Jump to content

      













Photo

City of Victoria | City Family | Municipal reconciliation efforts


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#161 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 04:52 PM

The protests really have nothing to do with leadership or really the FN at all. The left is protesting against capitalism and the status quo. This latest issue just gave them something to rally behind. 


  • jonny and A Girl is No one like this

#162 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:38 PM

the left is big on non-democracies though. they worship che guevara the mass murderer. and islamic countries with dictators or cleric leaders.


Oh snap, I’ve been doing “left” all wrong.
  • tedward and RoadRunner like this

#163 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 7,089 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 10 January 2019 - 08:40 PM

Yeah that statement is wrong in many ways, and I'm by no means 'left'. Certainly though, if folks are saying the hereditary chiefs should have a say and are also saying that monarchy's are bad... Hypocrite.

#164 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:20 PM

The hereditary Chiefs should have a say, no doubt. I would hope everybody in FN bands has a say. Do hereditary Chiefs have veto power? I don't know. It may depend on the band.

That being said, consultation does not mean engaging with every single band member. Consent does not mean unanimous approval.

To say the pipeline workers are on the land without consent is an untruth. The elected leaders gave consent. The community did give a certain level of consent. Is that enough? I guess we'll find out. I suspect the answer is yes, as the courts have ruled before.

#165 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:33 PM

The disgruntled hereditary Chiefs have reached a deal to allow pipeline workers back across the blocked bridge.

Which has been met by almost complete silence by those people who held these Chiefs up as heros a day earlier. The media has been pretty much silent as well. I guess peacefully resolving a disagreement doesn't sell well enough for the media and activists.

A cynic might say this is another example of Canadian activists using FNs when they align conveniently with their cause.

Edited by jonny, 10 January 2019 - 09:39 PM.

  • rjag, A Girl is No one and rmpeers like this

#166 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:36 PM

Link

https://www.alaskahi...camp-1.23588786
  • Matt R. and RFS like this

#167 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 4,992 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 10 January 2019 - 09:40 PM

I find it quite strange that there is so much confusion as to who is allowed to make the decisions/speak on behalf of...

 

Any of my major contracts that I negotiated or commercial loans etc I always had to sign a document identifying myself as a person authorized to negotiate on behalf of the company and commit the company to any binding terms etc.

 

We also required the same of our major clients, that the signatory on our contract was authorized to sign on behalf of the company etc

 

I'm sure the same would apply here, these folks arent stupid. This is a small disgruntled group taking advantage of the fear that governments have of offending FN etc... No-one puts $600million of contracts out there without doing due diligence...Except of course CoV negotiating the JSB


  • jonny likes this

#168 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,026 posts

Posted 10 January 2019 - 11:45 PM

I find it quite strange that there is so much confusion as to who is allowed to make the decisions/speak on behalf of...

Any of my major contracts that I negotiated or commercial loans etc I always had to sign a document identifying myself as a person authorized to negotiate on behalf of the company and commit the company to any binding terms etc.


I hear you, but do consider that (as I understand it) the Chief-and-Council structure was put in place by the Indian Act, and at the time the Act was first passed very few of the ‘Indians’ it was imposed upon were allowed to vote. In other words, the First Nations people weren’t given any sort of choice about forsaking the authority of hereditary chiefs.

Hopefully someone here with better knowledge about this than me can confirm this.

#169 VIResident

VIResident
  • Member
  • 216 posts
  • LocationVancouver Island

Posted 11 January 2019 - 06:59 AM

I hear you, but do consider that (as I understand it) the Chief-and-Council structure was put in place by the Indian Act, and at the time the Act was first passed very few of the ‘Indians’ it was imposed upon were allowed to vote. In other words, the First Nations people weren’t given any sort of choice about forsaking the authority of hereditary chiefs.

Hopefully someone here with better knowledge about this than me can confirm this.

Pipelines and politics: a primer on First Nations
UVic expert says band councils and non-elected hereditary chiefs play distinct roles that sometimes conflict

https://www.timescol...ions-1.23591920

 

".....governments and companies negotiating with First Nations on everything from treaties to resource development must find ways to include and accept differing Indigenous governance and legal structures as part of their agreements."

