Six Nations may now seek BILLIONS of dollars from Crown

kengs333 · November 3, 2007

It seems to me that things are just starting to get really ridiculous now. Not only does Six Nations want land returned to it that it surrendered and sold, now it looks as though they want to screw Canada for BILLIONS of dollars.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/275798

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2...007ONCA0744.htm

luvacuppajoe · November 3, 2007

The band has a legal case, there's no doubt. Ottawa had a fudiciary responsibility to give fair market value for the timber rights and to "invest" 90% of the sale in a trust account.

It's been established that they were underpaid so it only follows that they should be compensated for lost revenues. The only question is how much, given that the archived records do not clearly show how far back compound interest was to be paid.

Keep in mind that this is the band's lawyer saying "billions" and I highly doubt they'll see that much. The burden of proof is on the band to show that compound interest would have been paid from day one and so far they've been unable to do that.

I'm unclear which lands he is referring to when he says "returned". I suppose the timber sale land itself could be returned in lieu of cash if its present value is worth a portion of their award. He could also mean other lands that could be used as part of the compensation package and/or a future treaty settlement.

No doubt though, the reward will be substantial enough that other bands across the country will find it beneficial to start going over their own historical records in hopes of finding similar shortcomings.

Edited November 3, 2007 by luvacuppajoe

Posit · November 3, 2007

"...now it looks as though they want to screw Canada for BILLIONS of dollars."

The Court ruled that Whitefish Band was entitled to "fair and reasonable" compensation. That's hardly screwing Canada but more a realization that Canada has been screwing the Whitefish Band for many years.

If Six Nations are successful at receiving "fair and reasonable" compensation for the loss of lands or the misues of their trust account (as admitted by the government that trust money was used to finance the failed Grand River Navigation Company, and to finance the building of Osgoode Hall - neither of which was repaid) then it may equal into to the billions now that the Courts have ruled that interest must be compounded. There is no "screwing" going on at all, just "fair and reasonable" compensation....as it should be in a just society.

kengs333 · November 4, 2007

I'm not disputing the ruling to Whitefish, I'm talking about how Detlor is applying it to Six Nations which is a totally different situation.

Posit · November 5, 2007

I'm not disputing the ruling to Whitefish, I'm talking about how Detlor is applying it to Six Nations which is a totally different situation.

So what. If it is determined through negotiations that the Crown stole $2 million for the Grand River Navigation Company then they are entitled to a "fair and reasonable" return on that money, including all compounded interest. All said it done Detlor is right in suggesting that the amount is likely to be in the $billions since the GRNC today is worth about $1 billion all by itself. Add to the claim by Six Nations, the Crown's theft of money to finance Osgoode Hall, and the embezzlement of millions of dollars by Samuel Jarvis and it is likely to fall into the 10s of $billions.

There is nothing different about "fair and reasonable" since the government has a history of being "unfair and unreasonable" where it concerns First Nations grievances.

Riverwind · November 5, 2007

There is nothing different about "fair and reasonable" since the government has a history of being "unfair and unreasonable" where it concerns First Nations grievances.

Fair and reasonable is an interesting term because it extremely subjective. A 'fair and reasonable' calculation for the Whitefish band is not necessarily 'fair and reasonable' for Six Nations because the sums are much larger and such a settlement would be extremely 'unfair and unreasonable' to the innocent taxpayers that are expected to pay the bill.

Your version of 'justice' is quite twisted. You seem to think that if your great-great-grandfather had his horse stolen than you should be able to take the car of a completely innocent person today. You try to rationalize the theft by claiming that the innocent person some how benefited from the theft generations ago despite even though there is no evidence supporting this claim.

No matter how much you to blather on about 'equity' you cannot escape the fact that your are demanding that others have their hard earned wealth confiscated in order to compensate you for wrongs that happened long before you were born.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Riverwind

kengs333 · November 5, 2007

That's the whole point of this, though; if you listen to native "activists" talk, or go to their message boards, the impression that one gets is that this isn't about righting a historical wrong, or receiving what they supposedly believe in all fairness is theirs--it's about systematically deconstructing "European" Canada by "reclaiming" land that they lost, and, more significantly, robbing it of it's wealth through "compensation". No settlement will solve the issue; they will simply cook up something new in order to force the government to the table again and again, and all the while they will continue to exploit funding and programs specifically designed for them--also at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, of course. One can only wonder how many millions has been spent on Six Nations alone--our governments have essentially funded the entire process that has led up to this problem. Only in Canada will a government fund special interest groups bent on the destruction of our country...

