Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Idle No More and the Audit of Chief Spence's Band


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#31 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:06 PM

Chief Spence is becoming a joke. Does she not realize that Governor General is just a figure head, used for ceremonial purposes, that he has little power except in cases where he can designate who is pm in minority governments. That in theory the GG can dismiss the PM but has never done so. The GG does not make laws.

The chief has lost all credibility.

Becoming a joke?? Already there it appears.

What credibility did she ever have? Check out the CBC report from last year posted above.


  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#32 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

The Chief Spence watch continues on her ever-changing flip flop on attending the Friday meeting.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

And the absolute latest word? NO! And that is final unless she changes her mind yet again.

Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence says she won't be at a meeting Friday between First Nations leaders and Prime Minister Stephen Harper because Gov. Gen. David Johnston isn't attending.

Earlier Wednesday, spokesman Danny Metatawabin said Spence would be at the meeting even though Johnston said he wouldn't attend. Spence's camp distributed a news release less than four hours later saying she wouldn't go after all and that she'd sent a letter to Buckingham Palace asking Queen Elizabeth to order Johnston to be at the meeting.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ay-meeting.html

Reports from Buckingham Palace are that Her Majesty was last seen rolling on the floor laughing her royal butt off in her throne room after reading the letter from Spence.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#33 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,683 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:39 PM

Why would Harper even think of attending the meeting with her in the first place?

That one of the best examples of corruption in FN life is "starving" (I go on a liquid diet all the time) herself (no doubt opposed to her supreme rule/indifference being audited - how dare they!) is just another example of another one of her consistently poor choices.

Even for the peoples of her reserve having her off it could only be considered a plus.
  • 0

#34 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,166 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

Idle no more seems kinda ironic.
  • 0

#35 Blackberries

Blackberries

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,187 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 05:51 PM

I think the issue with Idle No More is BIll C45 and the governments desire to be able to make changes to Aboriginal land title and holdings. Land that was already guaranteed to them under the Indian Act that the government has decided they can go back on now without a vote allowed to the people it effects.. for instance if a pipeline wanted to go through reserve land and the Band said no, the government can overrule.... how is that fair when the land was already constitutionally guaranteed by the crown?
  • 4
Posted Image
Movember Kassian

#36 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,683 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

I think the issue with Idle No More is BIll C45 and the governments desire to be able to make changes to Aboriginal land title and holdings. Land that was already guaranteed to them under the Indian Act that the government has decided they can go back on now without a vote allowed to the people it effects.. for instance if a pipeline wanted to go through reserve land and the Band said no, the government can overrule.... how is that fair when the land was already constitutionally guaranteed by the crown?


A question for wet for sure but I doubt the constitution lays out specific parcels that correspond to specific bands.

Land and housing doesn't have to mean this land and this house.

Historically (right or wrong) natives have been moved from one spot to another in the past.
  • 1

#37 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 January 2013 - 12:12 PM

A question for wet for sure but I doubt the constitution lays out specific parcels that correspond to specific bands.

Land and housing doesn't have to mean this land and this house.

Historically (right or wrong) natives have been moved from one spot to another in the past.

In the case of a treaty/land claims settlement the band collectively gives up its rights and the band is given a specifically limited piece of land within its historical territory which is then designated as a reservation that is adminstered by the Band Council. Living on a reservation has certain benefits.

Also as part of the process there are also self-government agreements that establish Aboriginal governments for each band. that are primarily responsible to their citizens, as well as a framework for intergovernmental relationships between the Aboriginal and federal governments.

It is sometimes said that Aboriginal government is the same as municipal government but it is not because unlike municipalities which are completely creatures of the provincial government and under the control of the provincial legislature, Aboriginal government and the the rights inherent therein have a constitutional status all of their own. Those rights are as we have seen enforceable in the courts. A number of constitutional scholars and lawyers are of the opinion that Aboriginal government constitutes a third order of government in addition to the federal and provincial governments.

That is the basis for criticisms of some of the proposed legislation - that the current federal government is seeking to exercise too much control over individual bands interfering with their right to self-government.

