Accountability Now

I've had numerous discussions with waldo and although we almost never agreed on anything I always appreciated the discussions. That was until realized that he would lie just so that he wouldn't 'lose an argument'. I have no interest in discussing any topic with someone that will outright lie just to prove a point. I have had numerous discussions with jacee, who again I rarely agree with but I don't mind discussing with her as she wouldn't lie.

You clearly don't understand what honest conversation is which is why I won't engage you. Keep trying!

As I outlined above, typically we bear the cost for water treatment at the municipal level with little support from the Feds which is how the FN should treat it too. The comparison is to show much money the Feds give the FN versus regular tax paying citizens for these events. Show me where in the treaties we said we would build infrastructure like roads or wastewater treatmentment plants for them. Where in our constitution does it say this as well? No power? Taxation results from employment. Most people realize they have to create work or go to where the work is or they don't survive. However, many FN reserves choose to live in economically unviable places and then scream for the handout when things aren't going so well. There are also some FN reserves that are situated in great spots and the group has done great things with those opportunities (Onion Lake for example). The bottom line is that if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere then you shouldn't expect big city treatment. Many rural Canadian towns face the same restraints when it comes to infrastructure. My point is that if a community is not economically feasible where they are FN or Canadian then we should not be throwing tons of money to solve a perpetual problem. Of course this in light of the number of examples where money coming into the FN ends up going towards zambonis or into the cheif's pocket rather than towards the things needed most.

Again...I choose not to engage you in discussion as you have proven yourself to be dishonest in past debate. Not interested in having a discussion with such a person.

I'll say it before jacee does....only First Nations working and living on reserves don't pay taxes. Otherwise you are correct. We also pay taxes to our local municipalities who pay the brunt for such infratstructure expenditures which I feel the First Nations should do the same.

This may be the case for some reserves but certainly not all. A large number of reserves are so remote that our impact is minimal at best yet it is our responsibilty to provide a state of the art treatment facility? You avoided my question quite nicely....how much of the costs do First Nations expect the feds to pay and how much do they actually kick in? As for the so called slur...I wasn't trying to prove that the money was misspent. I was showing that a lot of money has been given to First Nations. I would guess that its more per capital than the Feds give to other Canadians. So I think its a joke when I hear FIrst Nations complaining about water treatment. Of course the only way we know it is properly spent and not going into the pockets of the cheifs is fiscal accountability. Here's a quick look at the numbers I saw. Since 2006 the Feds have spent about 5 billion per year on all infrastructure (roads, treatment plants, etc). This works out to roughly $166 per person based on 30 million Canadians. In my example above, it was shown that 7 billion over the next 10 years will be spent on First Nations infrastructure. Based on the rough 300,000 people on reserves this works out to $2333 per person or 14x what other Canadians get. Add to this....they get the extra 1 billion over two years directly for water and wastewater which is another $1666 per person per year. Obviously the costs per person are higher as its more cost effecient to service high population densities but the fact is that money is being sent their way. So the question again is what are the expectations and how much are they willing to chip in to reach those?

Here are some numbers: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf Seems like a fair amount of money is going to support a population that is roughly 300,000. For every other person in Canada, water and wastewater are mostly funded through muncipal taxes with some Federal injections from time to time (again still tax payer money). So my question is how much funding do the First Nations provide? How much do they expect the Federal government to provide as a percentage? Last time I checked, water and wastewater treatment plants weren't a part of the treaties. I thought we weren't supposed to interupt their 'way of living'?

Another one exposed... "The auditor went through thousands of cheques and bank records and found that over a four-year period the directors of the CDC paid themselves close to $3 million. One of those directors was former chief and longtime leader Bernard Ominayak, who received 99 payments totalling $1.5 million." http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/lubicon-chief-collected-1-5m-while-community-had-no-running-water-audit-1.2763972

.

Waldingo....as per previous discussions I have noted that you are the most dishonest person on this forum and I have repeatedly told you that I will not engage in further conversation. I did note that another member in this very thread called you out for your dishonest ways as well as shown below. Carry on with your dishonesty but don't expect me to respond with any conversation other than a reminder of why I won't deal with you.

