Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sandman]

hey typhoon - what section of the charter is that found in? im curious because im studying law

Aboriginal rights are only guaranteed in Section 25 of the Charter,  they are confirmed in Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

[JAwrey]

I am all for paying respects to a brutal and unfortunate past, don't get me wrong.  But a part of me wonders why, at this point in time, we still pay our respects to the First Nation's People in the way that we do - especially when both sides are several generations removed from the initial event!

J

[typhoon]

hey typhoon - what section of the charter is that found in? im curious because im studying law

No idea. I am not studying law, though you must know where to look.

[Sandman]

I am all for paying respects to a brutal and unfortunate past, don't get me wrong.  But a part of me wonders why, at this point in time, we still pay our respects to the First Nation's People in the way that we do - especially when both sides are several generations removed from the initial event!

J

I suppose it is because we are not red necks who feel it is acceptable to force our way of life onto another autonomous people like some of our forefather were.  Perhaps it is because their rights are confirmed in the laws and in the very constitution of our country, so we have no choice.  Perhaps it is because many of us believe in the principles of self determination (this was the basis of a clause in the treaty of Versailles that allowed previously subjected peoples to declare independence from Germany following WWI, or that allowed us to justify going to war with North Korea or Iraq to defend the right of self determination of weaker nations).  If we are going to defend those rights of people around the world, we need to do so in our own backyard too. We would all like to have the First Nations join in the warm fuzziness that is the Canadian nation, however, this must be done on their own terms, that is, terms negotiated in good faith with Canada.  It cannot be done by force or by everyone whining really loud.  This is not the case of a people that have assimilated hundreds of years ago and now we are "paying respects" to them.  This is a case of a people who have resisted assimilation for over a hundred years and us needing to come to terms with the reality that they are a distinct and dignified society that deserves the same rights as the rest of us, the right to determine their own destiny.

[JAwrey]

I suppose it is because we are not red necks who feel it is acceptable to force our way of life onto another autonomous people like some of our forefather were.  Perhaps it is because their rights are confirmed in the laws and in the very constitution of our country, so we have no choice.  Perhaps it is because many of us believe in the principles of self determination (this was the basis of a clause in the treaty of Versailles that allowed previously subjected peoples to declare independence from Germany following WWI, or that allowed us to justify going to war with North Korea or Iraq to defend the right of self determination of weaker nations).  If we are going to defend those rights of people around the world, we need to do so in our own backyard too. We would all like to have the First Nations join in the warm fuzziness that is the Canadian nation, however, this must be done on their own terms, that is, terms negotiated in good faith with Canada.  It cannot be done by force or by everyone whining really loud.  This is not the case of a people that have assimilated hundreds of years ago and now we are "paying respects" to them.  This is a case of a people who have resisted assimilation for over a hundred years and us needing to come to terms with the reality that they are a distinct and dignified society that deserves the same rights as the rest of us, the right to determine their own destiny.

I would suggest strategies that specifically aim to provide them with their own identity would be far superior than those that are currently in place.  That being said, my comments still stand: I do look upon the atrocities committed against the First Nations with disdain and horror, but I also feel that we should aim to welcome them into the fabric of Canada.  A fabric that has become an international symbol for unity of beliefs and home-lands, standing proud under a single flag.  As somebody who understands very clearly his lineage, from a fourth-generation "Canadian", all the way back to those who came here from their respective homelands, I am proud of my country.  However, I am not proud of our treatment of the FN's, and I do believe that if we continue in a similar manner, it will serve only to alienate them further.  In our current arrangement, they live on separate tracks of land, with separate system of law and government - there is no unity there!  It seems to be the attitude of the Canadian government that we give them autonomy.  I would propose, perhaps somewhat blindly, that we strive to provide thorough integration of our respective societies.  How can we teach our children to respect others, and treat them as our brothers, when some of the kids on their hockey team live in a different world?  One with different sets of challenges, adversities, prejudices?  THAT is my issue with the current system.

J

[Sandman]

I would suggest strategies that specifically aim to provide them with their own identity would be far superior than those that are currently in place.

