Canadians Want Closure In Land Claims

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 03:45 AM

There seems to be a lot controversy sparked each and every time native issues are mentioned on Opinion250. We don’t set the comments, we don’t decide which comments will go to press or not. We at Opinion250 do not believe we are able to perform that function. What someone considers is fair comment others don’t, some to the extent that they would like to label us as being negative. We have, at last count, just over 3500 people registered to comment on the news and events of the day.

We have banned 9 of that number over the past three years for abusive language or ongoing personal attacks that have nothing to do with the story at hand.

That would be, in my world, a true freedom of the media.

Now back to the original comment. There are strong feelings both ways in the native land claims, land, money fishing, hunting and a number of other issues that deal with the First Nations remain unresolved and that is the root cause of much of the hard feelings.

You can make a comparison to Quebec, where over the years there has always been a strong resentment towards Quebec. There is a feeling that the issue of sovereignty has never been resolved and Quebec receives too much out of Confederation. They are however a major player in Canada’s history just as the First Nations across Canada.

Canadians want closure not only in Quebec but also in land claims.

There is a feeling on the side of non natives that there has been too much money handed out, too much hand out in the way of land and other compensation, while on the other hand the First Nations feel that they had their land taken from them 100 years ago and they feel they are owed dearly for that.

Regardless of where you are on the page in the discussion, we must seek a way of coming together.

We need to put an end to the division that has been created. Only through resolving the differences and settling the claims will we all be able to move forward and prosper. The problem has been that, for whatever reason, governments seem to have been reluctant in bringing closure not only in Quebec but also in the Native rights issues across Canada. As to what they hope to achieve with this action, I leave up to you.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: RRrabbitt on July 9 2008 6:48 AM

..."for whatever reason"...

Greed.

:-(

Posted by: giterdun on July 9 2008 7:27 AM

Abolish the INDIAN INDUSTRY, (Accountants, Lawyers, Wealthy native leaders, Bureaucrates) and the problem will be well on the way to be solved. One law. One taxpayer. One citizen. One country. Sounds so simple but it's not because the roadblock is GREED.

Posted by: ammonra on July 9 2008 7:36 AM

Simplistic solutions to complex problems will not work. Canada has tried that route before and it was a dismal failure and just made the situation worse.

The only valid resolution is negotiated treaties the terms of which both sides agree on. Governments, federal and provincial, need to get on with it.

Posted by: michael on July 9 2008 7:47 AM

Giterdun got it right. Treaties don't get signed but cheques do. The average native person is being used as a pawn while the INDIAN INDUSTRY flourishes. We need to deal with natives on an individual basis to ensure they get a fair settlement and we can all get on with our lives.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 9 2008 8:03 AM

I would have to agree with Giterdun and ammonra for the most part.
This has become an industry driven by greed with exploitation on both sides of the fence.
Non-whites exploit first nations and first nations exploit each other.
Until a common ground based on honesty and a true sense of purpose is found,it isn't going to get any better.
Attitude has a lot to do with it and right now, the attitude on BOTH sides is bad!
The government has to be held accountable for allowing things to deteriorate to this point!
And where is the leadership on BOTH sides?
And that's what not bothering to negotiate in good faith does to an issue.

Posted by: MrPG on July 9 2008 8:23 AM

There's far too much money to be made in the so-called 'Indian Industry'. It won't ever be a closed issue as long as there's money to be made in the process.

Posted by: netsurfer on July 9 2008 8:58 AM

The solution is simple stop funding land claims and the lawyers and accountants will fast disappear. Right now there is a blank cheque sitting out there for the and they simply will not allow any settlement.

Posted by: owl on July 9 2008 8:58 AM

Fact: there is no such thing as finality when it comes to land and sovereignty disputes based on ethnic differences.

Look around you in the rest of the world. Israel-Lebanon; Jugoslavia; China-Taiwan; Belgium; Northern Spain; USSR; Turkey-Iraq; Tibet-China; Sudan, etc. etc.

All ethnic conflicts. Get them settled for decades, such as Jugoslavia ... bang, they go off again if you do not have the right agreement.

Even the USA-Mexican border situation with illegals crossing the border can fit into that scenario in a fashion.

Good luck.

Be happy that only the lawyers are benefitting here and not the international arms industry and the Architects, Engineers and Building Contractors!!!

Posted by: giterdun on July 9 2008 9:30 AM

Ammonra.. Complex solutions to simple problems are very costly and are usually doomed to failure. As we have seen throughout the history of this problem. Billions have been spent and still no closure.

Posted by: diplomat on July 9 2008 9:34 AM

"The only valid resolution is negotiated treaties the terms of which both sides agree on."

To this I add that there MUST be finality. It seems that far too many treaties do not get signed unless they are riddled with clauses that allow them to be re-opened again when some circumstances have changed.

I do not consider any treaty to be final and representing closure if in fact it is NOT because of built-in loopholes and escape clauses which can be used to open up more cans of worms in the future.

Get it over with, respectfully, honorably and with finality, that's my opinion.

