Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

Unprecedented? How about the Tibetan, Xinjiang, Mongolian, Guangxi, or Ningxia Autonomous Region in China? Or the Catalonian, Valencian, Basque or Galician regions of Spain? Corsica in France? The Kurdish Autonomous Zone in Iraq? I don't see how you think this legal arrangement is unprecedented. There are numerous, numerous examples of ethnic minorities have different legal rights in their lands in numerous countries thoughout the world.

See: Quebec (To a lesser degree)

[Cage]

Getting back to the new tentative agreement with Alberta and Tsu Tina. There are three things being redrawn

1. ...the proposed land swap was a major concern because the province wouldn’t guarantee all the land in play.
2.The First Nation also wanted access to the city through interchanges connecting the reserve to the ring road, and
3. to have the land reverted back to the band if it was not used for road purposes.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ring+r...inister/5090770/story.html#ixzz1RvN7rdjQ

1. This item can be resolved without much concern for today or the future. Actually the province should have gone to Tsu Tina with a better agreement WRT land swap way back in 2009.

2. I have heard various news orgs mention that Tsu Tina want access from RR onto their land. Some articles mention this would be provided through existing interchanges and others are silent on where and how the access would be provided. Succintly I am concerned that the Tsu Tina might get provisions to put up traffic lights, uncontrolled atgrade intersections, or have the province building interchanges at the Nations will/desired location. Hopewfully the province does not stick their head up the a** and gets a fair deal for the RR users. I would hate to have the Tsu Tina decide to run an uncontrolled intersection through 8 lanes of traffic.

3. Requirement to turn back land to Tsu Tina should also include a provision for return of an equal portion of the funds. Additionally the land should only be returned if there is no furture road use contemplated. I am concerned that a future band council could decide to enact this provision and take back any piece of land that does not have a road on it (or use this provision to get more cash out of the Province). This is a very unique provision that the Nation is requesting, hopefully the "what if" analysis has been completed to ensure the Province gets a fair deal.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

Unprecedented? How about the Tibetan, Xinjiang, Mongolian, Guangxi, or Ningxia Autonomous Region in China? Or the Catalonian, Valencian, Basque or Galician regions of Spain? Corsica in France? The Kurdish Autonomous Zone in Iraq? I don't see how you think this legal arrangement is unprecedented. There are numerous, numerous examples of ethnic minorities have different legal rights in their lands in numerous countries thoughout the world.

Modern world. I don't think China and Iraq are exactly pillars of how we run representative democratic states in the 21st century.

Plenty of ethnic groups have had different rights in North America in the past, too - and we spent decades getting rid of those forms of legal segregation for a reason. I don't think there's anything in the modern world that quite compares to our treaty system (other than perhaps Australia, and they have similar problems).

Quebec is nothing whatsoever like the situation with our reserve system, that's almost an insult to Quebecers to imply that they somehow receive different rights and obligations solely due to an individual's ancestry.

Is Corsica an ethnically segregated zone? Or just a different semi-autonomous region? Could your average French citizen move there and live under their laws, or is it entirely controlled based on ancestry?

However - my point was that the word "unfair" when describing the treaty system is more than apt. If you honestly are going to bring up the Kurds in Iraq as a counter-argument... wow. I think we're on 2 different books, let alone pages here.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Cage

1. This item can be resolved without much concern for today or the future. Actually the province should have gone to Tsu Tina with a better agreement WRT land swap way back in 2009.

Yup, Luke Ouellette just today said that the contract IS being rewritten to guarantee land. So this will be done. I agree, it should have been done last time around.

Originally Posted by Cage

2. I have heard various news orgs mention that Tsu Tina want access from RR onto their land. Some articles mention this would be provided through existing interchanges and others are silent on where and how the access would be provided. Succintly I am concerned that the Tsu Tina might get provisions to put up traffic lights, uncontrolled atgrade intersections, or have the province building interchanges at the Nations will/desired location. Hopewfully the province does not stick their head up the a** and gets a fair deal for the RR users. I would hate to have the Tsu Tina decide to run an uncontrolled intersection through 8 lanes of traffic.

I was confused about this one until yesterday. The plans clearly show no less than 5 interchanges on Tsuu T'ina land, and they are all apparently going in straight away. So from the Provinces point of view, this was never an issue. The problem, as I understand it, is that the purchased land will be folded into the City of Calgary, and as City land, the City could always block the interchanges if it wanted to. I think that the Nation is looking for some wording that would prevent this (even though it will never happen, I guess you might as well get that in writing). As for the nation building an interchange or lights, it won't happen. The lands surrounding the Ring Road will be provincial land, so they cannot just build on land that they do not own.