Please explain how its more than a semantical difference. You spend money on costs. Pretty simple in my mind You keep talking about infrastructure which is a captial cost. The 3% is designed only for operational costs as was the 6%. You certainly did not. You have yet to show in any case that 6% is actually needed. Your only response to my two posts was this: Please outline where in that statement you prove that we actually need the 6% and not with your opinion but actual facts. Your question was clearly rhetorical but if you truly want an answer then I would say health care is the same as its always been. Its not great but not bad. Of course why would my 'opinion' of this matter? I could tell you its all roses and would that change the discussion? The reality is that my question to you was based on objective fact. Prove that 6% is needed. No opinions...prove it with facts.

No...but nice try. The lower costs we're recorded in 2013....three years after the recession. PS....I see you glossed over my question asking you to prove the costs were at 6% or higher. Didn't want to touch that? PPS....I'll send the welcoming committe for you.

A quick google search lead me to the Canadian Institute for Health Information page where I found this quote: October 29, 2013—Canada will spend roughly $6,000 per person on health care this year. Indeed, the country’s expenses in this area are continuing to rise but at a slower pace, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Total health spending growth has slowed each year since 2011. It is expected to rise by 2.6% in 2013—less than half the average growth of 7% per year between 2000 and 2010. “After a period of significant growth in the last decade, we’re starting to see things slow down,” said Christopher Kuchciak, CIHI’s manager of health expenditures. “Spending continues to increase across the board, but at a slower pace than in previous years. This trend is due in large part to Canada’s modest economic growth and government efforts to balance budgets.” http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/en/Document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/RELEASE_29OCT13 Maybe....just maybe...the government sees that 6% is not needed based on current trends and is actually doing their fiduciary duty by controlling costs in areas that don't need the extra money?

Is the 3% not intended to cover increases in operational costs? R&D and capital costs wouldn't be included here...no?

Do you have something to back up the claim that 6% is needed? Stats Can shows that the overall CPI hasn't been above 3% for years with many years being around 1%.

I was just camping in Lake Louise and was astonished to learn about the rapidly declining grizzly population. The grizzly used to roam widely across western Canada and US and is now significantly reduced because of the lack of forest fires. Apparently the grizzly likes to roam in non-intact first areas which are normally created by forest fires.

A few things on this: 1. I don't know which 'other post' you are talking about 2. I have responded to your posts as did others. Perhaps you just didn't like the content of the responses? 3. IMO, the issue you brought forth is a non event. As other posters have stated, Canada, Brazil and Russia have the most IFL and therefore one would expect we'd have the most IFL degradation. The method they determine the degradation is questionable and the article certianly plays the angle it wants by chatizing oil and gas when all other supporting articles claim other industries are the root cause. Not to mention the supporting websites go after other countries more than Canada which again asks why the CBC is so intent in this. Ultimately this is not a high interest topic which is probably why you're not getting much response.

No....I did see that. That lumps Canada in with Russia and Brazil. The article says Canada has 21% of that yet the site that should be backing this up also states those other countries are worse in both absolute and relative.

I'm confused. When I look at the IFL site linked in the article, it says this:"The countries with the highest IFL degradation in both absolute terms (area) and relative terms (percentage) are Paraguay, Australia, Bolivia, Myanmar, Gabon, Cameroon, and Malaysia." Am I missing something? Where does it show Canada as the worst when it's not even listed in that group? Eyeballing the map on the IFL I can see a lot of red in Canada, Russia and Brazil. I'm looking at this on my phone which isn't great for the World Forest Watch site. Maybe there is more info there?

Yes. I can agree with that. Ultimately it would be nice to have two party choices on the right and two parties on the left. Or is more choices worse?

I didn't find it overly bashing. He gave a very political interview...backhanded compliments all across the board. He did make some very good points about change being required after 10 years. Whether you think JT or Mulclair can replace Harper, history has shown that people just want change for what ever option is available at that time. I'm fine with Harper leaving office....I just wish there were better replacement options.

So I guess you don't really care about the part where Mulrooney says that Mulclair is the best opposition leader this country has had since Diefenbaker? I thought you'd have been all over that.

My thoughts exactly. You definitely pick up that air of contention he has keeping in mind the PC versus Reform history. Other than that he doesn't bash Harper and gives a good polical answer to every question he was asked.

Is this where you heard it? http://thelapine.ca/ben-mulroney-quits-etalk-to-run-in-2015-election-for-harper-will-focus-on-trudeau/

I thought it was interesting on how he called out the Two and a Half Men group. Do you think he's still a little jaded from that?