One of the goals of this meeting on Friday is to try to change some of the underlying structures by way of negotiations and that is welcomed by a certain faction of aboriginals. However another faction often referred to as traditionalists oppose many of the changes and because each treaty was negotiated on what is akin to nation to nation basis it is difficult to make such changes as it is likely that changes cannot be imposed, or at least some of the changes being proposed.

And because aboriginal rights (past and present) are entrenched in the constitution some Aboriginal leaders claim that constitutional amendments are required to make any changes. I disagree with that to a certain extent because the Constitution recognizes that future rights in treaties and land claims settlements become entrenched in the Constitution.


PART I

Section 25 of the Charter of Rights:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.


PART II

RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.


IMHO that means negotiated changes between the feds and aboriginal people do not require a constitutional amendment but the feds cannot unilaterally derogate or amend existing aboriginal rights as they are protected.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#38 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

And it just keeps getting better for Chief Spence and her "life partner".

Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s romantic partner, Clayton Kennedy — once in charge of the troubled northern Ontario reserve’s books — has had his own money problems in the past, documents show.

Public records show Kennedy declared bankruptcy just five years before he became the band’s money man. He declared debts of $24,380 and assets of $2,403 in his September 1996 bankruptcy filing.

Kennedy’s past money problems come to light as Attawapiskat and Spence face questions over a scathing audit of the band’s books that found a missing paper trail for millions of dollars between 2005 and 2011.

http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz2Hcyf58h7

So Clayton... any comment?

Kennedy refused to speak about the bankruptcy when contacted by The Canadian Press.

“The matter you are referencing to is a personal matter unrelated to the leaked Deloitte audit report. As such the Deloitte audit report has been responded to already,” he said in an email.

“The issue I am dealing with is the health of Chief Spence and children. Please respect that.”

He did not respond to questions in a follow-up email or a call to his Ottawa hotel room, where he has been staying as Spence continues her protest, subsisting on fish broth and medicinal tea on an island in the Ottawa River.


Me??? I am off to continue my hunger strike with some medicinal 12 year old single malt scotch.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#39 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,579 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:31 PM

So what exactly is happening with the meeting tomorrow? AFAIK, Harper is still meeting the AFN group, but Thief Spence is now "boycotting" it. Gov. Gen. Johnston also has his own meeting, to which Spence is also boycotting?
  • 0

#40 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

So what exactly is happening with the meeting tomorrow? AFAIK, Harper is still meeting the AFN group, but Thief Spence is now "boycotting" it. Gov. Gen. Johnston also has his own meeting, to which Spence is also boycotting?

WELL... Harper better smarten up and do what he is told by the aboriginal leadership. Or else there will be no meeting.

First Nations chiefs threaten to boycott meeting with Harper unless he comes to them



A cloud of confusion has descended over a First Nations meeting with the Prime Minister on Friday, with several chiefs demanding that Stephen Harper meet them on their own turf on their own terms.


One region after another declared that it was supporting Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence in her call to refuse a meeting with Mr. Harper unless Gov.-Gen. David Johnston was at his side. Their stand leaves the head of Canada’s largest aboriginal group — National Chief Shawn Atleo — largely isolated.


The internal turmoil is over logistics and process, and not over policy. After days and days of discussions, the chiefs and delegates actually have a consensus on what their demands would be, if the prime minister and governor general ever do meet with them.


One region after another declared that it was supporting Chief Spence in her call to refuse a meeting with Harper unless Gov.-Gen David Johnston was at his side.


“This is not simply one chief making demands on location and format for a meeting. Chief Theresa Spence is merely setting forward a call for truth and integrity from the prime minister,” said Isadore Day, a chief from northern Ontario. “She fights on behalf of over a million indigenous peoples in this country.”


Even if the meeting with Harper proceeds, Day predicted only a handful of chiefs would attend.


“There will clearly be no mandate to negotiate.”



Still, earlier in the day, the chiefs had overcome regional tensions and actually agreed to a united, concrete list of demands that they wanted to present to Harper.


