Good morning Ladies & gentlemen: it was posted -->The Government says that the First Nations don't have a veto... We have a veto... We have a veto! Because we never surrendered the Land... And the Treaty documents say that...You know... And the diaries of these Treaty Commissioners that have been found recently say that. We never surrendered the Land!"

The terminology here is a bit too broad, does the treaty specifically say 'Lands" or territories? A huge difference legally and technically.

Incidentally, what type of treaty did the First Nations have with the ones that were there before them? Did they give up their land ?

May I remind everyone of a certain Mr Chamberlain debarking from an aircraft waving a treaty signed by Herr Hitler 'himself ' saying "Peace in our times"???

In effect, saying that a treaty is only as effective as the stronger one wishes it to be. I believe that the gov't outranks the first nations in many respects.

If the gv't wants the land, the gov't can & will take it by way of the many means available to them.

Sniff, speaking of taking land, part of my ancestry was with the Evangelists of little Eva fame - North Eastern Canada - for which the gov't has never reimbursed the family. Although this did allow a little Mohican to enter the family line - twas a loong cold winter, and the records say that she was damn 'cute'.

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live , not live to exist"