NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations [Archive]

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 09:34 AM

The Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw, the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia have reached a major milestone in B.C. treaty negotiations with the signing of an Agreement-in-Principle.

The Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw (NStQ) is comprised of four First Nations communities in the Cariboo region.

Chief Patrick Harry, Stswecem’c-Xgat’tem First Nation; Chief Ann Louie, T’exelc First Nation; Chief Helen Henderson, Tsq’escen’ First Nation; Chief Andrea Gilbert, Xat’sūll First Nation; Carolyn Bennett, federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations; and Scott Fraser, British Columbia’s Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, signed the treaty Agreement-in-Principle in the Canim Lake community on Sunday, July 22, 2018.

The NStQ Agreement-in-Principle lays out the elements of treaty for the four communities, including ownership of land and resources, harvesting rights, processes for transition from the Indian Act to self-government, and social services.

The signing of the NStQ Agreement-in-Principle marks the start of the final stage of negotiations of a treaty with the NStQ First Nations. This stage of negotiations will be informed by Canada’s and British Columbia’s new commitments to reconciliation and the understanding that a treaty will establish ongoing and evolving relationships between Canada, British Columbia and the NStQ communities.

A treaty will ensure the NStQ First Nations have the lands, resources and authorities that support self-government, self-determination and strong government-to-government relationships.

Canada and British Columbia are working to build meaningful government-to-government partnerships through treaties that support the development and growth of local economies for the benefit of all communities and residents. Engagement with stakeholders and the ranching community over their respective interests will continue and evolve as negotiations progress, with a goal of seeing the NStQ First Nations and all local business interests prosper.

The federal and provincial governments are committed to relationships with NStQ First Nations, and all Indigenous peoples, based on respect and recognition, and guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, and case law.

Quotes:

Chief Helen Henderson, Tsq’escen’ First Nation (Canim Lake) –

“Our NStQ people will achieve self-governance through self-determination. This milestone, of signing our Agreement-In-Principle, is the path our members have chosen. It is through the hard work of our community members, team and leadership that we will get there.”

Chief Patrick Harry, Stswecem’c-Xgat’tem First Nation (Canoe/Dog Creek) –

“It has been a very long time that the Northern Secwepemc have been at the treaty table, waiting for justice. What we celebrate today is our own perseverance. We are hearing the right things from the ministers here today. We hope those promises make their way to our final negotiations and that we can, in the near future, see Northern Secwepemc people thriving under their own government, making decisions for themselves that will make a better, brighter future for our children's children, long into the future.”

Chief Andrea Gilbert, Xat’sūll First Nation (Soda Creek) –

“I look forward to exercising our own governance in our territory and working with the federal and provincial governments to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. This is an important moment in the history of our people that will bring us closer to fulfilling our goals.”

Chief Ann Louie, T’exelc First Nation (Williams Lake) –

“Today is a great day for us to finally sign the AiP. Our people have been in discussions for 25 years attempting to become self-governing and get out from under the Indian Act, which restricts and controls our lives totally. We will be moving into Stage 5, where serious negotiations will begin. We have heard from others who have achieved Final Agreement of the joy of being free of the Indian Act and making their own decisions for themselves, and the benefits they have been able to achieve for their communities and members.”

Carolyn Bennett, federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations –

“Making progress on the right to self-determination for Indigenous peoples is essential as we move forward on the journey of reconciliation. I am honoured to join British Columbia and the Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw Treaty Group in signing this historic agreement and celebrating our commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.”

Scott Fraser, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation –

“I’m proud to sign the Agreement-in-Principle and celebrate this major milestone on our path to achieving a treaty with the NStQ First Nations. We are committed to progress toward deep reconciliation and powerful government-to-government partnership with the NStQ First Nations, based on respect and recognition of rights.”

Quick Facts:

The NStQ First Nations have more than 2,600 members, and are located in the Cariboo region of British Columbia.
This Agreement-in-Principle includes provisions with respect to lands, finances, taxation harvesting rights, cultural resources, self-government and other matters. These provisions will be further developed through negotiations to conclude a treaty with the four NStQ First Nations.
The NStQ has been negotiating with British Columbia and Canada since 1996. The Agreement-in-Principle was reached in December 2014.
Members of the four communities of the NStQ voted in a referendum on the Agreement-in-Principle in February 2016, giving NStQ leadership a mandate to proceed on to final negotiations.

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 10:29 AM

Just starting to dig in to these documents. I see some hopeful stuff in terms of managing wildlife but some stuff making the hairs on the back of my neck stand up...

https://i.imgur.com/K3LkJ7F.png

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 10:43 AM

https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png
https://i.imgur.com/6gi5PdF.png
https://i.imgur.com/QeE1Zwl.png
this is just a small portion. there are many more maps like this. A ton of crown land around williams lake too.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/nstq_appendices.pdf

wos

07-23-2018, 10:55 AM

Wow where was the public consultation on this one?

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 11:05 AM

https://i.imgur.com/h8cRmoG.png

and...this one brings some memories

358mag

07-23-2018, 11:09 AM

Wow where was the public consultation on this one?

Us Whity's don't count , we just have to pay for it .

dakoda62

07-23-2018, 11:25 AM

White man takes it up the A$$ again.

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 11:39 AM

the treaty is saying public hunting on these crown lands will be under our federal/provincial + their NStQ first nations law....

https://i.imgur.com/AY5usIk.png

what is that law? How easy can they change it up? I don't know yet.

Rob Chipman

07-23-2018, 01:17 PM

Thanks, Sirloin; great info.

I think I said this earlier: We need to recognize and wrap our heads around the power that FNs have and will increasingly have, and we need to figure out how to make a deal with them. They are negotiating a power arrangement, not a settlement arrangement (I have no problem with them doing so, and would do the same in their shoes).

Jelvis

07-23-2018, 01:24 PM

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 01:33 PM

No more trading beaver pelts now, all ca$h and land deals with top lawyers doing the deals.
----- And you noticed the white guys and gals will still hunt, but must go by the existing hunting regs for non Indians.
Jel -- always a thread of hope in all things and can be changed to suit the local communities --- See how this goes down the road a ways?
-----------Doing it in Kamloops area also now, voting on the same thing, leaving the Feds and getting ca$h and land deals together --

No. we must follow our hunting regulations AND theirs it says. Who knows what theirs are or what they will change them to in the future. They would have the power to freeze us out entirely and with other bands recent claims of shutting down all LEH moose hunts in their area, i dont like those odds.

Jelvis

07-23-2018, 01:46 PM

LEH system might work in the area owned by Indians, a way to have an income and control the amount of flow Joe?
Jello -- Limited Entry --

Ourea

07-23-2018, 01:50 PM

LEH system might work in the area owned by Indians, a way to have an income and control the amount of flow Joe?
Jello -- Limited Entry --

The reality is the bigger play......control of all resources on FN land.

338win mag

07-23-2018, 01:51 PM

LEH system might work in the area owned by Indians, a way to have an income and control the amount of flow Joe?
Jello -- Limited Entry --
There is already a system to control the amount of flow.

338win mag

07-23-2018, 01:52 PM

The reality is the bigger play......control of all resources on FN land.
Ya, with nobody to answer to.

Jelvis

07-23-2018, 01:59 PM

Whites want it both ways too, same as Indians do. Nobody wants second best, it's in nature too, pecking order it's called!
Can't have it both ways, one way or another - taking it both ways don't happen, unless your bi ok! It's yes or no, not maybe so?
Jelly -- yah got it one way or another -- not both -- pay out once and for alllll or keep the cheques a rollin --
--- it's like yah gotta drinkin problem -- quit or say it's a solution -- it's in the brain --It's you brother or sistah, you choose to put that bottle to your dry thirsty lips ---
No one is forcing you to put that smoke to your lips! It's in the brain waves! Now once addicted, it hassles you every day and night!

ACE

07-23-2018, 02:20 PM

A nation within a nation ..... with no consultation.
Province being cleaved along racial lines.
One law for every BC citizen ?
Joke .... very bad joke.

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 02:42 PM

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/nstq_aip.pdf

Everyone dig in. What do we think.

atvone

07-23-2018, 02:59 PM

I guess that means unless you are first nations you cannot own land. If you do they can take it back, or charge you to live there. Wait till all of the other treaties are signed, we will have to be like China and build some islands to live on. Why can we not all just say we are one people and work together?

Bugle M In

07-23-2018, 03:42 PM

That's B******T......period.
Rules and implementation based on "Race"!!
That is not the future of society on this planet.
It will be implemented, and will work for some time....but...
one day the s**t will hit the fan, and laws and special consideration will be "cleansed away"....
Look at "human history" and evolution.....
Nothing lasts forever!

Big Lew

07-23-2018, 04:04 PM

Seems pretty straight forward to me...maybe not during the few active years I have left,
but most certainly during most on this forum, hunting, fishing, camping, and any other
outdoor activity will be cut in half from what it is now, and that half will all be 'user pay.'
Those that can't afford it will have to console themselves with playing virtual video games
on their couch.

338win mag

07-23-2018, 04:33 PM

Last page 210....LOL

32.8.0 COSTS32.8.1 Canada and British Columbia will provide to NStQ an amount of fundingfor the Ratification Committee to carry out the duties and responsibilitiesset out in this Chapter.

HappyJack

07-23-2018, 05:05 PM

No. we must follow our hunting regulations AND theirs it says. Who knows what theirs are or what they will change them to in the future. They would have the power to freeze us out entirely and with other bands recent claims of shutting down all LEH moose hunts in their area, i dont like those odds.

Isn't that what they did on the Douglas Lake Ranch?? Huge tract of land covered in wild game animals, but no access?? Sound familiar?

Squirrelnuts

07-23-2018, 05:17 PM

The Balkanization of Canada. Like everywhere else this has happened, it won't end well...

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 05:35 PM

srupp

07-23-2018, 05:36 PM

Hmmm dont understand how I paid for my home..and now its not?
I choose to not live on a rez.
Unfortunatley am in Kelowna for medical stuff. .
Effing assholes..government..
Pissed

Iron Glove

07-23-2018, 06:33 PM

Isn't that what they did on the Douglas Lake Ranch?? Huge tract of land covered in wild game animals, but no access?? Sound familiar?

Good point.

scoutlt1

07-23-2018, 07:06 PM

I'm not sure when, and right or wrong, but at some point this is going to end.....and "not well".

wos

07-23-2018, 07:21 PM

Hmmm dont understand how I paid for my home..and now its not?
I choose to not live on a rez.
Unfortunatley am in Kelowna for medical stuff. .
Effing assholes..government..
Pissed
I think the only difference for you will be who you pay your taxes to. It wont be to the regional district it will be to the band. And they will set the tax rates!

silvertipp

07-23-2018, 07:44 PM

And his land will be labelled that at sale time as well
I will guarantee you it will affect his resale value

Ourea

07-23-2018, 08:09 PM

Isn't that what they did on the Douglas Lake Ranch?? Huge tract of land covered in wild game animals, but no access?? Sound familiar?

Happy Jack, if you worked your ass off to buy a piece of property....(forget the scale, doesn't matter if it's 1 acre or 1 million)....and folks showed up demanding access with a claim. How does one deal with this.

I get the argument....loud and clear.
Some have laid claim siting rights.

Can they fish and hunt your property?
Can they log your property?
Can they mine it?
Can they deny access to you?
Where does it end?

Boundaries and goal posts need to be defined as my fear is the farm is being given away with no plan other than appeasement and no end in sight. Those that are given will always justify it and ask for more until the hammer comes down saying this is where it ends.

Open deals are always exploited.

Big Lew

07-23-2018, 08:42 PM

Not advocating illegal or radical responses, but I can see properties that's taken many years to develop
even businesses as well whole large scale parts of contested areas mysteriously going up in flames rather
than having someone take them away and reap the benefits of another's hard work and monies...just saying.
It wouldn't be the first time someone refused to let someone profit for their hard work.

338win mag

07-23-2018, 08:52 PM

Happy Jack, if you worked your ass off to buy a piece of property....(forget the scale, doesn't matter if it's 1 acre or 1 million)....and folks showed up demanding access with a claim. How does one deal with this.

I get the argument....loud and clear.
Some have laid claim siting rights.

Can they fish and hunt your property?
Can they log your property?
Can they mine it?
Can they deny access to you?
Where does it end?

Boundaries and goal posts need to be defined as my fear is the farm is being given away with no plan other than appeasement and no end in sight. Those that are given will always justify it and ask for more until the hammer comes down saying this is where it ends.

Open deals are always exploited.
The scary part is.... the courts will decide,,,, the courts stacked with Liberal judges.

wos

07-23-2018, 09:40 PM

This is treason against Canadian people.

Sirloin

07-23-2018, 10:03 PM

https://i.imgur.com/WKqI0BX.png

NStQ private lands , listed in appendix D....

https://i.imgur.com/ho5aPRl.png

And no public access to what is in appendix D. It's left blank.

Mulehahn

07-23-2018, 10:30 PM

Redthies

07-24-2018, 06:58 AM

If the provincial government tries to “give” privately held lands away as part of a settlement, they will have so many lawsuits filed against them that it will bankrupt the province. If they remove all public services and assign tax collection duties to the FN, there will also be hell to pay. The original Gustafson Lake Stand-off will look like a tea party in comparison! Only this time it will be the non-natives blockading. And I will support them 100%.

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 08:10 AM

If they really try to start taking people's property and handing it over this will get ugly. I mean real ugly and I honestly don't believe the government is ready for it. I do not support those actions but can certainly understand them. That being said, there are several groups across Canada, and north America, that do not share my disdain for bloodshed. I said when the courts first ruled ruled that the First Nation rights could only be lost through treaty or war all that did was tie the hands of the people.

I do believe that if left as is there will be blood spilled over this but not a war. But there is a war coming. It always amazes me how people break this down into white vs natives. I know many immigrants from other countries with a strong fishing, hunting and outdoor commitment. They do not feel the guilt that guides so many decisions today. They came to Canada because of the freedoms granted to them and will not take kindly to them being stripped away.

I would recommend reading through Appendix L here: (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/nstq_appendices.pdf)
And Ctrl+F searching for "Expropriation" or "parcel" in the treaty (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/nstq_aip.pdf)

Interesting point here:

24.2.2 Prior to the Final Agreement, NStQ and British Columbia will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement on:

a. NStQ authority to impose property taxes on Persons who are not
NStQ Citizens in relation to those Persons' ownership or occupation
of NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; and
b. the coordination of the exercise of the NStQ taxation authority with
British Columbia's tax systems.

APPENDIX L-1: LIMITS ON PROVINCIAL EXPROPRIATION

GENERAL
1. Provincial Law applies to the expropriation of NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands by a
Provincial Expropriating Authority except to the extent that the Final Agreement
modifies its application.
2. A Provincial Expropriating Authority may expropriate an Interest in NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands only with the consent and by the order of the Lieutenant Governor
in Council.
3. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may issue an order consenting to an
expropriation of an Interest in NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands only:
a. after the conclusion of the procedures described in paragraphs 4 through
5; and
b. where the expropriation is justifiable in accordance with paragraph 6.
4. Before the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a decision under paragraph 3, the
Provincial Expropriating Authority will provide a report to NStQ which states the
reasons for the expropriation and addresses the factors under subparagraphs 6a to
6d.
5. Within 30 days of receipt of the report under paragraph 4, NStQ will notify the
Provincial Expropriating Authority if it objects to the expropriation of the Interest in
NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands and, within 30 days of the Provincial Expropriating
Authority’s receipt of notice from NStQ, the Provincial Expropriating Authority and
NStQ will make reasonable efforts to resolve the objection raised by NStQ.
6. For the purposes of subparagraph 3b, an expropriation is justifiable where the
Lieutenant Governor in Council is satisfied that the following requirements have
been met:
a. reasonable efforts have been made by the Provincial Expropriating
Authority to acquire the Interest in NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands through
agreement with NStQ;
b. there is no other reasonably feasible alternative to the expropriation,
including the use of lands that are not NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands;
This AIP is not legally binding and has not been signed by the Parties. Hard copies are available to the public upon request to British Columbia or Canada. NStQ Treaty Negotiations — Draft Appendices to the Agreement in Principle — July 2, 2015 Page 185 of 253
c. the Provincial Expropriating Authority has confirmed that the proposed
expropriation is of the smallest Interest in NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands
necessary and is for the shortest time required;
d. information relevant to the expropriation, other than documents that would
be protected from disclosure under Provincial Law, has been provided to
NStQ, including the report referred to in paragraph 4; and
e. where NStQ has objected to the expropriation, reasonable efforts have
been made to resolve the objection.
7. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will not consent to the expropriation before the
end of the period provided for in paragraph 5.
8. Notwithstanding paragraphs 3 to 7, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may consent
to the expropriation if the Minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council has declared a
state of emergency.

COMPENSATION

9. In the event an Interest in NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands is expropriated by a
Provincial Expropriating Authority, the Provincial Expropriating Authority will provide
compensation in accordance with the Final Agreement.
10.The total value of compensation for an expropriated Interest in NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands will be based on the criteria used in the Expropriation Act and will
take into account the following factors:
a. the market value of the land based on its use at the date of expropriation
plus reasonable damages;
b. the market value of the land based on its highest and best use at the date
of expropriation;
c. the value of a special economic advantage to the owner arising out of his
or her occupation or use of the land; and
d. the value of improvements made by an owner occupying a residence
located on the land.
11.Where the Provincial Expropriating Authority and NStQ disagree on the total value of
compensation for the expropriated Interest held by NStQ, a dispute under this
section will be finally determined by arbitration. A dispute under this section will not
delay the expropriation. For the purpose of this section, British Columbia will act on
This AIP is not legally binding and has not been signed by the Parties. Hard copies are available to the public upon request to British Columbia or Canada. NStQ Treaty Negotiations — Draft Appendices to the Agreement in Principle — July 2, 2015 Page 186 of 253
behalf of the Provincial Expropriating Authority on such terms as British Columbia
and the Provincial Expropriating Authority may agree.

EXPROPRIATION OF LESS THAN FEE SIMPLE ESTATE

12.Where less than a fee simple estate in a parcel of NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands is
expropriated by a Provincial Expropriating Authority:
a. the parcel of land retains its status as NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands;
b. NStQ may continue to use and occupy the parcel of land, except to the
extent that such use or occupation interferes with the use of land for which
the expropriation took place; and
c. NStQ Law applies to the parcel of land, except to the extent that NStQ
Law is inconsistent with the use of land for which the expropriation took
place.
13.Paragraphs 14 through 22 do not apply to an expropriation by a Provincial
Expropriating Authority of less than the fee simple estate in a parcel of NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands.

