metismuseum.ca- New breed Magazine Winter 2006- Harry Daniels - order of Gabriel Dumont Gold- in the early 1980's as the president of NCC - He was the person responsible for putting Metis into the repatriated constitution. @Occamsfork @simon_gabe @ArnallLabrador @CrownIndigenous
More from J Malone.
Aboriginal self-government - legal and constitutional issues 1995 Ottawa, Canada- Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples #Metis
Aboriginal self-government - legal and constitutional issues 1995 Ottawa, Canada- Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples- pg141. - papers argues that it is logical and sensible to consider persons of mixed ancestry of all kinds to be within sec. 91(24) jurisdiction and that the
Metis are included within the fiduciary relationship owed by the crown to the Aboriginal peoples. (pg142) The recognition of Metis as one of the "aboriginal peoples of Canada" in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, reinforces this federal practice. "It is concluded that
sec 91(24) includes persons of mixed ancestry." pg143- "the Guerin case suggests that the federal gov. may be breaching its fiduciary obligations if it refuses to initiate legislation needed to acknowledge the existence of certain Aboriginal peoples or to meet basic economic
or social needs." https://t.co/90gG3LeCFC -
RELATED CASES AND POSTS
Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335
Aboriginal self-government - legal and constitutional issues 1995 Ottawa, Canada- Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples- pg141. - papers argues that it is logical and sensible to consider persons of mixed ancestry of all kinds to be within sec. 91(24) jurisdiction and that the
Metis are included within the fiduciary relationship owed by the crown to the Aboriginal peoples. (pg142) The recognition of Metis as one of the "aboriginal peoples of Canada" in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, reinforces this federal practice. "It is concluded that
sec 91(24) includes persons of mixed ancestry." pg143- "the Guerin case suggests that the federal gov. may be breaching its fiduciary obligations if it refuses to initiate legislation needed to acknowledge the existence of certain Aboriginal peoples or to meet basic economic
or social needs." https://t.co/90gG3LeCFC -
RELATED CASES AND POSTS
Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335
@steph_pettigrew I identify as EasternMetis , can you tell me exactly how I am hurting Indigenous groups? Oh please, this should be interesting.
I feel sorry for you that you believe @DarrylLeroux, have you done any independent research into "The Other Metis" at all ? LAC - Metis Circle Special Consultation -- Rock Matte, Claude Aubin, Frank Palmater etc.
Have you read the RCAP reports, specifically RCAP 432 and RCAP 433 ?
CBC - RCAP - Viola Robinson sat on the commission. https://t.co/3cD8CA8tu6
Métis Circle Special Consultation- Viola Robinson , asking if the Metis Nation Accord would be a vehicle that the Metis in the East could use.
I feel sorry for you that you believe @DarrylLeroux, have you done any independent research into "The Other Metis" at all ? LAC - Metis Circle Special Consultation -- Rock Matte, Claude Aubin, Frank Palmater etc.
Have you read the RCAP reports, specifically RCAP 432 and RCAP 433 ?
CBC - RCAP - Viola Robinson sat on the commission. https://t.co/3cD8CA8tu6
Métis Circle Special Consultation- Viola Robinson , asking if the Metis Nation Accord would be a vehicle that the Metis in the East could use.
More from For later read
There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
This is an excellent report, and I'm glad to have joined the study group. The central focus on avoiding war is understandable--a US-China war would be catastrophic and should be avoided. But protecting Taiwan's security and prosperity requires doing more. 1/x https://t.co/P0Sg4LJcpV
— Bonnie Glaser / \u845b\u4f86\u5100 (@BonnieGlaser) February 12, 2021
Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
