78% of Cdns against ceding control of resources to foreign Govts.

[Machjo]

Unfortunately our false constitution gives resources to the provinces. They are not national and certainly not belonging to the queen and her ilk.

Consider though that many of those resources are on Treaty lands. As for those resources, I'd say the Nation in question ought to be free to do what it wants with them just as Canada is free to do what it wants with its.

As for those that we can rightfully claim by Treaty or other means, then yes I'd be for reqriting the constitution to make them national.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Consider though that many of those resources are on Treaty lands. As for those resources, I'd say the Nation in question ought to be free to do what it wants with them just as Canada is free to do what it wants with its.

As for those that we can rightfully claim by Treaty or other means, then yes I'd be for reqriting the constitution to make them national.

I think all of our natural resources should be nationalized and any revenues split equally among the citizens. Essentially it is us people that own this country, not the elected few and their cronies.

 

[Machjo]

I think all of our natural resources should be nationalized and any revenues split equally among the citizens. Essentially it is us people that own this country, not the elected few and their cronies.

I agree. Just remember though that those on Treaty lands are not "all our national resources", but "all their national resources". Just to put it in perspective.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I agree. Just remember though that those on Treaty lands are not "all our national resources", but "all their national resources". Just to put it in perspective.

I don't buy into the whole 'separate' nation thing. If the Indians want to be a separate nation they can pick a spot, get fenced in with border crossings, develop their own currency etc, etc. In other words I ain't gonna let them have their cake & eat it too. I tire of this BS. I say we sort it out once and for all. Offer them some cash and land and they can be part of Canada just like anyone else or they can have some land and f*ck off to themselves. Of course they could always go to war with us but I'm not liking their chances on that road.

 

[Machjo]

I don't buy into the whole 'separate' nation thing. If the Indians want to be a separate nation they can pick a spot, get fenced in with border crossings, develop their own currency etc, etc. In other words I ain't gonna let them have their cake & eat it too. I tire of this BS. I say we sort it out once and for all. Offer them some cash and land and they can be part of Canada just like anyone else or they can have some land and f*ck off to themselves. Of course they could always go to war with us but I'm not liking their chances on that road.

You sound like Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendant of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932:

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department., which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem."
(Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General D.Mackay as a response over concerns over the high death rate at the residential schools).

consider too the Enfranchisement Act, aimed at stripping Indians of their Indian Status as Treaty Indians. So clearly we recognized them as separate nations from the start, many treaties being signed before Confederation.

The purpose of the Residential schools and forced enfranchisement was an explicit attempt to undermine the treaties. In fact, it's been acknowledged that residential schools were planned while some treaties were being signed, indicating that there was no intention of honouring them from the outset.

So, can you pinpoint precisely at what point in history that these treaties were rescinded? Was it during the residential school era? And if indians were never recognized as separate nations, then why the enfranchisement act? After all, if they were already recognized as Canadians from the outset, there would have been no need to try to force them to become citizens, right?

We signed treaties, so now the onus is on you to show exactly when the treaties were rescinded.

 

[PoliticalNick]

You sound like Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendant of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932:

"It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department., which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem."
(Department of Indian Affairs Superintendent D.C. Scott to B.C. Indian Agent-General D.Mackay as a response over concerns over the high death rate at the residential schools).

consider too the Enfranchisement Act, aimed at stripping Indians of their Indian Status as Treaty Indians. So clearly we recognized them as separate nations from the start, many treaties being signed before Confederation.

The purpose of the Residential schools and forced enfranchisement was an explicit attempt to undermine the treaties. In fact, it's been acknowledged that residential schools were planned while some treaties were being signed, indicating that there was no intention of honouring them from the outset.

So, can you pinpoint precisely at what point in history that these treaties were rescinded? Was it during the residential school era? And if indians were never recognized as separate nations, then why the enfranchisement act? After all, if they were already recognized as Canadians from the outset, there would have been no need to try to force them to become citizens, right?