EXPROPRIATION OF A FEE SIMPLE ESTATE

14.Where a fee simple estate in NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands is expropriated by a
Provincial Expropriating Authority:
a. the expropriation will include the fee simple estate to the Subsurface
Resources which will revert to British Columbia at the time of expropriation
unless British Columbia and NStQ agree otherwise;
b. unless the Provincial Expropriating Authority and NStQ agree otherwise,
the expropriation will include all other Interests in the land; and
c. those lands will no longer be NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands and Appendix
B will be deemed to amended in accordance with the amendment process
set out in paragraph 2.14.11 of the General Provisions Chapter.
15.For the purposes of paragraph 14:
a. the Provincial Expropriating Authority will be responsible for the
transaction costs including the cost of surveying, registering and
transferring the land; and
This AIP is not legally binding and has not been signed by the Parties. Hard copies are available to the public upon request to British Columbia or Canada. NStQ Treaty Negotiations — Draft Appendices to the Agreement in Principle — July 2, 2015 Page 187 of 253
b. where the land is registered in the Land Title Office, British Columbia will
file such certificates or other documents in the Land Title Office as may be
required under the Land Title Act.

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 08:29 AM

It appears Trudeau and his liberals are rushing to get these treaties through all across the country and now with NDP+Greens in power here, in BC.
Maybe environmental activist governments see this as a good way to help save the planet?

It is very important that NO ONE LOSE THEIR COOL and end up in an unneeded confrontation.
Any situation will inevitably be used, and work against us. The current state of the media and public is in a state of racial moral panic. The media has a hard on for any story about negative interactions between someone white and someone non white, to underscore this oppressor vs oppressed narrative.

They have lead front pages with such mundane negative interactions such as an "ethnic" customer trying to pass fake coupons and being asked to leave. Even things like this are being painted as outrageous, pure racism of the white store clerk. There has been dozens of mundane, "negative interaction = racism" stories similar to this leading the news lately.

Any event will undoubtedly be used to help fuel this native supremacy legal/activism/extortion industry.

Jelvis

07-24-2018, 09:06 AM

Whiterock

07-24-2018, 09:45 AM

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 09:54 AM

So,,let me get this straight,,,basically, our government handed over the lands within the mapped out bounderies,,and for lack of a better term,its now a seperate country? I mean,,laws,,land title,,taxes trespass fees,,to me,thats a seperate country.Am I reading this right?

Yes it appears that way. with all the Self Governance, nation to nation talk. it appears the government is literally setting up separate nations within this nation. They would also control citizenship within their "nation" From what Im reading and understand, from that point on, smaller bands and reservations would cease to exist and become under one larger "nation" title in that region. They must still follow major federal regulations and laws but, still their own nation and can create laws within this nation. Also full ownership of natural resource in these areas and ability to charge companies, rents and fees operating on formerly crown public land. I read one portion stating even with all this the federal and provincial governments still have to pay these nations funding to operate agreed upon services and so on.

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 10:02 AM

Any white person now like Sirloin is saying, good advice! "Do not lose your cool at any time, when dealing with these issues when people are talking!" Any where!
- If you have a good job and in a position of noteriety and say any wrong thing anywhere and someone records you, --- YOUR FIRED!
Just like Donny's old popular show everyone loved.
-- In a position of authority and get picked up on a recording on a cell phone saying something you'd never say in public! Your Fired!
A cop, a c o a politician, a teacher, picked up on a recording on a personal cell phone -- saying something real foolish? YOUR FIRED!
Jel -- When out and about now remember your being recorded 24 hours a day now all year long, motion detectors, cameras outside on posts, in yards etc.
----------- This is high tech now, you must realize, if you think your just talking to some person only, and they are the only ones that hear it? Your old fashioned now!

No unneeded nasty confrontations,
but dont let jelvis bully or scare you into backing down and not standing up for our right to hunt public land and our vision for ALL Canadians being equal under one law without racial supremacy we are seeing. Dont let him scare you into not speaking your minds for the goal of securing our rights to access and hunt and fish public lands for all, and for the futures of our children as well.

Lets do our homework and look into these new treaties and understand where this will leave the MAJORITY of Canadians right to access and enjoy public lands.

We were all born here, live here, work here on this patch of dirt in THIS century, and should share equally in the benefits and the responsibilities to conserve on our public lands and wildlife.

No exclusive rights based on race. These are ideas not of this century.

HappyJack

07-24-2018, 10:12 AM

No unneeded nasty confrontations,
but dont let jelvis bully or scare you into backing down and not standing up for our right to hunt public land and our vision for ALL Canadians being equal under one law without racial supremacy we are seeing. Dont let him scare you into not speaking your minds for the goal of securing our rights to access and hunt and fish public lands for all, and for the futures of our children as well.

Lets do our homework and look into these new treaties and understand where this will leave the MAJORITY of Canadians right to access and enjoy public lands.

As Canadians we don't have those rights, none of it, we don't have the right to hunt, to fish, to gather, to even walk on crown land. We don't even have the right to protect ourselves. These agreements will not change any of that, you still have NO rights other than what is covered under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

Big Lew

07-24-2018, 10:12 AM

Their getting too aggressive with their rules, taxation and access will see total border blockades
thus not allowing materials to freely flow either way like other separate countries. Further, if our
negotiating governments sign an agreement to continue stuffing the new foreign country with our
tax dollars to provide services within that new foreign country, we know what government not to
ever support when voting comes along.

Jelvis

07-24-2018, 10:17 AM

The process is happening like your saying in small bands also voting what to do?
-- Indians are not all sure which way to vote yet?
I don't like voting at all in any elections in the entire country, but I do cuz that's my only right I have basically.
Jel -- I ain't trying to scare you at all, you want to be aggressive, and show your emotion and raise your voice in public, if your retired that's different.
-----------If you have a job, especially a government one, keep your mouth controlled -------- you get paid to do a job --- let others mouth off
-----you can get (set up real ezee) if your known in the coffee room and some one really don't like you much can give you an unprovoked hassle

DarekG

07-24-2018, 12:35 PM

Ourea

07-24-2018, 12:46 PM

The separation of wealth between leaders and community is only going to get worse under this model IMO.

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 01:20 PM

So tired for this two tier law bullshit. I don't live in the Cariboo region but this sets one hell of a precedent for the rest of Canada.
I'm curious how federal of provincial law could be enforced or regulated in such a "nation" when they can barely enforce the laws that are in place now.

This isn't just one case and one area. This is being pushed all over BC and Canada. Along with many of our k-12 schools having the kids repeat every morning with the national anthem "we are on unceded territory of___" type BS. Universities and institutions repeating these mantras too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjHvKqe72GY

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 01:28 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrwMgyqUH4

IronNoggin

07-24-2018, 02:19 PM

I think the only difference for you will be who you pay your taxes to. It wont be to the regional district it will be to the band. And they will set the tax rates!

This:

If the provincial government tries to “give” privately held lands away as part of a settlement, they will have so many lawsuits filed against them that it will bankrupt the province. If they remove all public services and assign tax collection duties to the FN, there will also be hell to pay...

It's called Class Action Lawsuit.
And BOTH governments involved are very very vulnerable under what is being proposed here.

SRUPP: I have your back, regardless of how you want to play this.
Josey Wales was indeed one of my Heros... :wink:

Nog

scoutlt1

07-24-2018, 05:28 PM

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-parks-to-undergo-colonial-audit

A "colonial audit". What in the f***ing hell....

Jelvis

07-24-2018, 05:44 PM

Time to tell the twooth people, we can tweet now, it's a modern world, we can communicate like never b4. I see some people wanting to be forgiven.
-- Love forgives people, hate condems don't 4 git dat!
--- people talk on face book and phones and computers now 24 7
-- can show picture to someone in another country at the same time
--
Jel -- we got instant news, we make news, we sell advertising folks, the advertisers got us by the short n curly --

Big Lew

07-24-2018, 07:05 PM

First of all, I believe that all people living under Canada's social, financial, and military umbrella should
have to abide by the same laws and rules. I don't believe in a country within a country. I also believe
that the Indigenous, especially in BC, got treated as not equal in status, similar to the Chinese immigrant
workers and the Japanese that were forced from their homes and businesses without proper, if any compensation.
I have many BC history books that fortify the Indigenous claim they were pushed aside and off their traditional
living areas (notice I didn't say territories as the Indigenous have claimed far more than is factual) and given
small parcels of land (Reserves) as the flood of immigrants from around the world simply took what land they
wished with the encouragement of the new Canadian governments. The Canadian governments have given huge
amounts of money (I've heard as high as 3 trillion) in an effort to appease or quiet the Indigenous resentment and
claims of being robbed. It hasn't worked. Considering the world court's position on total reconciliation with all
Indigenous peoples that were pushed aside during colonization, the longer it goes on, the more the negotiations and
eventual signing of treaties will favour the Indigenous. Hindsight is always 20-20, but had the Canadian governments
properly included the Indigenous when they were federated, none of this would have been such an issue today.

two-feet

07-24-2018, 07:39 PM

Seems to me the logical result of all this is a bankrupt provincial govt

ellenbill

07-24-2018, 07:51 PM

Maybe the way out of this mess is to declare war, claim a win and that all Unceded lands are now ceded.Enough is Enough. They will never stop until politicians have the cajones to deal with this!

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 08:35 PM

More agreements in the works.................This one looks a lot less hopeful, its in earlier stages but no mention of continued public hunting in the area from what I see so far.
Agreements made with guides and trappers to continue hunting the areas though!

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_d.pdf

Nenqay Deni Accord (The People’s Accord (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/other-docs/nenqay_deni_accord.pdf)

Tsilhqotin Open House Brochure (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_brochure_web.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board A (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_a.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board B (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_b.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board C (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_c.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board D (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_d.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board E (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_e.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board F (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_f.pdf)
Tsilhqotin Open House Board G (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_g.pdf)

https://i.imgur.com/8INu8Dj.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/PM9rTp9.png

https://i.imgur.com/PJ3xFg3.png

https://i.imgur.com/Csh9RQF.png

https://i.imgur.com/709iXlD.png

Has any public hunting interest been approached about this agreement? anyone representing the tax paying public Canadian hunters, BCWF????

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 08:38 PM

https://i.imgur.com/Y5Ctdk5.png

whitlers

07-24-2018, 08:56 PM

Well **** that map above. Thats my moose area all the way down to Carpenter Lake? Wtf...thats an insane amount of land

wos

07-24-2018, 09:14 PM

Well **** that map above. Thats my moose area all the way down to Carpenter Lake? Wtf...thats an insane amount of land

Don't worry this is just the beginning. Sirloin is just scratching the surface!

tinhorse

07-24-2018, 09:23 PM

Well I guess region 3 will get even busier.....lol

Deadshot

07-24-2018, 09:30 PM

knothead

07-24-2018, 09:41 PM

wos

07-24-2018, 09:44 PM

HappyJack

07-24-2018, 10:05 PM

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 10:16 PM

Am I missing something here?
Territory and title land are two different things. Yes?
Aren't the shaded areas the "title" land?
If so, from what I see they're getting redesignated crown land as their own.
Private land is still just that, private!
Some of the posts are confusing.

The Title land (http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/Portals/0/PDFs/TitleOverview_Public_Aug2015.pdf) is a done deal

I'm guessing just a preview of what we will be seeing throughout areas inside the territory lands (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/4828_tsilhqotin_openhouse_board_d.pdf), which is currently being negotiated for agreement, (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/other-docs/nenqay_deni_accord.pdf) similar to the NStQ nations in the beginning of the thread, but its in earlier stages.

also tried to start the morel harvest permits this year too.
https://i.imgur.com/BhVeymu.png

http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/portals/0/Images/MushroomBrochureMap_Colour05222018.jpg

Max Ranger

07-24-2018, 10:23 PM

Sirloin

07-24-2018, 10:33 PM

If you study the map of native claimed territory, post #57 of this thread, you will notice the communities of Lillooet, Clinton, Wells and the city of Quesnel are within the boundries of this territory. I wonder what the non-native residents of these areas are thinking about these developments. Other than a couple of newspaper articles reporting native opposition to leh moose hunting in the south chillcotin area there has been next to no news coverage of this issue.
If it does come to pass, I doubt it will go over well with the locals, even the ones who don't hunt or fish.

I don't think any final agreement would include that whole solid green shaded territory but would likely piece out the land within that similar to this small piece of an agreement (https://i.imgur.com/QeE1Zwl.png). I'm assuming private land and towns will be left out of it (maybe have to pay taxes to Tsilhqot’in though? who knows)
Backcountry is gone. Public hunting, the future looks bleak.

Max Ranger

07-24-2018, 10:55 PM

And of course--No more hunting- no need to own firearms! I don't like where this is all heading. See the news coverage of the latest senseless killing in
Toronto today? In the Mayor's statement to the public he asks " why does anyone need to own a gun in this city?" My answer is-Ask the police why they need to carry guns in this city. That's why!

cpwrestler

07-25-2018, 12:16 AM

While I do share many of your concerns, I just wanted to point out that in the Yukon, this process has already happened with 11 of their 14 first nations signing final agreements in 1988. Up until now, the process hasn't been that bad. The results do create areas of land within the larger "traditional territories" that fall under Category A or Category B land classification. Each category has different rights assigned to it related to timber, mineral rights, hunting, trapping etc. For category A land, it means that non-natives must get written permission from the Band in order to hunt that land. As far as I know, virtually every request is granted. Like Sirloin said, these parcels tend to be small blocks within the much larger traditional territories.

I can't say whether or not this is how things will play out in B.C., but if things do end up like in the Yukon, it's actually a decent solution because--in theory--it puts actual rules in place thereby clarifying all of our rights. Rather than First Nations stirring up trouble with random blockades and what not, there would now be clear rules in place that--in theory--give police and governments the authority to prevent these sorts of actions.

I say "in theory" because my experience in the Yukon also shows me that recently the courts are taking some serious liberties with what were supposed to be "final" agreements. Rather than adhering to the text of the agreements, the courts have decided that the crown now has to abide by the "spirit" of the agreements. Up until now, this discussion has largely taken place around land use planning (and in particular mineral exploration) but there are clouds forming that suggest it could affect other areas like hunting.

What were supposed to be "final agreements" with clearly defined rules to govern modern First Nation-crown interaction has been corrupted by the courts who say "no, what's written on paper and signed wasn't actually all that was agreed upon" and taken it upon themselves to define what was actually meant, greatly expanding the scope of what was actually written in the "final" agreement... A dangerous precedent.

So to summarize, it's my opinion that Final Agreements have the potential to clarify and improve the relationship between native and non-native groups IF those agreements are in fact final and not open to further interpretation. Unfortunately, the courts just can't seem to be satisfied with laws written on paper by governments and are taking it upon themselves to make them up as they see fit.

Redthies

07-25-2018, 04:39 AM

It's called Class Action Lawsuit.
And BOTH governments involved are very very vulnerable under what is being proposed here.

A class action suit is a possibility (and likelihood), but there will be individual suits before it gets to the class action stage. It usually takes a number of separate suits being joined as one to form the “class”, but given the enormity of what is potentially going to be taking place, I’m sure the vultures will begin circling and enrolling stakeholders into a class very quickly after the signing of any final agreement.

I would hope BCWF would be having conversations with their counsel about forming a class in the event that this agreement is ratified. Given the generally negative sentiment towards BCWF on here, I’m sure most of you will be thinking they are not on it as of yet. For those of us that are members (through clubs or necessity), it would be a good idea to send them a message outlining our concerns. The more members that bring it up, the more likely they are to put some resources into this issue. We may not all love the BCWF, but they are by far the biggest voice we have.

browningboy

07-25-2018, 06:21 AM

Why isn’t this hitting air time?

Jelvis

07-25-2018, 06:58 AM

No on air just smoke in thee air hahaha just yokin, Smoke Signals people, let's see thru the smoke, it's no joke but we gotta go thru the haze, the maze, the craze, the blaze, b4 we see the heavy smoke in thee air folks.
Jelly - Smoke Signals -- Bo Jangles - Burton Cummings, Linda Lovelace, Betty Grable, Janice Joplin, Elvis, Fabian, Bert Reynolds, Eva Gabore, Solly Mon!

tigrr

07-25-2018, 07:24 AM

If I'd have known this was going on I would never have renovated my place.
This is going to put the chiefs income up to $400000 a year now. Being self governed. Councillors will be $300000. Do politicians even care about the people who's taxes pay for all this money they throw around. 4.2 million to the fn for signing this agreement.
This is a sad day for people of BC. You know this will turn into a shit storm.

Max Ranger

07-25-2018, 07:24 AM

Why isn’t this hitting air time?
Very good question. The potential public backlash could de-rail the whole process I guess. I remember hearing years ago that the entire province of B.C. is still un-ceded Native land. Right now the urban populations aren't concearned because they don't believe they are also vulnerable or most aren't even aware what's happening. Give it time. What we are seeing in the Cariboo District now is just the "thin edge of the wedge."

Jelvis

07-25-2018, 07:33 AM

Sirloin

07-25-2018, 07:52 AM

Very good question. The potential public backlash could de-rail the whole process I guess. I remember hearing years ago that the entire province of B.C. is still un-ceded Native land. Right now the urban populations aren't concearned because they don't believe they are also vulnerable or most aren't even aware what's happening. Give it time. What we are seeing in the Cariboo District now is just the "thin edge of the wedge."

YUP

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-parks-to-undergo-colonial-audit

The review is part of a “colonial audit” that will cover lands including Stanley Park, Spanish Banks and other beach areas around the city.

Stuart Mackinnon, the chair of the park board, said such lands had been used for thousands of years for food gathering and for settlements. And taking Stanley Park as an example, when that land was declared a park, the people who lived there were forced out.

“We have a colonial history, and that is we imposed our view on them. We have not sought the expertise or the wisdom of the First Nations people who have been here for millenia,” he said.

“In the Truth and Reconciliation process, truth-telling is the first step. And so we must go back and look at our history. From truth telling we can move on to healing and truly to reconciliation.”

The audit, approved by the board earlier this week, will document ways in which colonialism was and is embedded in park board operations, according to a staff report. The identification of meaningful next steps would be possible after the audit was complete, according to the report. No end date was set.

Mackinnon suggested one option going forward could be to co-name, re-name or use traditional place names for areas now managed by park board. But re-naming places is not enough, he said.

“The United Nations and the federal government have established that Vancouver sits on unceded territory. Unceded means it was not conquered in war, signed away in treaty or given away,” Mackinnon said. “This has serious ramifications for the city and especially the park board.”