The treaty process is a strategy to provide them with "their own identity" as well as a few other things like their own self government, their own lands, resources, etc.  The current system was supposed to be a temporary system and supposed to clear the majority of Canadian lands for European settlement.  The "Indian lands" were held in trust by the Canadian government to prevent their sale by unscrupulous land dealers.  The natives were supposed to settle on the these lands, give up their nomadic hunting and gathering way of life and become farmers and assimilate into Canadian society.  This was not intended to last hundreds of years.

It seems to be the attitude of the Canadian government that we give them autonomy.  I would propose, perhaps somewhat blindly, that we strive to provide thorough integration of our respective societies. 

Perhaps you could try to explain the difference between what you mean by "integration" and the former government policy of "assimilation" as it might help you to see the difficulty in this.  It was, after all, the government's assimilation policy that led to some of the most atrocious of the atrocities committed against the First Nations (the banning of the Potlatch and other ceremonies, the residential schools and the emotional, psychological and physical scars that they left, and the loss of generations of oral traditions and language), not to mention the delay in the settling of the land claims themselves (for years Aboriginals were not allowed, under the law, to hire lawyers to advance their land claims).  Trudeau tried to go the assimilation route in the White Paper of 1969<http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/pubs/cp1969/cp1969-eng.asp, which was couched in very liberal ideals and language, and spoke of leading First Nations "to the full, free and non­discriminatory participation of the Indian people in Canadian society." The White Paper proposed to eliminate "the seeds of disharmony and disunity" in the Government policies which "prevent [First Nations] Canadians from fulfilling themselves and contributing to their society."  Trudeau's Government was offering a "another road for Indians, a road that would lead gradually away from different status to full social, economic and political participation in Canadian life," and of this "choice" of road that was being offered, the Government felt the "Indian people must be persuaded, must persuade themselves, that this path will lead them to a fuller and richer life."  Keep in mind here, that while it sounds "liberal,"  Trudeau himself did not recognize Aboriginals rights (because, according to Trudeau, "no society can be created on 'historical might have beens'"), nor did he support that concept of self government for First Nations (one of his concerns with the treaty process was that, in regard to the transfer of services to the natives, that it created a requirement to give them status "on par with the government" (which is exactly what the First Nations wanted).

  Unfortunately for the Government, and the rest of Canadian society, the First Nations did not agree.  Their response to the change in policy was the Citizens Plus, or the "Red Paper" <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED056791>in which the Indian Chiefs of Alberta systematically dismantled Trudeau's argument for assimilation and asserted that there was "nothing more important [to First Nations] than [their] Treaties, [their] lands, and the well being of [their] future generations."

 

[JAwrey]

The treaty process is a strategy to provide them with "their own identity" as well as a few other things like their own self government, their own lands, resources, etc.  The current system was supposed to be a temporary system and supposed to clear the majority of Canadian lands for European settlement.  The "Indian lands" were held in trust by the Canadian government to prevent their sale by unscrupulous land dealers.  The natives were supposed to settle on the these lands, give up their nomadic hunting and gathering way of life and become farmers and assimilate into Canadian society.  This was not intended to last hundreds of years.

Perhaps you could try to explain the difference between what you mean by "integration" and the former government policy of "assimilation" as it might help you to see the difficulty in this.  It was, after all, the government's assimilation policy that led to some of the most atrocious of the atrocities committed against the First Nations (the banning of the Potlatch and other ceremonies, the residential schools and the emotional, psychological and physical scars that they left, and the loss of generations of oral traditions and language), not to mention the delay in the settling of the land claims themselves (for years Aboriginals were not allowed, under the law, to hire lawyers to advance their land claims).  Trudeau tried to go the assimilation route in the White Paper of 1969<http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/pubs/cp1969/cp1969-eng.asp, which was couched in very liberal ideals and language, and spoke of leading First Nations "to the full, free and non­discriminatory participation of the Indian people in Canadian society." The White Paper proposed to eliminate "the seeds of disharmony and disunity" in the Government policies which "prevent [First Nations] Canadians from fulfilling themselves and contributing to their society."  Trudeau's Government was offering a "another road for Indians, a road that would lead gradually away from different status to full social, economic and political participation in Canadian life," and of this "choice" of road that was being offered, the Government felt the "Indian people must be persuaded, must persuade themselves, that this path will lead them to a fuller and richer life."  Keep in mind here, that while it sounds "liberal,"  Trudeau himself did not recognize Aboriginals rights (because, according to Trudeau, "no society can be created on 'historical might have beens'"), nor did he support that concept of self government for First Nations (one of his concerns with the treaty process was that, in regard to the transfer of services to the natives, that it created a requirement to give them status "on par with the government" (which is exactly what the First Nations wanted).

