Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Is Six Nations plan a positive step forward?


Recommended Posts

Is Detlor plan a positive step forward?

By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter

Depending on one's point of view, the Haudenosauee Development Institute is either offering a palatable solution to the Haldimand Tract problems, or holding developers for ransom.

Aaron Detlor, a Toronto lawyer representing the HDI, said in a phone interview Tuesday that the aim of the Institute is to work out a solution that would be of benefit not only to the Six Nations (or Haudenosauee) but to the Canadian public as well.

As matters stand, he said, "there is a significant cloud on the title" of every property within the Tract. Bankers, he said, are beginning to shy away from funding developments as they "want absolute security." He added that some developers have started coming to the table.

He said the provincial land titles system does not afford protection for homeowners in such circumstances as the Tract. "There's no insurance under Land Titles. The province has no system to protect (home and business owners). The province has left the people blowing in the wind.

"What (HDI) is doing is not all that radical. We want to benefit to the same extent as the municipalities." He said the funds generated would be used for the betterment of the native population, in such as education.

In return, he said HDI would be offering the Canadian public a way in which they could show the bankers they had in effect resolved any land claim issues.

---not a full quote to save space---

I'm surprised at Mr. Detlor. I can understand the Haudenosauee missing an essential point but apparently he's a lawyer and should be well aware of the problem facing any developer in dealing with the HDI.

When a permit is granted by the province it is understood that the province is legally bound to stand behind it. If there is any sort of dispute there is recourse in the courts.

The problem with HDI is that being a native agency it has no credibility to offer any developer. How does a developer know that HDI or some other facet of native government may change the deal unilaterally? If they do, what recourse does the developer have? Appeal to a native court?

I would be very surprised if any developer would risk possibly millions of investment dollars in anything sanctioned by an HDI permit. Natives have given a perception that they hold more faith in oral histories than in anything written. Some spokespeople on this very board have made the claim that reality is merely a perception and if you change a story often enough you change history.

Furthermore, who's to say if after a permit was issued by HDI and many dollars were spent to begin construction the political situation at Six Nations might not change again. A different group takes power and decides not to honour existing HDI permits. What could a developer do?

I find it very significant that HDI has gone ahead with this permit idea without even offering any rational or assurances to allay any such developer worries. They would have been woefully blind to have been unaware that such worries might exist. Particularly with a lawyer's advice available.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Let's wait six months or a year and see just how many permits are purchased through HDI. The proof after all will be in the pudding...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised at Mr. Detlor. I can understand the Haudenosauee missing an essential point but apparently he's a lawyer and should be well aware of the problem facing any developer in dealing with the HDI.

When a permit is granted by the province it is understood that the province is legally bound to stand behind it. If there is any sort of dispute there is recourse in the courts.

The problem with HDI is that being a native agency it has no credibility to offer any developer. How does a developer know that HDI or some other facet of native government may change the deal unilaterally? If they do, what recourse does the developer have? Appeal to a native court?

I would be very surprised if any developer would risk possibly millions of investment dollars in anything sanctioned by an HDI permit. Natives have given a perception that they hold more faith in oral histories than in anything written. Some spokespeople on this very board have made the claim that reality is merely a perception and if you change a story often enough you change history.

Furthermore, who's to say if after a permit was issued by HDI and many dollars were spent to begin construction the political situation at Six Nations might not change again. A different group takes power and decides not to honour existing HDI permits. What could a developer do?

I find it very significant that HDI has gone ahead with this permit idea without even offering any rational or assurances to allay any such developer worries. They would have been woefully blind to have been unaware that such worries might exist. Particularly with a lawyer's advice available.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Let's wait six months or a year and see just how many permits are purchased through HDI. The proof after all will be in the pudding...

Being critical of someone at the HDI for not doing their homework, one would think you would have at least researched what you are talking about first.

For the most part, development is approved at the municipal (or second tier municipal level). Permits are issued by the municipality having jurisdiction. Development approvals are completed there and for the most part cannot be appealed, since the approval is issued by way of a Site Plan Agreement, or Subdivision Agreement signed by the municipality and the developer. Other approvals, such as MOE may come as permits where some extraordinary imposition is on the land but rarely this is contained within the development approvals.

Municipalities charge "user pay" fees for processing and researching applications. The cost of reports or studies is born entirely by the developer. Once the agreement has been reached and registered on title, the developer must pay development charges which often range into the tens of thousands for small store-type developments to hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars for large industrial or mega projects. This is the cost of doing business - no guarantees come with the money payments and it is put into a development fund for capital against community projects (publicly funded arenas, pools and parks) that benefit the citizens.

The model for HDI appears to come directly from that model. They are acting no more mysterious or mischievous than any municipality. Since we are required by supreme law to consult and accommodate First Nations where they have an interest in the land, it would appear that the HDI fulfills that purpose, where our governments have failed miserably. I applaud them for such a forward thinking way to solve a problem and move on. Too bad all you seem to be interested in is raising the rhetoric against coming to a common solution.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to post
Share on other sites

HDI formalizes a process that has already been occurring since November 2006. Developers throughout the Haldimand Tract began approaching the Confederacy for consultation at that time, and have continued to line up at their doors since.

To date, developers have maintained confidentiality about their agreements with the Confederacy.

I understand developers have been told there is no point in them trying to sue the Confederacy because they would lose in court.

As yet, there is no sign of the developers suing the municipality/province for issuing permits in bad faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Being critical of someone at the HDI for not doing their homework, one would think you would have at least researched what you are talking about first.

For the most part, development is approved at the municipal (or second tier municipal level). Permits are issued by the municipality having jurisdiction. Development approvals are completed there and for the most part cannot be appealed, since the approval is issued by way of a Site Plan Agreement, or Subdivision Agreement signed by the municipality and the developer. Other approvals, such as MOE may come as permits where some extraordinary imposition is on the land but rarely this is contained within the development approvals.

Municipalities charge "user pay" fees for processing and researching applications. The cost of reports or studies is born entirely by the developer. Once the agreement has been reached and registered on title, the developer must pay development charges which often range into the tens of thousands for small store-type developments to hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars for large industrial or mega projects. This is the cost of doing business - no guarantees come with the money payments and it is put into a development fund for capital against community projects (publicly funded arenas, pools and parks) that benefit the citizens.

The model for HDI appears to come directly from that model. They are acting no more mysterious or mischievous than any municipality. Since we are required by supreme law to consult and accommodate First Nations where they have an interest in the land, it would appear that the HDI fulfills that purpose, where our governments have failed miserably. I applaud them for such a forward thinking way to solve a problem and move on. Too bad all you seem to be interested in is raising the rhetoric against coming to a common solution.

You're not addressing my point!

I'm saying that after all is said and done, both with a municipal government and then monies paid to HDI, the issue becomes whether or not the situation changes some years down the road and the natives demand either more money or the land under the development.

In a normal situation a developer can have some confidence that such a situation would either never arise or that he would have an opportunity for redress in court. HDI has no such history or precedent. It only has the history of native protest actions during the past year or so. Such actions have done little or actually hurt any perception of stability towards development.

This is true even if for the sake of argument every historical Six Nations claim is perfectly accurate. Money doesn't care about your history! A developer only cares that he can build with clear title and never have to worry about losing his investment later. He doesn't care if his government is right or if the natives are right. Business only cares about a stable and legally backed investment climate. The whole Haldiman land claims issue has got business spooked and it's doubtful if a developer would put any more faith in a Jamieson than a McGuinty...

However, I could be wrong. As the months go by we'll see how this HDI permit idea is accepted. One thing's for sure. McGuinty is likely too weak to challenge it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're not addressing my point!

I'm saying that after all is said and done, both with a municipal government and then monies paid to HDI, the issue becomes whether or not the situation changes some years down the road and the natives demand either more money or the land under the development.

In a normal situation a developer can have some confidence that such a situation would either never arise or that he would have an opportunity for redress in court. HDI has no such history or precedent. It only has the history of native protest actions during the past year or so. Such actions have done little or actually hurt any perception of stability towards development.

This is true even if for the sake of argument every historical Six Nations claim is perfectly accurate. Money doesn't care about your history! A developer only cares that he can build with clear title and never have to worry about losing his investment later. He doesn't care if his government is right or if the natives are right. Business only cares about a stable and legally backed investment climate. The whole Haldiman land claims issue has got business spooked and it's doubtful if a developer would put any more faith in a Jamieson than a McGuinty...

However, I could be wrong. As the months go by we'll see how this HDI permit idea is accepted. One thing's for sure. McGuinty is likely too weak to challenge it.

Ask the city or the upper tier municipalities the same questions and you'll get a good answer. There is no reason to believe that an organization that has been modeled after our planning agencies would be any different. Besides, it is our government we have to worry about since they have broken every treaty, agreement and trust with First Nations across Canada, not the other way around.

Even in Ontario, a developer never has "clear title". All he has is an approval system that makes sure all the checks have been made. After all is said and done, the government can change its mind or insert a criteria that was not originally anticipated....and I have seen this time and time again when dealing with planning issues. The best that any developer can do is to consult with every agency that holds an interest in the development. That has always included Six Nations but was more often ignored by the area municipalities and the provincial government. Now there is a formal mechanism to apply to, consult with and meet the requirements of Six Nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed reading both Char and Wild Bill's comments on these issues. My heart is with you Char but Wild Bill is just tired and wants to know who will be paying for dinner cause he's already cashed out.

I'll get back to both of you on that after I have dinner with Steve. (hopefully Steve pays cuz he looks like he eats a lot)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask the city or the upper tier municipalities the same questions and you'll get a good answer. There is no reason to believe that an organization that has been modeled after our planning agencies would be any different. Besides, it is our government we have to worry about since they have broken every treaty, agreement and trust with First Nations across Canada, not the other way around.

Even in Ontario, a developer never has "clear title". All he has is an approval system that makes sure all the checks have been made. After all is said and done, the government can change its mind or insert a criteria that was not originally anticipated....and I have seen this time and time again when dealing with planning issues. The best that any developer can do is to consult with every agency that holds an interest in the development. That has always included Six Nations but was more often ignored by the area municipalities and the provincial government. Now there is a formal mechanism to apply to, consult with and meet the requirements of Six Nations.

You're dodging me again!

Let me put it in simple enough terms for you. Developers trust in their governments and the system in developing non-native lands. Given the events in Caledonia this past year it's not likely they'd put any trust in the HDI to develop any land over which HDI claimed jurisdiction. They would feel that they could pay HDI and in a few years either face more monetary demands or even a protest to take their development away from them.

You can rant and roar all you want that this perception is wrong or that someone like me has no right to even mention it. Who cares?

HDI doesn't have to convince me or anyone else on this board. They have to convince any developer that otherwise would have been interested in investing in disputed property. You can claim they don't care 'cuz they don't what the land developed anyway. If so, then why create HDI in the first place? The mere existence of HDI implies they want development, just under their control.

What I'm saying is that we can disagree till the cows come home. What will prove the point is how many developers pay HDI and start development.

If lots do then you will be proven right. If few or none pay HDI then my point is valid.

That's reality. It doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. A fact is or is not.

I hope that wasn't too complicated...

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're dodging me again!

Let me put it in simple enough terms for you. Developers trust in their governments and the system in developing non-native lands. Given the events in Caledonia this past year it's not likely they'd put any trust in the HDI to develop any land over which HDI claimed jurisdiction. They would feel that they could pay HDI and in a few years either face more monetary demands or even a protest to take their development away from them.

You can rant and roar all you want that this perception is wrong or that someone like me has no right to even mention it. Who cares?

HDI doesn't have to convince me or anyone else on this board. They have to convince any developer that otherwise would have been interested in investing in disputed property. You can claim they don't care 'cuz they don't what the land developed anyway. If so, then why create HDI in the first place? The mere existence of HDI implies they want development, just under their control.

What I'm saying is that we can disagree till the cows come home. What will prove the point is how many developers pay HDI and start development.

If lots do then you will be proven right. If few or none pay HDI then my point is valid.

That's reality. It doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. A fact is or is not.

I hope that wasn't too complicated...

The developers are convinced. Some searched their titles all the way back and found that their "titles are not clear": There are no documents of transfer of land from Six Nations to the Crown in the Ontario land registry.

Developers are already doing business with the Confederacy, have been for over a year, LOTS of them. Think about how many developments are going on in the Haldimand Tract ... a huge number, and most of them are already doing business with the Confederacy, now through the HDI. However, the developers are under no obligation to tell you or me or the public about their business so we do not know how many, what they paid, what their agreement is, etc.

The developers can take the HDI to Canadian court if they wish, now or later.

I heard the developers have been informed by their lawyers that they will lose, though, because Six Nations claim is legitimate. The land belongs to Six Nations, not to Ontario, not to Canada, not to Cambridge, Kitchener etc.: The land belongs outright to Six Nations. They don't want to put us out of our homes, but they do want acknowledgment from our governments that the land is theirs: A say in development and a share of revenues from their land.

Edited by joan
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're dodging me again!

Let me put it in simple enough terms for you. Developers trust in their governments and the system in developing non-native lands. Given the events in Caledonia this past year it's not likely they'd put any trust in the HDI to develop any land over which HDI claimed jurisdiction. They would feel that they could pay HDI and in a few years either face more monetary demands or even a protest to take their development away from them.

You can rant and roar all you want that this perception is wrong or that someone like me has no right to even mention it. Who cares?

HDI doesn't have to convince me or anyone else on this board. They have to convince any developer that otherwise would have been interested in investing in disputed property. You can claim they don't care 'cuz they don't what the land developed anyway. If so, then why create HDI in the first place? The mere existence of HDI implies they want development, just under their control.

What I'm saying is that we can disagree till the cows come home. What will prove the point is how many developers pay HDI and start development.

If lots do then you will be proven right. If few or none pay HDI then my point is valid.

That's reality. It doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. A fact is or is not.

I hope that wasn't too complicated...

What YOU don't seem to get is that the Confederacy IS a government. Constitutionally it has more power than the province IF it decided to be part of Canada. As a sovereign state independent of Canada, they don't have to answer to the federal government since it is nothing more than a Crown corporation. Our federal government also answers to the Crown.

So IF the developers come and consult (and the province is requiring municipalities to submit their official plans for HDI approval) then there is more security of the future than there presently is with the province refusing to consult. You see as it stands the right of occupation (estoppal) in cases where there hasn't been any consultation leaves developers to what ever wind is blowing that day. The Confederacy historically have been people of their word so if there is a commitment and approval for certain development, then it is pretty much secure.

The HDI isn't concerned about the money as much as they are in taking over jurisdiction of the Haldimand. They have been very clear in their assertions that some lands are considered "green zones" (development permitted) others are yellow (heavily reviewed before approval) and many others are red zones (no development). This is more intensive then the Grand River Conservation Authority, but clearly defines their jurisdiction. From what I understand the HDI is not opposed to development but wants to ensure that it fits in with their future needs and doesn't interfere with their claims in dispute over land titles.

I agree that no one should be building on disputed lands. It is too bad that the provincial and federal government s haven't got the balls to deal with them honestly and clear the way for future development. You are right that develoment has fallen off greatly but the blame lies clearly with our government's refusal to deal with the issues, not Six Nations desperate attempts to get their own lands back under their control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that no one should be building on disputed lands. It is too bad that the provincial and federal government s haven't got the balls to deal with them honestly and clear the way for future development. You are right that develoment has fallen off greatly but the blame lies clearly with our government's refusal to deal with the issues, not Six Nations desperate attempts to get their own lands back under their control.

This was my entire point! It's not a matter of blame. If HDI doesn't find a way to establish some credibility with developers they will have a very quiet, underworked office.

The HDI can offer all the permits it wants. If developers don't trust HDI they won't bother applying for a permit from HDI OR the province!

They won't develop there at all!

As for Joan's claim that there are all kinds of HDI permits happening with all kinds of developers, let's look at the land a few years from now. If she's right then obviously there will be all sorts of buildings upon those lands.

If they're still bare, as I suspect they will be, then she's talking through her hat again, venting her wishes instead of reality.

Of course, since she changes her name so often she'll never have to admit she was mistaken.

We'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This was my entire point! It's not a matter of blame. If HDI doesn't find a way to establish some credibility with developers they will have a very quiet, underworked office.

The HDI can offer all the permits it wants. If developers don't trust HDI they won't bother applying for a permit from HDI OR the province!

They won't develop there at all!

As for Joan's claim that there are all kinds of HDI permits happening with all kinds of developers, let's look at the land a few years from now. If she's right then obviously there will be all sorts of buildings upon those lands.

If they're still bare, as I suspect they will be, then she's talking through her hat again, venting her wishes instead of reality.

Of course, since she changes her name so often she'll never have to admit she was mistaken.

We'll see.

Developers do trust HDI because they have been consulting with 6N and now the HDI for over a year. The problem is the friggin' mayor keeps shooting her fat mouth off as if there is a conflict between what 6N want and what the developers want. It is just a matter of process and big mouth politicians have no place in that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This was my entire point! It's not a matter of blame. If HDI doesn't find a way to establish some credibility with developers they will have a very quiet, underworked office.

The HDI can offer all the permits it wants. If developers don't trust HDI they won't bother applying for a permit from HDI OR the province!

They won't develop there at all!

As for Joan's claim that there are all kinds of HDI permits happening with all kinds of developers, let's look at the land a few years from now. If she's right then obviously there will be all sorts of buildings upon those lands.

If they're still bare, as I suspect they will be, then she's talking through her hat again, venting her wishes instead of reality.

We'll see.

I'll look forward to your evidence on that. However, there likely will not be as much development as was anticipated and already approved: Some kinds of development are not on the Haudenosaunee plan, and have stopped (Douglas Creek Estates, Walmart, Edwards Landfill expansion with local landowners, Hagersville, York, action in Brantford).

I am so glad they have done this. There is rampant undesirable development ... SPRAWL on the greenfields out there, in a watershed that was full to capacity 10 years ago (GRCA). It's disgusting, UNNECESSARY, soon to be WHITE ELEPHANT development that nobody wants, and nobody wants to look at. It is disgusting, as I said.

Caledonia is a jewel waiting to be cut properly and burnished: A paradise for retirees who want to look down at the beautiful river and town and green and rolling countryside that is the valley of the Grand River, and walk a block to the old downtown, to the river trails, riverside, or drive 15 min to Lake Erie beaches, sailing. I could go on ... but you get my drift.

They need to do what we all need to do: Scale down, intensify, use the brownfields, restore buildings, downtowns (stop demolition.). GET PREPARED for the baby-boom downsize into 1 level accommodations with all conveniences and amenities nearby. Currently the bulge year itself is 42-43 years of age, likely already in family homes, and their parents are still too. However, the parents are leaving them in increasing numbers for the next 20 years, and the shadow of the baby boom will be a horrible glut of such houses leaving ugly scars on the land that was ... maybe crack houses of the future? :lol: :lol:

imo, there is room for lots of development of the right kind. I think it's great that Haldimand County Council is putting a trail from Caledonia to Lake Erie. That will be very popular, and will draw/keep the people who need more intensive housing: the young and the 'elder'. B)

-edit to add- I believe this is David Crombie's direction. The trail ... restoring bridges ... other options for development.

Point being, I guess, it isn't a race for the most or the money, but a quest for the best for the people and the earth, and I totally support that. So we will have to agree on appropriate measures. More is NOT better.

Innovation will get a big shot of 'motivation', I expect. ;)

Edited by joan
Link to post
Share on other sites
GET PREPARED for the baby-boom downsize into 1 level accommodations with all conveniences and amenities nearby.

You're generalizing. Many baby-boomers are doing all they can to stay in their homes rather than move into condos. Retirees and seniors are not all incapacitated to the point they can't maintain their property and proud of it.

Currently the bulge year itself is 42-43 years of age, likely already in family homes, and their parents are still too. However, the parents are leaving them in increasing numbers for the next 20 years, and the shadow of the baby boom will be a horrible glut of such houses leaving ugly scars on the land that was ... maybe crack houses of the future? :lol: :lol:

imo.

The boomers that decide to remain in the family home rather than moving into condos pass on their properties to their kids when they die. Many of those that move into condos also sell their properties directly to their children. The glut you're referring to is yet another generalization on your part.

Of course, this is all IMO. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're generalizing. Many baby-boomers are doing all they can to stay in their homes rather than move into condos. Retirees and seniors are not all incapacitated to the point they can't maintain their property and proud of it.

The boomers that decide to remain in the family home rather than moving into condos pass on their properties to their kids when they die. Many of those that move into condos also sell their properties directly to their children. The glut you're referring to is yet another generalization on your part.

Of course, this is all IMO. ;)

Of course, and mine too.

We can't discount that there is very good reason for downsizing our rampant and ghastly plans for expansion, given that land in the intensification areas ... the 'Places to Grow Act' in Ontario ... the Haldimand Tract ... is now in dispute.

You may be right about the large houses transferring within families from boomers to their echo-boom. However, there aren't as many of them, and even fewer in front and behind them:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/a...rts/chart13.htm

It isn't just condos, smaller one story houses too. Lots of people prefer other things to do instead of house and yardwork, like walking, lawn bowling, sailing, traveling, etc. There will be a variety of choices, but the demographic tells an interesting story for housing, I think, and for retail too, come to think of it.

Edited by joan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, and mine too.

We can't discount that there is very good reason for downsizing our rampant and ghastly plans for expansion, given that land in the intensification areas ... the 'Places to Grow Act' in Ontario ... the Haldimand Tract ... is now in dispute.

You may be right about the large houses transferring within families from boomers to their echo-boom. However, there aren't as many of them, and even fewer in front and behind them:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/a...rts/chart13.htm

It isn't just condos, smaller one story houses too. Lots of people prefer other things to do instead of house and yardwork, like walking, lawn bowling, sailing, traveling, etc. There will be a variety of choices, but the demographic tells an interesting story for housing, I think, and for retail too, come to think of it.

Retirement communities are the way people have been going for the last 20 or so years. A place where they own and live in their own affordable small homes, live off the interest from the sale of their big homes and where all their needs are met within the community.

(Hmmmm....sounds like retirement community living is similar to the way Six Nations sees their community.....people taking care of each other....)

Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to the question posed by the thread title.

When is a gang of thugs extorting money from citizens ever a positive step forward?

When they are acting to correct 200 years of Canadian government injustice, theft and fraud. ;)

It is no more extortion than the billions in development fees the municipalities fraudulently collect each year on land for which they have no jurisdiction.

Think about it: Haldimand County collected millions for development on land THEY KNEW WAS NOT THEIRS, FOR DECADES!

Link to post
Share on other sites
When they are acting to correct 200 years of Canadian government injustice, theft and fraud. wink.gif

Yep, you just keep on trotting out that same old line, someone may believe it. Ownership of that tract is very much in dispute. Any time documents are produced to show the sale of the land a blanket denial of validity is applied and such

documents are ignored. Yet at the same time we are expected to accept some beaded belt as undeniable proof. Sorry, I've just heard too much double talk and lies by quite a few Natives to accept what they say at face value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, you just keep on trotting out that same old line, someone may believe it. Ownership of that tract is very much in dispute. Any time documents are produced to show the sale of the land a blanket denial of validity is applied and such

documents are ignored. Yet at the same time we are expected to accept some beaded belt as undeniable proof. Sorry, I've just heard too much double talk and lies by quite a few Natives to accept what they say at face value.

ALL the documents are on the table and not one has proven the government's assertion that the Plank Road was surrendered correctly. As for the rest of the Haldimand, much of it is NOT in dispute as the government has already admitted (and has acknowledged since the early1800's) that squatters and illegal settlers had moved in. The federal government acknowledges it mistakes. Negotiation therefore is focusing on what constitutes reasonable compensation for most of the lands that cannot be returned. Six Nations has remained adamant that land must be included in any settlement.

And in the end it doesn't matter what you or I think of the process. It will move forward with an eventual settlement that both parties will accept, even if it means giving up half the county and another half of the neighbouring counties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And in the end it doesn't matter what you or I think of the process. It will move forward with an eventual settlement that both parties will accept, even if it means giving up half the county and another half of the neighbouring counties.

And there in lies the rub. No reasonable person would expect what the Natives are demanding. In effect they want to have their cake and eat it too. Any government that gave in to the ridiculous demands I have seen so far would find itself out in a big hurry never to be elected again.

From what I've seen they are not being reasonable at all. An interesting side note is that a few tried blockading the road to Cardston a while ago. Didn't last long. They stopped a crew on the way to work and demanded "tolls" to use the road. After a couple were unconscious and their truck had been moved with the grader the boys had with them they gave that idea up.

We should just settle the grievances in a reasonable form and manner, once this is done it should be a case of you're on your own. No more freebies and perpetual well-fare. As sovereign nations they should provide for themselves instead of making a profession of being parasites. There is no realistic reason they couldn't. With their own land, own governance, and a whack of money they shouldn't need anything from us. Of course reasonable does not mean bankrupting the country or reducing us to a third world standard they'd feel comfortable with.

No more excuses for thinly veiled extortion, stupid road blocks, and no more crying PLOM (poor little old me).

