First Nation Issues

[dino]

I never usually chime in on these subjects but i am interested. I haven't read any other pages. I have probably a stupid question. Why are there differences in the two nations? I dont understand why there are separate rules.

[Weatherby Fan]

I never usually chime in on these subjects but i am interested. I haven't read any other pages. I have probably a stupid question. Why are there differences in the two nations? I dont understand why there are separate rules.

Because the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes their rights unto themselves not any part of a Canadian Nation so to speak, First Nations, so they can self govern as they see fit.

Just Google First Nations and you'll have more links and reading of what it all means than you'll have time for !

[Jimbob]

I never usually chime in on these subjects but i am interested. I haven't read any other pages. I have probably a stupid question. Why are there differences in the two nations? I dont understand why there are separate rules.

It all has to do with how the Nation was founded. If Europenas came and conquered the FN then there would not be two separate rules. However, it did not happen that way at all.

The Royal Proclamation in 1763 that was issued by King George was basically a set of guidelines for settlement in Canada. In that proclamation it actually stated that Aboriginal had exsisting title over the land and they only way to take it from them was to negotiate. Some places that was negotiated (Look up the Douglas Treaties for BC, those treaties grant FN hunting and fishing rights in perpetuity) and other places it was just ignored and land was taken.

So now those Treaties that were signed and had no expiration date are still being upheld. Other FN's are saying "Hey we never negotiated a treaty, you Canadian are here illegally lets negotiate now" and new treaties are being signed granting rights.

Also, I believe the supreme court will say that all status Indians (regardless if they belong to a Nation that signed a treaty) have inherit FN rights.

So it has nothing to do with "feeling sorry for what we did" and everything to do with how the country was originally settled. This why its like TWO (Yes I am lumping all FN's together even though there are many) nations living in one geographical space.

[Jimbob]

America has some of the same issues but not nearly like Canada has. That's because America had their own revolution and were not part of England. They settled their country how they wanted. They killed most of the Aboriginals as they settled the west. In a sense America conquered the aboriginals and took their land. In Canada we made deals with the Natives to share the land, giving them special rights.

[Weatherby Fan]

Here's some more light reading about the term unceded lands they keep throwing around,

One of the terms you will want to consider not using is “crown land” or “crown lands”. If you use this term in your work with Aboriginal Peoples, you are opening the door to difficult conversations – that is if the door is still open to conversations once this term has slipped your lips.In my Intercultural presentationto the Vancouver Board of Trade, at about the 21st minute, I delve into the topic of crown land versus Aboriginal title lands, or alternatively, unceded traditional territory.
Crown land is a term that everyone is familiar with but how many of us really know what it actually means? In large sections of British Columbia, crown land is unceded land meaning that Aboriginal Title has neither been surrendered nor acquired by the Crown. The Crown doesn’t own the land outright as the term suggests. In fact, in Delgamuuknw and Gisday'way, the Supreme Court of Canada actually stated that Aboriginal title represents an encumbrance on the Crown’s ultimate title.

More recently, in the Tsilhqot’in case the Supreme Court of Canada actually determined that the Tsilhqot’in have Aboriginal title to large tracts of land.

• The Rise of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessments

Further, under the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the King of England declared that all unceded, unsold land would be reserved to them. The Proclamation stated that land could not be purchased from the First Nations without first being negotiated in public through the Crown. Its principles are alive and well in Canada, and are the basis of modern day treaty negotiations and Aboriginal rights and title cases

British Columbia is unique in Canada in that most of the province (an area that’s about *95 per cent of the land base, or nearly 900,000 square kilometres) is unceded, non-surrendered First Nation territories.

In June of 2014, the City of Vancouver took the bold move of officially acknowledging that the city sits on unceded First Nations territories. The acknowledgement came at the close of Vancouver’s “Year of Reconciliation”, declared by Mayor Gregor Robertson in the summer of 2013, as part of the city’s effort to build new relationships between Aboriginal peoples and Vancouverites.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Vancouver formally acknowledge
that the city of Vancouver is on the unceded traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations;

FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to invite representatives from the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations to work with the Mayor to develop appropriate protocols for the City of Vancouver to use in conducting City business that respect the traditions of welcome, blessing, and acknowledgement of the territory.

The City of Vancouver deserves kudos for showing leadership in creating the opportunity to take this positive bold step forward. I would encourage other local governments to do the same.

Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples® tip:
When working with First Nation communities, be careful to keep the term “crown land” or “crown lands” out of your discussions and reports. Alternatively, you can use traditional territory or “unceded territory” to show respect and an understanding; a practice that First Nations routinely do amongst themselves.


" *94 per cent of the land in British Columbia is provincial Crown Land, 2% of which is covered by fresh water. Federal Crown Land make up a further 1% of the province, including Indian reserves, defence lands and federal harbours, while 5% is privately owned." Wikipedia
Download our free ebook for more tips on effective consultation with Indigenous Peoples.


Here's the link

why-you-should-avoid-using-crown-lands-in-first-nation-consultation

[Jelvis]

Under Canadian Constitution and thee Indian Act to look up stuff on Indians, Status ones --

All of BC is Provincial Crown Land and others like Indian Reserves owned by the Fed Gov't now ,, the Reserve land it's on, plus in BC 5% land is owned by you the private.
1% is Feds owning reserve lands. 94 % Provincial Crown so = 95%
Jel -- Feds plus Crown ( unceded ) own 95 % of BC now! -- the other 5% are you who own private property now! -- so BC is a wild country with lots of space yet

[Linksman313]

Stupid question #1 - if 94% of BC is unceded/non-surrendered First Nations territory, could one revoke/cancel their Canadian citizenship (no taxes or benefits) , move on to these aforementioned lands and strike an agreement with whichever First Nation claims it? (Pay them taxes or land rent so to speak) Yes this is ridiculous but some of the off-grid/hippie types may find this appealing.

Stupid question #2 - (continuing on Jimbob's train of thought here about two nations in one geographical space) Couldn't one or any of the First Nations claiming this unceded/non surrendered land declare themselves a sovereign nation separate from Canada? Yes I understand there
would be a forfeiture of funding and benefits BUT - this would ultimately achieve what seems to be the basis for all the reconciliation
re - cultural preservation?

[Jelvis]

bands have been asked by the government types to vote on staying the way it is, or trying to go on their own, and some I know personally have done just that.
- cut off from using card at reserves for discount cigs and taxes off other rez because they decided to leave -- northern ones are choosing to leave the way it is and control the area themselves with any outsiders wanting oil or what knot.
Jel -- It's a time of organized confusion in the world right now Hahahahahaha -- nuttier than a fruit cake - in between everything it seems like -- a definite Maybe!
------------- Polly Tish inns can really stay between Yes and No a MAYBE SO! That's it!

[BgBlkDg]

CROWN LAND and to HELL with "reconciliation"!!!!!!

[Jimbob]

Stupid question #1 - if 94% of BC is unceded/non-surrendered First Nations territory, could one revoke/cancel their Canadian citizenship (no taxes or benefits) , move on to these aforementioned lands and strike an agreement with whichever First Nation claims it? (Pay them taxes or land rent so to speak) Yes this is ridiculous but some of the off-grid/hippie types may find this appealing.

Stupid question #2 - (continuing on Jimbob's train of thought here about two nations in one geographical space) Couldn't one or any of the First Nations claiming this unceded/non surrendered land declare themselves a sovereign nation separate from Canada? Yes I understand there
would be a forfeiture of funding and benefits BUT - this would ultimately achieve what seems to be the basis for all the reconciliation
re - cultural preservation?

There is definitely a grey area in all of this, it is not cut and dry most of the time. That's why courts are doing much of the clarification/deciding.

Answer to stupid question 1- unceded territory is still Canadian soil. Also, that land is under provincial jurisdiction. Now going on the a reserve is a bit of a different story. Remember territory area and reserve are different things. Almost like a city and a province but not really ha ha. If you wanted to go on reserve land you would be out of provincial jurisidction but still fall under federal jurisdiction. Only federal laws apply on reserves not provincial.

Answer to stupid question 2 - Many do claim themselves as a sovereign nation. A nation to nation agreement is what they believe they have with the Canadian Government. This is why they want self governance. They want the benefits of the agreement (treaty) and they don't want the Government telling them what to do. They say this is the intent of the original agreements, kinda hard to argue with them as well. FN had claim to the land. Agreements were made to get the land. Those agreements say the FN get a whole bunch of benefits (money, education, health care, use of land still etc.) and we get the land. So Canada has the land and the FN's have the benefits. FN's say they are a sovereign nation and Canada does not get to make laws and rules telling them how to use those benefits.