Posit · November 5, 2007

Fair and reasonable is an interesting term because it extremely subjective. A 'fair and reasonable' calculation for the Whitefish band is not necessarily 'fair and reasonable' for Six Nations because the sums are much larger and such a settlement would be extremely 'unfair and unreasonable' to the innocent taxpayers that are expected to pay the bill.
Your version of 'justice' is quite twisted. You seem to think that if your great-great-grandfather had his horse stolen than you should be able to take the car of a completely innocent person today. You try to rationalize the theft by claiming that the innocent person some how benefited from the theft generations ago despite even though there is no evidence supporting this claim.

No matter how much you to blather on about 'equity' you cannot escape the fact that your are demanding that others have their hard earned wealth confiscated in order to compensate you for wrongs that happened long before you were born.

Hard "earned" wealth....more like easily "stolen" wealth.

Fair and Reasonable was determined by the court in the Whitefish case and basically the court was saying that calculating compound interest on monies owed was in their opinion fair and reasonable. That does open the door for Six Nations to claim compound interest on any monies they are owed. And since they are going through negotiation and not court, they have a greater chance of insisting on that compound interest be paid upfront as part of any settlement.

You hardly get the issues and trying to make it personal is just too childish to respond to any further.

margrace · November 5, 2007

Here's another angle on this. if the government of Canada and the churches had not interfered with the various tribes, taking their children away to brain wash them, do you think we would have the same problem today? Has education helped or hindered, think about it

Riverwind · November 5, 2007

Hard "earned" wealth....more like easily "stolen" wealth.

BS. This is a perfect example of your facile rationalizations used to justify your greed. Any 'benefits' from wealth expropriated by the government 150 years ago went to *all* members of society - not just non-aboriginals. Trying to claim that non-aboriginals living today don't deserve what they have because they 'stole' it is as absurd as it is wrong.

Fair and Reasonable was determined by the court in the Whitefish case and basically the court was saying that calculating compound interest on monies owed was in their opinion fair and reasonable.

And any ruling by the court could be over ruled with a law passed by parliament. This ruling was based on common law issue - not the charter. So the question really becomes a political one: is it fair and reasonable to confiscate the wealth of non-aboriginals to attempt to correct a wrong that might have been done to people 150 years ago? Most people would say yes if the amounts are small like in the whitefish case - most people would say definitely not if the amounts are large.

You hardly get the issues and trying to make it personal is just too childish to respond to any further.

You are the one who seeks to avoid facing up to the injustices of your demands by treating the government as some non-personal entity with an infinite amount of money. The government is nothing more than the people of this country. If Six Nations demands 10 billion they are demanding 10 billion from their neighbors that are guilty of no wrong. Where is the justice in that? Edited November 5, 2007 by Riverwind

Riverwind · November 5, 2007

Here's another angle on this. if the government of Canada and the churches had not interfered with the various tribes, taking their children away to brain wash them, do you think we would have the same problem today? Has education helped or hindered, think about it

The government had a moral duty to provide educational opportunities to natives living in remote areas of the country. The only issue is the method they choose to provide that education - not the education itself. Natives would be much worse off today if the government had decided to exempt them from laws requiring universal education in the name of cultural sensitivity. Edited November 5, 2007 by Riverwind

AngusThermopyle · November 5, 2007

The government had a moral duty to provide educational opportunities to natives living in remote areas of the country. The only issue is the method they choose to provide that education - not the education itself. Natives would be much worse off today if the government had decided to exempt them from laws requiring universal education in the name of cultural sensitivity.

Thats a good point. I hear this "brain washing" claim made constantly by activist types. None of them have as yet explained exactly how teaching people to read and do basic Mathematics is "brain washing". The whole "brain washing" claim is just more BS on the same level as mass graves of thousands upon thousands who were buried in school basements. Not one shred of proof, just more "oral" crap.

The next question to be asked is should we have not tried to give them an education. Would it be better if all Natives had remained illiterate and unable to even do simple addition and subtraction?

margrace · November 5, 2007

The government had a moral duty to provide educational opportunities to natives living in remote areas of the country. The only issue is the method they choose to provide that education - not the education itself. Natives would be much worse off today if the government had decided to exempt them from laws requiring universal education in the name of cultural sensitivity.

Why would they be worse off, are you saying that their way of life was wrong?

margrace · November 5, 2007

Thats a good point. I hear this "brain washing" claim made constantly by activist types. None of them have as yet explained exactly how teaching people to read and do basic Mathematics is "brain washing". The whole "brain washing" claim is just more BS on the same level as mass graves of thousands upon thousands who were buried in school basements. Not one shred of proof, just more "oral" crap.
The next question to be asked is should we have not tried to give them an education. Would it be better if all Natives had remained illiterate and unable to even do simple addition and subtraction?

So you are saying that they should be forced into your way of life, what was wrong with theirs?

kengs333 · November 5, 2007

Hard "earned" wealth....more like easily "stolen" wealth.
Fair and Reasonable was determined by the court in the Whitefish case and basically the court was saying that calculating compound interest on monies owed was in their opinion fair and reasonable. That does open the door for Six Nations to claim compound interest on any monies they are owed. And since they are going through negotiation and not court, they have a greater chance of insisting on that compound interest be paid upfront as part of any settlement.