They want to see a school and clean drinking water on every reserve. They want Ottawa to commit to a national inquiry into the hundreds of missing or murdered aboriginal girls and women. They want a top-level political commitment to modernize and implement treaties so that First Nations share in the wealth of Canada’s resources. They want stable funding that grows with population and inflation.


And they want Harper to repeal major parts of his two budget omnibus bills that they say sacrifice environmental protection to resource extraction.


Atleo vowed to take those concerns forward on Thursday night in a humble but emotional plea for unity from chiefs. He admitted he had made mistakes and that the membership of the Assembly of First Nations was divided. What he left unsaid was whether any meeting with Mr. Harper would take place at all, or how he would proceed.



“This is not a perfect organization and I am not a perfect person. I accept a share of responsibility and I have responded to criticisms from last January,” Chief Atleo told a rowdy, crowded room of chiefs and delegates.


“We need to continue to stand united — chiefs, delegates…. If we are to be divided at a moment like this, the governments will see that.”


He then left the conference hall, with insiders indicating he would work through the night with his executives in order to figure out the best way forward.


http://news.national...-comes-to-them/
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#41 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,849 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

A question for wet for sure but I doubt the constitution lays out specific parcels that correspond to specific bands.

Land and housing doesn't have to mean this land and this house.

Historically (right or wrong) natives have been moved from one spot to another in the past.

Hate to mimic a Wetcoaster post (more in the context of an agreement rather than AA), but the US thinking is not honouring agreements with natives. In Canada we think of it a little differently. An agreement is an agreement. Don't make the ones you can't keep. OTOH, the gamemanship of this is getting out of hand.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 January 2013 - 02:13 PM.

  • 0
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#42 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:15 PM

The meeting went ahead but a number of Chiefs are boycotting it.

The split between the two aboriginal positions - the progressives led by National Chief Shawn Atleo and the traditionalists led by his defeated opponent Dr. Pamela Palmater is a Mi’kmaq lawyer who is on faculty at Ryerson University has become apparent.

It looks like there will be an ongoing challenge to Atleo's leadership by those who do not accept his views. Much like those who want to re-fight the last federal election that resulted in a CPC majority.

And there are threats to shut down the Canadian economy by way of protests and blockades.

National Chief Shawn Atleo has defied some of his key regional chiefs for going to a meeting that the Governor-General was not at and that was taking place on the prime minister’s turf.

After a night of tumult, Atleo was able to find support from Quebec, the East Coast and British Columbia.

But it remains to be seen whether the two sides can find enough common ground to re-establish Atleo’s leadership, repair the Crown-First Nations relationship and quell restless protesters across the country demanding a better quality of life for aboriginal communities.
...
Questions also continue to emerge about Atleo’s leadership, with a number of chiefs saying they stand with Spence about refusing to participate in Friday’s meeting with Harper unless the Governor-General also attends.

Ontario chiefs have joined others from Manitoba and Saskatchewan in refusing to participate in Friday’s meeting with Harper, although chiefs from Quebec and Atlantic Canada said they supported Atleo and would attend the talks.
...
“If the AFN decided to go to that meeting against the will and decision of the chiefs, then the AFN would no longer be a valid representative organization of the chiefs,” said Pam Palmater, the Ryerson University professor who was Atleo’s chief rival in last summer’s national chief elections.

“Atleo has no choice but to listen to the chiefs, because he has no independent political authority,” she added.
...
Sharp divisions were evident as up to 200 chiefs gathered at the hotel Thursday evening.

“No longer will the prime minister dictate to us,” said Onion Lake First Nation Chief Wallace Fox.

“If we have to shut down this economy, then we will.”


And Chief Spence?

Spence, meanwhile, argued the federal government has for years been violating longstanding treaties with First Nations and that Friday’s meeting is an opportunity to help “resolve broken promises” and renew the Crown’s relationship with aboriginals. First Nations deserve better housing, health care and revenue sharing from the federal government, Spence said.

