First Nations left empty-handed

[danny W1M]

An excellent read from the Financial Post, interviews with Native Chiefs who worked hard to make multi billion dollar deals with energy/pipeline/transportation companies, only to have the deals halted and undermined by enviro-Nazis and manipulated natives, and those who are anti energy, like some who post on agriville. They would become financially independent from government with these deals.

[URL="http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nations-left-empty-handed-as-environmentalist-pressure-kills-b-c-energy-projects"]http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nations-left-empty-handed-as-environmentalist-pressure-kills-b-c-energy-projects[/URL]

If you can't read it now, then read it some evening when you have more time.

[chuckChuck]

An excellent read from the Financial Post, interviews with Native Chiefs who worked hard to make multi billion dollar deals with energy/pipeline/transportation companies, only to have the deals halted and undermined by enviro-Nazis and manipulated natives, and those who are anti energy, like some who post on agriville. They would become financially independent from government with these deals.

[URL="http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nations-left-empty-handed-as-environmentalist-pressure-kills-b-c-energy-projects"]http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sickening-first-nations-left-empty-handed-as-environmentalist-pressure-kills-b-c-energy-projects[/URL]

If you can't read it now, then read it some evening when you have more time.

Interesting read.

First nations have been put in a position of having to go after any economic activity and benefits they can find even if they are divided on how to develop and use their lands.

Since all of Canada was essentially owned and occupied by First Nations before European settlement there is strong case to argue that they are entitled to a share of all the resources developed on their former lands not just their reserve and treaty lands. This would certainly help to make them more economically self sufficient.

[the big wheel]

Can you show me a document whereby they actually owned this land. And functioned as a government and controlled boundaries etc?
By their own practice no one owns the land. Were they not squatters and there are more and more findings that white people were likely here long before indigenous people. So do they not have a claim now that we re playing this game??
Just questions that no one wants to deal with. Except hand out money to fix everything that who is responsible for? All to get the increasing number of votes from those paid to sit home and have kids?? Or is that all garbage??
All of these questions never get talked about while the situation gets worse on both ends of this. And no one party has ever done what is right only done what gets votes. Or is that incorrect.

[chuckChuck]

"In Canadian law all lands are subject to the Crown, and this has been true since Britain acquired much of Eastern Canada from France by the Treaty of Paris (1763). However, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim, Aboriginal title, which was not extinguished by the arrival of the Europeans. This is in direct contrast to the situation in Australia where the continent was declared Terra nullius, or vacant land, and was seized from Aboriginal peoples without compensation. In consequence, all of Canada, save a section of southern Quebec exempted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is subject to Aboriginal title. Native groups historically negotiated treaties in which they traded tenure to the land for annuities and certain legal exemptions and privileges. Most of Western Canada was secured in this way by the government via the Numbered Treaties of 1871 to 1921, though not all groups signed treaties. In particular, in most of British Columbia Aboriginal title has never been transferred to the Crown. Many native groups, both those that have never signed treaties or those that are dissatisfied with the execution of treaties have made formal Aboriginal land claims against the government."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_ownership_in_Canada

[chuckChuck]

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032291/1100100032292
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Pre-Confederation treaties

In the 18th century, the French and British were competing for control of lands in North America. The two colonial powers formed strategic alliances with First Nations to help them advance their respective colonial interests in the continent. For example, in what are now New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the British made a series of “Peace and Friendship” treaties with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet tribes between 1725 and 1779.

By the early 1760s, the British had established themselves as the dominant colonial power in North America. The British Royal Proclamation of 1763 prohibited the purchase of First Nation lands by any party other than the Crown. The Crown could purchase land from a First Nation group that had agreed to the sale at a public meeting of the group.

Several treaties were signed after the Royal Proclamation and before Confederation in 1867. These include the Upper Canada Treaties (1764 to 1862) and the Vancouver Island Treaties (1850 to 1854). Under these treaties, the First Nations surrendered interests in lands in areas of what are now Ontario and British Columbia. They surrendered their interest in lands in exchange for certain other benefits that could include reserves, annual payments or other types of payment and certain rights to hunt and fish.
Historic treaties after Confederation

Between 1871 and 1921, the Crown entered into treaties with various First Nations that enabled the Canadian government to actively pursue agriculture, settlement and resource development of the Canadian West and the North. Because they are numbered 1 to 11, the treaties are often referred to as the “Numbered Treaties.” The Numbered Treaties cover Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and parts of the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.

Under these treaties, the First Nations who occupied these territories gave up large areas of land to the Crown. In exchange, the treaties provided for such things as reserve lands and other benefits like farm equipment and animals, annual payments, ammunition, clothing and certain rights to hunt and fish. The Crown also made some promises such as maintaining schools on reserves or providing teachers or educational help to the First Nation named in the treaties. Treaty No. 6 included the promise of a medicine chest.