  Unfortunately for the Government, and the rest of Canadian society, the First Nations did not agree.  Their response to the change in policy was the Citizens Plus, or the "Red Paper" <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED056791>in which the Indian Chiefs of Alberta systematically dismantled Trudeau's argument for assimilation and asserted that there was "nothing more important [to First Nations] than [their] Treaties, [their] lands, and the well being of [their] future generations."

 

I suppose I don't believe the treaty process does so.  I think it is more of a highway to increased tension and segregation, instead of a road unity under one flag.  I believe that the preservation of FN ways and beliefs, while doing our best to weave them into the fabric of Canada is entirely possible.  In fact, I believe it is the appropriate course.  Allow them their land, their fish, their rights, but do not do so at the expense of the nation.  I suppose that is what irritates me about some of the native fisheries - they clamor for more, but should they take a smaller claim and respect the stocks, they ensure greater runs for years to come.  I understand that they have mouths to feed, as well as the right to fish to feed them, but I suppose I believe a little bit of foresight would go a long way.

Assimilation is described as "the merging of cultural traits from previously distinct cultural groups" according to my dusty ol' Webster's.  Merging does not result in individuality, merging does not result in an individual community within the whole, that retains a passionate respect for the past.  Integration is "an act or instance of combining into an integral whole" - in other words, welcoming the FN into Canada (yes, on their terms) not in an attempt to steal their land, squash their history and take away their rights of ceremony, but in a manner that allows them to be a part of our national community, rather than leaving them on the sidelines.  I feel, under the current system, that the FN are more pushed away from an integrated (there's that word again) way of life and more towards one of segregation.  This is not a belief formulated from an armchair, this is from friends of mine who are of FN descent.  How dare we continue under a system that preaches of acceptance and apology, but causes anguish and forges a socioeconomic divide between "us" and "them".

"Us" and "them" - that's where this whole issue started, isn't it?  We gather in meeting rooms on opposite sides of boardroom tables, but we never sit together.  I make this distinction because it hasn't been made and it must be.  While costly and extensive - it may take years - I believe that formulating a treaty that comes equally from both sides, with both parties working toward a common goal.  I don't believe that the current system is effective. Simple as that.

J

[skaha]

--if the kamloops lk fishery was what it used to be many of these issues would go away as there would actually be a resource to share.

-- more looking forward to common goals..

--when I look at policies and management plans... I ask myself a few simple questions... and record answer in simple terms and only three categories..
--plus, check or minus.. not 2.4 out of 3... does the action improve the situation, stay the same or make it worse.

--Thus my first concern (not only concern) is there enough fish for a kamloops lake commercial opening. If yes then lets give it a try.   

[Sandman]

I suppose I don't believe the treaty process does so.  I think it is more of a highway to increased tension and segregation, instead of a road unity under one flag.  I believe that the preservation of FN ways and beliefs, while doing our best to weave them into the fabric of Canada is entirely possible.  In fact, I believe it is the appropriate course.  Allow them their land, their fish, their rights, but do not do so at the expense of the nation.  I suppose that is what irritates me about some of the native fisheries - they clamor for more, but should they take a smaller claim and respect the stocks, they ensure greater runs for years to come.  I understand that they have mouths to feed, as well as the right to fish to feed them, but I suppose I believe a little bit of foresight would go a long way.

Assimilation is described as "the merging of cultural traits from previously distinct cultural groups" according to my dusty ol' Webster's.  Merging does not result in individuality, merging does not result in an individual community within the whole, that retains a passionate respect for the past.  Integration is "an act or instance of combining into an integral whole" - in other words, welcoming the FN into Canada (yes, on their terms) not in an attempt to steal their land, squash their history and take away their rights of ceremony, but in a manner that allows them to be a part of our national community, rather than leaving them on the sidelines.  I feel, under the current system, that the FN are more pushed away from an integrated (there's that word again) way of life and more towards one of segregation.  This is not a belief formulated from an armchair, this is from friends of mine who are of FN descent.  How dare we continue under a system that preaches of acceptance and apology, but causes anguish and forges a socioeconomic divide between "us" and "them".