“We share the land all these years and we never got anything from it,” she said.

“This government has been abusing us, raping the land,” she added. “The treaty was not about control, it’s about sharing, honouring and respecting each other.”

http://news.national...olds-in-ottawa/
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#43 Coda

Coda

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,162 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:42 PM

Spence is becoming increasingly annoying. She and other like-minded native leaders should be careful: you are turning the Canadian population against you.
  • 4

#44 My Account

My Account

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Joined: 29-October 09

Posted 11 January 2013 - 05:49 PM

I am not really educated on the subject but I think they are trying to get the best of both their heritage and society today, we have left them some land to live off of but they want money from us because they live in a crappy location
  • 0
Posted Image

Thanks avelanch for the sick signature

#45 Jet_91

Jet_91

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 08

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:28 PM

Good, lets start up with the cross county blockades. That'll get the public on your side...

This whole movement is absolutely ridiculous. The chiefs can't even seam decide what they want, they just know they're angry and want something different. What that is nobody seems capable of explaining it. Whenever I hear any interviews the people all just speak in generalities. I think most people in these rallies don't even know what they're fighting for...

:picard:

And the whole Spence nonsense is just embarrassing. Somebody just give her a hamburger and tell her to go back home and embezzle some more funds and leave the negotiating to the people who should be negotiating.
  • 0

#46 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,579 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:20 AM

This whole movement is absolutely ridiculous. The chiefs can't even seam decide what they want, they just know they're angry and want something different. What that is nobody seems capable of explaining it. Whenever I hear any interviews the people all just speak in generalities. I think most people in these rallies don't even know what they're fighting for...

:picard:


I thought that was Occupy.
  • 0

#47 JeremyW

JeremyW

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:26 AM

It probably hasn't yet been posted because no one takes the movement seriously.

IMO the Indian Act is inherently divisive and needs to be scrapped entirely.

I personally support Bill C-45 so you can ofc understand why I would be pissed off to hear a bunch of individuals feel they have the right to shove their opinion down my throat through illegal protest.

They have every right to protest legally, but doing so illegally is incredibly disrespectful for those who have a differing opinion than them yet feel that their opinion is just as significant as theirs.

I think the entire movement is garbage, and the meeting with the PM was scrapped because the movement failed to respect Canada's political structure and failed to understand that the GG's involvement would be both highly offensive to Canada and further very unfair and biased.

Finally, I think that if the majority of Canada feels that expiring treaties or agreements is what is required to advance Canada socially and economically, Canada should have every right to. We cannot be bound as a country to contracts made hundreds of years ago that lack any mutual benefit for the country.

Edited by JeremyW, 12 January 2013 - 02:28 AM.

  • 2

#48 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:02 AM

It probably hasn't yet been posted because no one takes the movement seriously.

IMO the Indian Act is inherently divisive and needs to be scrapped entirely.

I personally support Bill C-45 so you can ofc understand why I would be pissed off to hear a bunch of individuals feel they have the right to shove their opinion down my throat through illegal protest.

They have every right to protest legally, but doing so illegally is incredibly disrespectful for those who have a differing opinion than them yet feel that their opinion is just as significant as theirs.

I think the entire movement is garbage, and the meeting with the PM was scrapped because the movement failed to respect Canada's political structure and failed to understand that the GG's involvement would be both highly offensive to Canada and further very unfair and biased.

Finally, I think that if the majority of Canada feels that expiring treaties or agreements is what is required to advance Canada socially and economically, Canada should have every right to. We cannot be bound as a country to contracts made hundreds of years ago that lack any mutual benefit for the country.

The majority of Canadians are woefully uninformed on these issues.

You cannot simply scrap the Indian Act and to the extent the the government attempts unilaterally to derogate from aboriginal rights, that is not possible without a negotiated agreement or a constitutional amendment... and a constitutional amendment is not happening.

You are not going to see expiring treaty agreements.