Asked whether reconciliation could open the door to land like Stanley Park reverting to First Nations control, Mackinnon said that was “a question for governments much higher than the park board.”

The Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

B.C. should be renamed to reflect indigenous ownership
https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/british-columbia-should-be-renamed-to-reflect-indigenous-ownership-says-lawrence-paul-yuxweluptun

Yup... the far lefties love it. I believe they are using "unceded" and FN as the tip of the axe to chop at the roots of western civilization, they dont like it. Want to replace it, save the world from climate change. Can't do that under "western, cis white, patriarchal, christian, capitalist society" will never happen. Capitalism and nationalistic citizens are a threat to the world, Socialism and "global citizens" will save us all they think.

Certain branches in the Universities even started referring to Canadian citizens as "Settlers" and "Settler colonial society" "travelers"

A traveller that passes through. A home that one leaves or returns to. A haunting. Unsettled Sites is a group exhibition that slips amongst the complex entanglements of belonging and refusal from both settler and Indigenous perspectives. The works disturb the ubiquity of settler colonialism

Overview:

This seminar explores the role of culture in anti-colonial movements, with special attention to settler colonialism in Canada.

CALENDAR DESCRIPTION:
Explores diverse Indigenous perspectives on governance, resource, land and water management, intergovernmental relations and economic development in the context of contemporary settler colonialism in Canada. Skills include critical thinking, anti-colonial, economic, political and policy analyses. Students with credit for REM 407 may not take this course for further credit.

COURSE DETAILS:
This course examines a variety of Indigenous perspectives, priorities and complications with respect to governance, and resource, land and water management in British Columbia. We begin with an exploration of Indigenous worldviews, values and principles, especially as they relate to “resources,” and matters of kinship, responsibility, respect, and reciprocity. We will then seek to understand intergovernmental relations within the context of settler colonialism and neoliberal capitalism. Students will receive an introduction into the complex issues and difficult decisions faced by Indigenous peoples, including diversity and divergence of values and principles, economic and community development pressures, poverty, settler colonialism and the ongoing struggles for Indigenous self-determination.

By the end of the course students will have gained:
1. An understanding of various Indigenous perspectives on resource and environmental management issues in BC.
2. A basic understanding of Indigenous governance institutions, community priorities and complications.
3. Critical thinking skills, especially from Indigenous, anti-colonial and anti-capitalist perspectives.
4. To cultivate and nurture empathy, solidarity and allyship with Indigenous communities with respect to their struggles for self-determination and resource relationships.

Tip of the day: Whenever you hear "NeoLiberal capitalism" Chances are you are dealing with far left Marxists. When they say "critical thinking" im guessing its more like critical theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory) (a branch of marxist philosophy from the frankfurt school)

Decolonizing Teaching: An Integrated Seminar Series and Grants Program

In the last two years, the Institute for the Study of Teaching and Learning in the Disciplines (ISTLD) has received an increasing number of applications to its Teaching and Learning Development Grants program for projects that incorporate Indigenous topics, issues, perspectives or ways of knowing into SFU courses. In response to this trend and the caution from SFU’s Aboriginal community, “Nothing about us, without us”, the ISTLD announces a pilot offering of Decolonizing Teaching: An Integrated Seminar Series and Grants Program, funded by SFU's Vice-President, Academic.

Through this seminar series we hope to avoid the concerns expressed by the Aboriginal Reconciliation Council, “Decolonizing curricula and incorporating Indigenous knowledge may be difficult for non-Indigenous faculty, and well intentioned but misguided efforts may in fact cause harm” (p. 6, ARC executive summary).

Participants will:

Gain critical background knowledge related to the process of decolonizing teaching
Craft a project proposal for implementing and evaluating the changes they wish to make to their teaching
Receive feedback from fellow seminar participants and facilitators on their designs
Receive up to $6000 to support their design and evaluation work
Receive support finding research assistants to help them with their design and evaluation work
Receive on-going administrative, curricular and research support from the ISTLD team throughout the implementation of their projects

People are also pushing things like decolonizing Canada boardgames for grade school kids in the public school system "In the spirit of helping to decolonize Canada"

This is on simon fraser university website... upside down canada flag, home ON native land.

https://i.imgur.com/HA4LN7i.png

Decolonize Canada 101. unsettle Canada 101 folks.

Thank the Universities.

https://i.imgur.com/1sCJxLZ.png

Scotty76

07-25-2018, 08:16 AM

At first I thought this was a joke, or I guess wanted to believe it was. I really can’t even believe this. So if this gets finalized and finished, all the crown land in that area in the caribou is now under the control of 2,600 NStQ First Nations? They are to govern all of that land? And we need to ask for access or permission to hunt? I have quickly scanned the documents , but does someone have more info on what kind of game management they plan to implement? Or are we (tax payers) going to be footing the bill for that? Do they get a cut of the habitat trust foundation? How is this even going to work? I really feel bad for the people who are living in the caribou right now.
Keep everyone informed of anything that needs attention. Polls, GoFundMes for lawsuits , etc. I’ve already sent emails to Scott Fraser of the Provincial NDP and Carolyn from the feds.
Is there any media outlet that would do a story on this from a BC residents pint of view ?

elch jager

07-25-2018, 08:18 AM

No. we must follow our hunting regulations AND theirs it says. Who knows what theirs are or what they will change them to in the future. They would have the power to freeze us out entirely and with other bands recent claims of shutting down all LEH moose hunts in their area, i dont like those odds.

and their laws will certainly be two tiered - one set for themselves and another for non-indians.

... so we are cutting off government funding to them? They are going to be self sustaining now?

REMINGTON JIM

07-25-2018, 08:34 AM

The INDIANs are SOLELY dependant on the Whitey TAX payers MONEY GIVEN to them ! Remember THAT ! Our HERO leader JT will give them all they want ! jmo RJ

dmaxtech

07-25-2018, 11:09 AM

Not a whole lot different than South Africa and look where it has gotten them. See other thread about South Africa.

DarekG

07-25-2018, 12:18 PM

At first I thought this was a joke, or I guess wanted to believe it was.

Me too man, me too.

I really can’t even believe this. So if this gets finalized and finished, all the crown land in that area in the caribou is now under the control of 2,600 NStQ First Nations? They are to govern all of that land? And we need to ask for access or permission to hunt?

Nothing has been finalized apparently, yes this is the case. Good luck getting permission.

I have quickly scanned the documents , but does someone have more info on what kind of game management they plan to implement?

Natives are not wardens of nature, nor the protectors. Historically they have no management plan whatsoever. (If someone disagrees with this statement feel free to prove me wrong with something other than a personal attack or threat.)

Or are we (tax payers) going to be footing the bill for that? Do they get a cut of the habitat trust foundation? How is this even going to work? I really feel bad for the people who are living in the caribou right now.

FN have always been bought and paid for by the government. FN are nothing but a political chess piece for the Liberal government so they don't mind spending 20% of the federal budget on them so yes, we the tax payers are paying for this to happen.

Furthermore, past the taxes we pay to allow this to happen - We'll have to start begging for access and paying for additional permits above and beyond what is actually legal for things like mushroom picking and foraging. (I'll say right now I'll be non-compliant for permits on any foraging I feel like doing.)

Keep everyone informed of anything that needs attention. Polls, GoFundMes for lawsuits , etc. I’ve already sent emails to Scott Fraser of the Provincial NDP and Carolyn from the feds.

Great effort but the GreeNDP being in power is what is allowing these "negotiations" to actually move forward now. If you see the original document in the first post its titled 2015, the feds knew they didn't have the backing of the provincial government at that time so they waited for someone like Horgan to get in. (Like I said FN are nothing but a political chess piece for the Liberal government.)

Is there any media outlet that would do a story on this from a BC residents pint of view ?

They wouldn't dare, otherwise they'll be labelled racists and bigots.

It's a very frustrating situation because you're not even allowed to talk about talking about it without being labelled some sort of hate-monger. Social justice isn't about equality its about revenge.

guest

07-25-2018, 05:32 PM

There is a web site for all to comment to on for management of resources ....... It's posted here a couple times.

funny ....... When you bring up legitimate comments or recommendations for FN..... Eg. Total accountability of all harvested game. Total accountability of all Fish netted. When you say same rules for FN as Whitey......The posts are removed...... They will not tolerate any FN comments....... This is a Government site asking for input. Input nothing, their minds are made up already. More smoke n mirrors........ Keep on handing out more and more. Where is incentive to change, to be better, to all be one Canada or Canadians....... It won't happen with agreements like this.

IMO ...... These NDGreens and federal Liberals are the cause of more Racism....... The present problems we have
are about to get a whole lot worse with agreements like the OP has posted.

Sad times.

one LAW for ALL.

horshur

07-25-2018, 06:25 PM

It is out of your hands....all over Except the crying.

srupp

07-25-2018, 06:46 PM

It is out of your hands....all over Except the crying.

Hmm today its my home lost..maybe next us yours?
Steven

BgBlkDg

07-25-2018, 06:55 PM

The only viable solution to the indian problem is the military one.

horshur

07-25-2018, 07:33 PM

Hmm today its my home lost..maybe next us yours?
Steven
Your home is lost..really?

Deadshot

07-25-2018, 08:08 PM

Hmm today its my home lost..maybe next us yours?
Steven
How’d you lose your home?

Rotorwash

07-25-2018, 08:25 PM

This Neo Marxist thinking that is being indoctrinated by our government schools is a cancer. You can easily map out the destination. First it's strip the people of the ability to defend themselves then give away their land and then its labor camps for anyone who thinks different from the state propaganda.

We pay these peoples salary so they can think of new ways to strip our rights and give away our land.
They should be held accountable for their actions

wideopenthrottle

07-25-2018, 08:45 PM

well at least you can feel good about the fact that 3 out of 4 chiefs were women...finally had leadership capable of getting a deal done.....ill b right back with some popcorn....heheheheh...

338win mag

07-25-2018, 08:55 PM

srupp

07-25-2018, 09:05 PM

4 band's demand the complete area from Quesnel lake to the west to the Tchilcotin territory given away by supreme court.
12 more bands are on the sidelines drooling..to be given to them as their land.
210 % of BC is claimed..
My home will become worthless..would you buy a home on a reserve?hmm private property given away...bullshit
Contacted MP Todd Doherty..
Contacted Donna Barnett..meeting upcoming
Premiers office asst refuses to discuss private negotiations..province is negotiating who owns this land, the land my home is on..
I will be notified of the outcome..
The province is in secret determaining who gets this land..97% taxpayers..or 3% indians..and no I get no input..
Go to the Tchilcotin territory..there are private non natives..you must cross the new territory to get to all these homes..simple " legal " blockade..you cant get to " your " home..worthless
Srupp

Sirloin

07-25-2018, 09:06 PM

Hmm today its my home lost..maybe next us yours?
Steven

Srupp, I don't think they will have power to take anyone's home in the new NStQ treaty settlement lands or overall NStQ territory lands.
Seems so far the new treaty lands exclude currently private properties like this:
https://i.imgur.com/DvN1yIU.png

There are also sections outlining that they must not obstruct access to these private parcels of land.

It seems there is a clause that secures the FN full rights to hunt in parks and protected areas within the larger NStQ territory (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png)
So thats any parks existing now and any future parks/protected areas. Where it gets real sketchy is they will have the ability to push the government to establish new protected areas within the NStQ Terrirory and they will have major weight in how that protected area is managed (is it open to public hunting or not)
So it looks to me, in theory they could whip up a ton of new protected areas where only they have exclusive hunting/fishing rights.
With our current government being real close to the environmental activists and anti-hunters I could see that being a real possibility.
They would love to help each other out on that front.
Same goes for establishing new national parks within their claimed NStQ territory area, they could negotiate themselves more exclusive hunting rights.

338win mag

07-25-2018, 09:08 PM

Thats funny all I hear is crickets from the guiding communty.

Sirloin

07-25-2018, 09:16 PM

Sirloin

07-25-2018, 09:18 PM

Thats funny all I hear is crickets from the guiding communty.

:lol: From what I see in these docs, the guiding community has secured its rights to continue guiding within these new treaty lands and territories.....

boxhitch

07-25-2018, 09:22 PM

guiding and trapping tenures can continue as per provincial laws

338win mag

07-25-2018, 09:26 PM

[QUOTE=boxhitch;2022290]guiding and trapping tenures can continue as per provincial laws

throughout the document it refers to[/QUOTE
You dont say, really?

boxhitch

07-25-2018, 09:30 PM

throughout the document references are made like

"Subject to paragraph ##.#.#., NStQ Law ............... will prevail to the extent of a Conflict with Federal or Provincial Law."
then
"Federal or Provincial Law ............ will prevail to the extent of a Conflict with NStQ Law."

Looks like there will be two sets of rules but one superseding the other

ACE

07-25-2018, 09:52 PM

boxhitch

07-25-2018, 10:41 PM

Not much in the press
jan 2017 http://nstqtreaty.ca/in-the-news-post/the-honorable-minister-of-indigenous-and-northern-affairs-carolyn-bennett-meets-with-nstq-chiefs-at-northern-shuswap-tribal-council-in-williams-lake/

"Minister Bennett, Deputy Minister Joe Wild, and their Indigenous and Northern Affairs staff left the meeting with a clearer understanding
of the current issues facing the NStQ and a directive to improve and help streamline the Federal Governments’ involvement at the NStQ treaty table.
Minister Bennett underlined her complete, unwavering support and commitment to the tripartite treaty process, one which will result in an NStQ Treaty
that Northern Shuswap First Nation membership will be proud of. Along with Canada, the tripartite process includes the Province of British Columbia
and the NStQ Nations as the three parties negotiating an NStQ Treaty."

boxhitch

07-25-2018, 10:44 PM

2018-07-23
https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/news?newsid=7339 (https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/news?newsid=7339)

"The NStQ Agreement-in-Principle lays out the elements of treaty for the four communities, including ownership of land and resources,
harvesting rights, processes for transition from the Indian Act to self-government, and social services."

Walking Buffalo

07-26-2018, 08:42 AM

Very disturbing and sad to see 'Beautiful British Columbia' parceled out into multiple kingdoms according to race.
The treacherous judges/politicians that are responsible for this .........
This province will never heal and move ahead ....
Never thought I'd see the end of BC.
Sad indeed ...

I first learned of this future B.C. back in school, 1989....
I distinctly recall sitting in class, stunned, stunned by the realization that B.C. is doomed.

This repatriation of land was obvious to a 19 year old that was focused on fishing hunting and girls.

How could the situation be ignored by the people of B.C. for over a hundred years?

These results are the fault of B.C. citizens and the governments they elected, that ignored the problem year after year for generations.

Iron Glove

07-26-2018, 10:15 AM

I first learned of this future B.C. back in school, 1989....
I distinctly recall sitting in class, stunned, stunned by the realization that B.C. is doomed.

This repatriation of land was obvious to a 19 year old that was focused on fishing hunting and girls.

How could the situation be ignored by the people of B.C. for over a hundred years?

These results are the fault of B.C. citizens and the governments they elected, that ignored the problem year after year for generations.

We learned about it way before that.
Yes, if fingers are to be pointed it should be at previous Federal and Provincial Govt's who failed to take action in negotiating treaties decades, if not centuries ago.
Most of Canada, the main exception being BC negotiated treaties ages ago.

j270wsm

07-26-2018, 10:26 AM

It's a new generation folks, the young people teenagers up to the eldest -- have changed the way things are done, from the 60's to the 2018 we got high tech and the cell phones, cut, paste, and still got human haste, in a hurry, like a flurry of Whisky Jacks being hairy assed by a Raven for mis bee haven and steelin the chunk of meat under his feet.
Jel -- we gotta stand our ground -- S. tand Y. our G.round -- SYG -- on your own two feet as they hit the Tranquille street -- The Rockumeet

I strongly disagree with this comment!! Some of the natives want a better life and have pursued higher education and employment and I respect them for their hard work. The rest just want their monthly hand out.

Jelvis

07-26-2018, 10:31 AM

I want it all and I want it now! I'm old, wait any longer on these stall tactics of the whites, the scots, the french, the brits thee Irish keep stalling and now it's face to face on face book. I want some luck like zee Irish,
Jel -- Let's get this done folks -- then we can move on into the twilight -- Like Bob Segar -- well firm and high -- out in the back street in my 60 Chevy
----Werkin on the night moves, Summer time whooo ew -- back rooms allies dusty woods -- Kammy Land -- When yah got Nuttin yah got Nuttin to lose! Nuttin Honey!
--I got dick folks, I got dick all to lose!

srupp

07-26-2018, 02:01 PM

Hmm 3% are indians..97% are not..get those numbers in perspective.
If the feds province want to give some $..from the Syrian refugee claims..ok..but 210 % of BC is currently claimed by various factions who once went to war with each other..where are the 97 % second nation taxpayers supposed to live.by dismantling BC into small rezervs..you DESTROY BC.Absolute bullshit?.sorry Jello your 1 person amongst that 3%..lol I represent even a smaller percentage amongst the 97% taxpayers
I do NOT trust any government..native or otherwise..to do any final giving away of BC based on racist demands.to split up the povince for different bands to fight once more who now gets what...

I have already spoke with IRR, mp todd doherty office. .meeting with Donna Barnett 31st...
Global news is next.not going to lay down and let anyone walk on me IF I can help it.
Srupp

Jelvis

07-26-2018, 02:13 PM

srupp I dig your pride and ego and wisdom, your upset because of the numbers, and you do NOT trust any government.
-- one thing as a concerned member I wood think about going on Global News - Just concerned for your well being and safety -
- Your young handsome brawny face wood be splashed all over BC I ain't telling you what to do, just suggesting something to think about.
Jel - it wood be you against the entire Indian population -- at Willy's Pond? -- I woody consider that unless you can get your nay bors to go on too with you, then not so bad.
------Willy Alphonse Jr. is one of my heroes, he is a legend already in my heart, look up Willy Alphonse Jr. and see a man who stands his ground --

srupp

07-26-2018, 02:30 PM

Hmm Sage advice..however alresdy had my life threatened by natives last week..thats so 7days old.
I just think 1/2 dont realize how final giving the land away to 3%..or what it would mean to them.
I believe you are entitled to 100% EVERYTHING I have..clean water, medical, dental, but also the same responsibilities to work together to make society work for every one.
Cheers
Ruppster

Jelvis

07-26-2018, 02:35 PM

Oh oh hey srupp always HBC to help you - we are watching and are concerned.
Jelly --

338win mag

07-26-2018, 03:16 PM

Going to global news is a good way to inform an uninformed populace who have a dog in the fight, everybody in this province should be made aware, it will most definitely be occurring in other area's of the province.