[chuckChuck]

Can you show me a document whereby they actually owned this land. And functioned as a government and controlled boundaries etc?
By their own practice no one owns the land. Were they not squatters and there are more and more findings that white people were likely here long before indigenous people. So do they not have a claim now that we re playing this game??
Just questions that no one wants to deal with. Except hand out money to fix everything that who is responsible for? All to get the increasing number of votes from those paid to sit home and have kids?? Or is that all garbage??
All of these questions never get talked about while the situation gets worse on both ends of this. And no one party has ever done what is right only done what gets votes. Or is that incorrect.

I dont know if the 2 posts above answer your question. "However, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim, Aboriginal title,"

"In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the plaintif in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. Rejecting the government's claim that Aboriginal title applied only to villages and fishing sites, it instead agreed with the First Nation that Aboriginal title extends to the entire traditional territory of an indigenous group, even if that group was semi-nomadic and did not create settlements on that territory. It also stated that governments must have consent from First Nations which hold Aboriginal title in order to approve developments on that land, and governments can override the First Nation's wishes only in exceptional circumstances. The court reaffirmed, however, that areas under Aboriginal title are not outside the jurisdiction of the provinces, and provincial law still applies.[48][49]"

[danny W1M]

See your all over this one chucky!

Feeling guilt that the environazis are keeping natives repressed!

Keeping them dependant on government, is a political tactic the left uses for natives in Canada and Blacks use in the USA.

[chuckChuck]

I agree we have created a system where they don't have the self government and economic resources to take care of themselves. We have a paternalistic Indian Act that makes it difficult for economic progress. This system was created and maintained by both Conservative and Liberal governments over many decades. Why are you blaming the left?

Sharing in the development of resources and benefiting from economic development will go along way to solving a lot of the economic and social problems in first nations, would you not agree?

[the big wheel]

Are those not all based upon interpretations of interpretations of writing s and deals which were sometimes so unclearly defined that no one knew what they meant? And its still all based on an unproven premis that the land was owned previously is it not?

Which means as I said governments that control the courts that spend millions on deciding these things which wouldn't there be no reason for dispute if it was as clear as wickey makes it look are making these decisions politically and not factually?

Medicine chest until the sun stops shining and rivers stop flowing. There is no sun every night and there isn't a river that hasn't gone dry in Canada since those agreements were made if we were to be technical??? Or not???

[danny W1M]

Things were done to natives by both political parties in years past. Not because anyone was trying to be hurtful to them, it's just what was thought to be helpful to them at the time.

Now days, when people are so aware, you leftist's intentionally shut down projects with your destructive lobbying, like these pipelines. You know these natives would be helped by education, training, and a sense of self worth by having a job, yet the left is happy to keep them reliant on the government and captive on their reserves.

Natives share in the wealth from resources,,,just as every Canadian does.
As far as sharing in the jobs and development,,,that's what environazis, and your friends on the left are stopping, read the article for cripe sakes!

[chuckChuck]

Things were done to natives by both political parties in years past. Not because anyone was trying to be hurtful to them, it's just what was thought to be helpful to them at the time.

Now days, when people are so aware, you leftist's intentionally shut down projects with your destructive lobbying, like these pipelines. You know these natives would be helped by education, training, and a sense of self worth by having a job, yet the left is happy to keep them reliant on the government and captive on their reserves.

Natives share in the wealth from resources,,,just as every Canadian does.
As far as sharing in the jobs and development,,,that's what environazis, and your friends on the left are stopping, read the article for cripe sakes!

Now Notley is on the left as an NDP and she is in favour of pipelines to move Alberta crude. Correct.

I am not in favor of shutting down pipelines if we are going to continue to use oil. But I am also in favor of protecting the land, air and water.

As far as I know most people are in favor of clean air and clean water for their families and livestock and get pretty upset when one or both are polluted.

Lots of Alberta cattle ranchers have been battling the oil industry for years . Are they environazis?

Your name calling and generalizations are unfortunate because there are a range of opinions and experiences on these issues and you can't try to define them all with left and right.

[danny W1M]

Atmospheric carbon is not pollution.

[chuckChuck]

Atmospheric carbon is not pollution.

So? It doesn't matter whether you call it pollution or not. It still causes global warming. But lets not rehash that again and again and waste our time disagreeing. The thread is about first nations and resource development.

[Oliver88]

Environmental lobbyists that oppose resource development have used some natives for their own evil benefit.

Unfortunately the Indian Bands that are in favour of resource development don't get the attention that the paid protesters and other well funded left wing groups receive since it doesn't suit the narrative of CBC, CTV, Global, etc.

[danny W1M]

Rachel Notley actually was on the picket lines against pipelines and energy projects before she was elected, look it up!

Now she's a politician, two faced as most are.