Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Pipeline protestors need to be jailed

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Piss off and stop wasting my time then. 

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

To little to late. I'll think about buying into this when in-camera lobbying is outlawed. 

In other words, you have no substantive response to the remedy of the false issue you were trying to push.  Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2020 at 2:37 PM, Dougie93 said:

He was simply speaking the truth of the matter.

Indeed. Trudeau is just pointing out the fact as to how most Canadians have become stupid and silly. Too many people will believe their politicians and the media and what they say without question. I am pretty sure that there are some silly and stupid people out there who would believe the media if the media told them that the sky was about to fall down on top of them any day now. Many would believe it and run for the nearest cave. Sadly, there are just too many stupid and silly people out there in Canada land. The only reason for globalist Trudeau to be once again the emperor of Canada today is because of those stupid and silly people who voted for that fool, and more of those fools are immigrating to Canada every year. Trudeau could be the emperor of Canada forever. Don't laugh, it could just happen. Only stupidity, silly nonsense, and emotionalism now rules over this liberal and socialist country called Canada.

Pipelines and other big major projects are being cancelled because of Emperor Trudeau and those stupid and silly ass commie terrorists who could careless about Canada. They appear to be out to deindustrialize and bankrupt Canada, and sadly, it is working well for those commie terrorists. Aw well, what more can be said about this stupid and silly country. :unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s sad to see investment flee from places like Wet’suwet’en territory, but these communities are held hostage by an archaic self-governance model where a minority of unelected chiefs can ruin prospects for their own people, supported by a misinformed fringe of radical activists who won’t be as impacted by the lack of resource development as the people they claim to support.  

We the people also have way too many chiefs(politicians)who are holding us all hostages and who appear to be nothing more than a bunch of inept, and totally corrupt and contemptible clueless bunch of Indian political chiefs who are ruining Canada and it's citizen's of it's potential to become a great wealthy country for all. A radical bunch of activist commie terrorists are ruining it for we the people of Canada and Canada itself. The sad part about all of this is that we the majority of people are letting them get away with it. But for the few who do get out there and fight back, they are the ones that get mostly arrested by the politically correct police. Canada is starting to appear to become a police state. Don't laugh like you always like to do. :(

Edited by taxme
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, taxme said:

Indeed. Trudeau is just pointing out the fact as to how most Canadians have become stupid and silly.

It's the American Information Age Revolution

Manifest Destiny 21st century style

The Industrial Age barriers required for Keep the Americans Out can't hold back the tide

Confederation is a trade & defense pact against the United States

Obviously not a boon when Canada is now totally dependent on the United States for prosperity & security

Confederation is not only defunct, it is an Iron Curtain against American freedom

Including the American freedom to say vive le Quebec libre and [email protected] Alberta at the same time

America is built to take the pounding, Canadian Confederation is not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacee said:

I don't agree with prescribing how Indigenous people 'should' improve their lives. 

Why? You sure don't mind prescribing how everyone else should.

1 hour ago, jacee said:

There are many reasons to get rid of the 'Indian' Act, but there are also many rights enshrined in the Act that need to be preserved. Again, it's their call, and I would like to see Indigenous people take the lead in drafting a new agreement.

Why? They lost. And they're a tiny minority. We get to make those decisions, not them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jacee said:

72 % of Canadians want governments to resolve Aboriginal rights issues, to stop causing conflicts.

That by no means they have the support of the people, Canadians have a bad habit of saying on thing but when it is time to stand up and take action, they all quietly sit back down again.... I seen the support the blockaders had when the news showed drivers shouting at them to get the F*** of the road, and go home...or some people dismantling blockades, then getting arrested by RCMP, ya that happened. Canadians only feel for a few things poggy checks, welfare checks, hockey night in Canada, and is the beer store opened....everything else is secondary and can wait until tommorrow...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eyeball said:

If you're not willing to follow or lead I guess you'll just have to get out of the way.

 

 

Well people aren't willing to sacrifice the world either so you better get used to a lot more screaming, marching and protesting.

In your face AG.

 

I'm not in your way, just pointing out how hypocritical you and your gangs really is...

