American and British peace treaty which failed to mention either Indians or their ownership of the land, and they failed to provide provisions to protect Indian land in the new republic. To combat these problems, Governor Haldimand ordered all Indian agents to attend Indian councils and begin negotiations to purchase land from the Indians. On 9 October 1783, Captain William Crawford negotiated with several Mississauga chiefs, in exchange for guns, gunpowder, 12 laced hats and red cloth, the sale of land from "Toniato or Onagara River

(on the St. Lawrence River) to a river in the Bay of Quinte within eight leagues of the bottom of the Bay including all the islands, extending back from the lake so far as a man can travel in a day."

The old idea of getting treaties by promising not to kill each other was still an effective method...

13 October 1854 [Robinson-Huron Treaty]

Also called the Saugeen Surrenders, negotiations for this land became increasingly difficult. The Saugeen Indians of the Bruce Peninsula, led by Chief Wahbahdick, and other Ojibwa chiefs, with support from the Ojibwa of Newish, initially refused to relinquish entitlement.

The government threatened that if they did not agree the Crown would be unable to guarantee protection from the white settlers moving into the area. After tense negotiations the chiefs reluctantly agreed to surrender the peninsula in exchange for "the interest on the principal sum arising out of the sale of the land." Five reserves were to be set aside in perpetuity.

All of the above treaties are included in the link provided above.

The fact is that the lands desired by the European settlers was chipped away and now was 'owned'by others.

What remained needed governance though...

The CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867, assigned to Parliament legislative jurisdiction over "Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians"; [B]2 separate powers cover status and civil rights on the one hand and Indian lands on the other[/B].
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

NATIVE PEOPLES, LAW.

Owing to Canada's complex social and constitutional history, the special legal rights of Canada's native peoples vary from one part of the country to another and in their application to different groups. Today there are no longer special disabilities attached to native status. Earlier rules (eg, those preventing Indian people from voting or leaving their reserves without permission) have been repealed; other discriminatory laws are unlikely to be enforced (eg, the DRYBONES CASE). The one thing native people cannot legally do is bargain away their ABORIGINAL RIGHTS, treaty rights or reserved lands to anyone other than the Crown in right of Canada. Generally, native people have the same legal rights as other Canadians and may be able to claim special rights by virtue of their native status, which is a complex issue.

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

Hmmm... couldn't leave their reserves and couldn't vote, but also impossible not to be a native. Interesting. Is that a 'Catch22'?

So... imo, the native peoples of Canada were coerced into selling title to their lands until it had dwindled down to a scattered group of reservations.

So... why are the land claims coming around just now? There are about 800 outstanding claims on the books today.

On 8 August 1973 the federal government, wishing to clear the way for industrial development of the North and to improve the position of native peoples in Canada, announced a new policy for the settlement of native claims. The policy confirmed the responsibility of government to meet its lawful obligations through fulfilment of the terms of the treaties and to negotiate settlements with native groups in those areas of Canada where native rights based on traditional use and occupancy of the land had not been dealt with by treaty or superseded by law. The policy emphasized that the co-operation of provincial and territorial governments would be required.

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

hmmm... that took awhile, didn't it? 1763 to 1973. Two centuries of an impossible situation based on real estate. No wonder we're awash in land claims. The bloody treaties by and large and IMO forced, no, coerced upon the First Nations people are finally being looked at only 34 years ago. I give credit to the Harper government (which is something I am usually loathe to do) for taking the first step of appointing a body to handle these claims. It is a first step, but an auspicious one.

The history of the relationship between the 'European Influence' and First Nations is abysmal. Why should people today have to pay for our forefathers underhanded double-dealing? Because it was the method the French and British chose. The Native Americans of Canada (at least) were never conquered, they were pushed aside and seperated. You reap what you sow.

We cannot pussy foot around minorities and create a two tier system of justice

But... that's the whole point!!! The two tier system was established not by the First Nations, but by all of the above stated actions of the 'European Influence'

I'm all for protest but when you disrupt 100 million in goods/services and shutdown major roads & rail-lines you have elevated individuals and their cause above the law and this cannot be tolerated.