Originally Posted by Cage

3. Requirement to turn back land to Tsu Tina should also include a provision for return of an equal portion of the funds. Additionally the land should only be returned if there is no furture road use contemplated. I am concerned that a future band council could decide to enact this provision and take back any piece of land that does not have a road on it (or use this provision to get more cash out of the Province). This is a very unique provision that the Nation is requesting, hopefully the "what if" analysis has been completed to ensure the Province gets a fair deal.

This clause is not to return the unused portion of land to the Nation once the road is built. It is to return all 400 hectars in the event that no road at all goes through. It is to ensure that the Nation either gets a road with good access, or they get the land back. As long as the Ring Road goes in, even if it only uses a fraction of the available land (as is planned), then the entire tract of land still remains the property of Alberta (or Calgary)

[kw5150]

Yes, but there is a reason for the treaty system, and there is definately a reason for the problems......and the problems aren't all from the agreement, its also the turmoil that the people were put through. They were born, raised, cheerful......then told that they were dirty, savages, evil and wrong. Getting over abuse like that doesn't happen overnight. Anyone that thinks that human psychology is as simple as "get over it" is an idiot. It may take another hundred years to undo the white european evil that was inflicted on these people. We best be patient!

I prefer to listen to peoples struggles and that is how you learn from them, not by pretending they dont exist. No one is born bitter..........

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Modern world. I don't think China and Iraq are exactly pillars of how we run representative democratic states in the 21st century.

Plenty of ethnic groups have had different rights in North America in the past, too - and we spent decades getting rid of those forms of legal segregation for a reason. I don't think there's anything in the modern world that quite compares to our treaty system (other than perhaps Australia, and they have similar problems).

Quebec is nothing whatsoever like the situation with our reserve system, that's almost an insult to Quebecers to imply that they somehow receive different rights and obligations solely due to an individual's ancestry.

Is Corsica an ethnically segregated zone? Or just a different semi-autonomous region? Could your average French citizen move there and live under their laws, or is it entirely controlled based on ancestry?

However - my point was that the word "unfair" when describing the treaty system is more than apt. If you honestly are going to bring up the Kurds in Iraq as a counter-argument... wow. I think we're on 2 different books, let alone pages here.

My point was that there are many examples of different arrangements of sovereignty in our modern world. As well, nearly every single country in the entire world grants citizenship rights based on ancestry. My eligibility for German or Dutch citizenship is much stronger considering my grandparents were citizens there. Japanese citizenship is based almost exclusively on Japanese ancestry. Perhaps you can name me a country that does not recognize rights of ancestry, at least in part?

I am just arguing against your claim that this arrangement is "unprecedented" in the modern world. It is anything but. This situation exists in many, many countries in many forms and is in no way unusual or in my opinion, unfair.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

If you honestly are going to bring up the Kurds in Iraq as a counter-argument... wow. I think we're on 2 different books, let alone pages here.

Considering Kurdish independence movements and Turkish irridentism in Iraq under British occupation from 1918-1932 was my undergraduate honours thesis topic, I am interested in your point here.

Are you saying Kurdish Autonomy is a bad thing? Should the Kurds be brought completely under Iraqi rule? Shoud Kurdish language and cultural rights be rescinded, the autonomous region dismantled and the Peshmerga disbanded?

[5seconds]

Back on topic: What are the odds on a deal even being ready for end of September? I think the deal will be ready, but I'm not sure about a vote before then. And I cannot even begin to predict the outcome.

Obviously I think the deal is a good one for both sides, and is the better route for a road, regardless of where I personally live, but is the enhanced deal going to be enough?

If this isn't enough, I suspect that nothing would be, and that any potential rejection would be ideological rather than financial.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

My point was that there are many examples of different arrangements of sovereignty in our modern world. As well, nearly every single country in the entire world grants citizenship rights based on ancestry. My eligibility for German or Dutch citizenship is much stronger considering my grandparents were citizens there. Japanese citizenship is based almost exclusively on Japanese ancestry. Perhaps you can name me a country that does not recognize rights of ancestry, at least in part?

Perhaps you can explain to me what process a European (or Asian, or African) descended Canadian goes about applying for residency, citizenship, and full legal rights in a Canadian first nation.

You're talking apples and oranges. You can't seriously compare the treaty system to the concept of sovereign nations. Yes, no — there are different sovereignty concepts in the world. However, ours is pretty much unique in its history and execution. Hence the term ALMOST unprecedented.

