Just finished listening to Neil Desai, Provincial Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and John Tory, leader of the Ontario Conservative party on Newstalk 570's Jeff Allan Show.
Please note that I may not have quotes exactly word for word, but the context is accurate. (Also having trouble with some links.)
Jeff’s question du jour was “What's your reaction to millions of taxpayers dollars being wasted on Caledonia?”
O.K. Admittedly that’s a loaded question. However, here are a few of the more memorable moments.
Neil Desai referred to Dalton McGuinty as "Mr. Dithers Jr." with regards to the standoff with no end in sight.
Jeff remarked that the money spent so far on Caledonia would go a long way towards resolving the emergency room crises in Waterloo Region.
Neil was upset about Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsey's statement that Caledonia is "going to cost what it is going to cost" - in other words, carte blanche.
I'm wondering why we can't have that same attitude with health care?
Neil also talked about how we are only making natives more dependent with all this spending both at the provincial and federal levels - that basic issues are not getting resolved.
Next John Tory was up to bat.
Jeff asked John if there shouldn't be some kind of "end date" to this dispute as in forced arbitration.
Mr. Tory replied that to have this go on indefinitely is disrespectful to taxpayers and to the rule of law. He said he is sympathetic to the land claim, but wonders why Mr. McGuinty doesn't take the stand that there will be no further negotiations until the land is vacated and then placed in trust until the dispute is settled.
He said there is no indication at this point that anyone is asking the natives to leave. Furthermore, the Province (read taxpayers) is paying the hydro.
He thought it was interesting that McGuinty had remarked earlier that an occupation into the winter would be unacceptable, but nothing seems to be happening to prevent it.
Tory said a leader can't "just sit back and hope for the best".
As Jeff touched briefly on the health care crisis in Waterloo Region, and the fact that McGuinty seems resigned to the private solution at Cambridge General, in spite of campaigning to strengthen public health care. (Try this link at the Record for background).
John Tory said that McGuinty is a man who will "say just about anything to win an election", and that he thinks people are starting to pay less attention to his promises. Tory thought the Premier should spent less time in political actions and more time trying to find real solutions; otherwise why are you running for the job?
Tory said the notion that you can just sit back and not make a decision in order to keep everyone happy is just plain irresponsible.
Indeed.
However, some people in Ontario do feel that we should just shut up and pay our taxes.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm mad as h**l, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!
Update: More at Dust My Broom (Investing other people's money in "solutions").
John Tory asks for rally to be cancelled.
Tuesday Update: Rally moves to fairgrounds.
69 comments:
Please note that I may not have quotes exactly word for word, but the context is accurate.
I think that might well be the funniest thing I read all day.
Then you must be having a dull day, Red!
Treaty's are surrender documents. Regardless of what they say about specifics, the overall political climate under which they were signed was aboriginals surrendering to the Crown.
Aboriginals that signed these documents realized this as a matter of course, obviously they wouldn't have signed 'the white man's documents' if they held the balance of power.
Aboriginals surrendered with conditions - and then they let some of those conditions lapse themselves. That's their fault, today's Canadians owe them nothing.
Ok, again off topic Joanne, but I'm watching QUestion Period on TV right now and who jumps up and shakes her arms like a rag-doll at the Cons? Who screams that the Cons somehow have cruely handled Mahar Arar's situation?
Why its none other than your very own Karen Redman... what a gem she is. She's workin hard for you, even as I type.
lol!!! Riley, I'm watching it too!
What a joke. Now you see what I have to put up with. I'm going to check Hansard later and see if I can make any sense out of that performance.
Funny but it is always the same 'kind' of people that are raving about Caledonia.
Yes, political season is in full swing. Good old "denigrate the idea by the body language".
jumps up
shakes her arms like a rag doll
screams
And south of the border we have
red faced
waving his finger
poking at the interviewer
But my favourite was back in the day, making fun of the guy with Bell's palsy...
Yes, political season is in full swing. Good old "denigrate the idea by the body language".
jumps up
shakes her arms like a rag doll
screams
And south of the border we have
red faced
waving his finger
poking at the interviewer
But my favourite was back in the day, making fun of the guy with Bell's palsy...
some people in Ontario do feel that we should just shut up and pay our taxes.
