Printable View
Last year there was quite a hullabaloo about this but haven't heard much since. My Crown land happy hunting grounds of 40 years was one potential parcel to be involved according to a map posted last year. Anyone have current knowledge of the situation?
Whats the back story on this?
The current story stands just as it did when the noise quieted down. Basically what was outlined still seems to be the plan its just a matter of putting everything together. There is still some people who are putting up a fight and I expect mid summer the noise should fire back up. I will be speaking with a gentleman in a couple weeks who keeps a very close eye on what is happening as far as the Algonquins are concerned.
What does this all mean for us?we loose access to crown land hunting? What about buying land out that way?
There will still be lots crown land to hunt. Give it a little bit of time and the Algonquins will start selling the land. A lot of the land they have indicated they want is prime water front that will get sold off to developers.
i just hope they will start paying property taxes.
You are right. Most will be developed and sold. Taxes will only be paid on lands that have been developed, a hunt camp doesn't count either. Hopefully that is a clause that gets changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Sounds like a Caledonia recipe for disaster to me. Sell land collect monies, then take land back. Sounds great!!Quote:
Originally Posted by oaknut
Sooner or later something is going to give. Somebody will snap and it'll all go downhill real fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf
Call me what you want but I would never enter into a contract or pay money with any first nations band. If 10 yrs down the road a new generation feels they were cheated and don't accept the terms you would have no legal recourse as they only abide by laws when it suits them.
You hit the nail on the head with that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
According to any meetings I have been at, if your camp in in this area and this goes through, I would not spend a lot all money on maintenance of the camp because if they like it , it is theirs, but if you get to renew the land use permit, you will be paying the lease permit funds to the First Nations, not the MNR.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/chelsea...b_1127893.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Wow. That's quite a blanket statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
To clarify my "I hope they start paying property taxes" comment, I did mean on all real property that they own, on or off reserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wife
I was well aware that off reserve first nations pay property tax., But it has not been made absolutely clear if this will happen for any large parcels of land that have been selected as part of this land claim. Will these parcels be considered as reservation land, or private property.
Also there is some stuff in that link that does not apply in this situation yet, as there is no existing treaty with the Algonquins. Or do these things apply if favorable to them?
Not to discredit your article, but Chelsea Vowel is a FN blogger, and activist who makes her living from rabble rousing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wife
She was referenced indirectly in an article in the National Post surrounding the Attawapiskat fiasco, and they then basically lost most of their credibility on that particular issue.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...C5NejuVIle73XwQuote:
Originally Posted by Blackwolf
In actuality, Vowel is a Metis, not First Nations. The fact that she is university educated and lawyer doesn't count for anything? Attawapiskat was also cleared by Deloite. The media doesn't report everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Now, see, here's the big problem -- there is no treaty. That is a failure on the part of the Canadian government, not the Algonquin. I just don't understand why people continually bash the First Nations groups when they should be demanding serious answers from the Canadian government for failing to either hold up their end of the treaty bargain or not obtaining treaties at all. If the Canadian government never made a treaty with the Algonquians, how is it that the Algonquians fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Ok, I will play along, but first recognize that I have not bashed the first nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wife
Why is it a big problem that there is no treaty?
If a person comes onto your land, is it their obligation to initiate negotiations on the terms in which they will be there or should the land owner bear some responsibility for what happens on their land?
Why shouldn't the Algonquins admit that they share in the responsibility of not having a treaty?
What kind of serious answers do you really suppose can be obtained from todays elected government about the day to day actions of elected officials over 150 years ago? Should we hold them accountable for things they never had control over? What would a suitable punishment be for this?
What kind of serious answers are today's Algonquins demanding of their band councils for letting this happen so many years ago?
One of the opening statements from the Algonquins lead negotiator's was "Our land was neither surrendered by war or by treaty"
Making a statement like that could be taken as the Algonquins are prepared for both, and I am not so sure they are. Or in your opinion are they?
the old saying is buyer beware
Sure it does. It shows that she invested time in our university system, and passed the Bar exam. Same as any other lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wife
Deloitte may have cleared the reserve. It does not however speak to the mis-management of band funds. They were poorly accounted for, and the band was put under 3rd party management.
i reviewed the financial statements myself, as they are public record. I can safely say that if I managed my budget ( I'm municipal) as poorly, I'd be looking for work.