We signed treaties, so now the onus is on you to show exactly when the treaties were rescinded.

I am not talking about the past. It is over and done with and nothing will change the past. I am talking about the present and the future and moving forward. I am sick of my money going to pay for deals I (or most living people) had nothing to do with. I didn't build the schools or send kids to them. I didn't war with the indians. I didn't do anything that seems to be the standard litany of complaints from the indians so why the f*ck should I, or my children or grandchildren, have to foot the bills. I am tired of all the BS. Time for the indians to grow the f*ck up and live life in the present, not the past. The people who designed some of these 'treaties' we have did not have the right to mortgage the future of every generation to come after and the generations of indians that came after have no right to ask me to pay them for things that happened many years before their birth.

We need a single, final solution that ends all further claims and payments whatever that solution may be. I would rather see a lump sum payment and we are done but would certainly agree to lands and a separate nation as long as it is 100% separate.

I personally refuse to be held hostage and allow my kids and their kids to be held hostage any further over events that are centuries old.

You say 'we' signed treaties. Well you show me my signature on a treaty and I will honor it, until then it is somebody else's contract and they should be liable to uphold their end, not me.

 

[Machjo]

I am not talking about the past. It is over and done with and nothing will change the past. I am talking about the present and the future and moving forward. I am sick of my money going to pay for deals I (or most living people) had nothing to do with. I didn't build the schools or send kids to them. I didn't war with the indians. I didn't do anything that seems to be the standard litany of complaints from the indians so why the f*ck should I, or my children or grandchildren, have to foot the bills. I am tired of all the BS. Time for the indians to grow the f*ck up and live life in the present, not the past. The people who designed some of these 'treaties' we have did not have the right to mortgage the future of every generation to come after and the generations of indians that came after have no right to ask me to pay them for things that happened many years before their birth.

An MP was kicked off a plane recently because he was too drunk to fly. As it turns out, he is a Residential School Survivor, so hardly something in the distant past. While he can be said to be at fault, remember that many First Nations today are still suffering from PTSD symptoms, and many of their children are too owing to intergenerational trauma. I don't know if it's the case with this MP recently, but he did reference the school system and we can't rule it out.

We need a single, final solution that ends all further claims and payments whatever that solution may be. I would rather see a lump sum payment and we are done but would certainly agree to lands and a separate nation as long as it is 100% separate.

Treaties are bilateral, so legally they'd have to agree to any such payment too.

I personally refuse to be held hostage and allow my kids and their kids to be held hostage any further over events that are centuries old.

Harper apologized to over 80,000 Survivors still alive in 2008. They were centuries old? You need to review your history it seems. The last residential school closed in 1993!

You say 'we' signed treaties. Well you show me my signature on a treaty and I will honor it, until then it is somebody else's contract and they should be liable to uphold their end, not me.

Canada signed! So, are you willing to relinquish your citizenship?

To take an ****ogy, let's say I rob and terrorize my neighber and his family, and give the spoils to my son. My son of course should not be held accountable for my crimes, but at the same time he should acknowledge that he would have benefitted from my crime nonetheless,and that the neighbour and his kids might be suffering owing to my crimes. So, thanks to Treaty violations and land grabs and the residential school system, we have therefore been able to claim land, control resources, impose our languages, cultures and laws, etc. These are all spoils that you and I have inherited from this crime. So, as far as you're concerned the best thing to to is to rewrite history and pretend it never happend. Oh yes, and claim that the last residential school closed in the 1800s.

By the way, if you ever sue the state for violating your rights, I'll protest that I don't want my tax money going to compensating you because I'm not the one who violated your rights. Check.

 

[PoliticalNick]

An MP was kicked off a plane recently because he was too drunk to fly. As it turns out, he is a Residential School Survivor, so hardly something in the distant past. While he can be said to be at fault, remember that many First Nations today are still suffering from PTSD symptoms, and many of their children are too owing to intergenerational trauma. I don't know if it's the case with this MP recently, but he did reference the school system and we can't rule it out.

