Algonquin Land Claim - signed

I've been following this for years. For the most part hope to keep my personal thoughts on the greater topic of what to do about FNs/claims to myself. Aka should we, do we owe them, if so what etc etc.

So trying to avoid a lot.
1) I can't help but think this will be a precedent,vthat many others throughout Cda look at. It's a huge chunk of land for really just a few. With all kinds of possible problems/land mines. Many speculated way back, that a number of the blocks/areas were um, chosen, for their economic value, aka development. Is just one such potential blow up/problem.

2)) DanO. Re gates. I seem to recall one of the higher ups in the MNR responsible for (I think) APP resigning/retiring (possibly?) over it. He felt there was little "co-operation" about the process. There's a video out there somewhere of his speech in it. He also in that video talked about APP, the old and current logging roads. Felt they should be decommissioned (bridges taken out, berms put in etc). Basically concerned that FNs will now have highways and access to the park where...

Re the Bruce
a very good friend of mine got caught in that fiasco. Family cottage for many many years....received a letter just a couple weeks before x-mas informing them they had to Jan 1 to get any belongings, and vacate. Lots of people who over years/decades did some work on places, more

suffice to say, we never, ever mention land claims /leases around him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

---

With this agreement,that Charter may be the biggest joke of all and all done by Liberals. Gee,what could possibly go wrong?

Couldn't find the video, but did find this.

worth the read.
http://www.ofah.org/zonef/wp-content...-11-2013-1.pdf

I will speculate that within short order APP will be full of gill nets and the moose and deer will be in sharp decline and it wouldn't be a stretch for any landowners in the claim area be forced to pay a tax to the FN for the privilege of staying on their land. Or worse like what happened up on the Bruce. Time will tell but this just stinks Plain and simple.

What I don't think anyone on here is realizing is that this doesn't make the area of the land claim a "reserve".

The 300 Million is payment in lieu of the land already under private ownership etc. Private lands remain private lands, municipalities within the land claim remain as they are. The only impact this has is on Crown land within the designated area, with regards to resources. The MNRF are still going to actively manage those areas.

I own a cottage within this area, and have been involved in the process and the claim. It isn't as nefarious as many on here are alluding to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

I own a cottage within this area, and have been involved in the process and the claim. It isn't as nefarious as many on here are alluding to.

---

Now don't go spoiling their good rant with facts ...LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Now don't go spoiling their good rant with facts ...LOL...

---

Sorry Mike, You're right...fellas please continue the rant.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

What I don't think anyone on here is realizing is that this doesn't make the area of the land claim a "reserve".

The 300 Million is payment in lieu of the land already under private ownership etc. Private lands remain private lands, municipalities within the land claim remain as they are. The only impact this has is on Crown land within the designated area, with regards to resources. The MNRF are still going to actively manage those areas.

I own a cottage within this area, and have been involved in the process and the claim. It isn't as nefarious as many on here are alluding to.

---

So,doesn't that just mean the $300M guarantees property owners can't be turfed,BUT,the properties are essentially "landlocked"? No matter which way you cut it,BBD,that's not a position I would want to find myself in. Nothing has stopped the FN from blockading the area accesses and telling the government to pound salt.

Exactly. If a road goes through crown land they could very well put up a toll booth just to spite people. Their track record isn't exactly comforting. Think Caledonia and the Bruce. As for fishing and hunting within that area you can expect access won't be given for free if at all. The CO's likely won't waste time in there and the rapid destruction will be inevitable. Then this sets a legal precedence so watch the other land claims pop up like mushrooms. This will affect logging/timber costs as well as other resource extraction industries. Not that you know, we are a resource based economy in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

So,doesn't that just mean the $300M guarantees property owners can't be turfed,BUT,the properties are essentially "landlocked"? No matter which way you cut it,BBD,that's not a position I would want to find myself in. Nothing is stopped the FN from blockading the area accesses and telling the government to pound salt.

---

Ok. Very clear that you haven't read the agreement. It is a massive document which is unlike anything else that has been done previously.

Short answer, no. No landowner within the claim is landlocked. Again this DOES NOT CREATE A RESERVE.

The municipalities and infrastructure within the area remain unchanged. The municipal act is still in place, and its business as usual. Osgoode Hall, and the Law Society of Upper Canada held legal briefings on this treaty, knowing they had Lawyers operating within the borders, and the inevitability of questions. From what I've seen on here, no one has attended those briefings, nor have they sought legal counsel on it.

Again. It applies to the management of resources within the claim area only. FN do not have any control, nor inclination to do so beynd that. The system of redress for issues under the treaty is very well spelled out, there was a reason why ALL FN communities had to agree, and it wasn't done by a majority vote.

I not only have read the legal briefings provided to OCJ Judges with respect to the treaty, but have also spoken with legal counsel on the treaty as well.

But please do continue based on a 300 word article published in a news outlet.