Two sides to an agreement

In my June 12 entry, I applauded Harper for the apology over residential schools, while at the same time wondering how sincere he was; considering that his pet-MP, Perfect PP, was given a clean bill of health by Harper when he (PP) should have been hung and quartered over the timing and tone of his comments about First Nations folks.

I also have a lingering doubt about the sincerity of First Nations folks surrounding this apology... this admission of guilt... on behalf of Canadians.

It is said that there are two parties to an apology. One to make it and one to accept it. We certainly had both parties to the apology on the Hill last week. But it also takes two parties to make an agreement work. I wonder if we have two parties.

I refer to the fact that, on one hand, the federal government does not seem to have a plan in mind to move forward from this apology and, on the other hand, some members of the First Nations seem to think that they have a blank check to screw Canadians.

Take, as example of the latter, the issue at Summerville Lake near Campbell's Bay, Ontario. Cottagers in the area have been told that their land is now part of a land claim and that, according to gun-toting natives, they, the cottagers, have to pay road access fees to local natives who run a camp nearby. The law is on the side of the cottagers with respect to road access and the issue of land claims did not even come up until after the natives bought the nearby camp. Before that there was no land claim. In fact the closest reserve to Summerville Lake is over 60 kilometers away. I wonder if the natives feel emboldened to blackmail Canadians because Canadians apologized for a past problem?

The natives are now saying that they are going to claim the entire Pontiac area of Quebec as their native territory and demand that the government pay them a land claims. Sounds like a money grab to me.

Did you know that 117% of BC is claimed by one native group or another? The First Nations can't agree between themselves which group has an historic right to which territory. It sounds a bit like they are throwing copious amounts of feces at the wall, hoping that some of it will stick.

There are some legitimate land claims and some bogus ones. Will Phil Fontaine and the Assembly of First Nations stand up and be counted to move their relationship with Canadians forward by helping to sort these out?