Sorry but I am not going to be apologizing for things I had no part of, nor should I have to pay. Let them sue the people that made the schools and the decisions to send them there personally. Not my fault they didn't raise their kids right. You see being from Vancouver Island and living among the Cowichan tribes for 19 years I know there are many decent, hard-working, tax-paying natives and then there are those that keep using age-old excuses while they drink away their welfare and band checks and are quite happy to stay that way as long as they keep getting free money.

Treaties are bilateral, so legally they'd have to agree to any such payment too.

The options are accept the deal or go to war. I would prefer the former but can accept the latter if required.

Harper apologized to over 80,000 Survivors still alive in 2008. They were centuries old? You need to review your history it seems. The last residential school closed in 1993!

That's nice. I feel bad for their experiences and have no problem with them using the medical system to gain the help they need to become responsible human beings but I'm not going to apologize. That's like me apologizing to your neighbor because you punched him out.

Canada signed! So, are you willing to relinquish your citizenship?

The "Canada" they made the deal with is a corporation, a fictional legal entity. If they signed a deal with a fictional entity that's their issue. If they had been smart they would have asked for some type of common-law agreement ratified by the citizens instead of dealing with a corporation. My citizenship is based in common-law so no, I'm not giving it up, no need to.

To take an ****ogy, let's say I rob and terrorize my neighber and his family, and give the spoils to my son. My son of course should not be held accountable for my crimes, but at the same time he should acknowledge that he would have benefitted from my crime nonetheless,and that the neighbour and his kids might be suffering owing to my crimes. So, thanks to Treaty violations and land grabs and the residential school system, we have therefore been able to claim land, control resources, impose our languages, cultures and laws, etc. These are all spoils that you and I have inherited from this crime. So, as far as you're concerned the best thing to to is to rewrite history and pretend it never happend. Oh yes, and claim that the last residential school closed in the 1800s.

Sucks to lose the war! My claim of ancient history is not about the schools, it is about the invasion of North America by the Europeans.

By the way, if you ever sue the state for violating your rights, I'll protest that I don't want my tax money going to compensating you because I'm not the one who violated your rights. Check.

I have enough money to last me a long time, don't need to collect from other citizens for a corporation's mistake. IF I were to sue the govt I would try to go after the individuals responsible and if they had immunity for some insane reason I would take a judgement of $1 just to have the win.

 

[Machjo]

Sucks to lose the war! My claim of ancient history is not about the schools, it is about the invasion of North America by the Europeans.

You really do need to review your history. The US had the Indian Wars, but Canada couldn't afford them so instead signed treaties it never intended to honour and then stabbed the Indians in the back so to speak. As for "Ancient History", the Indian Act is still with us.

 

[tay]

"I feel like we have a Prime Minister who is undermining the Canada that I've always loved," a backer of the petition wrote.




Two young Canadians delivered a petition with over 60,000 signatures to Ottawa this morning. The petition was signed by Canadians who oppose a Canada-China investment treaty and a major takeover bid by a Chinese state-owned company of a Canadian energy firm.


more

SumOfUs and LeadNow deliver petition with 60,000 anti-Canada-China FIPPA signatures to Ottawa | The Vancouver Observer

 

[Nuggler]

Research has shown that companies with share options or are employee owned are happier, safer and more profitable companies.

I'm all for it.

Hey, I can do that neat hand split too.

I think...........it really doesn't matter what we think.:canada: Canadian eh.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaah

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

And the FIPA investment deal with China gives Chinese corporations secret tribunals, in Canada to contest our laws. Bye bye many tax dollars. Harper, underselling Canada again.

 

[tay]

Hupacasath First Nation battles China-Canada FIPA in court



The Canada-China FIPA has been contentious ever since Prime Minister Harper signed it in September of last year.

Critics like NDP MP Don Davies have said that FIPA "puts legislative efforts to protect our land, air and water at risk of being struck down by corporate lawsuits.”

