Bring in armys. It doesnt matter, 70% of canadian army rangers is native, and the USA, 250 thousand native soldiers.

The only way to define if you are truly North American, is if your DNA is north american, in which most of you are not. If your born here from immigrant parents, it means your a immigrant squatter with some hyphon infront of your official citizanship.

I think you’re a bit confused here. What “natives” want is for Canada to honour the terms of their treaties, and to complete negotiation of Claims…not to carve separate countries out of Canada. May I respectfully suggest you consult the recent reports by Justice Thomas Berger on the Government’s failure to implement the Nunavut Claim, or the Auditor General’s Report on Canada’s failure to honour its implementation responsibilities, or the Pricewaterhouse Cooper assessment of Canada’s breach of its own guidelines for Claims implementation (all of which are available on the INAC website)?

All three documents have excellent background material on the legal and constitutional nature of a Land Claim that may help clarify some of this for you.

Hi, Matthew. I think you must have missed my preceding question, which impacts directly on the common error you’re making here.

Canada has entered into a number of treaties and Land Claims with First Nations. Those agreements are contracts which permit Canada to cross, occupy, develop, generate revenue from, and generally use that land according to the terms of the treaties or claim.

The British Crown recognized that principle and negotiated on that basis. Canada has recognized that principle and negotiated on that basis. The United Nations has recognized that principle.

You seem to be proposing that Canada suddenly and unilaterally default on the deal, abrogate all its contracts, treaties and Claims Agreements, and seize First Nation and Inuit lands against all law and precedent. Is that correct? Is that what you’re advocating?

Fact is, I was born a Canadian, I am a native of this land and this is my home. Fact is that Canada is the only recognized nation that occupies the part of the map labeled “Canada” and we’d be crazy to take a page from the Middle East and start carving up countries within countries like the Natives ultimately want.

And fact is: I respect any disagreement that you may have with me up to this point but it does NOT excuse any terrorist, embezzlement or other illegal activities that steal or injure other members of society!

Matthew?

Yes, we stole their land, but we called “No givers backsees!” So shut up.

KEvron

KEvron

Joanne:”

selective duhbatin’?

KEvron

a) You cite Canada’s recognition by the UN as an indicator of nationhood. Do you also, therefore, accept the UN’s recognition of Aboriginal title?

b) You suggest that Canadian funding to First Nations constitute “perks”. I own commercial rental property, and I receive funding on a regular basis from a small business, in return for which that business occupies and uses my property under specific terms defined in a binding contract. Do you consider the payment that I receive a “perk”?

Yup, with the mutual agreement of both parties. First Nations would probably agree to that. When they’re unilaterally rewritten by one party, of course, it’s called “breaking”, not “rewriting”.

What are you referring to here? Just curious.

“Canada is a U.N.-recognized, politically sovereign entity which calls the shots in its territory.”

It’s good that you cite UN recognition as an indicator of nationhood; I assume you therefore accept the UN’s repeated endorsement of Aboriginal title, the legal principle underlying native claims and treaties? Or does “UN recognition” only count when you get to use it in your argument? ;)

“In all fairness, what have any of these mobsters or terrorists now crying crocodile tears done to deserve the very generous tax exemptions, government programs and hand-outs that they get besides winning the genetic lottery?”

Well, without knowing exactly who you’re talking about here, I can say, in general terms, that First Nations and Inuit, in return for the benefits negotiated under treaties and claims, continue to allow Canada the rights of access, transit and trade that were originally negotiated.

But I’ve often made the same point as you - if the adherents of Flanagan really do think Canada is getting a raw deal, then fine. For example, let’s undo the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, give Nunavut back to the Inuit, and allow them to negotiate a land use and occupancy agreement with Russia or the US. No problem.