Algonquin Land Claim - signed

With the Bruce the natives owned the land and the cottagers leased the cottages. They owned the cottages but not the land they sat on.Thats why you can buy a cottage for cheap and pay 5-6 grand a year in lease fees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

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.

---

Wrong.

Caledonia is an area that is in dispute. Bruce is a reserve.

The Treaty specifically addresses access and management of crown land. It remains the purview of the MNRF.

Again, blockades and restrictions are not in the table. FN agreement was a crucial part of the Treaty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

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.

---

This may be the case up until they decide they aren't happy with this agreement and decide to ignore parts of it. I wish you well and hope this is not the case but I doubt it will be long term. First Nations don't have a history of sticking together or respecting agreements anymore than the white man. Trudough and Wynne signed off on this. What could go wrong? :ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

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.

---

You're certainly correct that I haven't read the entire agreement,but,seeing that past performance is a very accurate predictor of future performance and FN has an absolutely abysmal track record,I'll just sit back and wait. It won't take long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

You're certainly correct that I haven't read the entire agreement,but,seeing that past performance is a very accurate predictor of future performance and FN has an absolutely abysmal track record,I'll just sit back and wait. It won't take long.

---

What I think is interesting, is that many folks think that FN will break the Treaty. Yes, they have a very poor track record, particularly when they were frustrated. However, the signing of this treaty actually serves to redress much of that frustration. Again, this was agreed to by a massive amount of groups, representing several distinct FN communities. This is a Treaty, not a claim.

Wait and see? Perhaps. I'm not quite as uncertain as some however.

Rant's mike? Well I guess meaningful discussions.....:)

I don't think the OFAH who has listed pages of concerns are ranting.
I don't think Jack Winter, formerly of the MNR in charge of APP is ranting either.in fact I'm willing to bet he had a lot to do/say about Wolves and Coyotes. So which is it. Is he just an uninformed hot head, that's ranting without facts and information. Or is he someone who spent 40 years overseeing APP?
*****

BBD
what kind of track record do the MNR and or FNs have with respect to
A) monitoring game, monitoring activity in and off reserves.
B) enforcing things/infractions

So even though it's not a reserve. well see Nipising, the Fishery around Owen Sound, Moose and more.

and with respect to many other things.
Railway lines being blockaded
developments in Caledonia being hijacked. People/homeowners begging McGuinty or the OPP to enforce the law.....and
/crickets
Hydro lines from Niagara being blocked and deep sized.
and on
and on
and on
and on

in short "guarantees" that "don't worry, about A to Z"
arent worth much unfortunately.

Imo if there's any "one" person, or side, or organization worth listening to, it's Jack Winters. And do note there are FNs people sounding alarm bells to.

i can't find the video of his presentation which was in depth and listed many reasons why people should be concerned. But did link some of it in the above article.

Why? Well obviously his back ground......just as obviously he is fair minded, a moderate, believes we should be doing things.......

and yet why would a very senior person within the MNR speak out?
well I suppose being retired and not having to answer to his political masters anymore.....might have something to do with it.

How did they find how much land to give. Wasn't the whole country native land or did they only stay on part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

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.

---

With that in mind, when I was getting up to speed on the issue a few years back because we were looking to buy a hunt camp in the affected area, a concern we found had to do with the possibility of them selling a parcel of land given to them under the treaty.

Do you happen to know how that was resolved; will they be allowed to sell off property to developers etc. ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

With that in mind, when I was getting up to speed on the issue a few years back because we were looking to buy a hunt camp in the affected area, a concern we found had to do with the possibility of them selling a parcel of land given to them under the treaty.

Do you happen to know how that was resolved; will they be allowed to sell off property to developers etc. ?

---

Crown Land ( as it will still be known) will not be able to be "parceled off". Properties remain sovereign within same. One should also note that much of the language is around "resources". Timber rights, and mineral rights are still subject to the same controls and approvals as they were under previously. The benefits of those resources belong to the FN.

Any FN community identified under the treaty would not only have to seek all FN stakeholders to make a change, but then the same approvals that any other entity would be subject to.