Is Quebec raising the bar on the treatment of First Nations?

I appreciate the challenge gaulois, but dig it up yourself. The name is "Peace of the braves", it was signed in 2001 and here are a few quotes from ROC Native leaders on it... Matthew Coon Come: "This is the type of cooperation and financial engagement that the federal governement should offer to other Native nations" Ted Moses: "Québec has become a leader in the application of United Nations principals for the development of Native Peoples. Québec is showing that respect for Natives is compatible with its National interests. The federal governement should inspire itself with this agreement in its negotiations with Natives across Canada."

Btw, it is really sad to see federalists consider Natives as nothing more than pions to prevent Québec sovereignty from happening and sabotage it if it does. Those of you that keep bringing it up in Québec sovereignty discussions should be ashamed, it doesn't add credibility to your cause.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] I appreciate the challenge gaulois, but dig it up yourself. The name is "Peace of the braves", it was signed in 2001 and here are a few quotes from ROC Native leaders on it... Matthew Coon Come: "This is the type of cooperation and financial engagement that the federal governement should offer to other Native nations" Ted Moses: "Québec has become a leader in the application of United Nations principals for the development of Native Peoples. Québec is showing that respect for Natives is compatible with its National interests. The federal governement should inspire itself with this agreement in its negotiations with Natives across Canada."[/QUOTE] Again this does not tell me if it has broad community support. And that is really what matters. The rest is posturing. You can be sure I am looking into this. And I am not ashamed by any mean whatsoever. Are you? I note the financial connotation on this agreement that may prevent it from applying to other First Nations: the Crees are very wealthy people as their land is one of Terawatts. Kind of like the middle-east in many ways. My scepticism seems appropriate when this case is used by a die-hard sovereignist that has never questionned one single thing about sovereingty. So the judgement could very well be biased. If this agreement in fact raises the bar, you can be ensured that I will promote it.

[QUOTE BY= gaulois]My scepticism seems appropriate when this case is used by a die-hard sovereignist that has never questionned one single thing about sovereingty.[/QUOTE] Which part of the ROC Native leaders' statements do you not understand? These are not "die-hard" sovereigntists speaking, but federalist Native leaders.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] [QUOTE BY= gaulois]My scepticism seems appropriate when this case is used by a die-hard sovereignist that has never questionned one single thing about sovereingty.[/QUOTE] Which part of the ROC Native leaders' statements do you not understand? These are not "die-hard" sovereigntists speaking, but federalist Native leaders.[/QUOTE] I think the "die-hard sovereignist" was you. Looks like you have some very large blind spots in regards to introspection.

[QUOTE BY= gaulois]I think the "die-hard sovereignist" was you. Looks like you have some very large blind spots in regards to introspection.[/QUOTE] What? I think it's obvious that I'm a determined sovereigntists and I certainly have never denied this. You said you had sceptisism towards the Native agreement because it was coming from me, a "die-hard" sovereigntist. I pointed out that federalist Native leaders have publicly supported it. What's your problem?

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] These are not "die-hard" sovereigntists speaking, but federalist Native leaders.[/QUOTE] BTW, have you not seen before feralists bought by money??? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Let's see what is the annual income of these two gents and are they credible? Do they really understand how most First Nations people live in Canada? Would they understand how the Cree agreement would scale elsewhere? That is what matters and otherwise it is propaganda. I am not ashamed of substance. Are you?

[QUOTE BY= gaulois]BTW, have you not seen before feralists bought by money??? Let's see what is the annual income of these two gents and are they credible? Do they really understand how most First Nations people live in Canada? Would they understand how the Cree agreement would scale elsewhere? That is what matters and otherwise it is propaganda. I am not ashamed of substance. Are you?[/QUOTE] Oh, I'm sorry that digging a trench to read between your lines was necessary to finally understand that your sceptisism is not with sovereigntists, but rather with federalist Native leaders. I can't speak for them, they speak for their people so you will have to ask them.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel]Which part of the ROC Native leaders' statements do you not understand? These are not "die-hard" sovereigntists speaking, but federalist Native leaders.[/QUOTE] Just because a federalist native leader praises work on aboriginals in Quebec doesn't mean they support separation. I like the child care program in Quebec. It doesn't mean I support Quebec becoming a country. Samuel what makes you think that the ROC uses natives to justify why Quebec shouldn't separate. They speak for themselves and over 90% aboriginals in the ROC are against separation. It's even higher in Quebec!!!

