Monday, 16 January 2017

The Powley and Daniels Decision

This is a page from Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Canada. The article is on the law put into place, or re-affirmed on April 14th 2016. The ruling of the Métis peoples aboriginal rights towards hunting; originally recognized under section 35 in the Constitution Act of 1982. This decision was comprised for the Métis of Sault Ste. Marie Ontario. There are specific previsions in place to be recognized as Métis, they are specified by the given site as; "
  1. identify as a Métis person;
  2. be a member of a present-day Métis community; and,
  3. have ties to a historic Métis community.
Further to the third criterion, to be considered a ‘historic rights bearing community' it must be proven that a mixed-ancestry group of Indian-European or Inuit-European people:
  1. formed a 'distinctive' collective social identity;
  2. lived together in the same geographic area; and,
  3. shared a common way of life"
Also added to emphasis these provisions "In Powley, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the term Métis in s. 35 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage. Rather it refers to a distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forbearers. The Métis communities claiming Aboriginal rights must have emerged in an area prior to the Crown effecting control over a non-colonized region."

My thoughts on this, the amount of specification has me at a mild turmoil. It is fantastic to hear of recognition of rights, however, making these ridiculously precise precautions towards affirming ones identity seems a bit unnecessary. I understand the concept of it being abused and misused but it can be difficult to date back enough and have this astounding pure heritage, as if the law was put into place too be difficult to achieve, so usage is limited. I understand the necessary need for provisions however I question how these were decided on and concluded as the final "sale".

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Beardy’s and Okemasis band council candidates to undergo mandatory drug testing

Another article from Global News.
This article, written by David Giles, is stating the necessary drug testing of those whom wish to join the band council. This mandate was passed in 2008. It's purpose was stated was stated in brevity by Giles,  "“(The) adoption of mandatory drug testing in our election act honours the spirit and intent of that original motion eight years ago,” Coun. Kevin Seesequasis said in a statement.". He also stated it had been an unanimous decision and just not acted on until now. It is said that another change was passed in which Giles spoke of as, "“The reduction from eight to six councillors will save the Nation more than $350,000 over the course of the term, this is money that can be diverted to service long-term debt or enhance existing programming,” Seesequasis said.". Also specified by Giles, "Anyone running for chief will have to pay a fee of $400 while candidates for councillor will pay a $200 fee".

In my personal opinion; my bias grew as I read the first line of his article. The titled seemed to be a form of "clickbate" in addition to its connected articles. However, I believe drug testing is an appropriate measure for all jobs which require accountability, but whilst reading this article my mind digressed to other places. My initial standpoint was to acknowledge facts and necessity of these mandates, but it seems to me that it takes multiple articles to deliver all the information that should be specified and provided without question. The amount of vague reasoning or a lacking purposeful placement of facts with little to no subtleties of unacknowledged connection to the point of the article. I am astonished more so with the broad and vague ways these articles have created such large gaps when it does not benefit the reader nor writer for people to search through a multitude of articles to find five basic facts. Who, What, Where, When and Why. In my latest two blogs, both merely filled the gaps the others had left and as for the titles, they're typed fore the cause of controversial reaction rather than state what is needed. My passionate distaste for such lacked simplicity was engaged when I had concluded on there not even being a specified date on which this mandate was decided or facts based on the mandate itself. This as well as the other articles lacked things such as specifics on where, or how, even why. These principle outcomes should be the basis of every fact based report, not just a suggestion of involved information. Precision writing should be feature mandated in all reliable news sources rather that unnecessary elongated paragraphs that do not acknowledge the facts beyond "he said, she said"

My very bias question is, Why would a journalist want to publish their name in an article that lacks information that connects to a very basic level of premise to their purpose? This question would be directed at all the information sources I have sited for these recent and rants and the logic to their flawed writings.  

Friday, 6 January 2017

In addition to the last large blog, this article is reinforcing these incidents.