Did I say that? Did I mention taxation at all in the post that you linked to?
The post was about reducing the possibility of violence in Caledonia and yet you seem content to twist my words around. Typical garbage. Get your head out of your ass!
Zac - Nice talk from a Knight in Shining Armour.
Blah, blah, blah....
At least when I linked to your post I didn't misquote you or twist your words. I guess that's just standard fare around here.
Look Zac, with responsiblity such as paying taxes comes rights. Freedom of speech, assembly and association.
Sorry if you want to pick and choose. It doesn't work that way, or so I've been told.
Freedom of speech, assembly and association.
None of what you just mentioned is linked to taxation in any way.
The fact of the matter is that you decided to twist my words around to suit your own purposes as opposed to addressing my argument.
The fact of the matter is that you decided to twist my words around to suit your own purposes as opposed to addressing my argument
It's pretty clear that you would prefer taxpayers to dumb down on this one. Just keep sending taxes to Queen's Park for McGuinty to use for hush money to sweep the whole mess under the carpet.
It's pretty clear that you would prefer taxpayers to dumb down on this one.
Once again you return to the issue of taxes, even though I made no mention of taxes at all in the post. I simply stated that holding protests in Caledonia is counter productive and will serve no purpose but to increase hostilities.
Put down the Canadian Taxpayer Federation kool-aid for a second and actually read what I wrote.
I simply stated that holding protests in Caledonia is counter productive and will serve no purpose but to increase hostilities.
I fail to see how a peaceful march down the main street of Caledonia will incite hostilities and violence.
I fail to see how a peaceful march down the main street of Caledonia will incite hostilities and violence.
I fail to see how any demonstrations will help solve the situation in Caledonia.
Tell me how this march will solve anything.
Tell me how this march will solve anything.
It is a protest against the betrayal by the OPP.
It is a protest against the betrayal by the OPP.
So why is it being held in Caledonia? The OPP headquarters is in Orillia. If the issue is with the OPP, bring it to their door.
The issue is that this group wants to march through town to instill the same sort of feelings amongst residents that lead to fist fights and near riots months ago.
They are counter productive to the situation. And for the record, aren't even from Caledonia. They live in Richmond Hill.
If you have an issue with the McHales, Zac, why don't you contact them?
If you have an issue with the McHales, Zac, why don't you contact them?
My issue isn't with him.
If you've been following along here, you'll notice that my issue is with you and how you twisted my words when linking to my post. That's all, that's it.
I really have no interest in diving head first into the matter of the march with you as we both know from experience that it will get us no where, but rather came here to state that whenever I link to your site, I don't take your words out of context, but you don't seem very apt to afford me the same courtesy.
I don't take your words out of context,
That would be a matter of interpretation.
Zac, what do you think would be an appropriate way for the taxpayers of Caledonia to express their displeasure with the OPP?
The issue is that this group wants to march through town to instill the same sort of feelings amongst residents that lead to fist fights and near riots months ago.
Much like the bastard Orangemen who prefer to march through Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland.
Having a march in Caledonia is provcation pure and simple.
what do you think would be an appropriate way for the taxpayers of Caledonia to express their displeasure with the OPP?
First off, the organizers of this march aren't taxpayers in Caledonia. As I've mentioned before they are from Richmond Hill.
But there are legitimate concerns with Caledonia residents about the way that the situation was handled. I understand and can appreciate that. The method that I would suggest is taking the issue up with the OPP, itself. Write them a letter, write your MPP, your MP. Tell the people who make the decisions.
It'll be hard for a Liberal MPP to get re-elected out there, just as it will be hard for Diane Finley to get re-elected there. I noticed that the same "wake up" group has released a companion website called "wake up Finley" which criticizes her.
If people are concerned with the way that the OPP handled the situation, the proper place to address those concerns is with the OPP itself. Marching through Caledonia, in my estimation, will only provoke hostilities between residents and natives. This situation has to come to a resolution and a demonstration will add nothing to the process. Cooler heads must prevail.