Before that can happen though they have to deal with their own problems. Problems such as the shocking level of racism they indulge in. Or the hatred they hold for others of their own kind who just happen to be of a different tribe. Without addressing those problems they will never improve their lot in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there in lies the rub. No reasonable person would expect what the Natives are demanding. In effect they want to have their cake and eat it too. Any government that gave in to the ridiculous demands I have seen so far would find itself out in a big hurry never to be elected again.

From what I've seen they are not being reasonable at all. An interesting side note is that a few tried blockading the road to Cardston a while ago. Didn't last long. They stopped a crew on the way to work and demanded "tolls" to use the road. After a couple were unconscious and their truck had been moved with the grader the boys had with them they gave that idea up.

We should just settle the grievances in a reasonable form and manner, once this is done it should be a case of you're on your own. No more freebies and perpetual well-fare. As sovereign nations they should provide for themselves instead of making a profession of being parasites. There is no realistic reason they couldn't. With their own land, own governance, and a whack of money they shouldn't need anything from us. Of course reasonable does not mean bankrupting the country or reducing us to a third world standard they'd feel comfortable with.

No more excuses for thinly veiled extortion, stupid road blocks, and no more crying PLOM (poor little old me).

Before that can happen though they have to deal with their own problems. Problems such as the shocking level of racism they indulge in. Or the hatred they hold for others of their own kind who just happen to be of a different tribe. Without addressing those problems they will never improve their lot in life.

Again, "what is reasonable" is a question we have no part in. Reasonable is what they agree to at the table and I'll tell you even if you don't agree with it in the end, it will have no influence on who gets elected. Canadians don't care about what happens in Haldimand anymore than they care what happens in Deseronto, Grassy Narrows or Ardoch. The end agreement will meet the expectations of both parties, or there will be no agreement and we'll be facing the next hundred years of unrest.

Actually, there are no more excuses for NOT consulting and accommodating aboriginal interests in the lands. We are in violation of our own laws everytime that we build or develop a property without proper approval from our adjoining First Nations. You of all people should know that if we are going to promote a state where we do not follow our own laws that we are inviting anarchy to rule. And it isn't that we have to fear Six Nations, but the continued injustices tend to make others stand up and listen.

Shawn Brant set forth last year with a mandate to disrupt the Canadian economy and in a few short days cost companies like CN millions of dollars in lost freight deliveries. Can you imagine what anarchy with a further goal of breaking the economy would bring? Chaos. In our cities and towns, on the highways and dirt roads we would be faced with vigilantism and lawlessness.

Settling with First Nations is in our own interest and the more rhetoric that gets passed around as the government stalls and obfuscates the process the more of a chance that our society order will erode. And while I expect that you answer will be to use force, you must remember why Vietnam and now Afghanistan are failures. We can't tell the peace-loving citizens from the insurgents.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to post
Share on other sites
We should just settle the grievances in a reasonable form and manner, once this is done it should be a case of you're on your own.

Well, if you were Prime Minister and would do this, Angus, we wouldn't have a problem!

However, our governments do not negotiate in good faith. Instead, they lie, cheat and steal.

That IS the problem, and always has been. The government insists on making Indigenous People dependent on government funds and refuses to pay them what is owed in land and money.

Edited by joan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadians don't care about what happens in Haldimand anymore than they care what happens in Deseronto, Grassy Narrows or Ardoch.

Thats a rather broad statement to make. I for one would never presume to state what Canadians do or do not think. I haven't asked them so how would I know. How long did it take you to survey all 33 million of them anyway?

We can't tell the peace-loving citizens from the insurgents.

Sure we can. The peace loving citizens are the ones who are not blocking roads, burning bridges, and extorting money from peace loving citizens.

However, having said that I would say violence is the very last resort. I don't know any one who wants to see an entire race get their asses handed to them.

Edited by AngusThermopyle
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats a rather broad statement to make. I for one would never presume to state what Canadians do or do not think. I haven't asked them so how would I know. How long did it take you to survey all 33 million of them anyway?

Sure we can. The peace loving citizens are the ones who are not blocking roads, burning bridges, and extorting money from peace loving citizens.

However, having said that I would say violence is the very last resort. I don't know any one who wants to see an entire race get their asses handed to them.

One needs only to look at the vote numbers to realize they don't care.

That's funny that you ~say~ that violence is a last resort because it seems to be the first thing you resort to as an answer to every disagreement.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...