The current treaties and agreements historically are continuing agreements with rights and obligations entrenched in the Constitution. New treaties and land claims settlements are similarly going to be continuing agreements with complex resource and revenue sharing provisions and those future treaty rights and obligations will be similarly entrenched.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#49 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

Chief Spence will be continuing her hunger strike saying her meeting with the GG did not make her "feel good" and she left early while the GG sounded a message of hope and trust. Spence appeared before the press but would take no questions and issued a statement (described as brief and rambling) that noted:

"He (Prime Minister Harper) makes false statement about fundings. He doesn't give details about where it goes. Most of the funding that we have, it goes back to you, to taxpayers. It goes out of our reserve. For example, housing: we have to hire contractors, we have to order the materials from out of town and to shipment. We pay tax on that. Even when we hire lawyers, that's from our reserve. Consultants, that's where the money goes, "


It seems Chief Spence missed the import of the recent audit - no one seems to know where the money has gone due to a lack of records and audit trail.

PM Harper has agreed to continue the meetings to try to reach agreement on a number of issues including resource revenue sharing that is to a great extent in the hands of the individual provinces.

AFN Chief Shawn Atleo downplayed divisions in the aboriginal leadership and one of his main supporters Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of Quebec said he was pleasantly surprised that PM Harper was positive and that he had "moved a couple of posts forward." In particular Coon Come said the environmental aspects of the Omnibus bill "are on the table" and Harper indicated he was willing to carry out his duty to consult with First Nations on legislative matters that impact their territories. Aboriginal delegates representing Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and Yukon as well as AFN representatives from its Youth Council, Women's Council and Elders Council were present.

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of Manitoba and Pam Palmater, an Idle No More spokesperson who ran against Atleo for the AFN leadership stressed that Atleo had no power to act unilaterally and it was in fact the chiefs who boycotted the meeting with Harper who held the real power.

Chiefs from Ontario and Manitoba have called for a non-confidence vote for the AFN national chief Atleo. There have also been threats of a blockade of major roads and rail lines in Ontario on Wednesday by Ontario Grand Chief Gordon Peters of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians who also threatened to go to international investors and tell them their resource extraction projects are not safe if the government pushes through developments without consent from First Nations.


Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence vowed to remain on a hunger strike, shortly after she and about 100 other chiefs attended a ceremonial event with the Governor General at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.


Spence, who has become an inspirational figure for the grassroots Idle No More movement, had refused to attend the earlier "working meeting" between some First Nations chiefs and Prime Minister Stephen Harper unless the Governor General was present as well, but she decided in the end to go to the Rideau Hall meeting, which was described by the government as "ceremonial."


Shortly after that meeting, a Spence spokesman said the chief would continue her hunger strike. Spence has been on a diet of fish broth and medicinal tea for the past four weeks.


GG stresses hope


The event was to include a greeting by Gov. Gen. David Johnston, a procession, and a smudging ceremony and prayer performed by a native elder, according to a statement from Rideau Hall.



Johnston's remarks to the First Nations leaders, released by Rideau Hall, included concern for Spence and fellow aboriginal hunger-strikers Raymond Robinson and Jean Sock. "My deepest wish is for the well-being of all Canadians and for dialogue to always take place in a safe and healthy manner."


Johnston stressed themes of hope and trust in his remarks.


"We can strike a balance between diversity and unity that will strengthen as us nations and as a nation," he said.


Spence left Rideau Hall early with the sense that the gathering had accomplished little.


"It didn't feel too good inside that house … but we stood up for your rights," Danny Metatawabin, who speaks for Spence, told gathered First Nations chiefs as he described the meeting as "a show, a picture opportunity."


"Sadly," he said, "the hunger strike continues."


Harper meeting results in promise of more 'high-level' dialogue



While Spence and other chiefs dismissed the usefulness of the government's efforts, at least two of the chiefs who attended the Harper meeting earlier Friday sounded a more positive tone — as did the government.


Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan, addressing reporters on Parliament Hill, said the prime minister had agreed to:


  • High-level dialogue on treaty relationships and comprehensive land claims.


  • Enhanced oversight from PMO and Privy Council.


  • Holding further meetings with the head of the AFN.

