we dont want handouts!... where is our share!!

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2010/07/20/14775006.html

Fred Robbins, chief of Esketemc First Nation in central B.C., said one of his pressing concerns is economic development pushed by the federal and provincial governments without consultations with bands such as his. He said a planned copper and gold mine in his region around Williams Lake, B.C. will become “the second-largest hole in Canada” that’s worth “billions of dollars to B.C., and billions to Canada, with nothing coming to First Nations. And it’s in our backyard.”

Robbins, one of more than 1,700 chiefs at the assembly, wants to eradicate any belief among Canadians that aboriginals seek handouts from the public purse.

so its in your backyard.. Why the frick does that mean you get a share? Here is a hint. Billions and Billions in profit usually means billions and billions in job. If its in your back yard, get your entire workforce out working for them. Imagine if every 18 to 65 year old in your community was making mining wage jobs of around 50,000 per year. Holy frick would you have a prosperous community then eh?

But no instead you ARE asking for handouts.

Typical eh? And that is what so exasperates Canadians.

Where a person requires entry to a reserve in respect of which minerals have been surrendered or where a permittee or lessee requires use of land surface in a reserve for the purpose of development or production of minerals, he shall obtain a right of entry or right to use the land in accordance with any provisions that may be made by the Minister under the Act.
What that basically says is that the the goverment control the mine not the people who's land it is on . Gee wonder how well that would go over on your land .
Royalties



31. Unless otherwise specified in the invitation to tender under section 5 or in the lease issued pursuant to section 6 or 19, every lessee shall pay royalties on all minerals to which he is entitled that have been obtained from his lease area at the rate of five per cent of

(a) the gross revenue from the mineral output at the pithead, where the minerals are sold at the lease area before treatment; or


(b) the market value of the mineral output at the pithead, where the minerals are not sold at the lease area before treatment.


32. Notwithstanding section 31, the rate of royalty may be altered by agreement between the Division Chief and the lessee from a rate based on a percentage of the gross revenue or of the market value to the equivalent rate per ton or per cubic yard of the mineral output at the pithead.

33. Any royalty rate based upon a weight or measure of mineral output shall be adjusted annually to conform to changes in a price index or other index that is published by Statistics Canada and is chosen by the Division Chief.

34. (1) During the term of his lease and any renewal thereof, a lessee shall forward to the Supervisor within 30 days after the expiry of each period of production a royalty payment in favour of the Receiver General in respect of that period together with a statement in duplicate showing the production and sales figures upon which the payment has been calculated.

(2) Where the Supervisor is not satisfied with the amount of a royalty payment or with a statement forwarded by a lessee pursuant to subsection (1), he may require the lessee to submit further particulars in relation to the statement and, if then required by the Supervisor, the lessee shall adjust the amount of the royalty payment.


That just shows that the goverment gets the cash from the mine before the Indian gets his share , which is controlled by the goverment not the Indian who's land the royalty comes from .

All they want is control something any other Canadian would have of their land .

Unless I'm mistaken, it states that this mine is going to be IN THEIR REGION, not ON THEIR RESERVE. Unless this was poorly worded, REGION does not equal RESERVE. That's like saying an oil well is in my region (but not physically on my property), so I'm entitle to the royalties from it's production. Region is a pretty vague definition.

If it is indeed ON THEIR RESERVE, then that is a whole different ballgame and I would think they should be consulted and perhaps royalites would be shared. However if it is only IN THEIR REGION, consultation may still be needed if this land falls under traditional land use, but I figure they would get jack squate for royalties.

Was the treaty referred to agreed to by the Indians?

Whatever. If the mine/oil/whatever is ON a reserve then afaic it belongs to them. No development should occur without an agreement. That agreement should include the same royalties as any other landowner would agree to.

But if on adjacent property...

Doesn't the Indian Act preclude them from owning property, so in reality, it is not "their" land. Abolish the Indian Act, give them property rights, and the problem is solved. Isn't that what the new Grand Chief is encouraging? This guy seems smart, articulate and driven. I'd vote for him if |I could.

Freeman wrote: This guy seems smart, articulate and driven. I'd vote for him if |I could.

Agreed.

Yes Shawn Atelo is quite the leader and I believe he will get the deal done for the natives , finally get them equal rights to ours , on their own land .
Remeber this is the IA not the Treaty Rights they have .

