Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Fairchild who wrote (20121)	6/13/1999 9:57:00 AM
From: Gord Bolton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

With regard to Canada, I do not recall any great war in which the French or English conquered the various Native tribes spread out across the country. Quite contrarily they came as traders and sought the help of the native people to survive. In most cases the Europeans were accepted as traders and in many cases as brothers. In some cases the French and English fought over trading territory and trade routes. And in some cases the King of England granted companies such as the Hudson's Bay Company exclusive trading rights to certain territories. According to British Common Law he who is there first has first claim to property. According to Native beliefs the people belong to the land and have an obligation to care for the land and territory. There is plenty of evidence that the various Native tribes did indeed also have concepts of group territory ownership and did fight amongst themselves from time to time for control of hunting grounds and resources. When there came to be significant numbers of European settlers in Eastern Canada they set up local governments to govern themselves. It would have been very presumptuous for these folks to get off the boat, have a meeting and decide policy for the hundreds of different tribes across the land. There was almost no interest by Europeans in actually occupying or settling more than a few miles north of the U.S. border or west of Ottawa, or East of Vancouver. As time went on European interest in Canada grew from fish to timber to fur and very gradually to minerals, agriculture, oil, uranium, etc. At various stages the European Governments and their agents approached the various native tribes and negotiated access to land and resources. At most points in Canadian history until quite recently the Native tribes enjoyed occupation, ownership and control of their territory. Even at the time of the Riel "Rebellion" the Metis and the Prairie Tribes could have easily defeated whatever force Eastern Canada could have mustered. The Rebellion was not really a rebellion at all. The Metis wanted to continue to govern themselves and sought status as a Province within Canada as opposed to a territory. Riel never really believed that there would be a violent conflict until it was much too late. As you will recall the condition upon which British Columbia came to join Canada was that there be a railroad built. "Canada" would have to control the land over which the rails were laid to acheive that. It is doubtful that the Metis or the Native tribes would have interfered with the railroad but he big business boys weren't taking any chances. Hence the Rebellion that wasn't and the violent conflict over nothing and a flurry of "Treaty Making" to give the lawyers a leg to stand on. Remember the Common Law Principle that you may not take a person's property without color of right and a fair hearing. Treaties by definition are made between sovereign nations. The Native people believed that they were agreeing to give the Canadian Government access to large amounts of their territory, that they would be fairly compensated for that access and that certain territories would be exclusively reserved for themselves. Also remember that at the time and even to this time with regard to land- all land is owned by the sovereign and the best that an individual gets is an ongoing lease. THe Native tribes were at the time sovereign and it would be reasonable to think that what was being negotiated between the sovereign parties was an ongoing access lease as opposed to an exclusive right to use and/or destroy. No one involved in the treaty making process could have envisioned or predicted the eventual outcome-clearcutting forests-construction of huge dams-herds of eight wheel tractors cultivating thousands of acres each etc. Many of the treaty obligations entered into by the Canadian Government have not been honoured to date. Many of the tribes did not enter into treaties, they were not defeated and they should by law continue to enjoy their unfettered use of their land. In most cases 99.99% of Canadians could care less what he status is of the people in the NWT. It is only when someone finds a huge chunk of zinc, nickel, gold, copper or diamonds that the question of ownership, control, taxes etc. reaches the consciousness of a few Canadians who may own shares in the company or may hear about the dispute on the news. This is what makes the whole process so sensitive to date. A Canadian Court would lack jurisdiction to decide on a sovereign claim to land by a Canadian Native tribe who has never signed a treaty or even to settle a dispute over a treaty. Negotiations are neccessary. As soon as the Government enters negotiations they are accepting the continuing sovereignty of the tribes. That is why years are spent negotiating over what is up for negotiations. Oh Canada- got to love it.