Algonquin land claim details released

[ValleyGunNut]

I wonder who will issue you tags to hunt on native land? Theoretically.....

Oh man.....I just can't believe how far this issue is off the radar here in Ontario. Maybe once a lot of cottagers find out what is going on, there will be a little more noise.

Again I havnt asked that question, Im assuming that since Im non-native that normal hunting regulations would be used as in normal hunting seasons, bag limits etc. Technically speaking it would be just like me going to mr. farmer down the road and asking permission to hunt, except Id have a permanent camp on said property.

It definately has been off the radar, I was completely unaware of the issue at all until last week when we recieved the letter. It will affect thousands of people, not just hunters or fishermen by any means, anyone who uses crown land now for anything basically will be affected and this is the part I DO NOT agree with whatsoever. People should have access to those that land regardless of race, colour or ###. It is a free country, and they preach equality so then make it equal. As it is right now Natives are the only ones allowed to hunt in Algonquin park in the "controlled" hunts that take place (I dont mean that as an insult in any way) I dont agree with it at all, especially the fact there getting money on top of it.

To me there is no need for this to be a "racist" issue at all, in fact Id be in the same boat if the land was being given to the chinese, pakistani or whoever else. It simply just isnt right. I already know the counter argument to this will be "what the white man did to us wasnt right either" and granted you are completely right, no it wasnt, in the least bit! Neither was what Hitler did to the jews, or what England did to Scotland/Ireland or what the Spanish did to the Mayans... Its in the past, and yes completely wrong, I think it was last year (not sure of exact date) Harper formally apologized to the Native people. When is the past going to stay the past?

 

[Wajasi]

thank you for posting this , we definately need more folks with a real and deeper understanding to speak up in these threads
we all want a better canada, and here's to hoping that one day we will all have it to pass down to future generations.[/Q


You're welcome and my pleasure!

 

[Doogs]

 

[Wajasi]

C

Bahaha. I am sure there are lmao. I am sure there are chuckle.

You still can't answer why it was bad back then but it is ok now? This ancestor bs has gone on long enough. You can't continue to hide behind that bs taking handouts much longer.




And if whiteys started to blockade and burn things because they feel they have claims to land would that be ok?

It is funny...and I am chuckling....because if you knew what you were talking about and had a relevant and thought out question, then just maybe you would get a response. No one is hiding behind anything. It is what it is! And what handouts are you referring to?

You are on unhappy because you will be losing hunting grounds that were never yours to begin with. You are the one that brought up the ancestor's argument...and the handouts comment....yet you don't have the first clue what you are talking about or what monies are given or the reason for it. If you're going to comment about a certain issue at least to some homework on it first and know what you are talking about instead of sounding ignorant.

As for "whitey's" starting a blockade and burning things, be my guest! If you feel that there have been certain injustices done to you and you need to stand up and fight for what's right, than by all means block whatever you need to and burn whatever you have to, in order for your concerns to be heard! It's not about right or wrong or native or white, it's about fighting for what you believe in! I agree the past is the past, and no one can change what happened but certain agreements were entered into by two parties, and now those agreements still, today, need to be honored. Whether you or anyone like it or not!

 

[Sadosubliminal]

After having considered the article posted, I have some further questions and observations:

The article states that the majority of aboriginal people now live and work off reserve, and they pay taxes. So that means those living on reserve are the ones who are facing the sub standard living conditions, and not those who have left. So to focus on those remaining on the reserve, it might be inferred that they are unable to work, or choose to live by traditional means.

If it is stated in our binding treaties that Canada is bound to support those that remain, then so be it. While I do feel a responsibility to assist those who are unable (not unwilling) to work, I do not feel obligated to help those who choose not to. I am not implying that that is the case, as I lack any practical data on this matter, but if it were the case, that would be my position.

So what are the conditions like? Out of a population of, for example, 2000 people living on a reserve, how many are unable to work due to age or illness? What percentage can work but choose to live by traditional means? What percentage work off reserve but still live on the reserve? Having answers to those question would be helpful in better understanding the situation. I understand that each reserve may be different, but a general example would be useful.

It's difficult to understand the nature of the problem from a non-native point of view, I think, for several reasons. Without knowing exact numbers, all I can go on is, once again, the Attiwapiskat example. 90 million/a for a reserve with a population of 2000 people sounds like a fair bit for infrastructure, at first glance. Is it, though? What are the needs of the population? What infrastructure do they require? Electricity? Water? Communications? What are the costs involved in that? Furthermore, these won't be ongoing costs; once the infrastructure is in place, it just requires maintenance. As well, the average urban infrastructure deployment and maintenance costs are far higher due to the scale of it. Infrastructure costs in cottage country, on the other hand, are far lower, simply because of a lower population and less scale.

And again, there is the contradictory ideas of “Sovereign First Nation” and “Entitled to funding from taxpayers' money”. Of course, this also depends on the nature and wording of the treaties, but some view it as reserves are nations within Canada, and to pay for their infrastructure above and beyond agreed upon settlements would be akin to paying for roadwork in New York out of Canadian tax dollars. The other argument is that all Natives are Canadian Citizens, and living on a reserve doesn't change that, so they should be entitled to the same public money as everyone else, regardless of what they put into it because it was part of the treaty agreement.

These are some of my incomplete observations from my first glance at the article provided. Please feel free to correct any factual or conceptual errors. I am not an expert, and my view is that the law is the law, and if one disagrees with it, that individual must work within the legal framework to change it. That can work for and against any of the 4 parties I identified earlier in this situation. Without prejudice.

 

[Dsiwy]

and we are done here