It is not on their reserve land. It is on land that existed that they are claiming they may have visited at some point in their tribes past

So, with the abolition of the Indian Act, property rights are in place and we could see an end to the handouts, but does any one think for a minute that is actually going to happen, or that the constant whining, bitching and protesting would end. If it did, what would the likes of Terry Nelson do with their time?

Deank wrote:It is not on their reserve land. It is on land that existed that they are claiming they may have visited at some point in their tribes past

Considering that they plains indians were nomadic, that covers a pretty broad expanse doesn't it?

Freeman wrote:So, with the abolition of the Indian Act, property rights are in place and we could see an end to the handouts, but does any one think for a minute that is actually going to happen, or that the constant whining, bitching and protesting would end. If it did, what would the likes of Terry Nelson do with their time?

Probaly what he doe,s now be ignored by his own .

Freeman wrote:So, with the abolition of the Indian Act, property rights are in place and we could see an end to the handouts, but does any one think for a minute that is actually going to happen, or that the constant whining, bitching and protesting would end. If it did, what would the likes of Terry Nelson do with their time?

He is not advocating ending the payments. He is saying remove government interference in their lives. Ie still give us the money but once that happens you have no oversight.

Pavolo wrote:

Freeman wrote:So, with the abolition of the Indian Act, property rights are in place and we could see an end to the handouts, but does any one think for a minute that is actually going to happen, or that the constant whining, bitching and protesting would end. If it did, what would the likes of Terry Nelson do with their time?

Probaly what he doe,s now be ignored by his own .

Really, then how did he get an audience at the National Convention?

Freeman wrote:

Deank wrote:It is not on their reserve land. It is on land that existed that they are claiming they may have visited at some point in their tribes past

Considering that they plains indians were nomadic, that covers a pretty broad expanse doesn't it?

They seem to think so.

Freeman wrote:

Deank wrote:It is not on their reserve land. It is on land that existed that they are claiming they may have visited at some point in their tribes past

Considering that they plains indians were nomadic, that covers a pretty broad expanse doesn't it?

I've always struggled with the notion of land rights when indeed some (most? all?) were nomadic. Is it their contention that if, at some point in their travels they walked upon some tract of land, it is theirs in-perpetuity?

I've often wondered how these folks can argue it is their land, when often different tribes battled each other, sometimes incredibly violently, for the right to hunt and fish on a particular tract of land.

So, if tribe A defeated tribe B 150 years ago, does that give tribe A rights to that tract? If the Europeons then defeated tribe A, does that not give the Europeons the same rights?

Just thinking...

Logic will get you no where GOM. So dont even try.

But, if you were a nomad, then you really don't claim any particular palce to be "home", so how is it now, several hundred years later, that specific, or probably all, land is considered to belong to the aboriginals?

Logic will get you no where Freeman. So dont even try.

Natives claim "first ownership" to all of north and south america right?

YET!.. they were not the first humanoid beings here. Strong evidence exists that indicates there were large populations of non Homo Sapiens here and that the co-existed in many southern areas during the same time period. Further evidence suggests that they died out because they could not compete for resources with "new" Natives.

So technically by the same logic, didn't they "own" all the land? Even before the Natives started killing each other for control of it?

Deank wrote:Natives claim "first ownership" to all of north and south america right?

I don't think they had a concept of ownership, but rather considered themselves to be temporary guests on earth and entitled to take whatever they could find usable. I looked at some of the treaty documents, and they state that the mother (queen) would give them reserve to build houses and do agriculture on, but they were still allowed to hunt on other lands as they had done before.

I mean now. Not then

Deank wrote:Natives claim "first ownership" to all of north and south america right?

YET!.. they were not the first humanoid beings here. Strong evidence exists that indicates there were large populations of non Homo Sapiens here and that the co-existed in many southern areas during the same time period. Further evidence suggests that they died out because they could not compete for resources with "new" Natives.

So technically by the same logic, didn't they "own" all the land? Even before the Natives started killing each other for control of it?

Logic will get you nowhere Deank. So don't even try.

They should be thankful if anything, that the brits and french were so enlightened to even consider them human beings. Their ancestors were so primitive and savage that they could have been easily taken for animals and be hunted to extinction.