"Us" and "them" - that's where this whole issue started, isn't it?  We gather in meeting rooms on opposite sides of boardroom tables, but we never sit together.  I make this distinction because it hasn't been made and it must be.  While costly and extensive - it may take years - I believe that formulating a treaty that comes equally from both sides, with both parties working toward a common goal.  I don't believe that the current system is effective. Simple as that.

J

Thanks for that clarification, but I still have a few questions to clarify.  I am wondering if the "current" system you are referring to is the one under which the majority of the First Nations in BC live (that system established by the Indian Act as a means, not an end), or the current treaty process, which has only been concluded in three cases in BC (the Nis'gaa, Tsawwassen, and Maa-nulth ), although the Inuit of Nunavut have themselves settled the largest comprehensive lands claim in Canada.  While I would agree with you absolutely that the former is untenable, the latter, as the chosen method of the First Nations (as I mentioned before they have made it quite clear in the past that they have no desire to assimilate into Canadian culture), is indeed effective.  You suggest that a treaty must come "equally from both sides, with both parties working toward a common goal" (at least that is what I think you meant, as your syntax was a little confusing) and I would suggest that is exactly what the current treaty process is.  I just think that the "common goal" in question is not the goal that you would like as it does not involve the "weaving of the First Nations into the fabric of Canada."  I sense the biggest obstacle to your goal of integration is the desire of the First nations to hold onto their land rights which does maintain the "segregation" of which you are so opposed.  However, if the treaty process allows the First Nations to govern themselves and manage their land and resources to their own advantage, then I do not find that segregation to be as offensive as you do.  The problem with the current system (the temporary system I have alluded to earlier) is that the segregation has left them both unable to benefit from the advantages of Canadian society, nor has it allowed them to develop and maintain the advantages of their own society (for the reasons White Paper describes so eloquently).  I think that if the treaty process is allowed to continue to its conclusion (however slow and expensive it is) the First Nations will have been given the opportunity to determine their own place in "the fabric of Canada" and the extent to which they will be woven is up to them.

[StillAqua]

Thanks for that clarification, but I still have a few questions to clarify.  I am wondering if the "current" system you are referring to is the one under which the majority of the First Nations in BC live (that system established by the Indian Act as a means, not an end), or the current treaty process, which has only been concluded in three cases in BC (the Nis'gaa, Tsawwassen, and Maa-nulth ), although the Inuit of Nunavut have themselves settled the largest comprehensive lands claim in Canada.  While I would agree with you absolutely that the former is untenable, the latter, as the chosen method of the First Nations (as I mentioned before they have made it quite clear in the past that they have no desire to assimilate into Canadian culture), is indeed effective.  You suggest that a treaty must come "equally from both sides, with both parties working toward a common goal" (at least that is what I think you meant, as your syntax was a little confusing) and I would suggest that is exactly what the current treaty process is.  I just think that the "common goal" in question is not the goal that you would like as it does not involve the "weaving of the First Nations into the fabric of Canada."  I sense the biggest obstacle to your goal of integration is the desire of the First nations to hold onto their land rights which does maintain the "segregation" of which you are so opposed.  However, if the treaty process allows the First Nations to govern themselves and manage their land and resources to their own advantage, then I do not find that segregation to be as offensive as you do.  The problem with the current system (the temporary system I have alluded to earlier) is that the segregation has left them both unable to benefit from the advantages of Canadian society, nor has it allowed them to develop and maintain the advantages of their own society (for the reasons White Paper describes so eloquently).  I think that if the treaty process is allowed to continue to its conclusion (however slow and expensive it is) the First Nations will have been given the opportunity to determine their own place in "the fabric of Canada" and the extent to which they will be woven is up to them.

Well said Sandman. I encourage everyone to do a little background reading on the history of the First Nations Treaty process and how the "food" fishery and reservation system was created to marginize FN from their traditional sources of "income" and transfer that "wealth" to European settlers and businessmen. Yes, the treaty process is painful but it's really the only way for all our "distinct societies" to live and prosper together.

[skaha]

--I think we should also conscider that not all FN people agree with their leaders who are negotiating as opposed to the rest of US settlers who all agree with our current government and have confidence that they are bargaining in good faith with all of our best interests in mind.
--Sorry couldn't resist.