Miss Vowel does make a living off blogging, and op-ed pieces based around FN issues. I'm not disputing her credentials, but to say that articles written by her are open, and non-partisan is ignoring point of fact.
Actually, the courts also cleared Attawapiskat of any wrong doing. I know it's another link to Ms. Vowel's blog but she is quite articulate and provides salient facts which may also address your other issues with Attawapiskat: http://apihtawikosisan.com/2012/08/0...nderstandings/Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
The only other thing I'll mention about Attawapiskat (and this goes for pretty much all reserves) is that AANDC must approve all the books, AND all the people working on the books and in band offices. Those books, as they were, were approved by AANDC well before the media circus broke out so AANDC is just as culpable in the mess, if not moreso.
Ms. Vowel may very well be biased but is it wrong for her to be an advocate for something she believes in as long as she's being truthful to the evidence that she's gathered? Are we not advocates for hunting? She has the credentials, did the research, disseminated it in a way that people can understand. If a couple of news outlets have picked up her articles and paid her along the way, does she not deserve it after doing all that work that no one else seems to be doing? At some point, we have to ask ourselves what's the best way to deal with this situation? What she's doing is providing much needed, factual insight into a very complicated situation. You have to give credit where it's due.
Noted and acknowledged. And my apologies for not clarifying that I was referring to other posts in this thread and other threads on this forum that ended up being closed by the moderators.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
The problem stems from settler encroachment onto Algonquin traditional lands that were never surrendered or ceded to the crown. In other words, the land technically or legally does not belong to Canada. It belongs to the Algonquin.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
The Algonquians do admit they share responsibility. There is historical evidence that the Algonquians have repeatedly called on Canada and/or the crown to finalize treaty. There has also been recognition that a map needed to clearly drawn but that task was the Crown’s responsibility…
You’re missing the point (or just being sarcastic). Either way, at some point, the problem has to be rectified. Other bands across Canada have been able to successfully finalize treaty agreements. Several others are still in progress. It’s not a matter of “punishing”. It’s a matter of responsibility and honouring the Proclamation of 1763 which is still bound by our current constitution. Specifically, it reads: “And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds…”Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
I am not in a position to speak on behalf of Algonquians but I have seen evidence that the people are also holding their councils to task.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
In my opinion, I believe you misinterpreted the statement. The lead interpreter was simply trying to explain that the land was never surrendered or ceded to the Crown and therefore does not legally belong to Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
An important point that should be recognized is that the Algonquian view of land ownership is traditionally different from the “colonial” (for lack of better word) view in that the Algonquian’s view is more about stewardship. So, for them and many other First Nations groups, the Crown’s concept of land ownership has been something of a learning curve in being able to understand how to deal with the Crown in treaty agreements to ensure they received a fair deal.
One last point. It is my understanding, based on some testimony I’ve read, that the Algonquians aren’t interested in uprooting people. They just want their treaty finalized. They aren’t going to make entire towns move. But because of the way treaties with the Crown are made, this means drawing lines in the sand, so to speak. Some leases will likely be affected. To those people, I would suggest taking the higher ground and finding ways to sit at the table in friendly negotiation.
Citing Miss Vowel as providing "factual insight" is a bit much.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wife
She can have credit for being well spoken, the product of her education no doubt. She can articulate her position very well, and manipulate facts to support her argument like any good lawyer.
I don't know your position on it, but it's becoming quite plain.
Attiwapiskat may have been cleared. However, you have made it sound as if the auditors were satisfied with what they found. This is hardly the case.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle6995751/
Please note that the article is written by a journalist, and not Miss Vowel. I wonder why the Globe didn't elect to have Miss Vowel author the piece?
The band received Millions in funding that was then spent on budget lines under ambiguous heading such as "social programming", and without sufficient documentation. For this it did receive unfavorable reports, and warnings from its auditors.
All of this while Chief Theresa Spence lived in a lavish home, and drove a Cadillac Escalade, while members of her own community were living 3-4 families in old ATCO trailers, and under tarps in wooden shacks, all the while blaming the Federal Government.