Gus Van Harten, an international investment law professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, and one of the experts cited by Hupacasath's legal council, asserted in an interview that the investor-state arbitration mechanisms underpinning FIPAs “tend heavily to side with investors.”

Canada holds FIPAs with 14 countries, and is in talks to establish a dozen more. But the Canada-China FIPA is the first to position Canada as a capital-importer rather than a capital-exporter country.

“The Canada-China FIPA is unique from a Canadian point of view,” says Van Harten. “We are assuming the bulk of the risks and the liabilities and the constraints.”

Takeovers of Canadian oil and gas companies by Chinese corporations like Sinopec has increased anxiety about the Canada-China FIPA, as well as its implications for the future of resource development, environmental protection and First Nations self-government.

But the case has taken on broader implications. After a failed NDP bid to halt the Canada-China FIPA in April, the Hupacasath court case is the last thing standing between the Harper government and the ratification of the treaty.


more

Hupacasath First Nation battles China-Canada FIPA in court | The Vancouver Observer

 

[petros]

Should Suncor pull up stakes and abandon it's foreign operations?

 

[Machjo]

Despite this high number of Canadian wanting to retain our resources for Canadians, now and in the future, it appears the Harperites don't care.

So what could possibly motivate some politicians to sell Canadians out?






more


The Tyee – China Trade Deal a '31-Year Ball and Chain' on Canada


poll

Three of four Canadians against ceding control of resources to foreign governments: poll | The Hook

I'd be against it too. But selling the rights to resources to a foreign-government owned corporation which will still be subject to our laws on our soil is not 'ceding control to foreign governments'.

 

[petros]

They aren't sold, it's term leases just like Canadian companies sign on for.

 

[Machjo]

They aren't sold, it's term leases just like Canadian companies sign on for.

Sorry for the sloppy wording.

But selling Canadian land off to China along with jurisdictional rights for eternity in a treaty signed in blood is much more catchy, don't ya think?

 

[petros]

yeah it seems scarier than what is really going on that is for sure.

 

[tay]

Canada's Secret Treaty with China Is Setting Us Up For Some Big Problems



In a radio interview with CBC's The Current last October, Gus Van Harten, an expert in international investment law, expressed that this deal was remarkably lopsided and possibly unconstitutional. Canada has already entered into 24 FIPA agreements, but the agreement with China is the only one in which the foreign country's investment in Canada greatly outweighs Canadian investment in said foreign country. Furthermore, it means disputes between Chinese investors and Canadian lawmakers can be handled by Chinese arbitrators, rather than by the relatively open legal systems of a legitimate democracy.

“The centrepiece of this treaty,” Van Harten said in October “is an arbitration mechanism that will allow Chinese investors to challenge any decision that is taken by any level of government anywhere in the country, take those disputes outside of the Canadian legal system and Canadian courts at their option, and subject them to these special arbitration tribunals. This is not a court. They're not fair, open, independent in the way Canadians are used to courts in Canada and other democratic countries.”

If we use the power of reason, we can see that if Canadian lawmakers are threatened by legal action from foreign investors, and they can't fight those legal claims except through secret arbitration by a foreign power, then they will probably avoid enacting any laws that might compromise the profits of those foreign investors. Given that some of these foreign investors are owned by the Chinese state, the alarming conclusion follows that, thanks to this FIPA, Canadian democracy will be influenced by the Chinese state.

more

http://paid.outbrain.com/network/re...scp=false&fcapElementId=16700&origSrc=4858984

 

[petros]

an expert in international investment law, expressed that this deal was
remarkably lopsided and possibly unconstitutional. Canada has already entered
into 24 FIPA agreements, but the agreement with China is the only one in which
the foreign country's investment in Canada greatly outweighs Canadian investment
in said foreign country.

Of course there is an imbalance, we bought China for 3.7 cents on the dollar. Good deals like that are hard to come by.

That means we're buying chunks of Canada from ourselves. How do you like them leaky nuts?