Posted by: giterdun on July 9 2008 9:51 AM

diplomat..AMEN to respectfully,honorably and with finality. Problem is ... get this message to the negotiators. They are perpetuating bureaucracy and greed.

Posted by: ammonra on July 9 2008 10:11 AM

Giterdun: "One law. One taxpayer. One citizen. One country."

Michael: "One law. One taxpayer. One citizen. One country."

These comments sound very reasonable at first glance. Simply resolve the question of aboriginal rights with individual aboriginal people. In fact, it seems obvious.

However, how many aboriginal individuals are there in BC? How many in Canada? Is it really the intent to have a Federal and Provincial Government representative meet with each and every one of these people to negotiate an individual, personal settlement? Such a process would make the current Treaty Commission process look like a cakewalk.

Or is the intent to make a public offer, of less value than the rights given up and in cash, so as to entice people who, in a significant number of cases, live in poverty with little hope for the future? In other words, is the intent to once again exploit aboriginal peoples and take advantage of them?

Perhaps the intent is to split up traditional lands and assign fee simple ownership to individuals, then to send in the real estate developers to buy individual tracts of land for exploitation. Since they will no longer own it, then they will have to live elsewhere, of course.

Are these unreasonable assumptions by me? For those who would say so I would remind you that both these suggestions were made during the Nisgaa treaty negotiations by non-aboriginals who wanted individual resolution of the issue.

One problem, of course, is that the Constitution of Canada, our most basic and fundamental law, accepts as undeniable that Aboriginal peoples are organised as Nations. Until that is changed (good luck with that) treaties have to be signed with aboriginals as Nation to Nation, like it or not.

Diplomat is correct in that finality is needed in each treaty.

Posted by: ammonra on July 9 2008 10:12 AM

The quote for Michael was wrong. It should be "We need to deal with natives on an individual basis".

Posted by: getajob on July 9 2008 12:38 PM

Ben you said what i feel so this will be my last comment on this issue.

This divisionof the people (ALL PEOPLE)of Canada will linger well past my lifetime.
We on all sides ask for one thing "Fairness and respect".
The greed is making many people rich and the whole true essence of peace, is being dismantled. Brother against brother and sister against sister...this is what is happening today.

I agree 100% with giterdun (One people one race (The human race).....the day will be near when we will need each other regardless of cree.......

Posted by: Born in BC on July 9 2008 1:18 PM

ammonra
I agree with you in theory, but the reality is that when we pay a band the money ends up in the control of certain individuals that take advantage of the system. I love how its all the lawyers and accountants fault to so many people. Clearly these people have little understanding of the system. The real benefactors are the people within the band that control the purse strings. They fly here and fly there as 'elected' officials and pretend they are this and that and bleed their own band dry and the Canadian taxpayers in the process.
So maybe an offering to each individual is the way to go. Its the only way to ensure that everyone gets something. See stories on the Musqueum (sp) and other bands where the people in the band want to know where the money is going, and the band just got handed 20 mil! There is an elite class of aborigionals that are eating there own. It happens in every culture, but we (Canadians) have a duty to try to ensure it doesnt happen here because these are tax dollars.

And on Ben's points I appreciate the limited editorial bias on this site which is in stark contrast to other national sites.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 9 2008 3:35 PM

Well said Born in B.C.!
Unfortunately,first nations leadership will never become accountable until our government(s)are also held accountable!
I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Posted by: northman on July 9 2008 4:07 PM

Good posts.. Born in BC and Andy...

Posted by: metalman on July 9 2008 5:28 PM

Let me think now, lawyers created this problem, government allows it to perpetuate, a lot of politicians are lawyers, yup, it makes sense to keep the A.F.N. industry healthy. Greed is indeed the cornerstone of this issue. One country, one people, and most of all, ONE LAW!
(please?)
metalman.

Posted by: woodchipper on July 9 2008 6:06 PM

Its good to see this dialogue surrounding the issues of whether a solution lies in the band/nation level or the individual level.
I have spoken to a previous DIAND minister as well as a previous premier of BC about this exact question of who and how will this be resolved.
Both of these very experienced people candidly stated that the solution can only be found at the individual level.

As someone has already pointed out, one of the basic problems of band/nation government and all the "negotiating industry" which is involved in this, is that it often takes on an agenda of its own--and sometimes a self serving agenda which is perpetual and incredibly expensive.
How quick that political power and well paid life of travel and expense accounts can change people from a dedicated effort for their people into a personal lifestyle which serves their self.
You can only remain a "kingpin" if the negotiation/dispute continues.
This is one of many problems which speak to the need for a direct approach to the individuals rather than the band/nation level.

What I believe is the most crucial of questions is what is the truly rightfull goal and a goal of which will survive the inevitable changes over time? This goal must serve everyone and it must survive through changes which we cannot predict.

What we see today as primitive agreements or treaties were in fact sophisticated understandings of that day. The evolution of everyone involved has made what worked then, into something that cannot serve anyone now. If we approach this modern day treaty process the same way as before, won't we end up with the same problem as we now have? Won't our successors look at us for being primative and short sighted?
This question leads to several answers that are quite different than what has been attempted and failed to date.

