First Nations in Canada

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

Yes. That's the point.

Then how can it be said that Quebec gets special treatment?

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Then how can it be said that Quebec gets special treatment?

Not that it gets special treatment, but that its residents have the power on many fronts within the current constitutional framework to chart a course different from other people in this country. I'm responding to the idea that the Québécois were forced into becoming "normal Canadians” without the ability to make decisions on their own.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

Not that it gets special treatment, but that its residents have the power on many fronts within the current constitutional framework to chart a course different from other people in this country.

Again, though, how is this different from other provinces? Each has its own ability to chart its course within the current constitutional framework, and any of us can choose to move to any of these provinces and enjoy the benefits of living in those provinces. Not sure of the point you are trying to make.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Again, though, how is this different from other provinces? Each has its own ability to chart its course within the current constitutional framework, and any of us can choose to move to any of these provinces and enjoy the benefits of living in those provinces. Not sure of the point you are trying to make.

My point is kind of getting lost here, so I'll try to backtrack and lay out what I'm trying to say a bit better.

i) Posters yesterday were arguing for an end to (at various points) Indian status, the treaties and/or the continued survival of First Nations as constitutionally recognized political communities. First Nations peoples should, we were told, just become "normal Canadians" (i.e., to assimilate)

ii) To buttress the argument that there is no moral imperative to justify the continued existence of the items listed in (i), a poster commented that the Québécois were also a conquered people who were not afforded the opportunity to resist becoming "normal Canadians" (i.e., they were forced to assimilate), implying a sort of double standard at work in this country.

My point is that the continued existence of Québec as a province within Canada (with all the rights, responsibilities and autonomy that entails) forms a constitutional barrier against the assimilation of the Québécois people regardless as to whether that constitutional status or framework was designed with the sole or main purpose of protecting the people of Québec from assimilation.

[whatnext]

After Jody Wilson-Raybould has offered to act as a mediator, will Trudeau's ego allow it?

OTTAWA -- Independent MP Jody Wilson-Raybould said she would be willing to act as a mediator for the government in its efforts to address the ongoing protests and rail blockades that have shut down much of the country's rail system.

Wilson-Raybould is a former B.C. regional chief who served as justice minister in the Liberal cabinet before being ejected last year over the SNC-Lavalin scandal. She currently sits as an Independent MP.

"Would you be willing to go and act as a mediator in this situation?" Wilson-Raybould was asked Tuesday on CTV Power Play.

"Of course I would. I mean, this is a fundamental issue that is facing our country. It has been facing our country since we became a country. It's one of the reasons why I got involved in politics," Wilson-Raybould replied.

"Certainly if the prime minister were to reach out to me, I would lend a hand however I can."...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/wils...alks-1.4817607

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

After Jody Wilson-Raybould has offered to act as a mediator, will Trudeau's ego allow it?

OTTAWA -- Independent MP Jody Wilson-Raybould said she would be willing to act as a mediator for the government in its efforts to address the ongoing protests and rail blockades that have shut down much of the country's rail system.

Wilson-Raybould is a former B.C. regional chief who served as justice minister in the Liberal cabinet before being ejected last year over the SNC-Lavalin scandal. She currently sits as an Independent MP.

"Would you be willing to go and act as a mediator in this situation?" Wilson-Raybould was asked Tuesday on CTV Power Play.

"Of course I would. I mean, this is a fundamental issue that is facing our country. It has been facing our country since we became a country. It's one of the reasons why I got involved in politics," Wilson-Raybould replied.

"Certainly if the prime minister were to reach out to me, I would lend a hand however I can."...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/wils...alks-1.4817607

Possibly the last person in Canada I’d let anywhere near the file.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

My point is kind of getting lost here, so I'll try to backtrack and lay out what I'm trying to say a bit better.

i) Posters yesterday were arguing for an end to (at various points) Indian status, the treaties and/or the continued survival of First Nations as constitutionally recognized political communities. First Nations peoples should, we were told, just become "normal Canadians" (i.e., to assimilate)

ii) To buttress the argument that there is no moral imperative to justify the continued existence of the items listed in (i), a poster commented that the Québécois were also a conquered people who were not afforded the opportunity to resist becoming "normal Canadians" (i.e., they were forced to assimilate), implying a sort of double standard at work in this country.

My point is that the continued existence of Québec as a province within Canada (with all the rights, responsibilities and autonomy that entails) forms a constitutional barrier against the assimilation of the Québécois people regardless as to whether that constitutional status or framework was designed with the sole or main purpose of protecting the people of Québec from assimilation.

I understand your point more clearly now. Thank you.

I don't completely agree as I look at it more as protection for French culture than I do as Quebec being a special province. I would also expect there to be protections in place for Indigenous cultures, if the discussed topic were to come to fruition someday.

FWIW, protecting key pieces of Canadian culture is an important part of keeping our culture as a country, IMHO. It's what makes us who we are, collectively and individually.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Possibly the last person in Canada I’d let anywhere near the file.

Sure, because she has no experience, just the former regional chief for British Columbia who previously served as the provincial representative for Wet’suwet’en Nation's band councils at the Assembly of First Nations

But she exposed Justin as an empty suit of platitudes, so it is better to let the economy grind to a halt.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sure, because she has no experience, just the former regional chief for British Columbia who previously served as the provincial representative for Wet’suwet’en Nation's band councils at the Assembly of First Nations

But she exposed Justin as an empty suit of platitudes, so it is better to let the economy grind to a halt.

Could she help? Probably.....

Would she be an effective mediator? Absolutely not. A Mediator comes in with no agenda and ideally is independent of both parties. She probably has history within the Wet’suwet’en community that could just as easily be a negative as a positive. On the government side she has burned a number of bridges that would make working with the federal cabinet difficult.

The fundamental problem is answering the question who represents the Wet’suwet’en people. The chiefs the signed agreements with the pipeline companies? The chiefs the blockaded the pipeline construction site? The Wet’suwet’en need to sort that out. I think it is clear the people blockading roads and railways in major cities do not. Does the MP in an urban downtown Vancouver riding?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

My point is kind of getting lost here, so I'll try to backtrack and lay out what I'm trying to say a bit better.

i) Posters yesterday were arguing for an end to (at various points) Indian status, the treaties and/or the continued survival of First Nations as constitutionally recognized political communities. First Nations peoples should, we were told, just become "normal Canadians" (i.e., to assimilate)

ii) To buttress the argument that there is no moral imperative to justify the continued existence of the items listed in (i), a poster commented that the Québécois were also a conquered people who were not afforded the opportunity to resist becoming "normal Canadians" (i.e., they were forced to assimilate), implying a sort of double standard at work in this country.

My point is that the continued existence of Québec as a province within Canada (with all the rights, responsibilities and autonomy that entails) forms a constitutional barrier against the assimilation of the Québécois people regardless as to whether that constitutional status or framework was designed with the sole or main purpose of protecting the people of Québec from assimilation.

Then you completely failed to understand my point. Being "Normal Canadians" has nothing to do with assimilation or not, it's strictly a question of legal status.

Others have understood it, so it's probably not because I was unclear.

You can decide to move to Quebec. You can't decide to acquire Native status. Québécois have no special status.

No problem at all with people "not assimilating". Perfectly fine if they speak only Cree between themselves, as long as legally and fiscally, they're Normal Canadians just like all the rest of us.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Then you completely failed to understand my point. Being "Normal Canadians" has nothing to do with assimilation or not, it's strictly a question of legal status.

Others have understood it, so it's probably not because I was unclear.

You can decide to move to Quebec. You can't decide to acquire Native status. Québécois have no special status.

No problem at all with people "not assimilating". Perfectly fine if they speak only Cree between themselves, as long as legally and fiscally, they're Normal Canadians just like all the rest of us.

I also think that the fact that francophones got "their own" (sic) province that was used to defend their interests and drive their agenda was due to geographic, historic and demographic quirks, more than it was born out of a enthusiastic willingness to let them do their own thing on their own turf. Let's also not forget that at the time of Confederation Quebec was about 25% anglophone (and Montreal way more than that), and if you'd asked the power brokers of the time many would have said the Frenchness of the place was living on borrowed time.

Had francophones been instead spread out fairly evenly across the country (say comprising 25% of each province) instead of being concentrated in one large province, things would not have turned out the same at all in terms of political leverage, recognition, etc.

[Bishop2047]

Originally Posted by lio45

Then you completely failed to understand my point. Being "Normal Canadians" has nothing to do with assimilation or not, it's strictly a question of legal status.

Others have understood it, so it's probably not because I was unclear.

You can decide to move to Quebec. You can't decide to acquire Native status. Québécois have no special status.

No problem at all with people "not assimilating". Perfectly fine if they speak only Cree between themselves, as long as legally and fiscally, they're Normal Canadians just like all the rest of us.

This.

I am against any form of birth right. Having certain rights thanks to the birth lottery only creates division, and inhibits true reconciliation. As long as one people group gets and another does not (this goes both ways) there will always be a seperation.

[whatnext]

If there is a gas station or store on the Tyendinaga Reserve, why don't "settlers" just blockade access to that? Turnabout is fair play.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If there is a gas station or store on the Tyendinaga Reserve, why don't "settlers" just blockade access to that? Turnabout is fair play.

I'm wondering if there will be payback in the form of truckers refusing to transport oil and gas to reserves, or the oil/gas companies refusing to sell to them?

I get the feeling this is only going to get uglier, unfortunately.

[lrt's friend]

It is only a matter of time before there is push back from ordinary Canadians. We are seeing a lot of non-indigenous extremists who are encouraging an agenda that is not supported by the majority and I dare say, a good portion of the indigenous population. The project that so many are protesting will inject a tremendous amount of money into impoverished communities. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for some of these communities. Don't blow it.

[whatnext]

Am I the only one wondering who is paying for this? Themselves? The Wet'suwet'en, or...?

A trip east by four Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to meet and thank the Mohawks of Tyendinaga behind a rail blockade in Ontario has thrown into doubt the timing of proposed talks with Ottawa and Victoria to settle the rail crisis.

The four Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs left B.C for Ontario Wednesday and there are plans for them to meet with the Mohawks of Tyendianga as early as tomorrow....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wet...east-1.5468756

[Doug]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If there is a gas station or store on the Tyendinaga Reserve, why don't "settlers" just blockade access to that? Turnabout is fair play.

Why not blockade the blockades? Eventually the protesters would be starved and frozen out.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is only a matter of time before there is push back from ordinary Canadians. We are seeing a lot of non-indigenous extremists who are encouraging an agenda that is not supported by the majority and I dare say, a good portion of the indigenous population. The project that so many are protesting will inject a tremendous amount of money into impoverished communities. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for some of these communities. Don't blow it.

All 20 democratically elected band councils voted in favor / agreed with the project!

I believe even the majority of hereditary chiefs did too!

That’s the joke of this situation that seems to be continually left out of the headlines.

But it is definitely the take away that many businesses and most average Canadians will remember, even after jumping through all the hoops and officially getting native approval you will still be fucked over. So why bother?

[OldDartmouthMark]

I posted this in the Federal Government and Politics thread, but it's relevant here too. It clearly shows the internal struggles and the divide in the Wet'suwet'en nation. It seems that the protestors are claiming to be representing all of the Wet'suwet'en people, but are clearly not.

'It's none of their business': The Wet'suwet'en people who want the protesters to stop

[lrt's friend]

It is a great time for agitators, who are actually inhibiting dialogue and resolution. I really suggest that non-indigenous people who are involved in protests and almost certainly badly informed should back off. They are not helping, no matter their perceived good intentions.