Treaty Rights

Canada, FIduciary, First Nations, North Bay Nugget, Politics, Treaty Rights Leave a comment

A friend on my FB today shared a link relating to a personal diary of a government official, where he recorded personal accounts of treaty negotiations. Click here to read the article.

This article is the essence of what I have been trying to say to people around me relating to First Nations and the Canadian Government and their use of the term “fiduciary.” The part in the article that sticks out to me is, “ The government thinks it has the final say. These treaty diaries suggest otherwise.”

Sometimes when I read an article about the lack of government consultation with First Nations and their resources, sometimes I see the word “fiduciary.” This word is used in a sense that the government has a fiduciary relationship with the First Nations. First Nations leaders sometimes say: “But the government and the First Nations have a fiduciary relationship!”

A fiduciary relationship is one where it involves trust, one with a beneficiary and one with a trustee when looked up in a regular dictionary. However, last year, I did some further research into the term fiduciary and what outlines the power one has over another.

What I found: as a fiduciary, one can make decisions that they see best fit for the non-fiduciary. This meaning (in simplest way possible): if the government thinks it knows what is best for the First Nations, they can and will make that decision without their consent because they have the “power” based on that they think they know what is best and it is in the best interest for the fiduciary (because as a fiduciary they have a legal responsibility over the non-fiduciary). Simply put, and the way I see it, is that the government, as a fiduciary, will make decisions without First Nations’ consent. They will make these decisions because it is the government’s knowledge that they know what is best because they have an “interest” in First Nations. This interest is only for the benefit of the government and the rest of Canada (which sometimes fails to include the interest of First Nations).

This what I think that makes using this term quite difficult for First Nations.

Here are some questions I think of when I see this term and read about Canadian Government/First Nations dealings. Based on the basic dictionary definition: Who, in the relationship between government and First Nations, is the beneficiary and who is the trustee? Do we really trust one another? Also, if one is allowed to make a final decision without input from another because they feel that they are the ones that know what is best: how does one determine who knows what is best for one or the other? The case that this term was defined in will most likely continued to be referenced if and when Canadian Government/First Nations dealings land in court. Meaning, First Nations need to stop using this word in their defence. Hopefully, the discovery of this personal diary will be able to help assist First Nations in situations where Governments fail to consult or receive consent.

Nevertheless, terms like these that are used in the dealings with the Canadian Government and First Nations need to be changed, if First Nations really want to move forward. When First Nation leaders keep using this term and making reference to this term in their own defence, and having legal cases defining what a fiduciary really is, severely limits the First Nations rights and the items they agreed to during creation and signing of treaties.

Raw Milk

Dairy farms, Globe and Mail, Raw Milk Leave a comment

An article concerning Raw Milk!

When I was reading this article the only thing that I could think to myself was this: what are they putting in the milk today to not make it “harmful” to humans? I mean, well, didn’t humans drink milk from cows before all the processes were invented to make it “un-raw”?

Better yet, what are they feeding the cows that makes whatever enter their system “dangerous” today?

Did you know?

Did you know?, Marketing technique, youtube Leave a comment

Cool video.

There are a series of these videos on the net. There are Did You Know? 2.0; Did You Know? 3.0?; Did You Know? 4.0; Did You Know? Human Capital…

All these videos are very engaging and well present what seems to be facts.

However, I came across another video in viewing all of these similar videos and apparently this one particular video was making references to its business: how it can help you make your business better. This video, which can be viewed HERE, is the only video that uses the words “our staff training can..” or “our trainers have…” suggesting that there can be a money funding source behind the “true” creator. Yes? No?

Are these videos actually real? Or are these videos the new Marketing technique? And better yet, do these videos have actual truth to them?

Privatization

Canada, First Nations, Globe and Mail, Privatization, Self-Governing View all 2 comments

There are three problems I see with this idea of privatization of land for Aboriginals:
1. Prof. Moore says in her text (which I used in my studies last year) that Aboriginal Land Title and Claims are not registered on title. My point: Don’t add new rights to Aboriginals, just change present law! If we do not look at the underlying law affecting the ability to have recognizable Title and Claims registered on title, then nothing will change. Another example of just changing present law instead of adding new rights is this: I have been trying to find the law the my other professor mentioned in class that there is an old law that allows anyone to stake a claim on any land at any time (not verbatim, but in layman terms) just so long that they prove that there is a valuable mineral worth mining/digging for. One of the issues First Nations have is companies coming on to their land and mining/digging/using up natural resources to gain access to this mineral! Apparently, this law is really, really old and has been around since almost beginning of Canada. Oh, and there is a lot of legislation dealing with mining, so its a tough job!

2. The second problem is this: Who gets the interest in the land once someone defaults on their mortgage or loan? Is it just returned back to the bank? Then do the banks/mortgagees decide who takes over the loan or mortgage (which they do today with non-reserve land)? So, do Aboriginals then “lose” their land to the bank or mortgage company? Do Aboriginals “get the land back”? And is this default registered on title or is just dismissed like other Aboriginal claims/interests? These are the questions that need to be asked and issues presented when ideas like these are discussed! Strictly speaking to just what are the benefits fails to acknowledge the entire picture!

3. The third problem is that it’s not individuals that will be allowed to own the lands. It will be corporations! How crazy is that! That is even worse than non-FN individuals–we have corporations which are recognized as persons under the court of law…persons who have a lot more money, power, resources, etc. and also protected under anti-terrorism law in Canada.

In the end, majority of Canadians believe that Aboriginals can and would be better off with this legislation (ie-privatization might be better for First Nations)! Anyone can know this, just by simply viewing comments/posts on articles relating to First Nations. The racial comments. The stereotypical point of views. The over-generalizations. Yes, hurtful and ignorant, but they all agree with one thing: First Nations shouldn’t need government help or that Canadians shouldn’t be responsible for First Nations anymore.

What does this mean though when it comes to privatization of land? What does this mean for pushing forward self-governance? Do we just create another hierarchical organization to deal with each First Nation or one collectively working organization dealing with everyone as a nation (which is just plain bad)? Furthermore, how will privatization affect current law that remains unchanged? What does the term privatization actually entail and on what agreements (will they be non-binding and un-registerable)? All these terms and ideas sound really, really great but what do they really mean and what are the actual outcomes, not just the benefits, is what needs to be discussed!

Bill C-31

Bill C-31, Canada Pension, Criminal Code of Canada, Diane Finley Leave a comment

An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act.

This came into effect January 1, 2011.

I am not for criminal activity but the statements of HR minister Diane Finley: the bill is the right thing to do for taxpayers and victims of crime (as read in today’s LF press newspaper).

People over the age of 65 serving two or more years in a federal institution are prevented from collecting taxpayer funded pensions.

I question how these old age “criminals” once released (after serving or even if they are released earlier) will be able to live. They will probably need social assistance and also access services from social agencies: all of which probably taxpayers still more than likely contribute to.

Really, I believe it goes against the CCC: to rehabilitate the convicted, amongst other things the CCC does.

Does this mean that old age criminals should collect their pensions while in jail? No. But how is this alleviating problem for taxpayers. Clearly it is not. I believe it just creates a heavier burden for society and its members to care for old age citizens, criminal or not.

Should-be Banished

George Orwell, Globe and Mail, Jersey Shore, Lake Superior State University Should-be Banished Word List Leave a comment

George Orwell wrote an awesome essay that has greatly affected my writing to this day. I first read this essay back in high school. It is called “Politics and the English Language”. Written in 1946, this is truly a classic essay and deserves anyone’s attention, especially if they want to write right.

Remembering this essay was sparked by viewing the list of words created by Lake Superior State University Students. This list of words are words that were often over used or created in 2010 as a trend. I believe lists like this are definitely related to the content of Orwell’s essay.

HERE is the list of these words for 2010 that has been compiled by LSSU students. I feel it would be unnecessary to write them in this post. The article presents them as the words should be presented. Enjoy and let’s hope the words and the trends they were used in are soon just 2010 memories.

Ps. It amazes me there wasn’t a number 15. Any word or phrased that can be related to Jersey Shore.

Crime Stoppers

Crime stoppers, Police, race, Racism, stereotyping Leave a comment

I thinks it’s interesting when police give descriptions of suspects. I see this trend a lot: If suspect is white, no race is given. However, if suspect is non-white: race given. Is the public supposed to assume a suspect is white if no race is given? The problem: that would leave room for assuming a whole slew of potential suspects! I only write this after watching a crime stoppers commercial and a video screen shot of the suspect was shown. The suspect looked white. To me anyways. He did have on ski goggles, hood, hat and could barely see him but based on his build and skin colour I assumed he was white. He might have been asian, maybe native. Who knows. I wonder if the suspect was a particular colour, if the description would include the race. I know using race as a description would help locate the suspect. However, there is a lot of stigma attached to using race as a description, which indefinitely contributes to racism and stereotyping.