The goods are still there, they were only delayed, not dumped into Boston Harbour. In regard to elevating them above the law; who's law? The law which was imposed on an unconquered people? The intent of the protest was, for 1 day, to disrupt the trains and to hit back at the very thing which Western civilisation values above everything else... money, money, money. 100 million/day equals 36.5 billion/year, which brings me to your final point;

9 billion a year for approx 4% of the population!!! This is not chump change by any stretch and I'd like to know how's it being allocated. How the hell can that much money not be helping. The handling reeks of probable mismanagement and most likely corruption. Their issue needs a grassroots approach starting with their local communities actually trying to make changes instead of lamenting about problems and seeking handouts. Get on with your lives and make changes for the better, stop the whining already.

The projection for the Federal Budget 2007-8 is 231 Billion. By that measure, the government is spending a little over 4% on 4% of a population which has been forced to supply their community services. No wonder the water is bad in so many communities. Add to that the fact that many reservations are in areas unaccessable by road and you can see that there is a problem.

Forgot to add Federal Budget projection link.

[edit on 30/6/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by masqua
The goods are still there, they were only delayed, not dumped into Boston Harbour. In regard to elevating them above the law; who's law? The law which was imposed on an unconquered people? The intent of the protest was, for 1 day, to disrupt the trains and to hit back at the very thing which Western civilisation values above everything else... money, money, money. 100 million/day equals 36.5 billion/year, which brings me to your final point;

Thats missing the point. It doesn't matter if the goods are there or delayed, someone has to pay for missed shipments and time based deliveries. People lost money over this illegal action. What would happen if people blocked access to the casinos that provide revenue to them. I'll bet that wouldn't be tolerated for a second. When you state "who's law" I knew that would pop up. If natives refuse to recognize the law that the rest of Canada recognizes and abides by then they have no right whining to the same government that establishes and enforces the same laws. They can't have their cake and eat it which is exactly what's been stated here. You won't abide by the established law, fine no problem, then your not part of this country and certainly not part of what this government should tend to.

Originally posted by masqua
The projection for the Federal Budget 2007-8 is 231 Billion. By that measure, the government is spending a little over 4% on 4% of a population which has been forced to supply their community services. No wonder the water is bad in so many communities. Add to that the fact that many reservations are in areas unaccessable by road and you can see that there is a problem.

That still doesn't explain where 9 billion dollars has gone. Will it fix everything, absolutely not. However where is the motivation from these people when handouts are given at every opportunity. Where is the sense of community? There must be some level of progress being made but I see very little stemming from the communities within.

Bottom line is that they gained very little public sympathy for their actions and they clearly showed that if your of the right persuasion you can apparently circumvent the law.

brill


[edit on 30-6-2007 by brill]

If natives refuse to recognize the law that the rest of Canada recognizes and abides by then they have no right whining to the same government that establishes and enforces the same laws.

Owing to Canada's complex social and constitutional history, the special legal rights of Canada's native peoples vary from one part of the country to another and in their application to different groups.

-snip-

Earlier rules (eg, those preventing Indian people from voting or leaving their reserves without permission) have been repealed; other discriminatory laws are unlikely to be enforced

-on page two of the same link-

The federal government determines Indian status under its own rules, which no longer exclude women marrying non-Indians.

-snip-

Generally, no continuing Métis rights are recognized under federal law


Indians remain concerned that the unilateral increase of their numbers, coupled with general government austerity and increasing involvement of provinces in Indian issues, signal a general lack of commitment to their special needs and rights. Parliament has been notably reluctant to exercise the full scope of its legislative powers over Indians, and despite acknowledged shortcomings, the Indian Act remains an essentially Victorian statute that continues to resist change. The Chrétien government (1993-2004) stated that it was prepared to abolish the Act, continuing a line of similar commitments made for over a century, but it remains unclear which laws or whose law-making powers would fill the void.
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

Who's laws are we talking about here? Oh, yeah... whatever laws we want to pass, IF it is deemed profitable.

You won't abide by the established law, fine no problem, then your not part of this country and certainly not part of what this government should tend to.

The governments throughout the centuries have made these laws. They impose these laws upon a group of people who were here first. The First Nations in Canada were never conquered, which is why these laws are imposed on them. Many never recognised Canada in the first place, which is why many Native Americans can cross the Canada/US border freely... another law which led to the famous tobacco shipments when Canadian prices went through the roof while the American prices didn't.

That still doesn't explain where 9 billion dollars has gone.

Why not provide some statistics if you feel that the money is being mispent? I would suggest that a good portion of that budget goes into the Department of Indian Affairs so that expensive court cases covering about 800 land claims can go about their business making lawyers rich.