Whiterock

07-26-2018, 03:54 PM

Should go to all the media outlets,,it would be interesting to see who posts the story.

horshur

07-26-2018, 05:18 PM

do a search of Westbank band...houses on band land are not low priced...there is change coming..no one knows exactly how it will play out..best to keep your head. I heard Stolo nation brokered a deal with Trump. A new Trump Tower will be built along with an extensive waterfront community in Stanley Park...starting 2020.

elknut

07-26-2018, 05:27 PM

It came out today in the 100 Mile Free Press...Not as complete as Sirloin"s post but acknowleding 25 years to get to this agreement in principle..At coffee today was talking to a very informed person and they said that the new govt of the natives would still be bound by Federal law first then Provincial law and then the CRD..All deeded land is off the table for the natives ..The final agreement still has to be negotiated and could take ......Well who knows ...The agreement in principle took 25 years ...I'm not saying I agree with any of this ...The real bearer of the cost should be by the British Crown that took the land from the Natives...I think I will not loose too much sleep just yet as I could be 6 feet under by the time this agreement is finalized...Canada needs a Trump to tell the United Nations where to go and get back to some common sense regarding Native Land Claims and Rights...Will this ever happen .....Probably not but I hope it doesn"t tear Canada apart and start a revolution ...People are blind to whats happening and the ramifications coming down the pipe....Scary days ahead ....Hope my kids and grandkids have a future....Dennis

elknut

07-26-2018, 05:32 PM

Oh and the ranchers really have a dilemma .....An aweful lot of their land is leases and grazing rights...Not deeded..They are in for a real sh&t kicking..Dennis

Ohwildwon

07-26-2018, 05:39 PM

Would this qualify as BCWF's response to this?

http://www.bcwf.net/images/M_images/2018-July/LtrToMinisters.pdf

j270wsm

07-27-2018, 09:12 AM

338win mag

07-27-2018, 09:20 AM

tigrr

07-27-2018, 11:08 AM

3% of the population will own BC. Greed knows no bounds.
I am in the affected area. I can't believe how this has slid through below the radar. No news outlets are warning people this is happening. The green party is just loving this I bet.
I want an election soon. Stop this nonsense.

Rob Chipman

07-27-2018, 11:08 AM

"The letter fails to address that crown land will now become private and access will be limited when it comes to hunting and fishing. I feel that this is where the government must state that the general public must be allowed access to hunt fish."

Private property is private property. You can't make a settlement that gives FNS title to land and then say that they don't have the actual rights to that land that other private property holders have.

I'm not saying I don't understand your frustration, but the government is making deals with FNs. This isn't new. The FNs are getting land. It's a pretty big ask to demand that BCWF make the government and the FNs change their understanding of private property.

I think it would be fair for BCWF to demand that access to non-private property not be unreasonably restricted by FNs who happen to have public roads going through their private property.

bearvalley

07-27-2018, 11:52 AM

I'm not saying I don't understand your frustration, but the government is making deals with FNs. This isn't new. The FNs are getting land. It's a pretty big ask to demand that BCWF make the government and the FNs change their understanding of private property

Endorsing Weaver and his “right to roam” act should get the problem delt with.
“No more privatization of BC land”........

Sirloin

07-27-2018, 11:55 AM

The letter fails to address that crown land will now become private and access will be limited when it comes to hunting and fishing. I feel that this is where the government must state that the general public must be allowed access to hunt fish.

By leaving the " right to access " in the controll of the natives it gives the governemt the ability to wash their hands of the issue.

It appears to be more complicated than this. SOME land will become private. There is a lot of complication with this particular NStQ treaty agreement it creates multiple sets of different land classifications and different laws for each. Then within that there are times when provincial or federal law trumps NStQ law and other times when NStQ law trumps prov/fed law....as well as areas where the NStQ can create new laws.

It looks like new land classifications would be (and there could be more i've missed):

-the overall NStQ territory (the largest collection of land) (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png) (What new authority will they have in this largest piece of land?)

-NStQ treaty settlement lands (I don't think these are finalized)

-NStQ Private lands (these are not even listed in the current version of the treaty from what I see)

-NStQ public lands ( NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands that are NOT NStQPrivate Lands) The only references to "NStQ public lands" Throughout the entire treaty seems to come up only when referring to access for hunting/fishing/recreation and hunting guides access. Which makes me very suspicious what loopholes can be exploited here after the final agreement. Also it mentions we would have to follow provincial/fed/ AND NStQ laws while hunting on "NStQ public lands" (i'm not sure what those laws are or what can be created by them in the future after the agreement is finalized) The treaty also fails to address public hunting/fishing access for the larger NStQ territory entirely, or if we would be required to follow NStQ hunting laws in the larger territory or what authority they could have to control wildlife management/access in the territory.

-Cultural Sites this one puts up a big red flag for me. A loophole very possible to exploit and keep the public out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.1 - On the Effective Date, or as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, British Columbia will commence the provincial designation process under
the Heritage Conservation Act for sites of cultural or historic significance
set out in Appendix M of the Final Agreement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they state these sites will be determined AFTER the agreement, and Appendix M (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/nstq_aip_appendices.pdf) is left blank right now.
And they could be established anywhere in the ENTIRE TERRITORY (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.3
NStQ and British Columbia will explore ways to provide for themeaningful participation of NStQ in the identification, conservation,
interpretation, presentation, management and protection of Cultural Sites
that are:

a. of significance to NStQ;
b. outside NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; and
c. within the NStQ Territory (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.0 - LAW-MAKING AUTHORITY6.4.1 - NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. the prevention of harvesting or extracting resources owned by NStQ;
and
b. the protection of NStQ Cultural Sites."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and a big one here...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.2 NStQ Law under paragraph 6.4.1 will prevail to the extent of a Conflictwith Federal or Provincial Law."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What IS a "cultural site"? the definition listed in the treaty:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“NStQ Cultural Sites” means sites of archaeological, historical, cultural or
ceremonial significance and burial sites including individual graves;"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"historical" "cultural" and "ceremonial significance" seems like a very open ended definition and could(and have been) bent a long ways to suit their desires i'm assuming. After all, wasn't pit-lamping with high powered lights on ATV's in the middle of the night (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b-c-first-nation-can-hunt-at-night-supreme-court-1.618478) deemed legal and "traditional" hunting method for FN?

(From my assumptions) in theory they could claim an area is of historical significance (traditional, historical hunting lands, the best spots) claim it as a "cultural site" and then have authority to create laws around public access and establish exclusive FN only access rights. Also, when in a conflict with provincial/fed law, their NStQ access/management laws would prevail...

Be very very careful with this portion of treaty above me thinks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.3 NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. purposes of public safety;
b. the prevention of nuisance or damage, including forest fire
prevention; and
c. the protection of sensitive habitat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.2 Public access under paragraph 6.3.1 will not include:

a. harvesting or extracting resources unless authorized by NStQ or in
accordance with the Final Agreement;
b. causing damage to NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands or resources on
NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; or
c. causing nuisance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So most all alpine zones and riparian zones could be considered "sensitive habitat" could they make public access laws based on that?
Which types of sensitive habitat are included within the NStQ treaty lands?

also the term "nuisance" is a very open ended term and it is entirely left undefined in the definitions section of this treaty. Regularly defined as "causing inconvenience or annoyance" How far can this one be stretched?

Then there are the sections that give them full hunting rights within provincially protected areas that are established now, and any in the future. While at the same time giving them the ability to push the government to create new protected areas where they will have weight to push around on the new management of these protected areas (allow public hunting or not) and could create exclusive FN only hunting rights in these protected areas. Also the treaty gives them weight to negotiate for themselves exclusive hunting rights to any national parks within NStQ territory existing before the final agreement, and any established after the agreement. Another path to exclusive FN hunting access, the anti's/ GreenDP government with anti-hunters/environmental activists at their side would love to exploit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.2.1 NStQ may make proposals to British Columbia from time to time to
establish a Provincial Protected Area within the NStQ Territory, and such
proposals will be reviewed by British Columbia, following which British
Columbia and NStQ will meet to discuss the proposals.

27.2.5 British Columbia and NStQ may negotiate an agreement consistent with
the Final Agreement and legislation establishing Provincial Protected
Areas within the NStQ Territory that may address the following:
a. park planning;
b. management and operations;
c. economic opportunities; and
d. other matters agreed to by British Columbia and NStQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.1.1 Subject to any agreement under paragraph 27.2.5 and measures for
conservation, public health and public safety, NStQ Citizens may access
any Provincial Protected Area wholly or partially within the NStQ Territory and exercise harvesting, fishing and gathering rights under the Final Agreement without any fees except those fees that are charged for visitor facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.4.2 If, after the Effective Date, any National Park is established wholly or
partly within the NStQ Territory, NStQ and Canada will negotiate and
attempt to reach agreement in respect of the exercise of NStQ harvesting rights by NStQ Citizens in that National Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sirloin

07-27-2018, 12:10 PM

One wonders what the future of public land access would look like in BC when we already have this before anything is even in place

https://i.imgur.com/dta7OuZ.png

boxhitch

07-27-2018, 12:21 PM

do a search of Westbank band...houses on band land are not low priced...there is change coming..no one knows exactly how it will play out..best to keep your head. Not apples vs apples
In WBFN houses are one indigen lands and pay taxes to the band, values are a bubble due to demand and naivity . Ask the home owners that have been evicted without compensation.

Srupps property would still be his by BC title, but surrounded by treaty lands on all sides with non-BC laws, in an area that will likely loose market interest = priceless

boxhitch

07-27-2018, 12:28 PM

..........I think it would be fair for BCWF to demand that access to non-private property not be unreasonably restricted by FNs who happen to have public roads going through their private property.
That would already be covered under BC law if it is a public road. There will be public BC roads as well as out-of-province Non-BC roads

DarekG

07-27-2018, 12:49 PM

That would already be covered under BC law if it is a public road. There will be public BC roads as well as out-of-province Non-BC roads

Well they are already in the habit of blockading roads they have no right to and the RCMP doesn't seem to care, this just gives them more leniency to do stupid shit.

Scotty76

07-27-2018, 12:54 PM

It appears to be more complicated than this. SOME land will become private. There is a lot of complication with this particular NStQ treaty agreement it creates multiple sets of different land classifications and different laws for each. Then within that there are times when provincial or federal law trumps NStQ law and other times when NStQ law trumps prov/fed law....as well as areas where the NStQ can create new laws.

It looks like new land classifications would be (and there could be more i've missed):

-the overall NStQ territory (the largest collection of land) (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png) (What new authority will they have in this largest piece of land?)

-NStQ treaty settlement lands (I don't think these are finalized)

-NStQ Private lands (these are not even listed in the current version of the treaty from what I see)

-NStQ public lands ( NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands that are NOT NStQPrivate Lands) The only references to "NStQ public lands" Throughout the entire treaty seems to come up only when referring to access for hunting/fishing/recreation and hunting guides access. Which makes me very suspicious what loopholes can be exploited here after the final agreement. Also it mentions we would have to follow provincial/fed/ AND NStQ laws while hunting on "NStQ public lands" (i'm not sure what those laws are or what can be created by them in the future after the agreement is finalized) The treaty also fails to address public hunting/fishing access for the larger NStQ territory entirely, or if we would be required to follow NStQ hunting laws in the larger territory or what authority they could have to control wildlife management/access in the territory.

-Cultural Sites this one puts up a big red flag for me. A loophole very possible to exploit and keep the public out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.1 - On the Effective Date, or as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, British Columbia will commence the provincial designation process under
the Heritage Conservation Act for sites of cultural or historic significance
set out in Appendix M of the Final Agreement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they state these sites will be determined AFTER the agreement, and Appendix M (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/nstq_aip_appendices.pdf) is left blank right now.
And they could be established anywhere in the ENTIRE TERRITORY (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.3
NStQ and British Columbia will explore ways to provide for themeaningful participation of NStQ in the identification, conservation,
interpretation, presentation, management and protection of Cultural Sites
that are:

a. of significance to NStQ;
b. outside NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; and
c. within the NStQ Territory (https://i.imgur.com/Ih39ddP.png)"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.0 - LAW-MAKING AUTHORITY6.4.1 - NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. the prevention of harvesting or extracting resources owned by NStQ;
and
b. the protection of NStQ Cultural Sites."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and a big one here...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.2 NStQ Law under paragraph 6.4.1 will prevail to the extent of a Conflictwith Federal or Provincial Law."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What IS a "cultural site"? the definition listed in the treaty:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“NStQ Cultural Sites” means sites of archaeological, historical, cultural or
ceremonial significance and burial sites including individual graves;"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"historical" "cultural" and "ceremonial significance" seems like a very open ended definition and could(and have been) bent a long ways to suit their desires i'm assuming. After all, wasn't pit-lamping with high powered lights on ATV's in the middle of the night (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b-c-first-nation-can-hunt-at-night-supreme-court-1.618478) deemed legal and "traditional" hunting method for FN?

(From my assumptions) in theory they could claim an area is of historical significance (traditional, historical hunting lands, the best spots) claim it as a "cultural site" and then have authority to create laws around public access and establish exclusive FN only access rights. Also, when in a conflict with provincial/fed law, their NStQ access/management laws would prevail...

Be very very careful with this portion of treaty above me thinks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.3 NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. purposes of public safety;
b. the prevention of nuisance or damage, including forest fire
prevention; and
c. the protection of sensitive habitat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.2 Public access under paragraph 6.3.1 will not include:

a. harvesting or extracting resources unless authorized by NStQ or in
accordance with the Final Agreement;
b. causing damage to NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands or resources on
NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; or
c. causing nuisance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So most all alpine zones and riparian zones could be considered "sensitive habitat" could they make public access laws based on that?
Which types of sensitive habitat are included within the NStQ treaty lands?

also the term "nuisance" is a very open ended term and it is entirely left undefined in the definitions section of this treaty. Regularly defined as "causing inconvenience or annoyance" How far can this one be stretched?

Then there are the sections that give them full hunting rights within provincially protected areas that are established now, and any in the future. While at the same time giving them the ability to push the government to create new protected areas where they will have weight to push around on the new management of these protected areas (allow public hunting or not) and could create exclusive FN only hunting rights in these protected areas. Also the treaty gives them weight to negotiate for themselves exclusive hunting rights to any national parks within NStQ territory existing before the final agreement, and any established after the agreement. Another path to exclusive FN hunting access, the anti's/ GreenDP government with anti-hunters/environmental activists at their side would love to exploit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.2.1 NStQ may make proposals to British Columbia from time to time to
establish a Provincial Protected Area within the NStQ Territory, and such
proposals will be reviewed by British Columbia, following which British
Columbia and NStQ will meet to discuss the proposals.

27.2.5 British Columbia and NStQ may negotiate an agreement consistent with
the Final Agreement and legislation establishing Provincial Protected
Areas within the NStQ Territory that may address the following:
a. park planning;
b. management and operations;
c. economic opportunities; and
d. other matters agreed to by British Columbia and NStQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.1.1 Subject to any agreement under paragraph 27.2.5 and measures for
conservation, public health and public safety, NStQ Citizens may access
any Provincial Protected Area wholly or partially within the NStQ Territory and exercise harvesting, fishing and gathering rights under the Final Agreement without any fees except those fees that are charged for visitor facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.4.2 If, after the Effective Date, any National Park is established wholly or
partly within the NStQ Territory, NStQ and Canada will negotiate and
attempt to reach agreement in respect of the exercise of NStQ harvesting rights by NStQ Citizens in that National Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the breakdown, I’m going to copy this and use this and do whatever I can do get attention to it. I’m sure your ok with that?

time is now to make some noise. Even if it doesn’t do much. Gotta try.

Sirloin

07-27-2018, 01:26 PM

Thanks for the breakdown, I’m going to copy this and use this and do whatever I can do get attention to it. I’m sure your ok with that?

time is now to make some noise. Even if it doesn’t do much. Gotta try.

Go for it, keep in mind i'm no expert and just looking at the possible ramifications for us with these treaties best I can.
We really need a proper lawyer+someone who really knows hunting regs to help understand where this will really leave us. Given some of the blockades that were teamed up with anti hunting groups, fisheries, grizzly ban on non-FN only, new motor vehicle bans fon non-FN only, morel picking permitting, claimed moose LEH ban, ect.. the direction the compass is pointing in is not good for us.

Bugle M In

07-27-2018, 02:14 PM

Yup...we resident hunters who are not "indigenous, or should I say FN" do really need some lawyers, who are themselves hunters, who do understand the ramifications of this down the road.
Someone who make a difference, for all, and leave a "legacy" behind them for that work, that will never be forgotten and
best, benefit everyone...equally, not just status based on race.
It's not about the past, it's about what "tomorrow will hold", for everyone.

Jelvis

07-27-2018, 05:31 PM

That's a problem also, living in the past or the future, we must live in the present and deal with each other now! Get this done!
Jelly Brainz

ACE

07-27-2018, 05:42 PM

That's a problem also, living in the past or the future, we must live in the present and deal with each other now! Get this done!
Jelly Brainz

Jelvis ..... are you in favour of 'race based' law in British Columbia ?
Please explain if you have a moment ....
Thanks,
ACE

Jelvis

07-27-2018, 05:53 PM

Not sure what race based is, I lived in BC and voted each election for the person I liked rather than who they ran for kinda?
-- I liked Christy Clark and still do, but she got tricked out.
Dave Barrett was ndp and I loved the guy
-- everyone has their day
To be honest I believe a Higher Power has the last say
Jel -- as far as this voting among Indians for this different thing, I know nothing about it so ain't voting, IF it ain't broke don't try to fix it.
But there's always new people, younger generation, who take over, and that is what's happening now, young Popular Prime Minister and young women Chiefs.
-- new ideas and ways of doing things -- advancing in the world -- Justin makes Donny look his age, justeen's got the looks --

j270wsm

07-27-2018, 06:02 PM

rob chipman

thia is the issue I was trying to make about the new private land and the issues around access for hunting and fishing.
NStQ public lands ( NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands that are NOT NStQPrivate Lands) The only references to "NStQ public lands" Throughout the entire treaty seems to come up only when referring to access for hunting/fishing/recreation and hunting guides access. Which makes me very suspicious what loopholes can be exploited here after the final agreement. Also it mentions we would have to follow provincial/fed/ AND NStQ laws while hunting on "NStQ public lands" (i'm not sure what those laws are or what can be created by them in the future after the agreement is finalized) The treaty also fails to address public hunting/fishing access for the larger NStQ territory entirely, or if we would be required to follow NStQ hunting laws in the larger territory or what authority they could have to control wildlife management/access in the territory.