I apologise for being a little vague in my statement dino, I'll be very clear this time. You and many other federalists constantly introduce the Native issue in converstaions with sovereigntists to highlight one fact and one fantasy: - The fact Natives were against sovereignty in 1995. - Your fantasy/wish to see Natives refuse Québec sovereignty when it happens. I am saying that since 1995, sovereigntists have introduced and signed a model agreement with Natives, something Canada and most other nations that have Indegenous Peoples don't have. This very agreement may completely change their views as to choosing Canada or Québec when sovereignty happens. Not once have I seen anyone question the values of this agreement with the exception of gaulois. This leads me to conclude that federalists bringing up this subject have nothing but their own interests at heart. In other words, who cares that Natives may be better off in a sovereign Québec, those bastards want to breakup Canada so them Natives better side with us. I have also mentionned this in French in another thread, I also conclude that federalists have nothing but their own interests at heart when discussing Québec's issues. It's either put up & shut up OR put up & shut up. You're Canadians not Quebeckers. I have some news for you, all sovereigntists and many federalists in Québec consider themselves Quebeckers before Canadians.

Samuel, swallow that high-and-mighty pride of yours. Federalist exploitation isn't the only source of outside concern for First Nations people. Some federalists, such as myself, grew up with Native people and understand their hardships. I've seen reserves with raw sewage running in the ditches. I've seen septic tanks over flow into drinking wells. I've seen racism on the personal level, in the newspapers, and from the provincial government. Now, as a non-Native, I don't feel comfortable making demands on behalf of First Nations people. Unless there is a great obvious corruption at hand, I will not push an agenda unless I am certain First Nations people will agree with it. For example, the Highway of Tears thread I started. And I'm always there to stand up for them when they are put under further attack. Samuel, you say that Federalists aren't pushing First Nations views. I have seen nothing from you showing that you, as a Quebec sovereigntist, have done anything for First Nations people. Kinda hypocritical that the only time you really mention First Nations is in accusing Federalists of using them, don't you think? [QUOTE BY= Samuel] I am saying that since 1995, sovereigntists have introduced and signed a model agreement with Natives, something Canada and most other nations that have Indegenous Peoples don't have.[/QUOTE] As your above assertion that Quebec is leading the way in First Nations rights, it's unresearched. The Nisga'a Treaty, signed only a few years ago (signed in parts over a few years, as recently as 2001), grants way more rights than this Paix de Braves. The Nisga'a Lisims government is actually in control of all the natural resources, taxation, and services in their territory. And this was negotiated and signed with the NDP in power in BC and they are in a close heat to win the upcoming May 2005 election, so hopefully we will see more progress. I might also add that the NDP is the only party, to my knowledge, that is the same organisation provincially and federally. It is the most nationalist mainstream party in Canada. Samuel, have you ever considered that maybe federalists CARE about the First Nations people? To some people, not everything boils down to Quebec separating. SOME people actually look out for others out of compassion, not exploitative motivations. Samuel, stop hypocritically accusing federalists of only "using" Natives to push their own agendas. And stop falsely claiming that Quebec has signed the best First Nations treaty in Canada in the last 5 years. It's simply NOT true.