Not sure where you're sourcing your info from, but it's very obvious that if you are going to continue to use Miss Vowel's articles in support of your arguments, it can hardly be said that you are coming from an objective position.
Deloitte's initial report:
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/135.../1350244605127
Auditor's Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Statement based on conducting the audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. However, because of the matters described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, we were not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.
Basis of Disclaimer of Opinion
Management was unable to provide appropriate supporting documentation for the majority of the transactions selected for audit. We were unable to satisfy ourselves by alternative means concerning the expenditures reported by Attawapiskat First Nation in the Statement. As a result of these matters, we were unable to determine whether any adjustments might have been found necessary in respect of the expenditures making up the Statement.
And for what it's worth. Chief Theresa Spence's lover ( and former band manager, who was paid $850 per day) has indeed been charged with fraud over $5000 stemming from a complaint which occurred in Attiwapiskat.
Look, just because I cite Ms. Vowel doesn't mean I believe she is the final authority on the subject. I clearly stated why I cite her: because she provides much needed insight and forum for discussion. I could engage in a pissing match with you about the number of Canadian politicians, Senators or academics who have a biased view or who slant any argument to their position. Or perhaps I could remind you of the millions (billions) of dollars that have been misspent by members of the Canadian government. Or the slamming reports by the auditor general. Or maybe even call shame on all our MPs salaries and a bloated beaurocracy while there are poor people living on the streets of most cities across the country. Before you ask me what that has to do with the price of cheese, let me remind you that the OP was about the Algonquin land claim, not Attawapiskat. And my reasons for posting in the first place was because I was hoping for productive discourse rather than have to see yet another one of these threads go down an ugly road. I could make note that your position seems quite unwaveringly clear but what is the point of that? Am I disappointed that Chief Spence's partner was recently charged with fraud? Yes. It's disappointing. If it's proven in the courts, then I accept it for what it is. Am I disappointed in the many unresolved land claims? Yes. It's disappointing - because many First Nations have taken their claims to court, have won the battle, yet continue to be ignored by the government AND because it leaves Canadians wondering about where we all stand. Pick on Attawapiskat all you want in order to build your case. I'm not playing that game. I'm interested in fairness in order to find common ground so we can get along with our neighbours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wife
Fair enough. I've got a sore spot when it comes to Miss Vowel, and her take on things. Not interested in a pissing match, and your last post states your position very clearly.
I have had dealings with FN issues on a number of occasions, and my opinions, tend to side with govt in many cases. Partly due to the fact that FNs still do not participate in the remedies available, and instead do things like blockade, and occupy, knowing full well that they will not be interfered with by authorities regardless of lawless behaviour.
The fairness that you are interested in is a two sided coin.
And as I'm fond of pointing out, many of the conversations we take part in on here often would be best over a drink...
I'm sorry you've had negative dealings with a few people from certain FN bands. I can't speak to your experience but I accept what you say at face value. I can say that I've had a couple not-so-positive but several very positive dealings with FN, Metis and Inuit people. I've also had mixed, and some very bad dealings with non-indigenous Canadians. You have to remember that the few you've dealt with cannot and should not paint entire FNs across the country. They are individual groups with different sets of principles, politics and issues just as you'd find in Canadian cities and towns. Language is important -- especially here online and I am also reminded of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
Yes, fairness is a two sided coin. But I'm starting to understand why the blockades have become almost necessary. I've driven through a few as well. Maybe I've been lucky but most have been no worse than a RIDE spot check or awareness campaign where information pamphlets have been handed out. You have to admit that Canadians, generally, don't seem to give a crock about anything as long as it doesn't affect them. The only reason why we're up in arms about the Algonquin land claim is because it may affect a few leased hunt camps and maybe some territory to hunt. But when you sit back and look at the amount of land and resources that have been taken from the Algonquins, there's no comparison. How many times will they have to take their claims to court and win only to be further ignored or repressed? Their lives have been altered completely because of settler society. We have to ask ourselves whether we're that selfish that our leased hunt camps or occasional hunting opportunities are worth more than the very lives and wellbeing of fellow human beings. The Algonquins just want what is actually legally theirs. What they do with it is up to them but if we want to be invited to sit at the negotiation table, we have to start behaving more appropriately.
That I agree with wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
I'd rather First Nations collect the money then the MNR (Government)Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxx