Won't Stand on guard for thee - a man's opposition to the Canadian flag & anthem

[Shec]

Land claims and self government negotiations are all about replacing the treaties and the Indian Act.  

Blackhorse 7's goals are all well and good but how do you achieve them?  

Do you cut them off now, violating all legal obligations and expectations and provoking unrest, probably violent unrest?  

Or, recognizing that progress has been made over the past 25 years, continue to build upon that momentum until the gap has been closed and self-sufficiency and self-determination has been realized?    

BTW, when that happens full participation by Aboriginal peoples in the economy instead of doling out welfare will re-inject at least 1% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product, the value of Canada's productive output, back into the economy.

 

[goodform]

These questions will not necessarily reflect my private views, but are meant to provoke thought.

Firstly, are land claims and self gov't effective means of replacing the treaties and Indian Act? I know quite often there is no perfect solution, but can the mentioned items be ammended or replaced by more effective systems?

To those who want to "cut them off", was it your intent to say just that? Or do you mean find a progressive system to ween them from the current? How long should/will it take?

I am from SK and have seen the excesses and waste that can come about from the existing circumstances. Schools that are new already beginning to be destroyed, a school 15 years old being torn down. People living in squalor while all of the vehicles at the Band's office were no older than 2 years or 10,000km. The difference in Native people from the South compared to the North.

What specifically can be done to lessen/stop waste, change peoples lives, and make all concerned more productive? And no, not everyone can join the army  ;D

 

[dutchie]

The first thing we can do is get rid of self-government. We rejected self-government for the other minority 'distinct' group (Francophones), why are Natives any different than other Canadians?

How can Native groups expect to fully participate in Canadian society if they seek self-government? You can't have it both ways. You are either Canadian, or you are not. If you wish self-government, then soverignty is the only answer. I would oppose that completely, obviously.

 

[Shec]

The first thing we can do is get rid of self-government. We rejected self-government for the other minority 'distinct' group (Francophones), why are Natives any different than other Canadians?

How can Native groups expect to fully participate in Canadian society if they seek self-government? You can't have it both ways. You are either Canadian, or you are not. If you wish self-government, then soverignty is the only answer. I would oppose that completely, obviously.

Don't confuse self-gov't with sovereignity.   Rather, it is comparable to municipal/regional government within the national framework, something that all Canadians enjoy including the Quebecois. 

Furthermore,   its a matter of choice and people tend to get the kind of government they deserve.    If a First Nation can cut a deal with the nearest municipal gov't for services, fine.  

Remember Aboriginal people have had 300 years of us doing it to them and doing it for them and look at the mess that has created for all concerned.  Is there a better alternative to land claims and self-gov't.?    Maybe,   but no one has identified it yet.    So we (Canadians as a whole) go with what we've got and work out the kinks as we go along.    At least change is occuring and change = progress.  

 

[Infanteer]

Don't confuse self-gov't with sovereignity.    It is comparable to municipal/regional government within the national framework, something that all Canadians have including the Quebecois.

How come it gets referred to as a "Third Level of Government" - something separate and distinct from Federal and Provincial governments that the most Canadians seem to get by with....

 

[dutchie]

Of course. But the difference between the Self-government sought by Natives and the self-government of municipalities is huge. IMHO, the Native self-government sought is closer to sovereignty than the autonomy of municipalities/cities. I also feel that further segregation of Natives, either forced or voluntary, is counter-productive to improving the plight of Natives.

 

[goodform]

How would you solve land issues then? Have the Crown surrender some or all of the lands on which reserves sit?

 

[Infanteer]

How would you solve land issues then? Have the Crown surrender some or all of the lands on which reserves sit?

Sounds good to me.  If done properly, these people will have real capital in that they, and not the Crown, own the land in which they live on.  Perhaps this needs to be done democratically; if a band votes that all land to be given to its members will be held communally in a trust, then so be it.  If it votes for each individual to take their share in the community, then that should be acceptable as well.  As long as you get all the resources out of the hands of band councils and chiefs, who seem to be the only ones prospering off of it while others mire in abject poverty.

 

[Shec]

Sounds good to me.   If done properly, these people will have real capital in that they, and not the Crown, own the land in which they live on.   Perhaps this needs to be done democratically; if a band votes that all land to be given to its members will be held communally in a trust, then so be it.   If it votes for each individual to take their share in the community, then that should be acceptable as well.   As long as you get all the resources out of the hands of band councils and chiefs, who seem to be the only ones prospering off of it while others mire in abject poverty.

That is what comprehensive land claims are all about - give folks tenure to the land base their reserves occupy and the opportunity to form a recognized government to manage it.    One of the problems right now is that Band Councils are creations within the Indian Act to liase with the Fed.  Legally they do not have to be recognized as legitimate governments by provinces and industry the way muncipal gov'ts are.  30 years ago if someone wanted to deal with a reserve, according to the letter of the law they had approach the Indian Agent,  not the Band Council,  directly.

The third level of gov't in this country you asked about is simply the muncipal level of   government.    All self-government will accord is the right to zone property, tax that property, police it, clear the snow, pick-up the garbage, develop the infrastructure to service it and those other same services that municipal governments provide in communities across the country.   It has nothing to do with federal responsibilities such as national defence, foreign policy, etc.

The trick is to encourage the creation of   responsible democratic government and that is why one hears so much about accountabilty.   That is also why the creation of a governance centre was a feature in the last Federal budget and some interesting pilot projects are being carried out.

 

[Infanteer]

As a political entity, I believe that they are part and parcel of the Provinces and are covered under Provincial legislation (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  If "self-government" is not a "Third Way" of government but simply a municipal organization, then doesn't it make sense to put reserves under the Provincial municipalities act?

As well, the main reason I'm leery of "Self-Government" is that many examples I've seen are exclusive.

Municipalities have only requirement - that you live within the boundaries.  Will I, as a Canadian citzen, be able to move into a "Native municipality" that is on former reserve lands and have full rights as a member of that community, or will I be barred from doing so because I am not a status member of the band?

This seems to be the case in Westbank - I heard speakers, Native and non-Native, talk about the fact that the few members of the band were the only ones able to vote on issues relating to the leasing and local by-laws - the 6,000 or so non-Natives living on Westbank land were effectively shut out from taking part in the process of local governance.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=1468
http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=318
http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/jul0998can.html

 

[Shec]

Provincial relations with Indian country reflect what is going on in the country as a whole.   Lots of bickering over who is responsible for what, etc.   Some provinces say "give us the $ Indians get so we can deliver to all". and others are not the least bit interested in what they see as Federal off-loading of a responsibility.

Your question about non-status rights on reserve is one of the governance challenges.    It has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court but the fact that people on both sides are talking about it advances the issue.
As i understand it only the band members vote on land-use, after all its their land.   But once they decide to lease the land to a non-member that person is legally entitled to full enjoyment and servicing of the property consistent with the terms and conditions of the lease.  And if not the lessee can pursue normal legal remedies for breach of contract.
.

 

[Brando304]

Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the way I see it is: If they want to live here, they live as Canadians, just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, leave. Same thing with the seperatists in Quebec; If you want to leave, then leave. But leave Canada here.

 

[Infanteer]

Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the way I see it is: If they want to live here, they live as Canadians, just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, leave. Same thing with the seperatists in Quebec; If you want to leave, then leave. But leave Canada here.

Leave to where?

The "Love it or Leave it" approach is only useful to a certain extent....

 

[Brando304]

I don't know, perhaps the high arctic?  ;D

 

[goodform]

The Arctic isn't so bad, it's the dry that gets you...

I agree with Infanteer, you can only go so far with love it or leave it, but that doesn't mean love it or have a hissy fit as I feel this man did. I don't think that the office he holds is the best place to start overt protest.

 

[Strike]

I don't know, perhaps the high arctic? ;D

Actually, that may not be a bad idea.  If anyone has succeeded with the whole idea of self-government, it may well be Nunavut.  The whole idea of that territory is to make decisions based on the Inuit culture.  Will it affect this culture negatively or positively?  Inuit and non-Inuit are all given equal opportunity both in and out of the house and, best of all, there is no party line.  Everyone is an independent.  How much better can it get?

 

[putz]

Here's my $0.02 on this (if it matters at all I'm a white guy 1st gen. Canadian):

I used to repo's on reserves.  Most of the people that I dealt with (with the exception of the debtor themselves) were very understanding people.

Provincial relations with Indian country reflect what is going on in the country as a whole.  Lots of bickering over who is responsible for what, etc.  Some provinces say "give us the $ Indians get so we can deliver to all". and others are not the least bit interested in what they see as Federal off-loading of a responsibility.

Your question about non-status rights on reserve is one of the governance challenges.  It has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court but the fact that people on both sides are talking about it advances the issue.
As i understand it only the band members vote on land-use, after all its their land.  But once they decide to lease the land to a non-member that person is legally entitled to full enjoyment and servicing of the property consistent with the terms and conditions of the lease. And if not the lessee can pursue normal legal remedies for breach of contract.
.

From people that I spoke with on the reserve, and the many native friends that I have, it seems that the younger generation (mid 20's) recognize that the system needs an overhaul.  There is still animosity from the way that Europeans treated them but the majority do not go around "blaming whitey" (no disrespect).  The older generations are still VERY Leary of dealing with white people, the younger do not necessarily want to form their own nation, most are just concerned about getting off the government money bottle.  The treaties are open to interpretation.  Speak to several people and you'll get several variances on what the treaty means.  Have any of you here spent time on a reserve (other than just driving through one?), spoke to the people on a reserve or dealt directly with a band office and their members?  On that topic, band offices control the reserve much like a town hall, sometimes the band members are elected, sometimes (in the case of some reserves and the chief) the power is passed through the family.  Sometimes the band office says/does things that the members do not agree with.  AS for the funding on reserves all I can say is this... while some house are run down you can always tell which  houses belong to the chief and band members.

BTW non-members can stay on a reserve or work on a reserve if they have permission from the band.  Once asked to leave (unless yo have a FEDERAL Court document) you must leave the reserve.  If not you can be fined and arrested for trespassing.  Also, most reserves do have there own policing forces.  They are unarmed, called peace officers, and I do believe enjoy the same power as a police member when ON the reserve.

 

[Shec]

Here's my $0.02 on this (if it matters at all I'm a white guy 1st gen. Canadian):

I used to repo's on reserves.   Most of the people that I dealt with (with the exception of the debtor themselves) were very understanding people.


From people that I spoke with on the reserve, and the many native friends that I have, it seems that the younger generation (mid 20's) recognize that the system needs an overhaul.   There is still animosity from the way that Europeans treated them but the majority do not go around "blaming whitey" (no disrespect).   The older generations are still VERY Leary of dealing with white people, the younger do not necessarily want to form their own nation, most are just concerned about getting off the government money bottle.   The treaties are open to interpretation.   Speak to several people and you'll get several variances on what the treaty means.   Have any of you here spent time on a reserve (other than just driving through one?), spoke to the people on a reserve or dealt directly with a band office and their members?   On that topic, band offices control the reserve much like a town hall, sometimes the band members are elected, sometimes (in the case of some reserves and the chief) the power is passed through the family.   Sometimes the band office says/does things that the members do not agree with.   AS for the funding on reserves all I can say is this... while some house are run down you can always tell which   houses belong to the chief and band members.

BTW non-members can stay on a reserve or work on a reserve if they have permission from the band.   Once asked to leave (unless yo have a FEDERAL Court document) you must leave the reserve.   If not you can be fined and arrested for trespassing.   Also, most reserves do have there own policing forces.   They are unarmed, called peace officers, and I do believe enjoy the same power as a police member when ON the reserve.

What you say about having to leave when asked is technically correct under the Indian Act.   Of course under that same Act technically you would need the permission of the Indian Agent, if you could find one because they have gone the way of the dodo bird,   to go on reserve in the first place.    But for the most part those days are going fast because what you say about the younger generations recognizing things need to change is bang on.   Fortunately too the numbers of youth staying in school, going on to university, and returning to the reserve to help improve thing is increasing significantly. 

 

[ZipperHead]

Maybe I'm just cold hearted, but the way I see it is: If they want to live here, they live as Canadians, just like the rest of us. If you don't like it, leave. Same thing with the seperatists in Quebec; If you want to leave, then leave. But leave Canada here.

I would hope this was said in jest.

What is "living like a Canadian"? Living in a house? Living in a log cabin? Living in an apartment building? Living under a piece of cardboard on Yonge Street? Going only to Catholic Church? Going to a mosque? Canada is made up of a great number of cultures (European, Asian, African, all of the America's, etc). The way I live is quite possibly different than the way you live.

And where are the Natives going to leave to: they are from here, at least going back 10,000 years. Kind of hard to deport them, isn't it?

Telling people to love it or leave it is easy. What will you do if/when all the things that you may find "Canadian" change: legalization (or complete banning) of marijuana, same-sex marriages allowed, or banned; gun laws made stricter or relaxed completely, etc, etc. Will you leave here? Or will you stay to try to make a change? Guess what the Natives are doing??

Al

 

[TCBF]

Good post Al.

So, as Canada slowly devolves into a third world sub arctic banana republic (no fault of the natives), where does everyone plan on going - to Berkeley, or the barricades?  Flight or fight?

Tom