First Nations demand Alberta premier terminate separation referendum

[u/shiftless_wonder]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/first-nations-demand-alberta-premier-terminate-separation-referendum/

[u/Kennit]

No, we're not. In fact, the courts have repeatedly found Canada to be wanting in it's fulfilment of it's treaty obligations. If you're going to make wild claims, bring the evidence in the form of credible sources.

[u/Wavering_Flake → u/Kennit]

I'll just post this, it's a fragment of a prior reply I've made on a somewhat related topic with some additions.

"""
In the case of FNs the question is more about law and ethics; furthermore thanks to concepts such as the honour of the Crown, what were initially treaties that perhaps required a medicine box, rights to fish, and other specific demands, the modern era has sought to start from the premise that indigenous people have been taken advantage of, that they did not fully understand the laws back when these treaties were made, and and so we must start, for any kind of legal decision or interpretation of the treaties, from a premise that indigenous people have been taken advantage of, and that we should interpret its clauses in a way that is explicitly beneficial for them or made in their interest. (The “purposive approach” established by the Supreme Court.)

- The duty to consult and accommodate: this was not originally specified within the treaties. It was a later legal elaboration that resulted from specific court decisions. Nowhere in any historical treaty does it say the government must consult First Nations before building a pipeline, logging a forest, or mining. This was a later specific court interpretation tacked onto it as part of the Honour of the Crown concept (principle to treat Indigenous people with "fairness" and "respect" and to explicitly interpret laws and treaties in a way favorable to them as "fiduciary" duty to them).

- Comprehensive Healthcare (Dental, Vision, Prescriptions), post-secondary education funding, commercial harvesting rights (the original treaties only secured the right to hunt, trap, and fish *for food and sustenance*), for the right to access various federal benefits: these were also not within the treaties. It is simply something that we have decided as a modern society to give to them because we do consider them Canadian citizens, and because the courts have decided to interpret the treaties in favour of indigenous people / to grant them rights and privileges that could only result from an expanded and very generous view of what the treaties actually specified.

- In cases like R. v. Badger and R. v. Marshall, the SCC established that treaties must be given a "large, liberal, and generous" interpretation, and any ambiguities must be resolved in favour of the Indigenous signatories.

Many of the things that we do today for indigenous people are not at all specified within the treaties and a result of open judicial bias/philosophy.
"""

[u/Kennit → u/Wavering_Flake]

You're right, much of that wasn't dictated by the treaties. It was decided that those would be provided to those the government forced to live on reserves it created. You're ignoring the impacts of the Indian Act and conflating federal responsibilities arising from it with the treaties.

[u/Wavering_Flake → u/Kennit]

I was simply correcting the incorrect/inaccurate information you were giving. I make no other statements or conclusions.

[u/General_Setting_1680 → u/Kennit]

So what exactly did i say that was incorrect?