However, on the environmental changes in the omnibus bills that so concern the Idle No More movement, Duncan insisted that constitutional obligations to Aboriginal Peoples were in fact respected by the government when it drew up the bills.



On the issue of resource revenue-sharing, Duncan said, "The federal government does not receive resource revenues, and so that's a question that really will involve the provinces and that's — that was recognized by the room."


Asked about Spence's hunger strike, Duncan said he once had a "small part" in convincing Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to end a hunger strike, and he hoped to have that conversation with Spence. So far, Spence has refused to meet with him.


Divisions remain among AFN chiefs led by Shawn Atleo who attended the Harper meeting and chiefs who boycotted the talks.


After the meeting, Atleo downplayed any rifts between aboriginal leadership.


"We have full consensus on the substance of the issues that were pressed fully today by the delegation that went to the prime minister," Atleo told The National's Wendy Mesley. "It's going to require real work to follow through, but we have now a highest level mandate from the prime minister. I cannot understate that the voices of our people helped create the level of urgency."


Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of Quebec, who also attended the Harper meeting, told CBC News Network's Power & Politics that he was surprised by the reaction of the prime minister whom he said "moved a couple of posts forward."


Coon Come seemed optimistic, and even though Harper didn't promise to remove the controversial environmental provisions in two omnibus budget bills, Coon Come said those issues "are on the table" and that the prime minister indicated he was willing to carry out his duty to consult with First Nations on legislative matters that impact their territories.


Coon Come said there was no commitment to hold an inquiry into the issue of missing aboriginal women. However Coon Come added he thinks there are too many inquiries, and said he favours "concrete measures" to reduce harm to women.


Divisions during the day


Before the meeting ended, Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of Manitoba, who shunned the event, called Friday "a great victory" and said he was "ecstatic about our drums and about our people today."


Pam Palmater, an Idle No More spokesperson who ran against Atleo for the AFN leadership, said Atleo has no independent decision-making power. The fact Atleo and what she called "a minority of chiefs" attended the meeting "doesn't mean good things for the AFN," Palmater said on Power & Politics.



She also said that chiefs, such as Nepinak, who boycotted the meeting, "took their control back" and that they are the ones who control the AFN.


Earlier, some protesters attempted to block the door to the Langevin building where the meeting was being held. Chiefs from Manitoba spread tobacco on the steps to "protect" their people, and several dozen women linked arms to try to stop people from entering. When Coon Come entered despite their pleas, one woman broke down in tears.


"I know there's times for small groups to meet. But now is not the time," another woman said. "Today's the day to stand for our ancestors ... there will be other prime ministers to meet with. The gold in the land is not going away. The water is not going to go away," she added, to cheers from the crowd.


Atleo joined by other chiefs

Joining Atleo and Coon Come inside were delegates representing Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and Yukon.


AFN representatives from its Youth Council, Women's Council and Elders Council were present as well. But Saskatchewan AFN Regional Chief Perry Bellegarde, who appeared with Atleo at a press conference yesterday, did not attend, saying he wanted "to respect other chiefs," including large groups from Manitoba and Ontario who were vocal in their dissent. However, Bellegarde planned to meet with the Governor General at Rideau Hall.


Speaking earlier on behalf of Quebec leaders, Coon Come said that his colleagues want to be able to go home and tell their people they didn't come to Ottawa just to protest, but to have a meeting and address real issues.


Spence stuck to her refusal to attend Friday's meeting with Harper because Johnston and all First Nations leaders weren't participating.


In a brief appearance before the media on Victoria Island on Friday morning, Spence offered a short statement and took no questions, even as some yelled, "What did you do with the money, Theresa?" as she spoke.


In a brief, rambling statement, Spence criticized Harper for earlier remarks he made about millions of dollars going into the Attawapiskat reserve.


"He makes false statement about fundings. He doesn't give details about where it goes. Most of the funding that we have, it goes back to you, to taxpayers. It goes out of our reserve. For example, housing: we have to hire contractors, we have to order the materials from out of town and to shipment. We pay tax on that. Even when we hire lawyers, that's from our reserve. Consultants, that's where the money goes, " she said.