HappyJack

07-27-2018, 08:38 PM

Jack Russell

07-27-2018, 09:02 PM

northernguy

07-27-2018, 09:21 PM

Just a guess, but this is what is sounds like to me:

NStQ public lands....are like Crown land, you could have access unless there is a law stating otherwise. like the current grazing leases with cows on them, or moose viewing areas

NStQ private lands....are like the farmers hay field

The difference being that we get to vote for the folks who make the laws regarding crown land. We won't with the NStQ public lands and we will be subject to laws made by those for whom we did not vote.

I suppose it's no different that being subject to a city by-law when you are not a citizen of that city...except now we're now talking about it at the provincial level. Is the Federal Level next?

Seems like a slippery slope to division...

Weatherby Fan

07-27-2018, 10:21 PM

Trudeau is laughing his ass off right now smoking a big fatty

Yup look at those dumb BCers, we’ll keep that Province in turmoil till the end of time !!!!

REMINGTON JIM

07-27-2018, 10:28 PM

ACE

07-27-2018, 10:34 PM

LOVED Dave Barrett ! :roll: now i know for sure you are completely CRAZY ! :lol: RJ

He didn't answer the question either ..... :-|:-|

Pemby_mess

07-27-2018, 11:34 PM

The difference being that we get to vote for the folks who make the laws regarding crown land. We won't with the NStQ public lands and we will be subject to laws made by those for whom we did not vote.

I suppose it's no different that being subject to a city by-law when you are not a citizen of that city...except now we're now talking about it at the provincial level. Is the Federal Level next?

Seems like a slippery slope to division...

You don't get to vote on any large land holder's internal policies unless you have an ownership stake/management role. Not sure why this would be, or even should be any different. If you were to hunt on their land, you'd be subject to their rules, that of the the province, and the fed's. Again, not understanding why this should be any different?

The position of the FN, is that the crown land was never "ours" to begin with. So from their perspective, they're not really taking anything away from you, but just having what was rightfully theirs all along, restored.

Pemby_mess

07-27-2018, 11:50 PM

Private property is private property. You can't make a settlement that gives FNS title to land and then say that they don't have the actual rights to that land that other private property holders have. .

Really? I get a bit frustrated with this "private is private" mindset. There are all sorts of rights that don't go a long with simple property ownership. Fish and wildlife is one that I can think of. As a land owner, I don't have any rights to the fish and game on my parcel without explicit permission. That aspect is regulated by the provincial crown. Technically, I can't build anything without a permit, use any water that lies on it's surface, extract minerals from it. Traditional property ownership excludes all kinds of specified uses, subject to zoning too.

I think there are creative options in a large settlement. I'm no lawyer, but what about a management trust with the Crown as trustee; FN as beneficiary? Or a third party as trustee and the crown/FN as 50/50 beneficiaries?

Or something similar......

Goose

07-28-2018, 05:08 AM

Can we not just all "identify" as FN now.....everything seems so fluid and accepted these days. Then we're back to hunting and fishing as we should be.

Ourea

07-28-2018, 07:54 AM

PIB alleges fraud, dishonesty (https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/232537/PIB-alleges-fraud-dishonesty)Colin Dacre (https://www.castanet.net/reporter/Colin-Dacre) - Jul 27, 2018 / 5:22 pm | Story: 232537
https://www.castanet.net/content/2018/7/screen_shot_2018-06-25_at_2.08.57_pm_p3320155_p3327750.jpgPhoto: Colin Dacre
PIB Chief Chad Eneas

The Penticton Indian Band has fired back against its former chief administrative officer with a countersuit in response to a wrongful dismissal lawsuit filed against it last month. (https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/229756/former-band-exec-sues-pib)Brent Ryan-Lewis filed a breach of contract claim on June 21, alleging the PIB dismissed him unjustly after he raised concerns about Chief and Council’s financial management of the First Nation. He claimed he was fired for “whistleblowing” about the PIB’s finances, but the First Nation is telling a very different story in court.In a response to the civil claim and accompanied countersuit, the PIB states it fired Ryan-Lewis for “fraud and dishonesty.”The countersuit alleges Ryan-Lewis went behind the back of Chief Chad Eneas and the band’s chief financial officer in March 2018, and presented band council with a new budget and pay grid that included a substantial raise for himself and retroactive pay worth $17,000.The countersuit claims Ryan-Lewis specifically misled councillors that there was the funds to pay for the new pay grid and that the CFO had signed off on the plan. Council took him at his word and approved the budget.“As a result, the plaintiff received a marked and substantial increase in his salary,” the PIB claims. “Because there was insufficient funds in the budget for staff salary increases, the plaintiff's salary was paid from funds that would have benefited the PIB membership.”The PIB says it moved to terminate Ryan-Lewis when it learned of his “dishonesty.” The First Nation’s chief financial officer also resigned due to the ordeal. The counterclaim seeks to claw back the inflated salary the CAO allegedly awarded himself.Neither the PIB's or Ryan-Lewis's version of events have been proven in court. The CAO's firing prompted protest (https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/225883/pib-political-turmoil-persists) from a group that has opposed Chief Chad Eneas from the early days of his term.In a news release Friday, the PIB blamed the “top-down” system imposed by the federal government on the band over the past 30-plus years — stating the amount of power put in the hands of one person, like the band administrator, “is not sustainable and makes transparency and information sharing very challenging.”The First Nation says it is working to build a new management structure that shifts responsibility away from a single position.“To be truly transparent, we have to encourage and engage all of our staff and departments, empowering and supporting professional development across our resource pool,” said interim CAO Jonathan Baynes. “As an inclusive community, our administrative structure should reflect the values and culture, rather than adopting an imposed model.”With that, the PIB says it has hired a new permanent CAO and CFO.PIB member Joe Johnson is the First Nation’s new chief administrative officer. He returns to his reserve after serving as director of operations for the Bonaparte Indian Band near Cache Creek.Brian Conner is the new chief financial officer. He’s been the Westbank First Nation’s director of finance since 2006.“Having these positions filled by experienced professionals with the understanding of our history, both culturally and politically, will serve us well. Both of these people have a proven track record of transparency and community connection which we had been missing,” Chief Chad Eneas said in a statement.

338win mag

07-28-2018, 09:04 AM

Really? I get a bit frustrated with this "private is private" mindset. There are all sorts of rights that don't go a long with simple property ownership. Fish and wildlife is one that I can think of. As a land owner, I don't have any rights to the fish and game on my parcel without explicit permission. That aspect is regulated by the provincial crown. Technically, I can't build anything without a permit, use any water that lies on it's surface, extract minerals from it. Traditional property ownership excludes all kinds of specified uses, subject to zoning too.

I think there are creative options in a large settlement. I'm no lawyer, but what about a management trust with the Crown as trustee; FN as beneficiary? Or a third party as trustee and the crown/FN as 50/50 beneficiaries?

Or something similar......

As it stands now, as a private property owner you can tell someone to get off, no hunting on my property, as it should be.
FN want to hunt on private land now regardless of the new agreement.
We aren't talking a few thousand acres here, a few thousand there, like private land as we know it today, its a massive area that may indeed involve most of the province.
What about this scenario playing out....May I hunt Moose and deer here?.....no.

Max Ranger

07-28-2018, 10:31 AM

Pemby_mess

07-28-2018, 11:06 AM

As it stands now, as a private property owner you can tell someone to get off, no hunting on my property, as it should be.
FN want to hunt on private land now regardless of the new agreement.

The point I was trying to make is; There isn't really any universal set of rights that ownership of real property gives someone. My comment about that was in regard to Rob C's suggestion that the Crown is unable to work out a title class allowing for ongoing legal access by the public for a specified purpose, due to the "actual rights" held by "other property owners". All kinds of caveats and right restrictions can be attached to a title - as it stands now. There are all kinds of ownership structures that are regularly employed now, that can act as useful frameworks for mutually beneficial negotiations between the FN and The crown as well.

What makes title ownership valuable? The ability to kick someone off the land whenever you feel like it?

Maybe for some, but then you would ensure that the particular title you seek, explicitly makes that ability clear. For others it could just be that they have an interest in the land's productive capacity, and they don't much care if there is a "Crown recreation easement" over it. I just made that up- but maybe you get my point.

We aren't talking a few thousand acres here, a few thousand there, like private land as we know it today, its a massive area that may indeed involve most of the province.

This is actually relevant to an other exchange of ours: immigration. Let's extrapolate out 25 years; do you regularly do any work with exponent functions? There won't be any crown land. Whether it's owned by the FN or the Chinese, matters not; at least here we have a chance to be part of the conversation that determines our destiny.

What about this scenario playing out....May I hunt Moose and deer here?.....no.

It's interesting how minds start to change regarding public interest in the land, when the concept of Crown ownership is taken out of the context. I remember all sorts of hooey being passed around when "the right to roam" legislation was being discussed. Now it sounds like hunters are going to change their minds when they lose what they saw was good for them.

Anyways, the FN negotiate under the overriding vision of "two wampum rows". If the government understands that, it will work out an arrangement that keeps both parties as beneficial stakeholders and management partners.

Jelvis

07-28-2018, 11:10 AM

- > The main thing as a hunter in BC is to remember, And be very proud of, how generous the GOS season is for mule deer and blacktail deer and the elusive whitetail. Long seasons with top quality beyond world class deer hunting. The true deer hunter comes out of a hunter in long seasons -- blessed to roam with the rifle and not stifled.
-- Sept 1 to Dec 10 has got to be the most generous season going, and with the world renowned hunting it provides into the snow for tracking is increddy bubble!
-- From the Islands to the Southern Interior and beyond.
This is where I see BC has got balls, and if this wonderful season, can be maintained, if the BC government let's it, only then, otherwise kiss this blessing bye bye also.
--------------BC Government will determine how long your season is. not the Status Indian, If you enjoy long seasons -- stand up and be counted -- stand yer ground!
Jello Hello -- alberta has one month for all deer --

Ohwildwon

07-28-2018, 11:47 AM

Pemby_mess

07-28-2018, 12:15 PM

Uhm, just thinking out loud here...

Could we, (citizens of BC), open up a class action law suit against provincial- federal government.

Tie this up in court till hell freeze's over?

Set up a go fund me page etc?

I'm probably way off base here...

Think that through a bit - Sue who for what? Sue ourselves? What are the damages we're seeking compensation for?

Prolonging this quagmire is that last thing BC residents should be wanting to do. Think of all the investment the current state of things is tying up. Legal strategy generally dictates that want to avoid judges and juries whenever possible. Arbitration is the answer, as swiftly as possible.

tigrr

07-28-2018, 03:08 PM

I hope it takes another 20 years to work out the details.
I'm selling in 2.

northernguy

07-28-2018, 04:17 PM

I would like to thank Sirloin for starting this thread and giving this issue some public exposure. I have been talking to people about this all week and most weren't aware it is happening. As a resident of 5-13 this situation is very concerning to me, my friends and neighbors. The worst thing right now is that it's all clouded with uncertainty. We can all speculate about the implications and how it will affect our rights and freedom to continue to go and do what most of us have been doing all our lives. As hunting season draws closer, I think the B.C. Government owes us some clarification about what's going on here--who is actually running this show! If people start spending valuable time and money going out to exercise their legal hunting rights, only to encounter road blocks and other obstructions intended to discourage legal hunting, it will only lead to kayos and blow the lid off the whole situation.
Respectfully, Max Ranger.

Uncertainty is an undesirable state in an effective democracy. Lets hope that our "leaders" understand that their role is to lead. Lead; as defined as "exercising the art and science of affecting human behaviour in order too accomplish a mission in the manner so desired by the leader (Canadian Forces definition)".

My fear is that the "leaders" both FN and Non-FN, have no idea that the "mission" is to establish a society where we all work together for common goals. Each have their own, self serving "mission statement" and until it becomes unified...we're screwed.

Jelvis

07-28-2018, 04:43 PM

As a quarter-breed, noted by many for years, I got identified as an Indian under the final count, by %, but now it's changed, If you or someone you know says, " I got Indian blood in me from so and so or my heritage has First Nation!-- check on line, new regulations, if you have a parent with " Native, First Nation and is i'deed already or a grandparent etc or prove a relative history, Bango!
-- Now you can apply if you have the proper codes and can use a computer properly. My bro who is super smart, had all the codes for the computer and can use them.
-- Don't ask me because I don't have them and can't use a computer very good.
Jel - I know the Indian who is a top lawyer in Vancouver, who got this law changed -- by himself, And now has become a Status Indian -- he was 1/8th blood --
--------------Blood line and dna now not how many percent Native you are anymore ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------This new thing their voting on now, the Band itself will pick the members not the Federal gov't the applying member will have to have one parent as a member.
--This type of thing can change with the groups involved as you know how life goes -- Shit Happens -

Pemby_mess

07-28-2018, 04:49 PM

Uncertainty is an undesirable state in an effective democracy.

I hope it takes another 20 years to work out the details.
I'm selling in 2.

I'm buying, but I think I'll wait to see how this whole thing pans out - I'll make you an offer in 20 years when there's finally a resolution. That's if I haven't found anything better before now and then ;-)

Pemby_mess

07-28-2018, 04:56 PM

Lead; as defined as "exercising the art and science of affecting human behaviour in order too accomplish a mission in the manner so desired by the leader (Canadian Forces definition)".

I'm not so fond of that definition as it relates to general democratic leadership. It makes sense that the military defines it that way. Military leadership is much less compromising for good reason. But there are different leadership styles for different applications and knowing which one to apply when is part of the art and science. Often the leader doesn't know which way to go - humility is an admirable trait in a leader for most applications. Maybe not for the battlefield however.

browningboy

07-28-2018, 05:00 PM

I’m still wonder why this hasn’t hit the news

Jelvis

07-28-2018, 05:05 PM

Hey browning? Different reasons why? Can you think of 1?
--- one reason this threads news hasn't tipped off the BC public?
-- I think this thread has opened some eyes, some guests eyes! It clued me in a bit too on what was happening thanks to Sirloin and his computer skills!
-- right now this transferring of power we all feel happening among us here in BC on HBC is a real thing, it's not our imaginations.
Jel -- one reason? - Global hasn't bin first with this? - People in the public's eyes with jobs and positions, don't want to touch these subjects involving First Nations in - - BC, with a ten foot pole -- just as soon pass on it! -- That's one reason these topics will never come to completion in our life times .. this isn't even close to final --
-----------> The longer the lawyers keep fighting each other, they get paid more so it's not going to end in I'd say even come close to signed for fifty years! Hahaha

j270wsm

07-28-2018, 10:27 PM

You don't get to vote on any large land holder's internal policies unless you have an ownership stake/management role. Not sure why this would be, or even should be any different. If you were to hunt on their land, you'd be subject to their rules, that of the the province, and the fed's. Again, not understanding why this should be any different?

The position of the FN, is that the crown land was never "ours" to begin with. So from their perspective, they're not really taking anything away from you, but just having what was rightfully theirs all along, restored.

Its only the last 2-3 generations that claim that the land was theirs. The generations before them claimed that they took care of the land.

210% of bc is claimed by natives correct?.......so if/when this bs goes through, how long until every other band jumps on he wagon and the entire province is owned by the natives??

Your correct that the public doesn't get the right to vote on land owners policies but land owners don't get to make their own rules when it comes to allocation, mineral/fossil fuel extraction, logging, water use......etc

the big big picture is that this agreement will set precidence for all natives and eventually 3% of bc residents will own us all.

browningboy

07-28-2018, 11:25 PM

Pemby_mess

07-28-2018, 11:57 PM

Its only the last 2-3 generations that claim that the land was theirs. The generations before them claimed that they took care of the land.

lol. I think, if you're not already, that you should become a lawyer. That's quite the semantic distinction. Though I am under the the impression that since the Crown can't prove good faith and consideration being exchanged, the common law defaults title to the original beneficial users.

Anyway, i don't know if land claims are as new as you think they are. The Nisgaa settlement provides a good example in that the 1990's version, looked identical in a lot of ways to the version that started the process in the 1900's. And that group was probably somewhat less sophisticated than their neighbours like the tlingitt, and the Haida.

210% of bc is claimed by natives correct?.......so if/when this bs goes through, how long until every other band jumps on he wagon and the entire province is owned by the natives??

Your correct that the public doesn't get the right to vote on land owners policies but land owners don't get to make their own rules when it comes to allocation, mineral/fossil fuel extraction, logging, water use......etc

yeah, its a quagmire, as i've acknowledged. And so i dont know why we necessarily need to negotiate away every beneficial use to the land along with the title. It seems to me, that some creative options can be explored in regard to the types of things you mention and more. Maybe the courts need to come up with a new legal structure to account for this unprecedented situation.

the big big picture is that this agreement will set precidence for all natives and eventually 3% of bc residents will own us all.

Is owning land the same thing as them owning us? No wonder they're pissed:-) but i agree, the process is fraught with pitfalls. Good reason for the people of BC to get themselves up to speed on the facts of the matter, and do it right. The result will be worse for the Crown (and by extension "us") if its left to the courts completely.

Jack Russell

07-29-2018, 05:41 AM

not certain, but seems like there’s a lot more involved and more at stake then just a land deal, just seems like the government is trying to make large deals that affect a lot of people and sweep them under the rug

The question is, as the government is giving it all away for UNDRIP, what is the gov't hiding and keeping from us, for themselves and their best pals?

Jelvis

07-29-2018, 07:17 AM

The government has one person on one level, then another above that, then another above that then another above that! In the job they all have under a Ministry heading.
-- One on top of thee other and all know their role. " Know thy role and shut zee pie hole!" The Rock!
Jel -- One step, two steps three steps four and your out the door - levels like stories in a building -- all obey the one above them -- 12345678 -- or YOUR FIRED!

BCLongshot

07-29-2018, 07:19 AM

Excellent news

Thanks very much for sharing

HappyJack

07-29-2018, 07:40 PM

The question is, as the government is giving it all away for UNDRIP, what is the gov't hiding and keeping from us, for themselves and their best pals?

They are hiding the fact that if the FNs went to court it would be deemed they own the land and all the resources and the right to govern. IF our govt doesn't sign and sign quick it will be much much worse. Legal advice sometimes makes them take action you'd never expect, like giving Kadhar $10 million.

srupp

07-29-2018, 11:50 PM

They are hiding the fact that if the FNs went to court it would be deemed they own the land and all the resources and the right to govern. IF our govt doesn't sign and sign quick it will be much much worse. Legal advice sometimes makes them take action you'd never expect, like giving Kadhar $10 million.