I'm sure the Caledonia citizens have complained to the OPP already.
I am also disappointed with the lack of presence regarding the federal government. Ordinary people had been left high and dry.
You appear to nearly be all alone here today Joanne..except for the little group of liberals that seem to have such a thing for your blog.
I think Tory got the question and the answer right today. In the past he has often seemed to be overly politic about taking a stand on certain issues. This is encouraging.
Oh yes..about Annon#1 here and the comments on the disputed treaties....I think that's a fair summary. My great Grandads( both of them ) bought land in exchange for crops and manufactured goods from local chiefs of the native bands in question.
One location was at Doon near Kitchener where the Pioneer Tower used to be (maybe still is?). The other location is at Dundalk just north of the Luther marsh which is as far as I know the headwaters of the Grand River!
It would make as much sense for me to picket one of these sites with claims of ownership as it does for any of the natives at Caledonia to make the claims they do.
In short this is all BS!
Exacerbated of course by a spinless and incompetent provincial government.
Enforce the law McGuinty!
Put an end to marchers who are bent on disruption and to lawless thugs and hooligans who make a laughingstock of concepts such as law&order.
pgp, I'm not following. Your granddads bought land from the natives? The way it reads "it makes no sense for you to picket there", implies that it makes no sense for the natives to make claims on land they already own.
Or did the Granddads later sell these lands to other people? In which case your statement would make sense, if your view is that they had ceded the lands by a valid treaty.
Thanks for joining in PGP. It's a bit lonely here.
For the record, if the dispute turns out in favour of the natives, that's fine with me.
Let's just get on with it! If the whole of Canada belongs to the Six Nations, fine! Let's just get it settled! Now!!!
Ok.. let me elaborate.
The local native chiefs of who there were many often abandonned or sold the land they were inhabiting.
This is what happend in the case of my ancestors. My patriarchs bought the land from the local native chiefs.
Subsequently my family members sold off the land in portions over about a hundred years.
The land was SOLD by the natives and SOLD by the European settlers who bough it from the natives.
There are public records of these transactions.
Of course it makes no sense for me to make claims on this land. And niether does it make sense for the natives for the very same reasons.
Having a march in Caledonia is provcation pure and simple.
Hel-lo, Om-ar. That's true. The question is who or what is the object of the provocation? (Hint - it's not the natives).
BTW, you're nice & comfy out on the East coast. Easy to pass judgement.
Of course it makes no sense for me to make claims on this land. And niether does it make sense for the natives for the very same reasons.
I'll remind you that the land in question was given to the crown to build a military highway that eventually turned into Highway 6. The original treaty in which the land was handed over, never addressed the land not needed for the highway. It was the original intention that any unused land would be returned. This never occured and thus the Six Nations have an issue with this. Their land claim is legitimate.
Because of this you can see why your analogy is isn't apt in the least. The land was never actually sold and the original treaty made no mention of the transfer of unused land, even though it was promised that it would be given back.
BTW, you're nice & comfy out on the East coast. Easy to pass judgement.
If that is true, the same would go for your sweater wearing friend from Manitoba.
Zac, please be respectful to sweater-wearing Canadians. They have rights too. Too bad the Court Challenges Program is being de-funded. They would surely have a case as a marginalized minority.
Here's an interesting site:
http://www.manitobachiefs.com/treaty/timeline.html
It's the first place I've seen it mentioned that Haldimand bought the land from the Mississaugas by treaty. No mention of the 1841 transfer which is one part of the curent dispute. But it wouldn't be mentioned, since that was not a treay, but a normal land sale, just as pgp's ancestors's purchases are not mentioned, since they sound like normal land sales.
As I understand it, some factions of the Caledonia area natives take the position that the 1841 and other sales were not made by someone with authority to do so.
I know that if my land was taken from me by land titles fraud, I would certainly occupy the land, and if I had dozens of friends camping there with me, I would expect to be grudgingly allowed to maintain that occupation until the case was settled. I would expect to be sued for expenses if my claim was invalid, expecially if it was not due to a mistake but found to be completely without merit.