Since you are suggesting mismanagement, which no doubt exists on all sides, I'll leave it to you to dig up the evidence. Google is your friend.

brill, could it be that you have not pondered this problem, but instead you are speaking with your heart?

You repeatedly mention the amount of money involved here as if that were cash that got divvied up amongst the Natives. But it is not.

That figure is what it costs to run those agencies that spend a PORTION of that money on the Natives.

Now down here in America, for every dollar that makes it all the way to the res, about three and one half dollars is ate up by "costs". And we all know that the word 'Costs" is a code for mostly white middle-men lining their pockets on the pipeline from taxed money to the Native Peoples.

It sounds good on paper, and in TV sound bytes, that XXX number of dollars will be spent to use for Native Peoples, but the truth is, by the time the first Native sees any money, over half of it is 'gone'. Add to that the fact that we too have some people of our own race that are just as crooked as the outside world, and it's small wonder that nothing changes on the res.

There's a little side issue here that might be worth mentioning at this point.

It relates to the courage and willingness of First Nations to come to the aid of Canada in times of need...

The CF recruitment of Aboriginal peoples can be built on a tradition of military service, especially in times of conflict. Aboriginal communities and the Canadian military forged powerful connections during the two World Wars and the Korean conflict. During both wars, many Aboriginal peoples were exempt from conscription since they were not legal Canadian citizens, “yet they enlisted in numbers higher than any other segment of the Canadian population.”[15] Approximately 4,000 Aboriginal peoples, mainly men, joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force during World War I, while 6,000 enlisted during World War II.[16] There has been a strong tradition of military service in Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal families.

www.cda-cdai.ca...

Lest we forget, eh?

I'm not disputing that these people have not been given a fair shake. What I'm trying to say is that there is a law that exists that we, for the majority, agree to follow and enforce. We must maintain this basic principle for society to function. If a group of refugees who do not have Canadian status arrive and decide for whatever reason to block highways and rail-lines because of whatever grievances they have we would enforce the law I think no question. Therefore the same should apply to this situation because it is not solely based on one side.

As for the money aspect all I'm saying is there are ample funds, to an extent, that are provided. How those funds are allocated is beyond me and quite frankly not something I'd get a very clear answer on anyways. I have yet to see anyone reply as to what the communities themselves are trying to do. I personally get the impression that natives would rather just accept the stereotypes imposed upon them and seek funding to make it all better. I just don't see any end to this. People can better themselves if they choose to, many have and come out successful in life. Where's the effort?

brill

Originally posted by brill
What I'm trying to say is that there is a law that exists that we, for the majority, agree to follow and enforce.

I think the key word here is 'majority'. The fact is that the native population is the fastest growing segment in Canada. Another fact is that there is one set of laws for natives and another for the 'majority'. The inequities have already amply been pointed out in the responses to you. Even the post above yours stated that the First Nations people were not considered Canadian citizens until recently. That existed well within my lifetime and goes back nearly 250 years.

Please read the links I've provided.

We must maintain this basic principle for society to function. If a group of refugees who do not have Canadian status arrive and decide for whatever reason to block highways and rail-lines because of whatever grievances they have we would enforce the law I think no question. Therefore the same should apply to this situation because it is not solely based on one side.

I suggest you're reaching on that point.

We're not talking about refugees from somewhere else, are we? or should we start comparing the Irish refugees who came to Canada due to the Potato Famine? Lovely image, that... considering the circumstances of that particular event.

As for the money aspect all I'm saying is there are ample funds, to an extent, that are provided.

Could you please provide a link which shows the dispersion of the 9B in funds, where it goes and who gets it for what?

How those funds are allocated is beyond me and quite frankly not something I'd get a very clear answer on anyways.

Too true and I doubt the Dept. of Indian Affairs is about to start listing the
statistics. It's why we have an Auditor General... to dig into the facts and determine the truth. I've 'heard' that 2B of the 9B stays with the department itself, although finding a link which supports that should be fun to try to find. (I've tried, believe me)

I have yet to see anyone reply as to what the communities themselves are trying to do.

I live beside two reservations... Saugeen First Nations and the Cape Croker Reservation. Both are neat, tidy places, with excellent infrastructure and, as far as I know, a reasonably good council in both.

I enjoy going to them, visiting friends there and often camping there for weekends. The road maintenance takes money- as does the firehall, community center. what their annual budget is, I have no idea, but the place 'seems' well run. What else can I tell you? There are around 600 communities like that... some, like the above, in populated areas with roads. Others, far in the north, need all their supplies flown in. That costs serious cash.