A fundamental re thinking of what goals we are pursuing needs to happen. I do not believe that a land based treaty is what will resolve this long term.

Posted by: owl on July 9 2008 6:09 PM

"Let me think now, lawyers created this problem"

Lawyers???? They were not on John Cabot's ship, were they?

Posted by: owl on July 9 2008 6:15 PM

Diplomat said: "Get it over with, respectfully, honorably and with finality, that's my opinion"

Nothing wrong with that. And you might even achieve it. The you and others can go to your graves in the next decades and a new generation will push and suh some more .. and they will look at it in a different light and will agree that by their standard, what you felt was respectfully and honourably achieved was actually achieved through coercion when looked at in a slightly different light ... then apologies... a truth and reconciliation commission ... and away we are to a new treaty to be the be all and end all treaty.......

Posted by: owl on July 9 2008 6:20 PM

In case you think the notion of treaties and reopening of negotiated treaties by representatives is a First nations characteristc rather than a human characteristic ...

[urlhttp://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/france-hints-lisbon-treaty-reopening/article-173620[/url]

Posted by: owl on July 9 2008 6:20 PM

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/france-hints-lisbon-treaty-reopening/article-173620

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 9 2008 7:06 PM

I think I have to agree with owl.
It will NEVER end!

Posted by: diplomat on July 10 2008 9:09 AM

Born in BC: "The real benefactors are the people within the band that control the purse strings. They fly here and fly there as 'elected' officials and pretend they are this and that and bleed their own band dry and the Canadian taxpayers in the process."

Why are Firstnations tolerating that?

As far as treaty settlements go:

Since Non-Firstnations have no say in what the Firstnations do with the settlement money FINALITY is in my opinion the most important requirement for any treaty settlement.

Once money, land and whatever has been handed over to them it is entirely up to them what they do with it! They insist that only they know how to put it to use, so whatever will be, will be.

No coming back for more later! The country has a crumbling infrastructure, a national debt, provincial debts, war obligations in Afghanistan, ever mounting costs of the health care system, global warming, the highest fuel prices ever, and other needs that are competing with the costs of future treaty settlements.

Those who hold out and forever gamble on future (possibly) better terms hopefully know what they are doing, because the day may come when they'll say: we should have settled when the country was still able to afford it.

A bird in hand is better than a flock of birds sitting in a tree.

Posted by: woodchipper on July 10 2008 10:22 AM

One of Meisner's comments refers to a coming together of the people of Canada.
I agree with this, but what does it take to accomplish this?
My instinct tells me that this is unlikely to happen if we are segregated. I believe this cannot be sustained if we are segregated groups and especially if we each have different rights.

The term "first Nation" is not just a term but a concept that really means; seperate country(s) within Canada. While Nisga has gone very close to this, the question is how this type of arrangement can be made for all native groups? This is a truly a mindboggling dilemma.
The results from Nisga are not about bringing people together but in making a far larger reserve with far more independence. My question is whether this is good for anyone longterm.
Can we find harmony doing this?

Can this approach stand the test of time socially, economically, or is it an attempt to continue a culture of which has past its usefullness, despite what it means to the wellbeing of the people, socially and economically?

I believe that by empowering the indivuals to choose their future role in Canadian society and as Canadians, would lead to the most beneficial outcome for them and the rest of Canada. Native leaders will fight this as will the richest bands of today, but if the individuals have the forsight to happyness and wellbeing of their decendents this is likely the most sure means of accomplishing this.
Before people want to jump on me for what I just stated, remember this is only the core of a very complicated transition which would take quite some time to make.

The issue is about direction and not about todays competing or percieved winnings or losings. The goal has to be for long term integrated harmony rather than as where we are headed is to stand alone micro states which cannot be sustainable in most cases. Two ends of the spectrum, both of which are drastic departures from the middle ground which we now have--the middle ground of which serves no one.

Posted by: Harbinger on July 11 2008 10:35 AM

Assimilation was a word I haven't seen discussed. Make everyone the same is as close as anyone got. They (Aboriginals) are not like us. Hate to say that, but it is how I feel after all these years of interpreting all these financial and social shortcomings of these people. Don't label me a racist. That rebuttal is soooo worn out. If an aboriginal deals with me and he is not a jerk, he gets respect. Anyone for that matter who doesn't come across as a jerk also. Nothing will change. Talk, talk and more talk. They will never be like us. Leave them alone, give them all the money they want, wish them well and leave them be. Canada is a difficult country to govern. This is one of many reasons.

Posted by: woodchipper on July 11 2008 3:27 PM

Well harbinger, the status quo will not work and is in fact unacceptable to everyone.
Before you think that its these or those people which are this or that, think about what where and how things have been done and by whom.
People often refer to the choices of which these native groups have, but the decisions made by the group leaders are of a different spirit than the individuals themselves, usually.
Outdated pursuits of traditional based culture and leveraging land claims is a diiferent thing than what most individuals need or want.
If we keep going towards the micro states for each and every native group which are unlikely to sustain themselves over time--then what?
Giant reserves with far less funding for the most part.
I don't care what kind of people this would have happened to--the result would have been the same, or maybe worse.