Ryan Kessler wrote this article, headlined "After the Riel Resistance of 1885, the Government of Canada withheld three years of payments to the Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation." The wording varied in descriptions of the rebellion but the years since its concurrence stayed the same. "After the Riel Resistance of 1885, the Government of Canada withheld three years of payments to the Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation." Also adding in the information of the independent tribunal had ruled the 4 million in unpaid annuities. The compensation hearing was held in  Wanuskewin Heritage Centre in Saskatoon. Kessler added " Chief Rick Gamble of the Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation said the money isn’t as important as the recognition of treaty rights." From 1885-1888 all groups involved in the rebellion were essentially cut off for funds, the 13 remaining bands may be eligible for money just as this one was.

In my personal opinion, I was very pleased to find more facts in this article on the matter, as well as the included name of Cheif Rick Gamble. Not only that, but location, time frame, and specific names. However, it was vague as to how the reinforcement impacted the case itself the added information was much appreciated. I believe that the assistance given was a such a great show of the peoples relations that should be withheld among all people. I would have liked more information on those interactions and what the deciding factor was that brought the groups together. Over all, I am pleased beyond expression with this great expression of unity. I would like to see more positive updates on this situation, as well as its resolution. I hold it in my hopes that the compensation was given as well as discovering if the other group were deserving, or on their way to receiving this same justice. My question is, what were the other groups possibly owed?


A purposed question towards my prior blog;
How much money do you believe is owed as compensation in Canada as a complete total? 

As well, if this money had been taken out when originally promised, how would have Canada's financial standpoint been altered through the years? 

How greatly would have these compensations helped the relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada, would have past cruelties been avoided, if so how many? And why? Justify you answer. 

The Possibility of 4.5 Million Dollar Compensation from Canadian Federal Government to Beardy's and Okemasis

 Personal opinions based off and article from

              The headline "Beardy’s and Okemasis First Nation awarded $4.5 million in compensation", written by Joel Sennick, is speaking of a possible conclusion on the Treaty Payment due since 1885 when the Northwest Rebellion had taken place. After over a century had passed, Lawyer, Ron Maurice and the leader of the Beardy's and Okamisis First Nations Groups have nearly brought this dispute to a close. The article written on December 27th 2016, stated the settlement amount of 4.5 million was agreed on and sent to the federal government; the government has been left with 30 days to appeal if they desire. Subsequently, if the Federal Government complies it is said the money will be put into a trust fund and used for housing as well as educational uses. The fight of this negotiation was started in 1999, by Maurice and the leader; the payments were originally withheld for three years as "punishment" due to accusations against the Beardy's for participation in the rebellion. However, as said, the request is currently in the Federal Governments hands.

                  Onto my opinion of the matter; further in the article, it was said that there are currently twelve other known aboriginal groups with the same cause left unresolved. I am very pleased with the idea that it is in favour of being complied with. Hopefully this group is not the only one to embark on justice, and it would be indescribable if the others get the same satisfaction. Also said by the writer, Joel Sennick, "A statement from the minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs said the “government is committed to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples.”", I hold this phrase to be sorrow filled yet delightful. It is sad that in this year, 2017, it is still yet to be  unabridged between the seen aboriginal community and Canada, their own land. However, the acknowledgement of this gap is still a step further and these proceedings will only heighten the capability of the future. Within my deepest regards I desire their to be unity that leads to an eventual end of century old disputes such as this, and others yet unspoken. On another note, I am displeased with the fact that the name of the leader of the two groups as well as the Minister of Indigenous Affairs is not specified in the article.

Thursday, 15 September 2016

This blog is an assignment for Aboriginal Studies 20-1 class. My name is Sky, but Lillian is my middle and was required due to how common "Sky" is used in usernames. Anyways, I will be posting rants and my opinions on things we study this term. It will be bias, the posts will be on my thoughts and how I interpret specifics, etc.