Ya, they are, Canadians won't do a thing until it is to late, point out a major climate change intuitive this government has taken that WILL put this country on track , instead I see a lot of changing the goal posts to what is it now 2050, next government it will be what 2070....point to where a climate change protest has reached well over 100,000 people in one location in Canada. point to a climate change protest that has forced people to take action...you 've put your faith on a losing team....IN your face eyeballs 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shady said:

In other words, you have no substantive response to the remedy of the false issue you were trying to push.  Pathetic.

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I'm not in your way, just pointing out how hypocritical you and your gangs really is...

Ya, they are, Canadians won't do a thing until it is to late, point out a major climate change intuitive this government has taken that WILL put this country on track , instead I see a lot of changing the goal posts to what is it now 2050, next government it will be what 2070....point to where a climate change protest has reached well over 100,000 people in one location in Canada. point to a climate change protest that has forced people to take action...you 've put your faith on a losing team....IN your face eyeballs 

 

53 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

That by no means they have the support of the people, Canadians have a bad habit of saying on thing but when it is time to stand up and take action, they all quietly sit back down again.... I seen the support the blockaders had when the news showed drivers shouting at them to get the F*** of the road, and go home...or some people dismantling blockades, then getting arrested by RCMP, ya that happened. Canadians only feel for a few things poggy checks, welfare checks, hockey night in Canada, and is the beer store opened....everything else is secondary and can wait until tommorrow...

When the citizenry fight back, they get arrested for their right to be free to go about their business. When we get commie terrorists blocking those people from going about their business anywhere, they get a free blockade pass. There is really something really going on in this country that is just not right. The people who try and abide by the law get arrested while the ones who break the law get a free pass. Again , the minority mob ruling the majority mob. WTH is going on here in Canada. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No one on here is against a greener economy, but we are doing our best to get there through the lens of what is technically possible and financially viable.  I’m doing green energy production and I can tell you it’s expensive.  I will not have paid for my solar system in twenty years at the current taxpayer subsidized rate I’m being paid, which is twice the market rate.  I haven’t made as much as a $1000 a year on a $33,000 solar system.  I set it up because I’m passionate about green tech, but it produces a small amount of power though it’s a pretty large home system.  I’m in for the long haul because it’s a 50 year system and I don’t plan to move.  I probably won’t live another 50 years.

So Jacee and Eyeball, you can shriek about green options that are nearly impossible to afford without heavy subsidies and pet projects from wealthy people that simply cannot supply the load of our power demand, or you can work with the options that are available, because some options are better than others.  Natural gas is substantially cleaner than coal.  It’s abundant and affordable.  To ignore the positive impact that switching from coal to natural gas makes, not just to reducing greenhouse gasses but pollution, is irresponsible.  

Anyway, you clearly don’t deal in the real world. Your extreme green position would cripple the economy and put us back in candlelight.  Well guess what, the public isn’t going for that.  My guess is that you wouldn’t go for it either.  How would you get your lattes?

I respect environmentalists who put their money where their mouth is instead of asking others to pay for their green experiments.  Kudos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The majority of Canadians are against the blockades:

https://apple.news/AEKe1qh9qTASu3PrnejRwyg
 

I think we'd ALL agree that blockades shouldn't be happening ... if governments are doing their job right.

Canadians say ... 

"The economic impact ... 

53% heightens the importance of reaching a resolution through meaningful dialogue and negotiation. 

42% requires immediate forceful intervention by police at blockades. 

5% Unsure

They didn't ask whether governments should have prevented conflict by fulfilling the duty of the Crown to consult meaningfully with Indigenous rights holders, and adequately accommodate their rights and title, when the Crown contemplates actions that may infringe on Aboriginal rights.

If they asked the right questions, I think we'd all agree on a lot of things. 

Edited by jacee
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Ditto.

You didn’t provide a remedy.  A remedy was provided to you by @Zeitgeist, you chose to ignore it, and continue to do so, but it completely undermines your weak argument.  You’re not actually interested in emissions reductions.  Just implementing an all or nothing anti-Canadian agenda.  Putin would love it!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shady said:

You didn’t provide a remedy.  A remedy was provided to you by @Zeitgeist, you chose to ignore it, and continue to do so, but it completely undermines your weak argument.  You’re not actually interested in emissions reductions.  Just implementing an all or nothing anti-Canadian agenda.  Putin would love it!