Not about strength



As the meeting with Harper began, a group of about 20 protesters, many of them from Manitoba, managed to get inside the House of Commons.


First they were invited into Parliament's Centre Block by MP Carolyn Bennett, the Liberal critic for aboriginal affairs. The protesters then were able to get inside the chamber where MPs usually take their seats, because it just so happened that a university student group was holding a mock parliament.


The speaker for the group invited the protesters into the House, moving the proceedings to a committee of the whole and calling the leaders as witnesses.


Earlier, interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae, who pointed out he had been a mediator during the explosive Burnt Church crisis that occurred after the Supreme Court recognized some native fishing rights, said at a news conference that it wouldn't be a "big deal" for the Governor General to be present at the meeting alongside Harper.


"No one's caving," Rae said. "If you use the language of caving, you'll never understand the nature of a discussion. It's not about I'm stronger than you, I'm better than you, I'm bigger than you. That's a truly silly way of looking at it, in my view."


Rae indicated he disagreed with Harper's "imperial style," and said, "This country has a rendezvous with this issue, and we have to figure out a way to deal with it in a way that's actually going to work."


Divisions in sharp relief

By last night, the talks were thrown into disarray, with chiefs from first Manitoba and then other regions including Ontario, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories saying the talks must be held on their terms: involving more chiefs, in a bigger room and including the Governor General.


Former AFN national chief Ovide Mercredi, from northern Manitoba, who was part of behind-the-scenes negotiations with Harper's chief of staff Nigel Wright earlier, said late Thursday that Atleo himself had tried to persuade the PMO to bend. But with no luck.


The dissident group from Manitoba joined the national Idle No More march to Parliament Hill after the prime minister and the Governor General did not acquiesce to their demands.


Protesters will block roads

Chiefs from Ontario and Manitoba have called for a non-confidence vote for the AFN national chief because Atleo didn't boycott Friday afternoon's talks with Harper.


Grand Chief Gordon Peters told reporters Friday that aboriginal protesters will block major roads and rail lines in Ontario on Wednesday if their demands are not met. He also threatened to go to international investors and tell them their resource extraction projects are not safe if the government pushes through developments without consent from First Nations.


Recent omnibus budget legislation aimed at streamlining resource projects has been a major irritant for the ongoing Idle No More protest movement. Other Harper government cuts to aboriginal programs and organizations are also concerns.


But part of the Idle No More movement is a criticism of the current First Nations leadership as ineffective in dealing with the needs of their people.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...lks-friday.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#50 vancanfan

vancanfan

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,516 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 06

Posted 12 January 2013 - 09:48 AM

BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG :bored:
  • 0

#51 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,006 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:22 AM

VCF: if you find a thread boring simply scroll/move on....we don't need spam to announce it (please/thanks)
  • 2

Posted Image


#52 JeremyW

JeremyW

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:38 AM

The majority of Canadians are woefully uninformed on these issues.

You cannot simply scrap the Indian Act and to the extent the the government attempts unilaterally to derogate from aboriginal rights, that is not possible without a negotiated agreement or a constitutional amendment... and a constitutional amendment is not happening.

You are not going to see expiring treaty agreements.

The current treaties and agreements historically are continuing agreements with rights and obligations entrenched in the Constitution. New treaties and land claims settlements are similarly going to be continuing agreements with complex resource and revenue sharing provisions and those future treaty rights and obligations will be similarly entrenched.


Lol...

Trust me, I do not expect to see expiring treaty agreements. What I am saying is that it would be best if they were expired.
  • 0

#53 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:40 AM

Lol...

Trust me, I do not expect to see expiring treaty agreements. What I am saying is that it would be best if they were expired.

Why wish for something that has no basis in reality?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#54 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:22 AM

Why wish for something that has no basis in reality?


C'mon, Wet .. that never stopped anyone from praying to go to Heaven, did it? .. B)
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#55 JeremyW

JeremyW

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:24 AM

Why wish for something that has no basis in reality?