Hmmm really..the courts would proclaim 210% of Bc is owned lock stock barrel y indians..homes, lands, everything to 3%..
Hmm what do you think would be the response. .? Do you think the 97 % would quietly get on greyhound and leave fir a Syrian camp in Quebec..hmm probably see the largest uprising of civil disobedience in the past 150 years...anarchy..the complete fall of BC.
FRASER. .and those playing in fire..must realize looking down the road. .you cant give BC away piece by piece..tuesday bc Mla
Later mp..later williams lake tribune..finally global news..
I might not change anything..but no body wont know the implications of the BULLSHIT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .
Bc has changed significantly..over 150 years, private ownership, uses of crown land for legitimate needs of the province consequences of postage stamping the province, or trying to give away that 210 % to3 %...

Consultation process..of say 100 years is needed.
Steven Big Bear

Jelvis

07-30-2018, 06:50 AM

=-//----> srupp can't get on Greyhound now, they quit out here in the west, new days srupp, times change, and so did we. Your old remember? Over 63?
= Quebec is popular now they can't fill the labor jobs trying to feed the tourists, they love Quebec especially the French and the States, Flocking there like bees to honey.
- Time to stand up and be counted for what you are about to receive, hale hale to the good times -- AC/DC -- Back n Black - You inspire me you put a fire in me!
Jel -- Anyone anywhere, there will be no scare, like when you come on to a angry Grizzly Bear! Hey! The rock noooo noo rahhhhhh
- - Dis is dah rocko and ah you bin ah hassli my bo frien nooo rahhhhhhh /.; ='';./ - dah jocko nooooooo i'll c u on trunk keel -- dah street
---------> jist my bro don't get uptight-----------The Nor River Rocko dah Wanna be Lac La June Jocko! ------------ripped and torn and reborn
------------> know your role -- and ah like zip the lip! noooooooo ogoohoohooooosodoohojo rahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhcko
---------------> IF yah don't know me, Don't bro me!

Longbranch

07-30-2018, 07:56 AM

Think this thread kinda lost its relavance eh?

Jelvis

07-30-2018, 08:28 AM

You can only drive down Main Street so many times! Every town has a Main Street, one to drive on, and one to survive on butt hey, only so many times brah
Jel -- Max Webster -- and a Million Vacations is all we have in mind! -- only so many times -- ok get's redundant after awhile, quit stalling start signing then!
-----------Time to wrap it up, get it done, a bro bump and see yah in the sun -- --- you get yours I get mine and every things fine -----
Max new a person with a fancy car wants to show it off eh! Butt hey, only so many times.

elknut

07-30-2018, 08:47 AM

This information of the Agreement in Principle came out in the 100 Mile Free press on July 26th...No mention on Global did I hear ..Dennis

303savage

07-30-2018, 09:47 AM

After the bull shat at North Thompson Park awhile ago, I have a feeling that us whites are going to be totally screwed over.

srupp

07-30-2018, 11:36 AM

Hmm the treaty process stipulated that feds and province consult with us..we have heard nothing..a nyone?..
The process required us..the taxpayers input..what was acceptable..what wasnt.
So mr rancher ownes big amount of land but is surrounded by new native lands..access? $$$$$
Soon BC will be nation to nation with 91 " equal " governments..the government revenue..tanks..yes yes indians once treaties are signed are supposed to start paying taxes..good luck with that..
If you live in Langley. ..7 diiferent nations to go through..maybe to get to Prince George..why? No hunting allowed..
This stinks
Srupp

REMINGTON JIM

07-30-2018, 01:26 PM

After the bull shat at North Thompson Park awhile ago, I have a feeling that us whites are going to be totally screwed over.

Its more then just a FEELING ! Its Happening FOR SURE ! :twisted: RJ

Jelvis

07-30-2018, 05:10 PM

=-ll---> Telus about it the final negotiations for a treaty FN, BC and the FEDS all making deals and negotiating their a$$e$ off. Face to face, eyes to eyes, telling no lies
Jel -- the pipeline another deal that sqweels -- kinder morgan Trans Mtn -- Ju$teen buying the pipeline out for billion$, and giving us a share, a piece of the apple..
----So it's time to cut the pie up - the Hot fresh apple pie, sitting on the window sill, steaming away all ready to eat, sliced into pieces of juicy, moist tasty apple pie slices -- topped with Whipping Cream! :cool: Passed around with Ice Cream and ah Timmy's french vanilla with a muffin warmed up soaked with salty Save-On butter -- Triangle of love folk$, the Feds, the Province of BC and the First Nations --- three in one - Like 3 in 1 oil -- braided togedder into a rope of hope, on any slope -- we can't be broke
----It's no joke, so don't choke, enjoy the smoke, and see the triangle come alive! We will do way more than jist survive! We will dominate, and won't hesitate!

Nalidixic

07-30-2018, 09:20 PM

The only news article I could find on this is linked below in case anyone else wanted to read it.

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/the-northern-secwepemc-te-qelmucw-people-signed-an-agreement-in-principle-with-the-b-c-government/

Jelvis

07-31-2018, 06:10 AM

Nalidixic comes up with a great reading article about this exact issue, I read it and thank Nal for the perfect shot for information clear to understand.
Jelvis -- perfect article with exact timing folks -- a round of applause for Nal -- diggin up the info -- and sharing!

338win mag

07-31-2018, 08:29 AM

This is going to happen in all area's of BC, very troubling.

“Our people need places to live, our people need places to hunt, fish, gather and more,” she said. “As this process goes along we see more of our lands being bought up and sold. The faster we get to this point, the more land base we’re able to secure for our people.”

DarekG

07-31-2018, 10:37 AM

She said the only way to move forward and eradicate the racism our country still faces is for all Canadians to understand and acknowledge Indigenous rights.

The irony would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I think if more Canadians truly understood "indigenous rights" there would be more "racism" as they call it.

Fraser mirrored Bennett’s sentiments, saying he was proud to have been a part of a “once in a generation event” and to be active in the “constructive damage of the status quo.”

I can only hope this is a one in a generation event and we'll breed the socialists out of our public education systems. What constructive damage are they referring to exactly with the status quo? Isn't the status quo to pay billions of dollars per year to FN bands?

He aspires for the future treaty to be a “living document” allowing for circumstancial adjustments and was met with cheers when he said, “extinguishment and surrender of rights has no place in modern day treaties.”

Once again the irony and cognitive dissonance of these idiots is astounding.

srupp

07-31-2018, 11:37 AM

Hmm original treaty discussions CAPPED land give aways at 5%..considering rez. Almost there!
The same idiots who brought us the grizzly fiasco..now bring us this give away based on race.at the expense of losing a entire PROVINCE.disgusting..me thinks we need a 150 year cooling off period.hmmmmm maybe more..
Steven

srupp

07-31-2018, 04:06 PM

Hmmm interview for local paper coming up on the 8th..did get a printout from first nations government. .to first nations..be nice if our government kept US informed..
Next is Global news...
Steven

Deadshot

07-31-2018, 06:30 PM

Global wont touch it with a ten foot pole.
A couple of days ago Global showed an old injun fella barking at a white “boots and suits” guy up at the KM protest.
Among other things “white trash” was thrown out there as plain as day in the clip.
This wasn’t the lead off story, but I’ll bet that if reversed, it would have been.
Deaf ears I’m afraid.

srupp

07-31-2018, 06:33 PM

Hmmm we shall see. ..
Steven

Jelvis

07-31-2018, 06:49 PM

Pemby_mess

07-31-2018, 07:28 PM

steven listen as a concerned member and also a Secwepemca ancestory from Sway Bacck, Your going to take your thing and put it on Global TV?
- are we hearing correctly? Ahhh
anyways listen Global will ah how do you say it with out sounding ah well let's put it this way Global will turn you inside out and make you look like something your not.
- OK! They interview you for an hour and record your every move and sound and then cut that 60 minute interview into one minute for TV. To what they want.
Jel -- They are professionals and know how to get the audience and follow ups. Follow ups, after the TV show comes on in Willy's Pond!
--------------> " Im not telling you, a wonderful member, what to do, you do what YOU want ------------jist think hard and long b4 making a recorded Global interview.

That's a really good point.

IF the media sees it as a kind of an esoteric matter, internal to the FN themselves, they won't report on it. Give them an angry white guy to play off of, and now it's a "story" - lol. They'll ask you leading questions, that are hard to say no to in the moment. They'll bait you and make you look like an asshole.

I think one reason the media might leave this alone, is its massive complexity. To be seen as accurately reporting, they'd have to contend with at least 100 years of myth, and stereotype. It would be a gargantuan endeavour to discuss it in the "public square", through the 6'clock news. There are plenty of long format books on the matter, however.

Jelvis

07-31-2018, 07:36 PM

--- Global TV and it's advertiser's don't want to be seen in any negative way against the Natives now, they want to sell, sell, sell and being classed as an anti anything, it better be popular or people won't buy your product anymore, they lose business if they get labelled as a ----negative source.
Jel It's all about the money - now Justin and John and many others have openly endorsed favoring and knowing the world is watching Canada now, they love Canada now!
-----Canada is the most popular place to go to now, New York Times placed it on the go to place, the world has taken note -- Quebec and BC and Ontario all go to

338win mag

07-31-2018, 09:08 PM

steven listen as a concerned member and also a Secwepemca ancestory from Sway Bacck, Your going to take your thing and put it on Global TV?
- are we hearing correctly? Ahhh
anyways listen Global will ah how do you say it with out sounding ah well let's put it this way Global will turn you inside out and make you look like something your not.
- OK! They interview you for an hour and record your every move and sound and then cut that 60 minute interview into one minute for TV. To what they want.
Jel -- They are professionals and know how to get the audience and follow ups. Follow ups, after the TV show comes on in Willy's Pond!
--------------> " Im not telling you, a wonderful member, what to do, you do what YOU want ------------jist think a lil bit b4 making a recorded Global interview. "
Ya think real hard, because you will be representing about 4.5 million people, not just one guy, I'm sure thats what Jelvis means...dont let the general public in on whats going on, thats stupid. Would that be right jelvis??
Lets consider what it means to "control the media control the message"

Deaddog

08-01-2018, 12:14 AM

The left wing media will spin it and try and make srupp look bad , however that is how govt and some of their non profit “ partners” operate. Thru fear and persecution. Srupp your retired. Their is f all they can do to you! Stand your ground , don’t be cowed by people who don’t have the jam to take a stand . Be respectful and articulate and the rest off us will sort the wheat from the chaff. So unfortunate that individuals like yourself have to take the hit while orgs that take people’s money hide in the shadows. Keep up the good work !

Sirloin

08-03-2018, 09:48 AM

William’s Lake, BC - Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada

Today, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Carolyn Bennett and the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance, signed a Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The goal of Recognition of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination discussion tables is to bring greater flexibility to negotiations based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership.

The MOU outlines the priorities identified by the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance, and will be used as a starting point for continuing discussions. This joint work is being undertaken with the goal of working together toward shared solutions that help to, advance reconciliation and strengthen relationships for everyone’s benefit.

Quotes
“The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance is an important step on our path to Canada’s commitment to building relationships with Indigenous peoples based upon the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. I am honoured to be part of today’s signing and look forward to working collaboratively with the leadership of the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance in addressing their challenges and harnessing the opportunities.”

The Honourable Carolyn Bennett, M.D., P.C., M.P.
Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

“This moment is a recognition that the paths of the past are no more, and that the legacy of the denial of our rights has given way to the recognition of our title and rights and a brighter and healthier future for our people.”

Chief Clifford Lebrun
Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance

Quick facts
The Southern Dakelth Nation Alliance was established in 2016.

The Southern Dakelth Nation Alliance includes four nations (Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation, Lhtako Dené Nation, Nazko First Nation and Ulkatcho Nation), whose traditional territories extend throughout the Northern Interior of British Columbia.

The Government of Canada is working with Indigenous communities at about 60 discussion tables across the country to explore new ways of working together to advance the recognition of Indigenous rights and self-determination. These discussions represent more than 320 Indigenous communities, with a total population of more than 700,000 people.

Sirloin

08-03-2018, 09:53 AM

British Columbia and the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance have signed a government-to-government agreement that establishes a new relationship based on respect and recognition of rights.

The Foundation Framework Agreement, or Hubulhsooninats’Uhoot’alh – Dakelh for “together we will fix it” – lays out a foundation for building comprehensive reconciliation and a positive government-to-government relationship between British Columbia and the First Nations of the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance, based in the Cariboo.

The agreement commits B.C. and the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance to work on collaborative decision-making over land and resource management, increasing First Nations economic development and participation in the forest economy, improving consultation on resource development, and developing culture and wellness priorities.

Both the provincial and federal governments are working toward building strong relationships and advancing reconciliation with the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance.

This agreement with the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance reflects B.C.’s interest in building relationships with Indigenous peoples based on respect and recognition of rights, as guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and case law.

Quotes:

Scott Fraser, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation –

“Our partnership with the Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance will promote trust-building and guide us in finding new ways of working, learning and collaborating together. British Columbia is committed to building an enduring partnership with the Southern Dakelh Nations, one that upholds their inherent rights and opens up new opportunities for their communities.”

Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development –

“This Foundation Framework Agreement provides an important venue for collaborative work on a number of topics of mutual interest, including wildfire prevention and response, timber supply review, and moose and caribou management.”

Chief Liliane Squinas, Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation –

“We are committed to working together as a Nation and as partners. We are also committed to working with our neighbours and relatives beyond our territories in a good and healthy way.”

Chief Clifford Lebrun, Lhtako Dené Nation –

“We know that the next step in this work will be harder than the work behind us, but we are responsible as leaders to bring about real change – we will not waver from this responsibility and will remain committed to ensuring that the good words from your government turn out to be more than just words.”

Chief Stuart Alec, Nazko First Nation –

“We are all in one canoe – we can either paddle together or sink together. This agreement commits us to working together, deepening our partnership and relationship for the benefit of our youth, our elders and our communities.”

Chief Betty Cahoose, Ulkatcho Nation –

“This agreement represents only the beginning. Tomorrow, our work as partners begins to bring tangible benefits to our communities.”

Quick Facts:

Southern Dakelh Nation Alliance represents Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation, Lhtako Dené Nation, Nazko First Nation and Ulkatcho Nation, all based in the Cariboo.
The agreement was signed by:
Ministers Scott Fraser and Doug Donaldson, on behalf of the Province
Chief Liliane Squinas, Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation
Chief Clifford Lebrun, Lhtako Dené Nation
Chief Stuart Alec, Nazko First Nation
Chief Betty Cahoose, Ulkatcho Nation

Sirloin

08-03-2018, 12:48 PM

Little history of the management going on in this region BEFORE these treaty settlements, imagine whats going to happen after...

https://i.imgur.com/G2MNaCB.png

jassmine

08-03-2018, 01:14 PM

The scary part is.... the courts will decide,,,, the courts stacked with Liberal judges.

You do know six out of nine judges on the Supreme Court were nominated by Stephen Harper right?

Sirloin

08-03-2018, 01:26 PM

^^^^^^^

I wouldn't engage with this.

There are two types of people on this forum as far as i'm concerned.

One - People who care about the fate of the hunting community in BC and our hunting opportunities for ourselves, our children and future generations of BC.

two - those who do not.

As far as I can tell, lots in this second category are here to drag you down into meaningless squabbles, sow division and pull your eye off the target. Keep your eye's on the target, and the thread on track.

Ourea

08-03-2018, 01:32 PM

[QUOTE=

There are two types of people on this forum as far as i'm concerned.

One - People who care about the fate of the hunting community in BC and our hunting opportunities for ourselves, our children and future generations of BC.

two - those who do not.

As far as I can tell, lots in this second category are here to drag you down into meaningless squabbles, sow division and pull your eye off the target.[/QUOTE]

Cue Jassmine....on point as always on these issues.
Wonder how her scouting is going.
She must be excited about the upcoming hunting season :roll:

Jelvis

08-03-2018, 01:40 PM

Sirloin rocks folks a great addition to any group and community on the web, HBC has learned a lot and is following this thread like many are.
Sirloin has the computer skills and abilities to carry these fine sheets of info onto posts we can read and enjoy.
-- I have to say I'm lucky to have sirloin to get this out here where I can read it.
Jel -- sirloin has opened our eyes people --
--

ACE

08-03-2018, 01:53 PM

Stay on topic.
Direct information.
Sirloin does this well.
Thank you.

jassmine

08-03-2018, 02:07 PM

...drag you down into meaningless squabbles...
...Cue Jassmine....on point as always on these issues.

Always on point and willing to correct misinformation posted as I see it.
When people starting considering the correction of pretty blatant errors as "meaningless squabbles" it results in the conversation becoming "beyond facts".

What is something that I am surprised that no one has considered is how the 100s of other First Nation communities must have felt as they slowly lost more and more access to their traditional lands due to treaties written in languages that many did not speak or full understand decades and century(ies) ago. Treaty negotiations in many cases that were conducted in bad faith, of which resulted in the numerous treaty court cases we see everywhere.
The feelings exhibited here in the topic, are likely similar to those felt by those first nation people generations ago.

358mag

08-03-2018, 02:15 PM

DarekG

08-03-2018, 02:24 PM

How did native Canadians treat the tribes they vanquished? Seems there is a world movement to support people who make poor choices at the expense of the ones who work hard and make a better life.

Everyone go out and slaughter the healthy cattle so the poor ones can have more grazing

Exactly, the dangers of short-sighted bleeding heart politics.

Liberals seem to think Conservatives take delight in suffering, poverty, and inequality when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Any sane person wants peace and happiness and sunshine for everybody but that isn't how life works. Just like an alcoholic dependent on booze can't see it's ruining his life, Liberals dependent on the government teat can't see it will ruin theirs.

Ourea

08-03-2018, 02:50 PM

Funny how millions have fled socialist states to nations that are built on capitalism and opportunity.

How many flee nations built on capitalism to seek a better life in a state built on socialisim and hand outs?

This latest play will end up in epic failure, history has proven it all over the world for centuries.

DarekG

08-03-2018, 04:58 PM

Here is a recent quote that has really been resonating with me lately, it's a fun one to share too because it's not exactly partisan either.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

from bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy; <----- We are between here and the next step.
from apathy to dependency;
from dependency back again to bondage.

Onesock

08-03-2018, 05:54 PM

See what happens when down town Vancouver is ruled by a native gov’t. Haaahaha

Max Ranger

08-05-2018, 07:44 PM

Since it's been quiet here for a few days-- Anybody see the news tonight? If the Prime Minister sincerely believes the policies he advocates as good for the country then he should hire some of the people he marched with in the "Pride Parade" to be nannies for his children.
Maybe some of us should organize and hold a "Resident Moose Hunters Pride Parade". Would that even be permitted in Vancouver? Just wondering.