And Joanne, while the charter challenges program may not be best avenue to pursue this, because I don't know if a Charter right is being infringed, the argument for retaining CCP is based on the fact that the government can litigate its side forever, but few individuals or groups can afford to litigate their position indefinitely. The example I have seen is tobacco companies arguing their free speech rights to advertise their legal product, they can certainly afford to continue, but many others cannot. It would have been wiser to find a way to stop frivolous charter challenges (I don't know how that would be done, ruling a challenge as frivolous is itself the ruling).
I have seen commenters calling "sweater guy" all manner of names, racist etc. With this new information about his ancestors that actually bought land from natives, I see him as someone who can contribute a unique insight to this discussion. I look forward to hearing more on this.
Then you must be having a dull day, Red!
I suppose. The highlight of my day was when a frantically disoriented LBJ flew into my office. (I managed to shoo it back outdoors.)
The highlight of my day was when a frantically disoriented LBJ flew into my office.
LBJ - Limp Blue Jay?
boys this has been a test thread today... its funny that Caledonia has pretty much dropped off the federal radar.
I don't know if I do have more to contribute on this but for one thing.
I emphasize that there is a concept that seems to be prevalent about Native "Tribes" or "Nations" being homgeneous groups with a single chief or group at the head that provided a uniform and encompassing leadership.
The fact of the tribal societies is that they were composed of small groups and clans each of which had a 'chieftan' and group of elders and informal alliances of the groups men. These familiar groups acted autonomously and seldom interacted beyond their closest neighbouring clan/groups and even then not frequently.
This fact makes it impossible for all encompassing treaties or pacts to be sustained and is the reason why most have not. Maybe even NONE!
"Local" chiefs sold/traded land to Europeans for various reasons and for the most part those deals were straight up one on one exchanges between a homesteading farmer and a small band. In the case of my Great grandad near Dundalk the local clan was less than 20 people. They farmed themselves, but got a better living from hunting in the Luther Lake/Marsh area.
The present day natives who dispute the legality of transactions like this have more to prove and justify than most people are willing to admit.
joanne, since i can't ask john tory, i'll ask you.
david ramsay said "it will cost what it will cost."
you don't agree with that. so what's your stance?
if it costs more than (fill in the blank) dollars, let's just shoot them all?
Joanne -- Nice try, but it stands for “Little Brown Jobs.” I believe it’s a term some bird watchers use when referring to those completely undistinguished species they can’t be bothered to actually name. I think Churchill may have invented the expression although I could just be making that up altogether.
Anon at 15:00 - Thank you for asking that question, even if it was in a facetious fashion. The answer is easy: negotiations cease until the land is clear.
Red - LBJ's - Too funny!! I think we have those too. I had a bird get in the house once, when my son was a youngster. It was having a fit swooping and diving everywhere. I was shrieking, and I think it traumatized my son. Looking back, I didn't handle that well at all.
Riley - its funny that Caledonia has pretty much dropped off the federal radar. I'm surprised about that, because the natives themselves who are involved in the 'reclamation' say that this will be a precedent-setting case, and that they are entitled to the whole Grand River, and six K. on either side.
This could very well have implications right across Canada.
PGP - Thanks for the background. BTW, you mentioned the Pioneer Tower earlier. I remember seeing that several times as a kid. Not sure if it's still there. A lot of development has taken place in that area. Big houses. As a matter of fact, if you wanted to make a land claim, you could have some pretty nice digs to occupy...
When we lived in Edmonton they’d fly down our chimney and into the house. Drove the cat quite out of his mind with excitement.
Funny, but my first thought in this case was that it was a bat because it was fluttering around me so maniacally. It wasn’t until it stopped for a moment to regain its composure and briefly perched on top of my monitor that I realized it was a bird. Thank heavens for newspapers! I knew they were good for something.
Ha-ha! Red, funny story. But a bat.. Yikes! Now that WOULD be enough to make me totally lose it!
My poor sister has had an unpleasant experiences with bats. Sometimes she reads this blog. Sis, if you care to share...
BTW, Red, how early did you get up today? Maybe you should try Mac's melatonin prescription. ;)
the natives themselves who are involved in the 'reclamation' say that this will be a precedent-setting case, and that they are entitled to the whole Grand River, and six K. on either side.