Yes I did you just didn't like the conditions I attached to Zeitgeists suggestion.  I've commented on your aversion to accountability before, especially when it involves fossil fuel producers and regulatory oversight.

Like I said, piss off and stop wasting my time.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jacee said:

I think we'd ALL agree that blockades shouldn't be happening ... if governments are doing their job right.

Canadians say ... 

"The economic impact ... 

53% heightens the importance of reaching a resolution through meaningful dialogue and negotiation. 

42% requires immediate forceful intervention by police at blockades. 

5% Unsure

They didn't ask whether governments should have prevented conflict by fulfilling the duty of the Crown to consult meaningfully with Indigenous rights holders, and adequately accommodate their rights and title, when the Crown contemplates actions that may infringe on Aboriginal rights.

If they asked the right questions, I think we'd all agree on a lot of things. 

“There is almost no case where Aboriginal title confers an absolute right,” Plant said. “Canadian law is always about balance. There are always cases where the greater social good will prevail over a private right, no matter how important or passionately held.”

www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/delgamuukw-did-not-settle-the-question-of-wet-suwet-en-title-1.24085622

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mowich said:

“There is almost no case where Aboriginal title confers an absolute right,” Plant said. “Canadian law is always about balance. There are always cases where the greater social good will prevail over a private right, no matter how important or passionately held.”

www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/delgamuukw-did-not-settle-the-question-of-wet-suwet-en-title-1.24085622

All true, and I've never claimed differently.

I have only stated that the Crown had a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Chiefs, and to accommodate Wet'suet'en rights, and failed to do so.  

The strength of the duty to consult and accommodate varies with the strength of the assertion of rights, on this case assertion of title. If title had been declared, the Crown's job of consulting and accommodating becomes much more difficult. 

But the Crown in BC and in Ottawa dropped the ball completely. 

Governments could have prevented the RCMP attacks and the nation-wide blockades, if they had done their job right ... instead of putting the onus on the pipeline company to utilize a paltry provincial injunction.

Governments deserved to have this blow up in their faces. There are many examples in Canada of how this would play out via an injunction, but the governments ignored them all, knowingly causing conflict instead. 

(Corporate interests take note: Canada's governments will fail to do their duty, and will leave you hanging out to dry!)

And btw, Delgamuukw established that Wet'suet'en (and Gitxsan) Aboriginal title had never been ceded or extinguished - thus, exists. 

What remained to be established in the second trial was only what lands were included. The Tsilhqot'in (2014) ruling already answered one question, establishing that Aboriginal title is not limited to "postage stamp" areas of villages and industry (eg, fishing, hunting, trapping, etc), but included the whole of the territory identified - as required to maintain eg the whole watershed in a healthy state, for those activities to continue to sustain the people. 

External boundaries still need to be established, but the BC government has a map of boundaries, and the Federal government has such maps too.

https://commonsensecanadian.ca/first-nations-collision-course-lng/gitxsan-wetsuweten-map/

So at this point, Wet'suet'en title can be declared by governments through negotiation, and should have been well before now. That would have still required Crown consultation about the pipeline, but with Wet'suet'en people in a stronger negotiating position.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jacee said:

All true, and I've never claimed differently.

I have only stated that the Crown had a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Chiefs, and to accommodate Wet'suet'en rights, and failed to do so.  

The strength of the duty to consult and accommodate varies with the strength of the assertion of rights, on this case assertion of title. If title had been declared, the Crown's job of consulting and accommodating becomes much more difficult. 

But the Crown in BC and in Ottawa dropped the ball completely. 

Governments could have prevented the RCMP attacks and the nation-wide blockades, if they had done their job right ... instead of putting the onus on the pipeline company to utilize a paltry provincial injunction.

Governments deserved to have this blow up in their faces. There are many examples in Canada of how this would play out via an injunction, but the governments ignored them all, knowingly causing conflict instead. 

(Corporate interests take note: Canada's governments will fail to do their duty, and will leave you hanging out to dry!)

And btw, Delgamuukw established that Wet'suet'en (and Gitxsan) Aboriginal title had never been ceded or extinguished - thus, exists. 

What remained to be established in the second trial was only what lands were included. The Tsilhqot'in (2014) ruling already answered one question, establishing that Aboriginal title is not limited to "postage stamp" areas of villages and industry (eg, fishing, hunting, trapping, etc), but included the whole of the territory identified - as required to maintain eg the whole watershed in a healthy state, for those activities to continue to sustain the people. 

External boundaries still need to be established, but the BC government has a map of boundaries, and the Federal government has such maps too.

https://commonsensecanadian.ca/first-nations-collision-course-lng/gitxsan-wetsuweten-map/

So at this point, Wet'suet'en title can be declared by governments through negotiation, and should have been well before now. That would have still required Crown consultation about the pipeline, but with Wet'suet'en people in a stronger negotiating position.

But whether or not title is established and over which precise lands doesn’t change the problem of a minority of chiefs, an unelected minority no less, attempting to override the majority consensus of the Wetsueten.  Incredibly, it’s these very hereditary chiefs who didn’t seek a resolution of title through the courts, which raises questions both about their legitimacy as leaders within their own communities AND the legitimacy of title.  Quite simply, they have held up the processes for whatever reasons, and when we listen to the arguments between the various leaders of those communities, however well they try to keep the discussions internal, it becomes clear that the leadership is not at all harmonious and may be quite dysfunctional. How long should governments, businesses, and impacted communities wait for these issues to be resolved?  It begins to look like a purposeful delay tactic by the dissenting minority who didn’t get what they want.  It undermines public perception of indigenous leadership and makes it harder for these communities to attract investment.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

But whether or not title is established and over which precise lands

It's a good start.

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

How long should governments, businesses, and impacted communities wait for these issues to be resolved?

How long did it take governments to create these issues? 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's a good start.

How long did it take governments to create these issues? 

No, we can’t hold the present hostage to injustices of the distant past, especially when it isn’t clear whether or to what extent injustices occurred. Does England owe France for the transfer to British rule of Quebec?  Does the US owe the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists for land stolen during the Revolution? The courts aren’t even denying that title may exist, but it isn’t automatically assumed.  There has to be examination of evidence.  Where have these dissenting hereditary chiefs been?  

Interesting that there is such immediate demand for the Government of Canada to build water purification systems for Indigenous who don’t have to pay for any of it through taxes, and the government is building them, yet it’s okay for companies, investors, governments, and indigenous communities to wait until this minority of chiefs are ready to present their evidence before proceeding with work approved by the majority of chiefs after much consultation and regulatory approvals.  Why would resource developers go near such a volatile business climate, where the opinions of a few dissenters are allowed to set the agenda? 

Well the public, government,  and businesses are consumed by their own problems.  Hope that funding doesn’t get slashed due to economic hardship and shrinking tax revenues. What jobs and royalties will bring self-sustainability to communities that are so dependent on government funding?  What contributions do these communities make to Canada or even to themselves? Certainly not taxes.  

It’s a lot of drama and expense. Yet, on top of free land, health, education, and infrastructure, more is asked.  More is always asked and it will never be enough.  The colonialism card can only be played for so long.  At some point it will be about what people are doing with what they have rather than the reasons they can’t do things because they don’t get enough.  You can’t blame other people for the opportunities you turn away.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, we can’t hold the present hostage to injustices of the distant past, especially when it isn’t clear whether or to what extent injustices occurred. Does England owe France for the transfer to British rule of Quebec?  Does the US owe the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists for land stolen during the Revolution?

I'm sure that reparations were paid in both of those situations. Back up your claim that they were not.

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The courts aren’t even denying that title may exist, but it isn’t automatically assumed.  There has to be examination of evidence.  Where have these dissenting hereditary chiefs been?  

A lot of evidence was presented to the Supreme Court and it ruled that Wet'suet'en Aboriginal rights and title existed 'at contact',  was never ceded or extinguished, and thus still exists. Read the Delgamuukw 1997 ruling if you want to know what evidence was examined.

It's not up to someone else to break it down into into bite-sized chunks for you. 

All that remains to be done is to determine the boundaries of Wet'suet'en title territory, likely from government maps, and then the government can declare title.

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Why would resource developers go near such a volatile business climate,

Obviously they shouldn't.

Problem solved.  

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

What contributions do these communities make to Canada ... ?

They 'contribute' the land we call Canada.

What would Canada's GDP look like without the billions in resource revenues from traditional  Indigenous territories?

To what extent are those revenues shared with the Indigenous peoples who voluntarily or involuntarily 'contributed' their territories to Canada? 

Did Canada obey it's own 'rule of law' ... obey the treaties? ... obey the Royal Proclamations? 

Or did Canada just steal the land and its resource revenues? 

Does Canada just maintain Indigenous people in poverty to force their submission to resource projects that destroy the land's ability to sustain them? 

Get back to me on that. 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jacee said:

All true, and I've never claimed differently.

I have only stated that the Crown had a duty to consult with Wet'suet'en Chiefs, and to accommodate Wet'suet'en rights, and failed to do so.  

The strength of the duty to consult and accommodate varies with the strength of the assertion of rights, on this case assertion of title. If title had been declared, the Crown's job of consulting and accommodating becomes much more difficult. 

But the Crown in BC and in Ottawa dropped the ball completely. 

Governments could have prevented the RCMP attacks and the nation-wide blockades, if they had done their job right ... instead of putting the onus on the pipeline company to utilize a paltry provincial injunction.

Governments deserved to have this blow up in their faces. There are many examples in Canada of how this would play out via an injunction, but the governments ignored them all, knowingly causing conflict instead. 

(Corporate interests take note: Canada's governments will fail to do their duty, and will leave you hanging out to dry!)

And btw, Delgamuukw established that Wet'suet'en (and Gitxsan) Aboriginal title had never been ceded or extinguished - thus, exists. 

What remained to be established in the second trial was only what lands were included. The Tsilhqot'in (2014) ruling already answered one question, establishing that Aboriginal title is not limited to "postage stamp" areas of villages and industry (eg, fishing, hunting, trapping, etc), but included the whole of the territory identified - as required to maintain eg the whole watershed in a healthy state, for those activities to continue to sustain the people. 

External boundaries still need to be established, but the BC government has a map of boundaries, and the Federal government has such maps too.

https://commonsensecanadian.ca/first-nations-collision-course-lng/gitxsan-wetsuweten-map/

So at this point, Wet'suet'en title can be declared by governments through negotiation, and should have been well before now. That would have still required Crown consultation about the pipeline, but with Wet'suet'en people in a stronger negotiating position.

First:" Governments could have prevented the RCMP attacks and the nation-wide blockades..."

Total, complete and utter bullshit though not surprising considering you obviously have no conception whatsoever of the rule of law.

Second: 

Pipeline project was ‘hijacked’ by ‘group of five guys,’ former Wet’suwet’en hereditary chief tells MPs

The hereditary chiefs were being supported by environmentalists who were disrespecting the rest of the Wet’suwet’en community, Tait Day said.

"The hereditary chiefs were being supported by environmentalists, Tait Day said, who were disrespecting the rest of the Wet’suwet’en community.

“We feel like we have been hijacked by the protestors who have their own agenda.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/pipeline-project-was-hijacked-by-group-of-five-guys-former-wetsuweten-hereditary-chief-tells-mps

Nothing will be solved re land claims until all the bands with overlapping boundaries come to an agreement over which band actually has title.  Don't know how many times I have to keep mentioning that as you obviously don't have a clue that it is the bands themselves who have to stop fighting with each other BEFORE any government can negotiate with them.  At least get your facts straight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jacee said:

To what extent are those revenues shared with the Indigenous peoples who voluntarily or involuntarily 'contributed' their territories to Canada? 

Opinion: The link between oilsands development and First Nations prosperity

"But First Nations involved in the oilsands have higher incomes and rates of employment compared with many First Nations across Canada and, in select cases, even when compared with the general population. Fort McKay’s median employment income is higher than of nine of the 10 provinces, where median incomes range from $45,183 (Prince Edward Island) to $55,696 (Newfoundland and Labrador). Only Alberta, with a median employment income of $64,090, is higher than Fort McKay.

Likewise, across Canada, the average unemployment rate on reserve was 24.8 per cent, according to the last census. Yet three of the four First Nations that we recently profiled in a research brief for the Canadian Energy Centre, all of which are heavily involved in the oilsands, had unemployment rates between 17.2 per cent (Chipewyan First Nation) and 23.5 per cent (Mikisew Cree First Nation). Those rates still look high, but the census data is based on 2015 statistics, right when oil prices collapsed, thus reducing oilsands employment. Even then, these three First Nations recorded lower unemployment rates than the national average for all First Nations."

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-the-link-between-oilsands-development-and-first-nations-prosperity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mowich said:

First:" Governments could have prevented the RCMP attacks and the nation-wide blockades..."

Total, complete and utter bullshit though not surprising considering you obviously have no conception whatsoever of the rule of law.

The relevant law is the duty of the Crown (BC) to consult with Aboriginal rights holders BEFORE approving projects.

The relevant law is the Federal government must 'reconcile Aboriginal rights and title with Crown title', BEFORE the shyte blows up in their faces.

The province and the feds could have prevented the nation-wide uprising if they had done their jobs properly. 

They CHOSE to evade their responsibilities and pass the buck to the company and the RCMP, and that has clearly backfired on them.

Lessons learned? 

1 hour ago, mowich said:

Nothing will be solved re land claims until all the bands with overlapping boundaries come to an agreement over which band actually has title. 

"Which band" ? 

This is nonsense.

Educate yourself.

I don't involve myself in internal Wet'suet'en issues. Not our business. 

It is our business to make sure governments do their duty BEFORE Indigenous rights are violated, to avoid such conflicts. 

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mowich said:

Opinion: The link between oilsands development and First Nations prosperity

"But First Nations involved in the oilsands have higher incomes and rates of employment compared with many First Nations across Canada and, in select cases, even when compared with the general population. Fort McKay’s median employment income is higher than of nine of the 10 provinces, where median incomes range from $45,183 (Prince Edward Island) to $55,696 (Newfoundland and Labrador). Only Alberta, with a median employment income of $64,090, is higher than Fort McKay.

Likewise, across Canada, the average unemployment rate on reserve was 24.8 per cent, according to the last census. Yet three of the four First Nations that we recently profiled in a research brief for the Canadian Energy Centre, all of which are heavily involved in the oilsands, had unemployment rates between 17.2 per cent (Chipewyan First Nation) and 23.5 per cent (Mikisew Cree First Nation). Those rates still look high, but the census data is based on 2015 statistics, right when oil prices collapsed, thus reducing oilsands employment. Even then, these three First Nations recorded lower unemployment rates than the national average for all First Nations."

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-the-link-between-oilsands-development-and-first-nations-prosperity

Arising from Section 35 of the Constitution Act (1982) but not clarified until Supreme Court rulings after 2000, governments were forced to consult with Indigenous communities about developments on their traditional/treaty territories ... only in the last 20 years.

For 130+ years before that, Indigenous territories were a free-for-all for corporations that mined, logged, built/operated railways, hydro lines, roads and pipelines etc with no consultation, no consent, and no revenues to Indigenous communities. Land and water were contaminated and made unfit to sustain their lives through traditional hunting, fishing, trapping, with no compensation paid, no remedial efforts (eg, clean water systems, industrial cleanup of mercury and other contaminants, etc). 

And still governments dilly-dally, paper shuffle, pass the buck, encourage corporate bribery to buy support and divide Indigenous communities, doing everything they can to avoid doing their jobs, avoid sharing revenues avoid settling land, treaty and title claims requiring compensation for 130+ years of rights violations ... violations of Canadian law ... that still continue.

Edited by jacee
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jacee said:

Arising from Aection 35 of the Constitution Act, but not clarified until Supreme Court rulings after 2000, governments were forced to consult with Indigenous communities about developments on their traditional/treaty territories ... only in the last 20 years.

For 130+ years before that, Indigenous territories were a free-for-all for corporations that mined, logged, built/operated railways, hydro lines, roads and pipelines etc with no consultation, no consent, and no revenues to Indigenous communities. Land and water were contaminated and made unfit to sustain their lives through traditional hunting, fishing, trapping, and no compensation paid, no remedial efforts (eg, clean water systems). 

And still governments dilly-dally, paper shuffle, pass the buck, encourage corporate bribery to buy support and divide Indigenous communities, doing everything they can to avoid doing their jobs, avoid sharing revenues avoid settling land, treaty and title claims requiring compensation for 130+ years of rights violations ... violations of Canadian law ... that still continue.

You have anything to support your claims?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...