Sirloin

08-08-2018, 12:56 PM

https://globalnews.ca/news/4376655/john-a-macdonald-statue-victoria-city-hall/

The City of Victoria is going to remove a statue of John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister, outside of Victoria City Hall.

Victoria city council will be asked to endorse the decision to have the statue removed on Aug. 11 and have a plaque installed in its place.

In collaboration between the city and First Nations, the decision was made to have the plaque read: “In 2017, the City of Victoria began a journey of Truth and Reconciliation with the Lekwungen peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, on whose territories the city stands.

“The members of the City Family – part of the City’s Witness Reconciliation Program – have determined that to show progress on the path of reconciliation the City should remove the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald from the front doors of City Hall, while the City, the Nations and the wider community grapple with Macdonald’s complex history as both the first Prime Minister of Canada and a leader of violence against Indigenous Peoples.

“The statue is being stored safely in a city facility. We will keep the public informed as the Witness Reconciliation Program unfolds, and as we find a way to recontextualize Macdonald in an appropriate way.
In a letter on her campaign website, Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps wrote that in addition to being the first prime minister of Canada, Macdonald was also a “key architect” of the Indian Residential School system.

Helps added that the after the Songhess and Esquimault Nations decide an “appropriate amount of time has passed” a cleansing, blessing and healing ceremony will be held in the space where the statue formerly stood.

“After a year of discussion, deliberation, truth-sharing and seeking counsel from the Songhees and Esquimalt chiefs and councils on multiple occasions, the family decided on the first concrete action we would like to take as we continue the path of truth and reconciliation,” wrote Helps.

“I am ashamed to say that I have an undergraduate degree in Canadian history, a master’s in Canadian history and a half-completed PhD in Canadian history.

“It is not until we began this Witness Reconciliation Program that I learned about the role that Canada’s first prime minister played in developing residential schools, the effects of which are well known to be still felt today both by school attendees and their children and grandchildren.”

In 2017, the union that represents elementary school teachers in Ontario — the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (EFTO) — was pushing to remove Macdonald’s name from a handful of schools across the province.

The ETFO said at the time that using Macdonald’s name creates an unsafe environment for kids to learn and work in because of what it calls Macdonald’s role as the “architect of genocide against Indigenous Peoples.”

Lionhill

08-08-2018, 01:32 PM

The ETFO said at the time that using Macdonald’s name creates an unsafe environment for kids to learn and work in because of what it calls Macdonald’s role as the “architect of genocide against Indigenous Peoples.”

What's an ETFO? Did John A. ever set foot in Victoria?

More insanity from the looney left. I expect no better from Victoria.

Sirloin

08-08-2018, 02:19 PM

What's an ETFO? Did John A. ever set foot in Victoria?

More insanity from the looney left. I expect no better from Victoria.

ETFO - Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario.

It's my opinion that our countries teachers unions and certain university departments have become utterly corrupted by far left driven activism(marxism, anti-capitalism) and have turned their classrooms and students in to little revolutionary projects. It's also my opinion that certain university departments across the country have been, and are working to weaponize first nations against western systems of power/culture to further their own goals. It's a big claim, and I can back that up with evidence, and I will be doing so in the future.

Jelvis

08-08-2018, 03:43 PM

Sirloin rocks folks, computer skills and ability - can cut, paste and doesn't waste.
I think the part about using the Indians to further their own goal is close, And may I add, like in a chess game, as parts, and positioned strategically along with each other
Jel -- The steak is tender --

Sirloin

08-08-2018, 07:44 PM

The Tsilhqot'in decision and united nations are guiding all of BC's decision making now.

https://i.imgur.com/UJPevvg.png
https://i.imgur.com/r5HA3aE.png

Lionhill

08-08-2018, 09:03 PM

If they're a government, do we (non-natives) get to vote when Natives run for their collective council?

Because if they have any sway over one molecule of my life without being democratically elected - that would be some form of dictatorship. Unelected government making decisions on my behalf? No thank you.

303savage

08-09-2018, 06:35 AM

We're f**ked

Jelvis

08-09-2018, 06:56 AM

Titles and jurisdicktions is interestinck, ? This new working together is good, talking things to conclusion with lil intrusion, reduces confusion, causes trust, it's a must, no upper crust, each on level of production, using instruction, and and team work, ladies and gents, she's checkin the facts and I got the figures. Whaaaa
Jel -- It takes two to Tango -- can't Tango by yerself, except in your mind ok? Hahahaha ----It takes 2 -- 2 tah Tango --- Orange n Mango -- peas n carrots --
------- sugar n spice -- two -- togedder -- 1 + 1 = 2 ---- 1 by itself = 1 - reach out and like go for it! black n white ---right n left -- ups n downs -- ok? --

silvertipp

08-09-2018, 07:35 AM

Yes it would be great
to bad they aren't open meetings so everyone involved can be represented

jassmine

08-09-2018, 07:36 AM

Because if they have any sway over one molecule of my life without being democratically elected - that would be some form of dictatorship. Unelected government making decisions on my behalf? No thank you.

It probably makes you as mad as First Nations who have been stuck living under people, rules and regulations limiting their actions for many years (indian agents, band administrators, gold commissioners, every government prior to 1960 where First Nations were not allowed to vote, etc.) that were also not democratically elected by them yet had sway over most of the molecules of their life.

Jelvis

08-09-2018, 07:40 AM

-- Don't get in a hurry because it's starting to commit, remember when you committed yourself for life when you married ?
This is like a marriage, wedding day just happened so give the honeymoon a chance and see if yah get divorced two times like every one else does? Hahaha
Jel - Story Stu or whaaaaa?

Livewire322

08-09-2018, 07:51 AM

It probably makes you as mad as First Nations who have been stuck living under people, rules and regulations limiting their actions for many years (indian agents, band administrators, gold commissioners, every government prior to 1960 where First Nations were not allowed to vote, etc.) that were also not democratically elected by them yet had sway over most of the molecules of their life.

You say this as if it’s a justification. I played no part in the horrible things that happened in the past, yet you think I should in someway be punished for it?

This effects you too. Large tracts of land that you have access to is being privatized.
What is taking place is not reconciliation, it’s tit for tat revenge.
Equal access for all is the only justifiable outcome.

Jelvis

08-09-2018, 07:58 AM

--- Go to the Willy Alphonse Jr. case, it shows the jurisdiction of a Status Indian, must be registered in Ottawa with a personal number.
Willy shot a mule deer in a ranchers yard. Dropped his wallet, and the farmer took Willy to court, Willy won all seven judges went Willy's way --allowed to hunt on this guys ranch -- I'm not making this up, if I knew how I'd put the case on here for reference --
Jel -- Willy Alphonse Jr. -- Youngest Chief in history -- Willy in the Chilly Cootin -- Willy is my hero -- I'm a zero --

jassmine

08-09-2018, 08:32 AM

You say this as if it’s a justification. I played no part in the horrible things that happened in the past, yet you think I should in someway be punished for it?

Nowhere in my post do I say anything like that regarding punishment.
All I said was that the anger or frustration that will be felt by the author of the post I quoted if one molecule of his life is disrupted, is already being felt in FN communities and has been felt for decades in communities where many things have been dictated to them.

Because if they have any sway over one molecule of my life without being democratically elected - that would be some form of dictatorship.

DarekG

08-09-2018, 08:50 AM

jassmine

08-09-2018, 08:53 AM

How can you not see that your ideology offers no solutions?

What's my ideology?

DarekG

08-09-2018, 08:56 AM

What's my ideology?

Dredging up injustices of the past when they are not relevant to the modern society we live in, apparently.

Jelvis

08-09-2018, 08:56 AM

Fella's I think Jass is younger so new technology has us way be hind these new aged folk
Jel -- younger and a little bit quicker than most Hahaha

Danny_29

08-09-2018, 08:58 AM

ETFO - Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario.

It's my opinion that our countries teachers unions and certain university departments have become utterly corrupted by far left driven activism(marxism, anti-capitalism) and have turned their classrooms and students in to little revolutionary projects. It's also my opinion that certain university departments across the country have been, and are working to weaponize first nations against western systems of power/culture to further their own goals. It's a big claim, and I can back that up with evidence, and I will be doing so in the future.

I've been waiting for this evidence.

jassmine

08-09-2018, 08:59 AM

Dredging up injustices of the past when they are not relevant to the modern society we live in, apparently.

They clearly are relevant. Because they pertain not only to the barriers that keep many FNs from fully integrating into society, but many of these injustices are root causes of the social and economic inequality that FN people still face.

Research like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, as well as dozens of academic articles and textbooks attest to this.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 09:28 AM

You say this as if it’s a justification. I played no part in the horrible things that happened in the past, yet you think I should in someway be punished for it?

This effects you too. Large tracts of land that you have access to is being privatized.
What is taking place is not reconciliation, it’s tit for tat revenge.
Equal access for all is the only justifiable outcome.

does your land fall under that same legal umbrella? Just asking.

Who is trying to punish you (us)? They're petitioning to have their property returned. Although it may be hard to see, it will ultimately benefit you, if confusion over land title is settled.

If someone takes my bike without my consent, I'm much more interested in getting my bike back, then I am exacting revenge.

Wild one

08-09-2018, 09:40 AM

Yes the past was full of wrongs but why create tensions by negatively impacting those who had nothing to do with this past. Majority of the population of Canada had no part in what happened to FNs.

Is the world not pushing for equality amongst all races and sex?

I am all for FNs being equal with all other Canadians but this is not the path we are on.

Lionhill

08-09-2018, 09:51 AM

It probably makes you as mad as First Nations who have been stuck living under people, rules and regulations limiting their actions for many years (indian agents, band administrators, gold commissioners, every government prior to 1960 where First Nations were not allowed to vote, etc.) that were also not democratically elected by them yet had sway over most of the molecules of their life.

So the solution is to tip the pendulum over the other way, and create more division and animosity (on both sides) and actually suggest with a straight face that an unelected "race based government" has any place in a modern society in Canada? Take a moment and say that into a mirror and watch to see if you can see the lie you're telling yourself represents any form of reconciliation.

DarekG

08-09-2018, 10:05 AM

They clearly are relevant. Because they pertain not only to the barriers that keep many FNs from fully integrating into society, but many of these injustices are root causes of the social and economic inequality that FN people still face.

How is creating a separate micro-nation and their own "government" fully integrating to society?

What social and economic inequality do FN face in 2018, because these days I see nothing but advantages?

Mulehahn

08-09-2018, 10:13 AM

It probably makes you as mad as First Nations who have been stuck living under people, rules and regulations limiting their actions for many years (indian agents, band administrators, gold commissioners, every government prior to 1960 where First Nations were not allowed to vote, etc.) that were also not democratically elected by them yet had sway over most of the molecules of their life.

The problem with this argument is that pretty much every example you give, similar actions have been taken against other groups throughout Canada's history; jaoanese, Chinese, Irish, Women, those with mental and physical disabilities, the list goes on. They were left with nothing meaningless apologies and they got lucky received pennies on the dollar for land and losses.

Now, no one of this right; in fact it is reprehensible. But if you want to create a hierarchy of wrong doings First Nations no where near unique and were/are better treated than some. Yet those other groups receive no where near the recognition or reparations.

Livewire322

08-09-2018, 10:57 AM

[/B]
does your land fall under that same legal umbrella? Just asking.

Who is trying to punish you (us)? They're petitioning to have their property returned. Although it may be hard to see, it will ultimately benefit you, if confusion over land title is settled.

If someone takes my bike without my consent, I'm much more interested in getting my bike back, then I am exacting revenge.

I’ve broken my response to the above points by line:
1) We aren’t talking about someone accessing a back yard. We are talking about a large tract of land that has been accessible to everyone (us and them). As far as right to roam goes, you’d have to propose a system; within reason I have no problem allowing access to my property (buildings and vehicles excluded).

2) I feel is a moot point, all of the land may or may not have been “theirs” in the first place and I don’t see the benefit to society as a whole in restricting access based on race. As it stands now everyone can access the land if they so desire, why change that?
I see the benefit of putting these matters to bed. I think that they should be put to bed by recognizing FN rights to be involved in the decisions that effect them, their culture, and their local environment (like we all do via voting). I’d even go so far as saying they should be equal partners. I do not think that we should be signing over large tracts of the province to anyone that would restrict access to the land which is currently open to use by all. You need only look at the recent mushroom picking permit fiasco that has unfolded in the elephant hill burn area to see what I want to avoid. Or the the Douglas lake access issues!

3) Normally Id agree, but if at 40 you are still looking for a bike that was stolen from you at 5, you’ve got bigger problems than a missing bike.

We have a system that is flawed but we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. They have access to the land to practice their traditions, we have access to the land to recreate, what’s wrong with that?

I guess what I’m getting at is:
sure, settle the land claim but don’t let a race based group restrict Joe and Jane blow from going about their merry way as they do now. Allow them to restrict business interests (mines, logging ops, heck even commercial mushroom pickers) and reap benefits from them.

jassmine

08-09-2018, 11:15 AM

How is creating a separate micro-nation and their own "government" fully integrating to society?

What social and economic inequality do FN face in 2018, because these days I see nothing but advantages?

Well you only quoted a portion of my post. If you had read the entirety of the post you would be able to see I mentioned the TRC and the RCAP which contain many examples regarding the social and economic inequality faced by First Nation people, as well as institutionalized racism in many of our systems.

They clearly are relevant. Because they pertain not only to the barriers that keep many FNs from fully integrating into society, but many of these injustices are root causes of the social and economic inequality that FN people still face.

Research like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, as well as dozens of academic articles and textbooks attest to this.

As well as a plethora of research on the subject:

Reading, C. L., & Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and the social determinants of Aboriginal peoples' health. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.

O'Faircheallaigh, C. (1998). Resource development and inequality in indigenous societies. World Development, 26(3), 381-394.

Howard, P. N., Busch, L., & Sheets, P. (2010). Comparing digital divides: Internet access and social inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35(1).

Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., King, M., & Furgal, C. (2010). Vulnerability of Aboriginal health systems in Canada to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 668-680.Elani, H. W., Harper, S., Allison, P. J., Bedos, C., & Kaufman, J. S. (2012). Socio-economic inequalities and oral health in Canada and the United States. Journal of dental research, 91(9), 865-870.

Mitrou, F., Cooke, M., Lawrence, D., Povah, D., Mobilia, E., Guimond, E., & Zubrick, S. R. (2014). Gaps in Indigenous disadvantage not closing: a census cohort study of social determinants of health in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand from 1981–2006. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 201.

King, M., Smith, A., & Gracey, M. (2009). Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap. The Lancet, 374(9683), 76-85.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 11:28 AM

I’ve broken my response to the above points by line:
1) We aren’t talking about someone accessing a back yard. We are talking about a large tract of land that has been accessible to everyone (us and them). As far as right to roam goes, you’d have to propose a system; within reason I have no problem allowing access to my property (buildings and vehicles excluded).

2) I feel is a moot point, all of the land may or may not have been “theirs” in the first place and I don’t see the benefit to society as a whole in restricting access based on race. As it stands now everyone can access the land if they so desire, why change that?
I see the benefit of putting these matters to bed. I think that they should be put to bed by recognizing FN rights to be involved in the decisions that effect them, their culture, and their local environment (like we all do via voting). I’d even go so far as saying they should be equal partners. I do not think that we should be signing over large tracts of the province to anyone that would restrict access to the land which is currently open to use by all. You need only look at the recent mushroom picking permit fiasco that has unfolded in the elephant hill burn area to see what I want to avoid. Or the the Douglas lake access issues!

3) Normally Id agree, but if at 40 you are still looking for a bike that was stolen from you at 5, you’ve got bigger problems than a missing bike.

We have a system that is flawed but we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. They have access to the land to practice their traditions, we have access to the land to recreate, what’s wrong with that?

I guess what I’m getting at is:
sure, settle the land claim but don’t let a race based group restrict Joe and Jane blow from going about their merry way as they do now. Allow them to restrict business interests (mines, logging ops, heck even commercial mushroom pickers) and reap benefits from them.

I agree with you mostly. Only I don't know if the size of the land parcel is meaningful against the principles involved. It does however represent the stakes. I have family members that were gifted tracts of land exceeding 5000 acres. I went to school with a family that took control of 500k acres under the consideration that they make a "gentleman's agreement" to pay taxes. Those parcels are obviously displacing what can be satisfied through a modern claims process. And this situation isn't one of FN being gifted anything. If we don't sign off on a deal of our choosing, the legal process will do it for us in a manner that is much less in our favour.

Given I have mostly the ability to restrict access on whatever criteria I choose, I'm not so sure there is much traction to be had saying they can't with an equally beneficial title. It's much less an issue of race than it is of property rights. Although I agree that there should be opportunities for the crown to negotiate prescriptive uses such as recreation.

303savage

08-09-2018, 11:38 AM

Wow where was the public consultation on this one?

There was no public consultation.

Self governing, does that mean with their own money or our money?

Mulehahn

08-09-2018, 11:42 AM

I agree with you mostly. Only I don't know if the size of the land parcel is meaningful against the principles involved. It does however represent the stakes. I have family members that were gifted tracts of land exceeding 5000 acres. I went to school with a family that took control of 500k acres under the consideration that they make a "gentleman's agreement" to pay taxes. Those parcels are obviously displacing what can be satisfied through a modern claims process. And this situation isn't one of FN being gifted anything. If we don't sign off on a deal of our choosing, the legal process will do it for us in a manner that is much less in our favour.

Given I have mostly the ability to restrict access on whatever criteria I choose, I'm not so sure there is much traction to be had saying they can't with an equally beneficial title. It's much less an issue of race than it is of property rights. Although I agree that there should be opportunities for the crown to negotiate prescriptive uses such as recreation.

Interesting ideas Pemby, but they seem to be predicated on the idea Canada will not change, and the courts and politicians will always be beholden to the notion of the "big bad Europeans." As more and more people move to cities, populations change, and so do tidings you will have more and more MPs, MLAs and Judges from areas of the world where the guilt does not exist,l or in many cases come from areas where the treatment they suffered was much much worse (there is huge difference between cultural genocide and literal genocide). When that time comes the First Nations will have a much harder time.

That is the reason, I believe for the huge push now. They have maybe a 10 year window (3 more elevtions) before they lose the advantage of guilt. At that point it will just keep getting tougher and tougher. The problem with that though is that it leaves little time to change enact social change and must force these deals through.