I really wish the First Nations people were more involved on this site and could participate. In the absence of their participation at this point, I have kickstarted the discussion on ghostchild.com. What really matters is what they think, not us or the "public officials", whatever side they are on. The Internet is there to find that out. http://www.ghostchild.com/forum/?showtopic=1206

Kory you need to step back and read my post which btw was addressed at dino and many other federalists that introduce the Native issue in threads discussing Québec sovereignty. [QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]Samuel, swallow that high-and-mighty pride of yours. Federalist exploitation isn't the only source of outside concern for First Nations people. Some federalists, such as myself, grew up with Native people and understand their hardships. I've seen reserves with raw sewage running in the ditches. I've seen septic tanks over flow into drinking wells. I've seen racism on the personal level, in the newspapers, and from the provincial government.[/QUOTE] First off, I have witnessed a Native community such as you describe above becoming healthy as a result of government policy. I have never expressed "high-and-mighty pride" at the "Paix des braves" agreement other than to try and make a point with some people who keep saying Natives will refuse Québec sovereignty. I have never even said they will choose Québec over Canada on account of it, I said they MAY choose Québec. [QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]Samuel, you say that Federalists aren't pushing First Nations views. I have seen nothing from you showing that you, as a Quebec sovereigntist, have done anything for First Nations people. Kinda hypocritical that the only time you really mention First Nations is in accusing Federalists of using them, don't you think?[/QUOTE] Who is this "you" that you refer to? The "Paix des braves agreement" was conceived by sovereigntists, I am a sovereigntist. I am not THE sovereigntist that wrote the agreement along with Native leaders, but I am certainly the one that helps elect and supports the PQ. [QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]As your above assertion that Quebec is leading the way in First Nations rights, it's unresearched. The Nisga'a Treaty, signed only a few years ago (signed in parts over a few years, as recently as 2001), grants way more rights than this Paix de Braves. The Nisga'a Lisims government is actually in control of all the natural resources, taxation, and services in their territory. And this was negotiated and signed with the NDP in power in BC and they are in a close heat to win the upcoming May 2005 election, so hopefully we will see more progress. I might also add that the NDP is the only party, to my knowledge, that is the same organisation provincially and federally. It is the most nationalist mainstream party in Canada.[/QUOTE] What do you mean "it's unresearched"? This agreement is in accordance with United Nations policies on the development of Native Peoples. I didn't even say this, a Native leader said it! [QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]Samuel, have you ever considered that maybe federalists CARE about the First Nations people? To some people, not everything boils down to Quebec separating. SOME people actually look out for others out of compassion, not exploitative motivations. Samuel, stop hypocritically accusing federalists of only "using" Natives to push their own agendas. And stop falsely claiming that Quebec has signed the best First Nations treaty in Canada in the last 5 years. It's simply NOT true.[/QUOTE] I have never accused ALL federalists of not caring, read my post. And Kory, I have never said "Quebec has signed the best First Nations treaty in Canada". I said: "sovereigntists have introduced and signed a model agreement with Natives" I dare you to read my post, but if coming down on me made you feel good, then I'm glad for you.

Gaulois considering Kory's post, I feel it would be appropriate to post your House of Commons snippet on the agreement so Kory can read it: Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, the most serious human rights problem faced by the Canadian population at this time is the situation of our aboriginal people. At a meeting in Geneva attended by some 300 participants from 30 or so countries, Roméo Saganash, speaking for the Grand Consel od Crees, called upon all countries to follow Quebec's example. He went on to say that the October 23 peace of the braves represents a formidable step forward in the development of relations between a government and a first nation. He could not fail to point out that Canada has not demonstrated the same interest as far as nation to nation discourse is concerned. This coming February 7, Ted Moses, Grand Chief of the Cree, and Quebec Premier Bernard Landry will be signing an historic agreement, one which demonstrates Quebec's pioneering role as it does not hesitate to recognize the aspirations of aboriginal peoples and holds discussions in good faith, nation to nation.

Okay, I don't know if the Innu still live in Quebec (I know they live in Labrador), but aren't they living in third world conditions? It's time for separatists and federalists to shut up about whose right and whose wrong and just help out these proud and tough people. If sovereigntists and federalists can't even agree on humane treatment of a nation and its people, I am frankly sickened, and maybe neither Canada nor Quebec should exist as a nation if both continue on this disgusting path of self-delusion and self-glorification. No one can claim they are doing the best thing for Aboriginals until all Aboriginals enjoy the same living conditions as the rest of us. SO as I said before, until this happens, just shut up and work through it together; it's called cooperation, and you might remember it from kindergarten.