 

“You can’t take the social, political and economic life of communities and simply say these people represent the hereditary system and these people represent the band council system.”



#170 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Member
  • 2,408 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 11 January 2019 - 07:34 AM

Issues of reconciliation and improving the lot and lives of First Nations are, unfortunately, fundamentally unfixable.

No Band, Chief or Council ... no elected politician at the local, regional, provincial, or Federal level ... and indeed probably 95+% of the general public has the courage required to truly deal with the issues on the table.

This will all play out over the next century unchanged.

 

Although the Bands themselves seem not to realize it, and although that same 95+% of the public noted above don't do anything about it ... First Nations in Canada deserve far better.

Unfortunately, the First Nations themselves are not the body that can enact the changes required such that lives would indeed be better for their children and grandchildren.

 

The Indian Act has utterly destroyed generations of First Nations communities. Generational name-tags exist for First Nations like they do for the rest of the world - Gen-X, Baby Boomer, and Millennial members of First Nations societies ... ALL of those generations of First Nations have been completely devastated by the Indian Act and the brutal, inhumane fallout of having to exist under that bit of abysmal Federal legislation.

 

Political correctness, complacency, dishonest management, alcoholism, and a myriad of other ills continue to tear apart First Nations communities. 

It is, at its core, truly a crime.



#171 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 7,089 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 11 January 2019 - 08:53 AM

It's my understanding that an FN can just 'opt out' and live like every other Canadian if they so choose. Challenging, to be sure, if you're born into and raised in the system, though.



#172 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 09:05 AM

that’s correct. the system that has failed natives is the big welfare system we’ve created.
  • Nparker and A Girl is No one like this

#173 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Member
  • 2,408 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 11 January 2019 - 09:18 AM

It's my understanding that an FN can just 'opt out' and live like every other Canadian if they so choose. Challenging, to be sure, if you're born into and raised in the system, though.

Unfortunately, the Indian Act panders to the most basic of human instincts (which isn't the fault of any First Nations member), in that when a Federal Government offers you "free money", "free land", a "free house", and a multitude of other financial perks that often don't require you to acquire or maintain a job, or otherwise seek a personal income in exchange for your own labour ... that basic human instinct is satiated.

It's could almost be described as "an addiction" in and of itself.

 

It's almost (if not completely) impossible for human beings to "give up" or "give back" perks as the Indian Act bestows them, even if those perks are slowly and insidiously killing you, your family, and everybody else around you in your community.

 

The discussion also has to acknowledge that, in general terms, First Nations don't want to give up the Indian Act ... what they want (under the moniker of "self determination") is more money, more land, more power, and more opportunities to live their lives sans any requirement to enter the workforce and/or seek to advance themselves educationally in order to up their lot in life.

This most definitely isn't reconciliation, this is simply "more" of what already doesn't work, and what hasn't worked in Canada for over a century now.

 

It's only when you bypass the perceived political correctness, and lose the fear of being labeled a "racist" (or a "reverse racist") that you can begin the discussion as to not only what's wrong today, but how to potentially put First Nations on a path that would see them become strong, healthy, productive Canadians in the future.

 

But that discussion won't happen, and indeed this very post will leave some readers feeling that I'm simply an insensitive white man, with personal tenancies leaning towards racism.

That's how all of this currently works, and that's what prevents the discussion from moving forward.


Edited by Cassidy, 11 January 2019 - 09:19 AM.

  • Nparker, LJ, jonny and 2 others like this

#174 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:43 AM

Cassidy, I think you're on the right track, but the issue is treaties. Specifically, a lack of treaties.

 

The biggest issue is that BC has so few treaties. A treaty effectively replaces the Indian Act. The FN governments, the BC government and the government of Canada literally have not figured out who speaks on behalf of the vast majority of the bands in BC.  

 

One of the major problems in BC is that the true self-governance that comes with a fully negotiated treaty is impossible or nearly impossible with so many of BC’s bands being tiny.