DarekG

08-09-2018, 12:07 PM

Well you only quoted a portion of my post. If you had read the entirety of the post you would be able to see I mentioned the TRC and the RCAP which contain many examples regarding the social and economic inequality faced by First Nation people, as well as institutionalized racism in many of our systems.

What sort of institutionalized racism do First Nations people face in 2018?
Clearly I'm too dumb to read your fancy quoted studies so I need someone to water it down for me, because I can't find any examples.

Livewire322

08-09-2018, 12:25 PM

I agree with you mostly. Only I don't know if the size of the land parcel is meaningful against the principles involved. It does however represent the stakes. I have family members that were gifted tracts of land exceeding 5000 acres. I went to school with a family that took control of 500k acres under the consideration that they make a "gentleman's agreement" to pay taxes. Those parcels are obviously displacing what can be satisfied through a modern claims process. And this situation isn't one of FN being gifted anything. If we don't sign off on a deal of our choosing, the legal process will do it for us in a manner that is much less in our favour.

Given I have mostly the ability to restrict access on whatever criteria I choose, I'm not so sure there is much traction to be had saying they can't with an equally beneficial title. It's much less an issue of race than it is of property rights. Although I agree that there should be opportunities for the crown to negotiate prescriptive uses such as recreation.

I tend to get a little heated with this issue because it really stokes a chord for me. I think we are close to the same page, if not on the same page. Legally the size of the land parcel doesn’t matter but I think it should. Would I be able to give you a definitive number for a threshold, no. However, the crux of the issue is as I outlined at the end of my last post. To restrict anyone’s hunting, fishing, camping (read enjoyment) through land access restrictions is a travesty. I remember listening to stories from my grandfather about his father having to sneak onto estates in the old country to hunt because he couldn’t afford to pay for access and I don’t want to see that unfold here, for natives or non natives. The current track of this settlement (and the trend that it affirms) keeps us on a trajectory for that exact situation though.

You mention 500k acre deals and I’d object to access restrictions as a result of those too, regardless of race.

jassmine

08-09-2018, 12:26 PM

What sort of institutionalized racism do First Nations people face in 2018?
Clearly I'm too dumb to read your fancy quoted studies so I need someone to water it down for me, because I can't find any examples.

There are tons of examples in the RCAP and TRC of how governmental agencies and programs continue to disadvantage First Nation people, as well as a number of studies focusing on education to health policies or services that neglect First Nation people due to particular policies.
If you actually wanted examples there are dozens contained in readily accessible resources:

Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
"Successive governments have tried - sometimes intentionally, sometimes in ignorance - to absorb Aboriginal people into Canadian society, thus eliminating them as distinct peoples. Policies pursued over the decades have undermined - and almost erased - Aboriginal cultures and identities."

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014597/1100100014637

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

http://nctr.ca/reports.php

Reading, C. L., & Wien, F. (2009). Health inequalities and the social determinants of Aboriginal peoples' health. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health.

O'Faircheallaigh, C. (1998. Resource development and inequality in indigenous societies. World Development, 26(3), 381-394.

Howard, P. N., Busch, L., & Sheets, P. (2010). Comparing digital divides: Internet access and social inequality in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Communication, 35(1).

Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., King, M., & Furgal, C. (2010). Vulnerability of Aboriginal health systems in Canada to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 668-680.Elani, H. W., Harper, S., Allison, P. J., Bedos, C., & Kaufman, J. S. (2012). Socio-economic inequalities and oral health in Canada and the United States. Journal of dental research, 91(9), 865-870.

Mitrou, F., Cooke, M., Lawrence, D., Povah, D., Mobilia, E., Guimond, E., & Zubrick, S. R. (2014). Gaps in Indigenous disadvantage not closing: a census cohort study of social determinants of health in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand from 1981–2006. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 201.

King, M., Smith, A., & Gracey, M. (2009). Indigenous health part 2: the underlying causes of the health gap. The Lancet, 374(9683), 76-85.

Jelvis

08-09-2018, 12:26 PM

=-//---> " We all have to get along - it's no different then the Bar on Friday nite.
-------------> we all want to share a drink, have a smoke and do a lil dancin that's all it izzzz sass a fratz
Jelly Bones -- we all get along or the bouncer chucks yah out! Rocko the Jocko watches and listens, any trouble makers, bye bye!

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 12:30 PM

What sort of institutionalized racism do First Nations people face in 2018?
Clearly I'm too dumb to read your fancy quoted studies so I need someone to water it down for me, because I can't find any examples.

A good, simple example is if a FN goes into receive healthcare, they are exponentially more likely to be immediately considered "a frequent flyer", despite there being no evidence of that, and lack of appropriate treatment is the result. Poor educational outcomes in indigenous communities beget both teacher and administrative apathy toward even engaged students, creating a self perpetuated cycle, and plenty of missed opportunities. Poor funding/ and or inconsistent funding for the basic infrastructure the rest of Canadian communities have come to depend. Inequality within the justice system, creates systemic problems in the communities of the incarcerated.

We all have biases, and despite modern Canadian professionals spending a lot of time training to acknowledge these biases, they continue to effect how we distribute our collective resources.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 12:40 PM

Interesting ideas Pemby, but they seem to be predicated on the idea Canada will not change, and the courts and politicians will always be beholden to the notion of the "big bad Europeans." As more and more people move to cities, populations change, and so do tidings you will have more and more MPs, MLAs and Judges from areas of the world where the guilt does not exist,l or in many cases come from areas where the treatment they suffered was much much worse (there is huge difference between cultural genocide and literal genocide). When that time comes the First Nations will have a much harder time.

That is the reason, I believe for the huge push now. They have maybe a 10 year window (3 more elevtions) before they lose the advantage of guilt. At that point it will just keep getting tougher and tougher. The problem with that though is that it leaves little time to change enact social change and must force these deals through.

This idea that the land claims are somehow warranted out of sympathy is really >>>>ed! They are producing a legal argument. One in which the results testify to the merit of. Judges aren't making decisions out of the same emotions you appear willing to project onto them. There's this thing called the common law, and its what governs our interactions in society. When people act in contravention of the law, corrective measures are available within that same law.

I do agree with your suggestion that new incoming cultures will see things differently. But we need to to be both knowledgable about what it is that has made us just in the past, and the legal mechanisms that will remain relevant into the future. If we conduct ourselves through feeble, fleeting emotional sensibilities, our society is done for.

Jelvis

08-09-2018, 12:44 PM

Oh ohhhhhhhhhhhhh -- childish ? kinda? Hahahahah
Jelly - emotional girl -- can't make decisions -- in between yes and no --= a definite maybe so -- enjoys this type of communicating style with no end in sight
-------------------------- doesn't want an end, that makes it easy to come up with an excuse for not writing the final chap tour -- no ending ever

DarekG

08-09-2018, 12:50 PM

We all have biases, and despite modern Canadian professionals spending a lot of time training to acknowledge these biases, they continue to effect how we distribute our collective resources.

I absolutely believe that there are unavoidable biases in our society today that add to the problem, but your post opens up more cans of worms...

A good, simple example is if a FN goes into receive healthcare, they are exponentially more likely to be immediately considered "a frequent flyer", despite there being no evidence of that, and lack of appropriate treatment is the result.

This is a perfect example of how the anecdotal he says, she says, game benefits nobody in the end. If we bring anecdotal evidence and stereotypes as proof/evidence to the table nothing gets solved and tensions continue rise. This is an issue for both sides of the argument.

Mulehahn

08-09-2018, 12:55 PM

This idea that the land claims are somehow warranted out of sympathy is really >>>>ed! They are producing a legal argument. One in which the results testify to the merit of. Judges aren't making decisions out of the same emotions you appear willing to project onto them. There's this thing called the common law, and its what governs our interactions in society. When people act in contravention of the law, corrective measures are available within that same law.

I do agree with your suggestion that new incoming cultures will see things differently. But we need to to be both knowledgable about what it is that has made us just in the past, and the legal mechanisms that will remain relevant into the future. If we conduct ourselves through feeble, fleeting emotional sensibilities, our society is done for.

But the judges are. This the same legal system that allowed all of this to happen in the first place. It has changed as attitudes (emotions) have changed. It will change again. For all of its posturing the framework of Canadian Law is the same as it was 150 years ago. The framework that allowed forced ghettos, sterilization, systemic racism is still in place. Only the emotions and opinions have changed. A democratic Society is based emotional sensibilities. To argue otherwise is not understand history. There is no precedence in nature that decries murder or robbery. Every species will kill and steal if it suits them and face no repercussions or regrets. Every species except humans because we developed to "feel" bad about it and view it as wrong. Logic plays no role, only emotion.

Perfect example is handguns. Millions of law abiding, stand up citizens of this country stand to lose their access to firearms or freedom of movement in this country simply because of emotions, not facts.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 12:57 PM

I absolutely believe that there are unavoidable biases in our society today that add to the problem, but your post opens up more cans of worms...

This is a perfect example of how the anecdotal he says, she says, game benefits nobody in the end. If we bring anecdotal evidence and stereotypes as proof/evidence to the table nothing gets solved and tensions continue rise. This is an issue for both sides of the argument.

nothing anecdotal about it. It's borne out through the same research that constitutes the training of healthcare proffesionals throughout the country. I'm 100% positive that if you read Jasmine's links, they'll say essentially the same thing. You asked for a summary, I gave you the one that's in my head from reading similar papers. It's empirically measured.

Wild one

08-09-2018, 01:03 PM

What sort of institutionalized racism do First Nations people face in 2018?
Clearly I'm too dumb to read your fancy quoted studies so I need someone to water it down for me, because I can't find any examples.

I know for some courses and tickets they need a lower % to pass the final test/course. Personally I would say that is racist and insulting suggesting FN do not have the same mental capability of other races so they are held to a lower standard

Then take in some cases when a FN is charged with a crime they receive a lesser sentence because they are FN. This again is racist suggesting FN are not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong

This is just two examples but this racism is ok lol

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 01:08 PM

But the judges are. This the same legal system that allowed all of this to happen in the first place. It has changed as attitudes (emotions) have changed. It will change again. For all of its posturing the framework of Canadian Law is the same as it was 150 years ago. The framework that allowed forced ghettos, sterilization, systemic racism is still in place. Only the emotions and opinions have changed. A democratic Society is based emotional sensibilities. To argue otherwise is not understand history. There is precedence in nature that decries murder or robbery. Every species will kill and steal if it suits them and face no repercussions or regrets. Every species except humans because we developed to "feel" bad about it and view it as wrong. Logic plays no role, only emotion.

you don't think there is logic behind those emotions? Our emotions developed out of a process to keep us alive thus far. Most Western philosophical processes have been an exercise in applying those survival mechanisms to larger, more sophisticated societies. I agree that the emotions of the population are influential, but it's our legal procedures that have tempered those and directed them as efficaciously as we've had the knowledge to do so. And, yes those do hopefully change and get more efficacious as we advance our societies and increase their sophistication even further.

you're talking about differences between legislation and adjudication. Adjudication has the last word. The legislation regarding aboriginal title was never tested through the judiciary, now it is.

Livewire322

08-09-2018, 01:10 PM

A good, simple example is if a FN goes into receive healthcare, they are exponentially more likely to be immediately considered "a frequent flyer", despite there being no evidence of that, and lack of appropriate treatment is the result. Poor educational outcomes in indigenous communities beget both teacher and administrative apathy toward even engaged students, creating a self perpetuated cycle, and plenty of missed opportunities. Poor funding/ and or inconsistent funding for the basic infrastructure the rest of Canadian communities have come to depend. Inequality within the justice system, creates systemic problems in the communities of the incarcerated.

We all have biases, and despite modern Canadian professionals spending a lot of time training to acknowledge these biases, they continue to effect how we distribute our collective resources.

And fat people are less likely to be taken seriously by their doctors. That’s not an institutional problem that’s an issue with some individuals in the medical system.

I partially agree with you about poor education outcomes, once again though it’s not isolated to natives. Our education system as a whole needs to become more flexible to individual learning capabilities.
Sure, in some places they’ve shitty infrastructure, so do other remote communities. I agree that this should be solved but once again the blame is not isolated to natives.

Inequallity in the justice system? Really? I haven’t seen any bias against natives in any of the high profile cases lately. There may be a disproportionate amount of natives in prison but to me that means there are a disproportionate amount of natives committing crimes. There’s more males (85%) admitted to prison, should I feel singled out because I am male? The law is the law and it should apply to all equally.

jassmine

08-09-2018, 01:14 PM

This is a perfect example of how the anecdotal he says, she says, game benefits nobody in the end. If we bring anecdotal evidence and stereotypes as proof/evidence to the table nothing gets solved and tensions continue rise. This is an issue for both sides of the argument.

nothing anecdotal about it. It's borne out through the same research that constitutes the training of healthcare proffesionals throughout the country. I'm 100% positive that if you read Jasmine's links, they'll say essentially the same thing. You asked for a summary, I gave you the one that's in my head from reading similar papers. It's empirically measured.

Correct, it is not anecdotal at all, here are specific references supporting Pemby_mess' summary:

"These narratives revealed that women’s encounters were shaped by racism, discrimination, and structural inequities that continue to marginalize and disadvantage First Nations women. The women’s health care experiences have historical, political, and economic significance and are reflective of wider postcolonial relations that shape their everyday lives."

Browne, A. J., & Fiske, J. A. (2001). First Nations women’s encounters with mainstream health care services. Western journal of nursing research, 23(2), 126-147.

"Specifically, we illustrate how the ideological process of racialization can shapethe ways that health care providers ‘read’ and interact with Aboriginal patients,and how some Aboriginal patients avoid seeking health care based on theirexpectation of being treated differently"

Tang, S. Y., & Browne, A. J. (2008). ‘Race’matters: racialization and egalitarian discourses involving Aboriginal people in the Canadian health care context. Ethnicity and Health, 13(2), 109-127.

Adelson, N. (2005). The embodiment of inequity: Health disparities in Aboriginal Canada. Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante'e Publique, S45-S61.

Bourassa, C., McKay-McNabb, K., & Hampton, M. (2004). Racism, sexism and colonialism: The impact on the health of Aboriginal women in Canada. Canadian Woman Studies, 24(1).

Mulehahn

08-09-2018, 01:22 PM

you don't think there is logic behind those emotions? Our emotions developed out of a process to keep us alive thus far. Most Western philosophical processes have been an exercise in applying those survival mechanisms to larger, more sophisticated societies. I agree that the emotions of the population are influential, but it's our legal procedures that have tempered those and directed them as efficaciously as we've had the knowledge to do so. And, yes those do hopefully change and get more efficacious as we advance our societies and increase their sophistication even further.

you're talking about differences between legislation and adjudication. Adjudication has the last word. The legislation regarding aboriginal title was never tested through the judiciary, now it is.

No. I do not think logic applied. Lets discuss western philosophy. I am a ardent supporter of Hobbes and Montesquieu. Life is "solitary, poor,*nasty, brutish, and short."*Yes, people should strive for a state of peace; but that is driven from q state of Fear! A very powerful emotion.

You are right, I am discussing legislation. Legislation is based entirely on opinions and emotions. Adjudication is the system in which it is applied. It was legislation that called for residential schools. It was legislation that allowed for Jspanese internment. It was legislation that lead to Chinatowns! All created based on emotion! Emotions change.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 01:29 PM

And fat people are less likely to be taken seriously by their doctors. That’s not an institutional problem that’s an issue with some individuals in the medical system.
.

A healthcare provider making judgement calls based on someone being fat, actually has a lot of utility. I haven't seen anything to suggest that fat people get less or inappropriate treatment based on their weight. I suspect you could find evidence to support the opposite. The papers I'm mentally referencing were noting stark differences in how Canadian aboriginals experienced the healthcare system in comparison with non-aboriginals. In many cases the differences were life and death.

There's now information available about racially orientated abuses within Canadian child services. To the point where it appears tthere has been widespread deliberate institutionalization of many FN children. The premise of course is that their mothers a too poor and dysfunctional to release the kids back to, not necessarily because of evidence to that affect, but simply because they are in a FN community.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 01:35 PM

.

You are right, I am discussing legislation. Legislation is based entirely on opinions and emotions. Adjudication is the system in which it is applied. It was legislation that called for residential schools. It was legislation that allowed for Jspanese internment. It was legislation that lead to Chinatowns! All created based on emotion! Emotions change.

All legislation that was never judicially tested. And now it being tested in the case of unceded FN title. Not because of guilt, but based on long established legal principles. And when I say established, I mean at least back to the Magna Carta.

Pemby_mess

08-09-2018, 01:45 PM

No. I do not think logic applied. Lets discuss western philosophy. I am a ardent supporter of Hobbes and Montesquieu. Life is "solitary, poor,*nasty, brutish, and short."*Yes, people should strive for a state of peace; but that is driven from q state of Fear! A very powerful emotion.

I doubt many would agree the above quote defines their philosophical accretions very well. Do you think classical liberals generated those ideas out of guilt or fear?

And why aren't FN able to apply the Canadian manifestation of those same philosophies to their interests?

Livewire322

08-09-2018, 01:55 PM

A healthcare provider making judgement calls based on someone being fat, actually has a lot of utility. I haven't seen anything to suggest that fat people get less or inappropriate treatment based on their weight. I suspect you could find evidence to support the opposite. The papers I'm mentally referencing were noting stark differences in how Canadian aboriginals experienced the healthcare system in comparison with non-aboriginals. In many cases the differences were life and death.

There's now information available about racially orientated abuses within Canadian child services. To the point where it appears tthere has been widespread deliberate institutionalization of many FN children. The premise of course is that their mothers a too poor and dysfunctional to release the kids back to, not necessarily because of evidence to that affect, but simply because they are in a FN community.

The separation of children from their parents is a problem that should be solved. I agree.

I agree that a health care professional taking into account all factors when making a diagnosis is useful. Your dismissal of the problem was premature though. A recent example that has been in the media spotlight is:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.ponokanews.com/news/b-c-womans-obituary-casts-spotlight-on-medical-professions-fat-shaming/amp/

Even a cursory google search reveals numerous cases as detailed above.

Perhaps the problem lies in the word I’ve bolded. If you ask me about my experiences in the dentists chair I’ll tell you that they were terrible, not because the dentist did a poor job, but because I hate needles. It’s purely subjective and therefore unreliable.

If the study took a group of doctors and did a blind study, wherein doctors are asked to diagnose patients without knowing their race and then comparing it to diagnoses where they did know their race I’d trust the data. Asking people about their experience in a system is a flawed method that will only yield flawed results.