Obiously you didn't read much of what I said, because I didn't at all wish for it. However...

What I said was this:

I think that if the majority of Canada feels that expiring treaties or agreements is what is required to advance Canada socially and economically, Canada should have every right to. We cannot be bound as a country to contracts made hundreds of years ago that lack any mutual benefit for the country.


I think that is a pretty basic application of democracy.

Edited by JeremyW, 12 January 2013 - 11:26 AM.

  • 0

#56 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

Obiously you didn't read much of what I said, because I didn't at all wish for it. However...

What I said was this:


I think that is a pretty basic application of democracy.

No it is not.

The Supreme Court of Canada made that clear during the Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#57 JeremyW

JeremyW

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 12

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:43 AM

No it is not.

The Supreme Court of Canada made that clear during the Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.


If a majority consensus doesn't allow something like a treaty to be changed or voted upon, then IMO there are some flaws in our political structure.

I haven't actually looked into what you reference there, but do you mean to suggest that treaties are not at all negotiable with the general population of Canada?

Can you references where exactly I can find this (and preferably a general section of the article, as they are typically quite long.)

Edited by JeremyW, 12 January 2013 - 11:44 AM.

  • 0

#58 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,179 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

VCF: if you find a thread boring simply scroll/move on....we don't need spam to announce it (please/thanks)

I've read every word on here so far and it's anything but boring. Just the opposite really. This is not going away and it has be addressed. Now is not the time for divisivness however and blockades will prove to be harmful to the entire process. A leadership review may be in the wind but I think Atleo should be given opportunity to show his hand and up his sleeve as well. He's a visionary and a progressive. On the other hand I don't believe there exists a pure defintion of a traditionalist and there in lies potential for more devision. It's a huge complex issue with no easy answers.
  • 1
Posted Image

If the way Torts stepped up doesn't inspire anyone to work harder, I'll drive them to the airport myself.

</p>

#59 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:16 PM

If a majority consensus doesn't allow something like a treaty to be changed or voted upon, then IMO there are some flaws in our political structure.

I haven't actually looked into what you reference there, but do you mean to suggest that treaties are not at all negotiable with the general population of Canada?

Can you references where exactly I can find this (and preferably a general section of the article, as they are typically quite long.)

Treaties and land claims settlements are entrenched in our Constitution and cannot be changed without the agreement of the band who has signed the treaty. From the time of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (also entrenched in our Constitution specifically) treaty negotiation is on the order of a nation to nation relationship.

And since the Constitution is our supreme law...


PART I
Section 25 of the Charter of Rights:

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.


PART II
RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

PART VII

GENERAL
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes

(a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the Schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).


It matters not what a majority of Canadians may have think or even want. That is a mistaken view of democracy because that term implies so much more than simple majority rule. That was clearly stated in the Quebec Secession reference.

Democracy is a the principle that seeks to promote participation in effective representative self-government, which respects and responds to all voices but it is subject to Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law – the principles that protect citizens from state actions by forcing governments to act under the rule of law, the constitution of Canada being the supreme law. The constitution’s entrenched protections of minorities ensures that the country does not operate simply on majority rule, and enables a true democracy in which minority voices are fairly considered. Protection of minorities is another the principle that guides the other principles, but one which is also independent and fundamental because of its uniqueness to Canada relative to other federal, constitutional democracies.

See paragraphs 49- 82:
http://scc.lexum.org...m/1643/index.do


And the guiding principle is that the Crown owes a fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal people as the courts have confirmed in a number of cases.
http://www.parl.gc.c...s/prb0009-e.htm

Edited by Wetcoaster, 12 January 2013 - 12:16 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#60 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

The final result will be many lawyers becoming very, very rich, and we, the Canadian taxpayers, will be paying the costs on both sides of the conflict .. oh, and "Big Chief" may be able to fit into her original wedding dress again .. :shock:

Edited by Tearloch7, 12 January 2013 - 12:25 PM.

  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.