Prove that. Prove that right now. Show me where that is the official policy of the Six Nations!
Ah, yes, my nightmare with bats. Picture, if you will, coming home to kids screaming and bats all over the house and on the front lawn. Apparently they had been nesting in my chimney. The kids heard something, opened the flue and down they came...about 40 of them! They called a friend who came over and between them all they swung with tennis rackets, hockey sticks and my cookie sheets! Quite a sight. We found bats flying around the house for 3 days after the initial event. Totally freaked me out. My one daughter moved out of the house until we were finally "bat free".
Prove that. Prove that right now. Show me where that is the official policy of the Six Nations!
Sorry, Zac. I was wrong. It isn't six kilometres. IT'S SIX FREAKING MILES!
In 1784, Sir Frederick Haldimand, governor of Quebec, granted the Six Nations a swath of government-purchased land "six miles deep" on each side of the Grand, from its mouth at Lake Erie to its headwaters.
This includes much of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge today.
The size of the Haldimand tract has been in dispute ever since.
The government position is that it extends north only to Fergus, because the Grand headwaters were not known in 1784. The Six Nations position is that the tract extends far north of Fergus, to the actual headwaters.
Meanwhile, Six Nations contend the granted lands became theirs to settle, sell or lease.
From the Record - Sept. 23/06
More to come.
Kelly, I still shiver when I think about that. Yikes!
Ah, so that's the issue. You think that they are coming for your house?
Joanne, I can assure you that the Cambridge Kitchener and Waterloo are not in dispute. The land in question is very small by comparison and only extends to the area surrounding the reserve that has been developed. The Record is doing a fine job at fear mongering though. I applaude them on their efforts.
Zac, you're straying from the issue. You asked for proof.
The fact of the matter is that what you've stated there is not in reality the situation. There will never be a claim made that Waterloo should revert to Six Nations ownership. Your proof is faulty at best.
Why do you say that, Zac? Have you been in tribal meetings?
They are claiming the wind.
Why is this so far-fetched?
The indigenous studies program at McMaster is very involved with the Six Nations claim. We've all done research into it. And yes, I have been to meetings.
The fact is that there is biased media representations about the situation. Plus, there are over anxious Six Nations members who are rather millitant about the situation. They don't speak for the leadership but the media are always interested in hearing from them because they represent the more extreme sides of the conflict, which sells papers.
While a good case could be made for extending the claim further, as the Haldimand grant is problematic at best, it is not the case and negotiators are not interested in claiming towns like Waterloo and Cambridge. I can assure you of that.
Perhaps I was too hasty to say "prove it, prove it" as most media reports do contain language such as this, but it is a representation of extreme views and militant attitudes that exist within the small minority of Six Nations members who seem to get more media time than those who are actually in charge or leading the negotiations who are by all accounts much more moderate in their stance. I can assure you that the leadership of the six nations is not interested in claiming Waterloo.
I can assure you that the leadership of the six nations is not interested in claiming Waterloo.
Good to hear, Zac. Otherwise, I think I'd be putting my house on the market sooner rather than later.
The Record article did allude to a deep conflict in the Six Nations itself regarding leadership.
Re: conflict
Steve Janke did a post on it recently.
Zac, more info on how the Six Nations claim to the Grand River is affecting things in Waterloo Region (from the same Record article):
So far, the Six Nations claim to the Grand River has:
Delayed provincial planning for a proposed new Highway 7 that includes a span over the Grand;
Stalled the design for a new regional bridge over the Grand, linking Kitchener to Cambridge. The bridge is planned for completion in 2010, pending Six Nations consultation;
Compelled the province to consult with Six Nations on plans to widen Highway 8 over the Grand River in Kitchener in 2008 and 2009;
Prompted regional government to consult Six Nations about projects near the Grand, including plans to extend River Road into the Hidden Valley area of Kitchener.
Six Nations leaders contend Haldimand gave them the Grand River in 1784 and they never gave it up, even as lands were sold on either side.