Incidentally, recognizing rights of ancestry is a far cry from formulating an entire legal system based solely on ancestry. As I mentioned before, we tried that in North America before. And the British did for a long while as well. Hell, most everywhere has TRIED it. The point is we've moved beyond that, in almost every single case - except Canada. And countries that freely admit they practice open racism, like Iraq.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

Are you saying Kurdish Autonomy is a bad thing? Should the Kurds be brought completely under Iraqi rule? Shoud Kurdish language and cultural rights be rescinded, the autonomous region dismantled and the Peshmerga disbanded?

I'm saying that when I describe Canada's situation with its native peoples as "unfair", and you bring up the Kurds of all groups as a counter-point... I don't think there's been a more unfairly treated group in modern memory. Except perhaps the Jews. But I don't want to Godwin this conversation anymore than is already being done.

I find it telling that everyone here seems to think I'm coming from this from a racial perspective, at least anti-native language and culture. You might want to just take a breath for a second and very carefully re-read one of my earlier posts here.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm saying that when I describe Canada's situation with its native peoples as "unfair", and you bring up the Kurds of all groups as a counter-point... I don't think there's been a more unfairly treated group in modern memory. Except perhaps the Jews. But I don't want to Godwin this conversation anymore than is already being done.

I find it telling that everyone here seems to think I'm coming from this from a racial perspective, at least anti-native language and culture. You might want to just take a breath for a second and very carefully re-read one of my earlier posts here.

I brought up the Kurds because the Kurdish Autonomous Region is how the conflict came to a resolution. Prior to autonomy, Kurdish separatist desires met with brutal reprisals from the Iraqi government, including the gasing in Halabja. The autonomous region arrangement has mostly reduced violence in the region, satisfied Kurdish desires for sovereignty while also alleviating Iraqi fears of separatism and increasing Turkish or Iranian influence in the region.

So, in the same vein were the treaty rights not a resolution to violent conflict between British/Canadian settlers and military and the first nations? Of course the history is more complex than that, but wasn't sovereignty more or less the price for peace?

[MalcolmTucker]

Basically treaties exist due to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which in your words was to bring

resolution to violent conflict British settlers and military and the first nations

It forbade private purchase of aboriginal lands. Basically it recognized that aboriginals exercised sovereignty over their lands, and the only way to extinguish that sovereignty was treaties between aboriginal nations and the crown. The legal foundation was upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Canada's and the Empire/Commonwealth's final appeal court before the Supreme Court of Canada existed) on a case involving the ownership of resources in the Nigerian Delta and whether local tribes had surrendered sovereignty.

Because of exceptional even for the time local prejudice against aboriginals in British Columbia, treaties were not signed on the mainland under the justification that the nations there were not really nations, hence the huge problems with treaties and ongoing attempts to sign them in the province to extinguish historical sovereignty in the province.

All of this makes it likely that any land swap agreement could be held up in the courts for years if any group wishes to challenge it, since it requires a modification of a treaty, and there is a recent legal precedent that reserves cannot undertake developments that extinguish the ability of future generations of the nation to exercise traditional rights over their treaty territories.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

All of this makes it likely that any land swap agreement could be held up in the courts for years if any group wishes to challenge it, since it requires a modification of a treaty, and there is a recent legal precedent that reserves cannot undertake developments that extinguish the ability of future generations of the nation to exercise traditional rights over their treaty territories.

And this is part of where the treaty system fails miserably. We (Canada) claims that treaties give the native peoples full rights to their (much diminished) land, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. It's just more European arrogance, in a sense re-affirming the old beliefs that these ignorant savages cannot do anything for themselves. Their land is by many measures worthless if they do not have the ability to sell/trade/develop it.

It reminds me of when one of the original Indian commissioners up and decided one day that them damn savages needed to learn how to farm the old fashioned way, so they were denied any modern tools or equipment or grain crops in the west (according to some fad sociological theory of the time, this would turn them into "better farmers"). We pretty much from day one a) put them in ghettos, b) denied them the ability to rise from abject poverty, and even in the so-called enlightened today c) insist that alone out of any existing culture, the native people's would completely disintegrate without the ghettos err I mean reserve system, and d) label any attempt to radically alter (or even discuss) the system as racism. Which is the height of irony.

Note: the above wording may have been used for ironic or humourous intent. Plus I'm re-taking the word.

Global had a piece on the SWRR tonight, I only caught the tail end - I assume it's what's been discussed here... new/revised land swap possibilities?

[5seconds]

The most detailed and quote-filled article on todays comments

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/07/12/bell-great-expectations-for-ring-road

[freeweed]

I like Ouellette's comment here:

Ouellette seems surprised by this apparent turnaround in fortune.