I personally get the impression that natives would rather just accept the stereotypes imposed upon them and seek funding to make it all better. I just don't see any end to this. People can better themselves if they choose to, many have and come out successful in life. Where's the effort?

I can't address those sad accusations, although, in some cases, you are correct.

Fact: native suicide rates far exceed any other segment of the Canadian populations.

Fact: drug addiction and alcoholism are a serious problem in the more remote settlements.

Fact: Canadian prisons are full of young natives

Fact: some babies born in regular hospitals are taken from their mothers by Child Services because if they are allowed to return with their mothers, theyt will likely be at risk because of poor water quality

The facts can go on and on...

grammar edit and fixed quote box (twice)

[edit on 30/6/07 by masqua]

[edit on 30/6/07 by masqua]

brill, I just deleted about 3000 words that I had for you. But you're not worthy of argument.

Have a nice life.

Originally posted by brill
How those funds are allocated is beyond me and quite frankly not something I'd get a very clear answer on anyways.

I can't help it... I just have to keep digging for an answer to your question.

Following the money trail... via the Auditor General

There are no official targets.

Despite these activities, we did not find any reliable estimates as to when INAC believes negotiations with all First Nations and groups currently in the treaty process will be completed, and at what cost. In addition, there is no formal estimate of what results will be achieved in the short term. Unlike INAC's previous submissions to the Treasury Board, its most recent submission seeking a financial authority for the period 2004–2009 contained no reference to a projected number of agreements.

First Nations debts.

One significant impact of longer than initially anticipated negotiation time frames is the higher debt load of First Nations. Negotiation loans are deemed by the federal government to be advances on an eventual treaty settlement and are recoverable through the cash portion of the settlement. As negotiations take more time, First Nations need to borrow additional funds to cover their costs and, therefore, the net value of their potential benefits is being reduced. The Department acknowledges that this problem is compounded by the fact that some negotiation costs are the same, regardless of First Nation size, while the amount of cash offered to smaller First Nations is lower.

www.oag-bvg.gc.ca...

Yup... the lawyers are feasting. The negotiations are ongoing, but not going on. All the while, the debt load increases.

Round and round the money goes, and in whose pockets, nobody knows.









[edit on 30/6/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by masqua
First Nations people were not considered Canadian citizens until recently

So if they are considered citizens then the law should equally apply, no exceptions. Lock them up just like any other individual or group who would try the same.

Originally posted by masqua
I suggest you're reaching on that point.
We're not talking about refugees from somewhere else, are we?

Reaching as in native indians who've signed up for WW1/WW2. That has nothing to do with this either and warrants zero sympathy. My point was that an individual/group of non canadian status would not have been permitted to carry out the same actions, they would have been arrested as they should have been.

Originally posted by masqua
I live beside two reservations... Saugeen First Nations and the Cape Croker Reservation. Both are neat, tidy places, with excellent infrastructure and, as far as I know, a reasonably good council in both. I enjoy going to them, visiting friends there

Ahhh so its personal then and thats fine too. If problem areas are remotely located as you say how is that anyone elses problem. If you choose to live in isolation thats your choice. Native indians seem to have survived for 100's of years in isolation why so different now.

Originally posted by masqua
Fact: native suicide rates far exceed any other segment of the Canadian populations.

Ok so what are native communities doing about it. Government handouts are going to solve this problem.

Originally posted by masqua
Fact: Canadian prisons are full of young natives

And prisons are full of black people, oriental people, just about every other minority so what. It says to me that their communities have failed them, miserably.

Originally posted by masqua
Fact: some babies born in regular hospitals are taken from their mothers by Child Services because if they are allowed to return with their mothers, theyt will likely be at risk because of poor water quality

I know many people who work in the medical field and have yet to find anyone corroborating this one. It most likely has more to do with piss poor parenting rather than anything else. Again a failure of the community as a whole and parents as individuals.

brill

I'd prefer not to trade opinions, brill... they're fairly easy to come by since everyone has them in spades. I have them too, but I did my best to do research and provide links in this thread and I'd prefer you tried to do the same. So far, the only link you've provided has been an Op Ed by a 'Pegger'.

I'm on the road at the moment, and will continue to be travelling until next week, so, I really can't provide much of a debate for you at the moment. Hopefully someone will jump in during my journeys.

Appreciate your comments so far, though... educate me some more, please.