"In none of those agreements or sales or leases was the river or the river bed ever mentioned," traditional Chief MacNaughton says. "So that's still all clear to us."
So, you see it's not just Caledonia being affected.
The Record article did allude to a deep conflict in the Six Nations itself regarding leadership.
There is, which is why we have to work hard to silence more militant and extreme voices in the Six Nations if we want to bring about a resolution.
The same goes for the general public. Extreme sentiment will get us nowhere, which is why it is incumbant upon both the Six Nations and the general public to allow more moderate people to take charge.
Another reason, why I oppose Caledonia Wake Up Call confronting native protesters. There are extreme elements on both sides and bringing them togheter will serve no purpose.
There are extreme elements on both sides and bringing them togheter will serve no purpose.
That's true, but from what I understand the rally participants won't be allowed near the land that McGuinty bought anyway.
So, you see it's not just Caledonia being affected.
It never is. Land claims like all legal decisions set precedent which is why they have to be approached in a moderate way.
A speedy resolution is in everyone's best interest.
That's true, but from what I understand the rally participants won't be allowed near the land that McGuinty bought anyway.
The rally planned to confront natives on the land they are occupying which is problematic. Even if they walk up to the road infront of the disputed land (which is their right, as it is public), they are but mere steps away from Six Nations protestors.
I've seen the Six Nations hot heads first hand, they're ready for a fight. Plus, I've seen hot heads in the community and the general public, they are also ready for a fight. When Mr. McHale speaks, do you think he will have anything positive to say to the crowd?
This march is an invitation to violence, which is why it must be stopped.
I don't understand why there must be a violent confrontation to prove a point.
This conflict is months old, both sides have made their positions known, there is really no purpose in reopening old wounds. Let's just let the government negotiate the claim and be done with it.
A speedy resolution is in everyone's best interest.
Do you have any reason to think that this will be the case? Perhaps the intent of the rally is to put pressure on both levels of government to at least be seen to be taking action. I think some people there are giving up hope (on both sides).
so the next time some pro-left march where violence is likely, it should be stopped too?
Perhaps the intent of the rally is to put pressure on both levels of government to at least be seen to be taking action.
I thought you stated that the intention for the march was raise their concerns with the OPP, not the bargaining process.
Either way, the provincial government is taking action on this issue. It's not a public negotiation process and land claims are never easy to solve. Plus, the level of government that is constitutionally bound to adjudicate land claims has effectively removed themselves from the process, which is slowing progress significantly.
so the next time some pro-left march where violence is likely, it should be stopped too?
A pro-left march? I'm not sure what could be defined as a pro-left march, but what the hell, I'll bite anyways.
If you look at groups like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, we've see their response to situations. We've seen them throw rocks and bottles at Queen's Park to protest Mike Harris. Is that productive? Hardly, it incites violence. Should they be allowed to march? No, they should not.
Plus, the level of government that is constitutionally bound to adjudicate land claims has effectively removed themselves from the process, which is slowing progress significantly.
Are you talking about the feds?
Joanne, I can assure you that the Cambridge Kitchener and Waterloo are not in dispute.
From the Record:
But Six Nations continues to claim the bed and banks of the Grand River, and aboriginal leaders won't rule out future land claims here.
"To say definitively today that there won't be a claim in that area is a bit premature," warns Chief David General, of the elected council.
"There's research going on, and there may be other claims besides the bed of the river."
Adding to the uncertainty, a rival council with different views also speaks for Six Nations today.
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy council is the traditional aboriginal leadership, hoping to displace the elected council. It is favoured by Caledonia protesters and is negotiating on behalf of Six Nations.
Chief Allen MacNaughton, of the confederacy, agrees with Chief General that new land grievances may emerge.
Unlike the elected council, the confederacy does not feel bound to resolve them within Canadian law.
"When you talk about land claims, you're talking about a process in Canadian law, but we don't fall under that," MacNaughton says. "What we do is negotiate peacefully and respectfully according to the treaties we've had."
Using the same arguments as the Natives we can say that since the origional land tract included land 6 miles each side of the grand River therefor the crown never granted the river bed of the Grand to the Natives in the first place.
Post a Comment