“I don’t know how all of a sudden everybody is realizing it’s a great deal for everyone,” he says.

“Everyone knows it’s the best place to put it without interfering so much with communities’ lifestyles.”

$275 million in cash, eh? How many band members split that? Or would this be a case of the chief and his cronies getting the lion's share of the money?

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I like Ouellette's comment here:

$275 million in cash, eh? How many band members split that? Or would this be a case of the chief and his cronies getting the lion's share of the money?

I believe the Nation gets a percentage right away ($35 million), and then the rest, $240m, is held in trust. There are about 1600 members total if I'm not mistaken, but they are not distributing cash, they are investing it into the community and the developments.

The irony of his quote is that it was the province that walked away in 2009, so presumably the only people who are now 'realizing it’s a great deal for everyone' is actually himself and his colleagues. When the last deal was shot down, the nation was very quick (within a week) to say that the problem was the land guarantee, and that they were willing to work through those points in 2009 to come to an agreement back then.

In fact, from what the Chief has said, the original deal did guarantee land initially, but it was the Provinces lawyers that changed the language to 'best efforts' at the last minute. By the time it was ready to be presented to the Nation, the wording was changed, and the Chief suspected it would not pass and accused to government of going back on the agreed deal.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by freeweed

And this is part of where the treaty system fails miserably. We (Canada) claims that treaties give the native peoples full rights to their (much diminished) land, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. It's just more European arrogance, in a sense re-affirming the old beliefs that these ignorant savages cannot do anything for themselves. Their land is by many measures worthless if they do not have the ability to sell/trade/develop it.

It reminds me of when one of the original Indian commissioners up and decided one day that them damn savages needed to learn how to farm the old fashioned way, so they were denied any modern tools or equipment or grain crops in the west (according to some fad sociological theory of the time, this would turn them into "better farmers"). We pretty much from day one a) put them in ghettos, b) denied them the ability to rise from abject poverty, and even in the so-called enlightened today c) insist that alone out of any existing culture, the native people's would completely disintegrate without the ghettos err I mean reserve system, and d) label any attempt to radically alter (or even discuss) the system as racism. Which is the height of irony.

Note: the above wording may have been used for ironic or humourous intent. Plus I'm re-taking the word.

Global had a piece on the SWRR tonight, I only caught the tail end - I assume it's what's been discussed here... new/revised land swap possibilities?

They do have the right to sell/trade/develop it to a similar extent that anyone else does. You realistically have no right to sell/trade/develop "your" land. Canada and Alberta, the two bodies that hold sovereignty over the land, might allow you to do so but that is quite different from a right. The T'suu T'ina have "sold" land in the form of long term leases to residents of Redwood Meadows, as they presumably plan to for the commercial developments the ring road would allow, and they have developed land, like the casino. Whether individual members can do those things is really an issue between them and their government, just as it is for us with our different government.

Band members don't really have special rights above other Canadians. The reality is more akin to a form of dual citizenship. They are both Canadian and band citizens. Other Canadians who hold dual citizenship also have rights/privileges that normal Canadians do not, those that citizens of that sovereign power do. They can typically reside in that country and vote in its elections. Mexico only allows citizens to purchase certain lands. Hell, Canada doesn't allow foreign citizens and corporations access or ownership of certain key assets. The fact that band citizenship is based on ancestry, so there is a racial component, is hardly unique. Most countries base citizenship on jus
sanguinis and some of them, like Japan, essentially do not allow immigration making citizenship a de facto race based characteristic.

This is not to say that you are wrong about the existence of a paternalistic relationship. There is one and it is problematic but that has little to do with the issues of sovereignty that you are taking issue with. I for one would favour a greater degree of self government for reserves and the introduction, if the reserve members so choose, of more private property allowances. Of course, that would not change the nature of the reserve's sovereignty; residency would not confer citizenship so non-band members "owning" a house on the reserve could not vote for the band's government; the band could, like any other sovereign government, expropriate property with or without compensation, depending on their own laws, unless prohibited by their constitution.

[Calgarian]

So does this mean a deal is pretty much imminent now?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

So does this mean a deal is pretty much imminent now?

That's my take, definitely before the end of the summer I would expect to see something made official.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

So does this mean a deal is pretty much imminent now?

The problems that the Nation had with the contract are being fixed, and both sides say they are happy with the deal, so if you ask the Province or the Tsuu T'ina leadership, they would say that, yes, a deal will happen by the end of September.

However, it still has to go to the people of the Nation for a vote, and that could still go either way.