The Hook

In other words

once first nations and gordon campbell dot the eyes and cross the Tees we will shove it down the people`s throat.

Lets be perfectly clear first nation`s chiefs,gordon campbell will not present a draft paper,he will present stall after stall until after the Owelympics and then tell first nations to go fly a kite!

This paper(discussion paper)is about olympic peace,nothing more,nothing less.....
Just call him(campbell)a indian giver!

It's always weird to hear

It's always weird to hear the small percentage of people who are Indians in this province, around six percent of the population, telling the rest of the citizens that the Standing Committee shouldn't have open meetings with presentors who might ask embarassing questions. It was different when the previous government Standing Committee did extensive consultations, but the Indians were on side as it was concerning the need for support of the Nisga'a treaty. The tail is now trying to wag the dog it seems.

A question for the Chiefs.

An analysis of the discussion draft (the paper) proposal has been written. Copies have been provided to the First Nations and the council of chiefs (you will find references to the analysis [The Isaac/Clark analysis or opinion] in online material on First Nations websites.); the government also has a copy (even though the opinion was NOT written for the government).

Undoubtedly, it was this critique which stopped De Jong in his tracks before the election.

The analysis is entitled:
LEGAL OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE “DISCUSSION PAPER ON INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE NEW RELATIONSHIP” (“PAPER”) March 9, 2009

Members of the press have seen at least some of this analysis - perhaps they have copies of the whole thing.

These ‘observations’ are critical of the reconciliation initiative; they are particularly critical of Jessica MacDonald's role in the 'creation' of the concept and some of its definitions. The authors address numerous fundamental discontinuities between the 'understanding' of the parties relative to the role of 'reconciliation'; the more or less ignored role of the federal government and direct conflict(s) with existing decisions of the Courts - including the Supreme Court of Canada as well as the 'definition' of what 'Nations' means in a government to government context.

The analysis is important and the document should be in the public sphere.

It is impossible for Canadians to judge the actions and the accountability of their politicians unless there is access to such information and the views of experts like the two lawyers who wrote the 'Observations'.

Why has the document been withheld from the citizens of BC and Canada?

It is inconceivable that a document like this is outside the public realm almost 4 months after it was written.

Procedural fairness, if nothing else, demands its release. The seemingly obvious collusion of some members of the press in keeping the document from seeing the light of day is horrendous.

Whether one supports First Nations' aspirations or is uncomfortable with them, every British Columbian has a stake in this discussion. If neither the government nor the press has sufficient mettle to release this document perhaps the Union of BC Indian Chiefs will do so.

1763

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 established native title to their land and to date, there has not been a comprehensive treaty process in BC. It is long overdue, like by 346 years.

Legally, it is their land and we are illegally squatting on it.

If my memory serves me

If my memory serves me right, some king in England said to not push the Indians around. To be fair with them.

There eventually were a lot of treaties negotiated in much of Canada. BC Lagged behind as they didn't join Canada till later. There were 14 Douglas treaties in BC plus part of the province was under treaty 8. The Nisga'a treaty was a long time coming but its been in place for a
number of years. The modern treaty process with canada, BC and the bands has been around for around twenty years. So how can anyone write that there is no comprehensive treaty process? Heck, even a ordinary citizen like me, spent many days observing treaty negotiations in BC. I do recall being at at least 75 different sessions. Or maybe I was just dreaming.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that title exists, but never got around to saying just where it existed. They stated two mehtods to claim title. Negotiations and in Court, with negotiations being the prefered method and easier to resolve. YOu don't have to believe me, just go check out the BC Treaty Commissions website and keep up to date on the progress.

2109

Thanks Wilfred, we have 100 years to go.

What's in it for me?

Yeah Wilfred the courts ordered the Treaty Process twenty years ago and so far over a billion dollars has been spent with very little to show for it. Why sign when you can always go back for more? Why settle when you already own it all?

The Royal Proclamation was a document designed to protect the interests of the world's oldest corporation of whom the Crown was a prime shareholder, the HBC. And how can it be that the Crown is the agency that establishes AR&T when it has no jurisdiction over them in the first place.

And what's the vision for the rest us?

But you got it Powell river it's all about Olympic peace.