 

Take a band with 300 people, which is very typical of this province. Some live off-reserve. Some are children. Some are elderly. That leaves maybe a few dozen able bodied, capable people who are interested and able in participating in the self-governance of their nation. A band of 300 people would struggle to provide the services that a small town does, nevermind achieve full "self governance" as defined under say the Tsawwassen or Nisga'a Final Agreements.


Edited by jonny, 11 January 2019 - 10:47 AM.


#175 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 3,771 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:47 AM

overlapping claims is also an issue.

#176 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 10:56 AM

yesss



#177 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Member
  • 2,408 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:11 AM

I agree with the treaty issue ... to a degree.

 

Treaties are like Collective Agreements, and the Indian Act is like the B.C. Labour Code.

Anything in the Labour Code applies, unless a Union signs a Collective Agreement with an Employer such that the contents of the Collective Agreement override the language laid out in the Labour Code.

So in that regard, "yes", a treaty would do much to diminish the impact of the Indian Act (unless that treaty includes major elements of the Indian Act continuing in full force and effect).

 

But I would put forth to you that there are dozens, if not hundreds of different ethnic and cultural groups currently living in Canada who live their lives well, and do brilliantly without a Federal Act to direct how they will be obliged to live, and who further exist happily without their any form of "treaty" with any level of government.

I realize that's oversimplifying to a degree, but that reality is difficult to look past.

 

IMO, the Federal Government and First Nations have to extricate themselves completely from the Federal legislation known as the Indian Act, and extricate themselves completely from the concept of "solution only by treaty".

As noted earlier, it's a tough row to hoe ... but treaties and legislated direction as to how a specific cultural group is obliged to live their lives hasn't ever worked, doesn't work now, and indeed will never work.


Edited by Cassidy, 11 January 2019 - 11:39 AM.


#178 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,175 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:17 AM

IF a FN is large enough (i.e. Tsawwassen), a treaty can open up entirely new doors of economic opportunity. 



#179 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,316 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:17 AM

Cassidy, I think you're on the right track, but the issue is treaties. Specifically, a lack of treaties.

 

The biggest issue is that BC has so few treaties. A treaty effectively replaces the Indian Act. The FN governments, the BC government and the government of Canada literally have not figured out who speaks on behalf of the vast majority of the bands in BC.  

 

One of the major problems in BC is that the true self-governance that comes with a fully negotiated treaty is impossible or nearly impossible with so many of BC’s bands being tiny.

 

Take a band with 300 people, which is very typical of this province. Some live off-reserve. Some are children. Some are elderly. That leaves maybe a few dozen able bodied, capable people who are interested and able in participating in the self-governance of their nation. A band of 300 people would struggle to provide the services that a small town does, nevermind achieve full "self governance" as defined under say the Tsawwassen or Nisga'a Final Agreements.

 

Prior to the middle of the 20th century, international law did not require a treaty in order to take land. The issue is that our elected folks don't want to use the word conquest to describe our earlier actions.



#180 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Member
  • 2,408 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:21 AM

overlapping claims is also an issue.

Tying reconciliation to control of land is a mistake, and a massive hurdle that's likely to take centuries to resolve.

Tying reconciliation to increased Federal (cash) payments to First Nations Chiefs and Councils is a mistake.

Tying reconciliation to control of land resources is a mistake.

 

The very model all of the above is constructed upon is irretrievably broken.

 

True reconciliation happens only in the heads and hearts of all Canadians ... it has nothing to do with land or money.

Only when citizens, governments, and First Nations get past the above being associated with reconciliation will forward motion be possible.

 

It's not really important in 2019 though, as I noted earlier, nothing positive will happen for decades (or perhaps centuries) simply because none of the three parties noted in the previous paragraph are interested in changing the model that's currently in place.

Equating more money, more resources, more land, and more power for First Nations with reconciliation contributes absolutely nothing to the process of reconciliation ... indeed it is far more likely to prolong it.


Edited by Cassidy, 11 January 2019 - 11:41 AM.

  • LJ likes this

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users