[Sandman]

--I think we should also conscider that not all FN people agree with their leaders who are negotiating as opposed to the rest of US settlers who all agree with our current government and have confidence that they are bargaining in good faith with all of our best interests in mind.
--Sorry couldn't resist.

And of course we are not even talking about the few groups that have no interest in negotiating at all and are taking the hard line "this is our land, your king said so, and we are not interested in giving it up."  It is going to be interesting when it comes time to "deal" with these folks.  We don't really have a legal leg to stand on and the international community will be watching with acute interest as to how we manage to untangle that mess while still protecting the human rights of all parties.

[StillAqua]

--I think we should also conscider that not all FN people agree with their leaders who are negotiating as opposed to the rest of US settlers who all agree with our current government and have confidence that they are bargaining in good faith with all of our best interests in mind.
--Sorry couldn't resist.

In 2006, the PM of our current government wrote:
''Let me also be clear,''Harper wrote, after reciting his government's initiatives in areas like tax cuts, crime, and the war on terror. ''In the coming months, we will strike a judicial inquiry into the collapse of the Fraser River salmon fishery and oppose racially divided fisheries programs.''

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=27051f96-c2be-45cc-a7b7-6f49cdadfe8b

Little things like the Constitution and the Supreme Court don't bother our PM.

[Sandman]

In 2006, the PM of our current government wrote:
''Let me also be clear,''Harper wrote, after reciting his government's initiatives in areas like tax cuts, crime, and the war on terror. ''In the coming months, we will strike a judicial inquiry into the collapse of the Fraser River salmon fishery and oppose racially divided fisheries programs.''

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=27051f96-c2be-45cc-a7b7-6f49cdadfe8b

Little things like the Constitution and the Supreme Court don't bother our PM.

I am very interested in what he does now that he has a majority government.  Things could get hot.

[JAwrey]

Thanks for that clarification, but I still have a few questions to clarify.  I am wondering if the "current" system you are referring to is the one under which the majority of the First Nations in BC live (that system established by the Indian Act as a means, not an end), or the current treaty process, which has only been concluded in three cases in BC (the Nis'gaa, Tsawwassen, and Maa-nulth ), although the Inuit of Nunavut have themselves settled the largest comprehensive lands claim in Canada.  While I would agree with you absolutely that the former is untenable, the latter, as the chosen method of the First Nations (as I mentioned before they have made it quite clear in the past that they have no desire to assimilate into Canadian culture), is indeed effective.  You suggest that a treaty must come "equally from both sides, with both parties working toward a common goal" (at least that is what I think you meant, as your syntax was a little confusing) and I would suggest that is exactly what the current treaty process is.  I just think that the "common goal" in question is not the goal that you would like as it does not involve the "weaving of the First Nations into the fabric of Canada."  I sense the biggest obstacle to your goal of integration is the desire of the First nations to hold onto their land rights which does maintain the "segregation" of which you are so opposed.  However, if the treaty process allows the First Nations to govern themselves and manage their land and resources to their own advantage, then I do not find that segregation to be as offensive as you do.  The problem with the current system (the temporary system I have alluded to earlier) is that the segregation has left them both unable to benefit from the advantages of Canadian society, nor has it allowed them to develop and maintain the advantages of their own society (for the reasons White Paper describes so eloquently).  I think that if the treaty process is allowed to continue to its conclusion (however slow and expensive it is) the First Nations will have been given the opportunity to determine their own place in "the fabric of Canada" and the extent to which they will be woven is up to them.

I address the old system simply because it is still the majority.

I agree completely - I feel we have been talking at cross-purposes here for a spell, because we seem to agree.  However, since you mentioned the Tsawwassen band, I shall speak on it as well.  As a Tsawwassen resident, born and raised, I have always noticed that the orientation of land division (seperate tribal lands) has led to extreme divides between the two communities.  I have never really understood why such a fissure exists, as we are all Canadians, living seemingly across the street from one another, and yet we cannot seem to extend common courtesies to each other!  While I think that we have made strides in the issue of land division, I not feel we are there yet.  It may well take trial and error, in a sense, to determine what the optimal arrangement is for each community.  But I do not feel that complete segregation is beneficial.

J