You hardly get the issues and trying to make it personal is just too childish to respond to any further.

First of all, I think just about everyone here would agree that the manner in which you (and the now absent "jennie") have argued your points has made it quite difficult for the rest of us to discuss the issue in a reasoned and rational manner.

Regardless of what you or your activist friends like to believe, the reality of the matter was at the time it was a conflict between nations, in which the Indians played an active part--the Indians were defeated, and just like any other "nation" throughout history on every inhabited continent on this planet, defeat results in the loss of land, access to resources, etc. In the case of the Six Nations, the Crown set aside land for them to use along the Grand River, but from the outset the Six Nations proved themselves to be incapable of attending to their own affairs. Six Nations SOLD land in defiance of the government; the Six Nations did not use the land as had been expected by the government of Canada; and the Six Nations was virtually paralized by internal social problems. All this caused a burden on the government, and the meagre resources and authority they had at the time, the government eventually had to step in and try to find a solution to the PROBLEM. To what extent there was corruption among those who were in charge of the Indians, I don't know, but the fact of the matter is that 1) the Six Nations was largely responsible for having put itself in the position that it was in, and 2) regardless of how poorly the government managed the issue, had they not stepped in Six Nations probably wouldn't exist.

kengs333 · November 5, 2007

Why would they be worse off, are you saying that their way of life was wrong?

I think if you had the opportunity to live the way that they had to live way back when, you'd come to the conclusion pretty quickly that they were worse off.

kengs333 · November 5, 2007

The government had a moral duty to provide educational opportunities to natives living in remote areas of the country. The only issue is the method they choose to provide that education - not the education itself. Natives would be much worse off today if the government had decided to exempt them from laws requiring universal education in the name of cultural sensitivity.

It's a no win situation. Had the government not done it, then we'd be sitting here debating how evil our government was for allowing these people to remain ignorant and illiterate.

Some of the criticism of how it was undertaken is legitimate, but at the same time one has to take into consideration that non-Natives who went to school back then also were subjected to harsh treatment, abuse; children who were non-English lost their languages and culture, too.

kengs333 · November 5, 2007

The whole "brain washing" claim is just more BS on the same level as mass graves of thousands upon thousands who were buried in school basements. Not one shred of proof, just more "oral" crap.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that back in the 20s, 30s, etc. medicine hadn't advanced to the point where it could deal with diseases that have now largely been forgotten. Of course to native activists, the fact that 100s of thousands of non-Indians died from these same diseases is irrelevant. To them Europeans should not have been here in the first place, and so anyone who died from diseases that Europeans (supposedly) brought was technically "murdered". It's complete nonsense, and that's why this situation is just plain stupid.

margrace · November 6, 2007

I think if you had the opportunity to live the way that they had to live way back when, you'd come to the conclusion pretty quickly that they were worse off.

Were they really or did the white population want them out of sight. You are no more a judge of their life than I am. It would have been their choice and probably they would have evolved their way out of it if that was their wish. No one has the right to tell another how to live. How I choose to live my life is my business and so was theirs.

Smallc · November 6, 2007

Were they really or did the white population want them out of sight. You are no more a judge of their life than I am. It would have been their choice and probably they would have evolved their way out of it if that was their wish. No one has the right to tell another how to live. How I choose to live my life is my business and so was theirs.

So you would like to live without the things we have today? I can guarantee that without Europeans, natives would not have really anything that we have today.

luvacuppajoe · November 6, 2007

The government had a moral duty to provide educational opportunities to natives living in remote areas of the country. The only issue is the method they choose to provide that education - not the education itself. Natives would be much worse off today if the government had decided to exempt them from laws requiring universal education in the name of cultural sensitivity.

I wouldn't call it a moral duty so much as a tactic used for expedient assimilation, and by what better means than with the (re)education of a new generation?

The theory broke down when the kids, having forgotten their languages, were returned to their homes and found themselves increasingly unable to communicate with their parents who couldn't understand English.

The kids from more remote communities had often stayed at the schools year-round (or close to it) when parents were unable to travel long distances to bring them home summer and winter, and in the process they'd lost the benefit of being truly and effectively parented. Maybe became effectively institutionalized at a young age. In turn they became dysfunctional parents themselves and the generational effects of that are still evident today.

Australia's aborigines were schooled in much the same way and it too now faces the same lingering problems with its native population as Canada, in some ways even worse. Unfortunately there are many who believe money is the answer, when it's not.

Everyone would have been better off had native residential schools (and the reserve system) never existed and a slower, more natural assimilation process was left to those who desired it.

What we have now is a group of people with one foot in the future and one in the past, managing neither. Even attempts to revive their cultural roots are dependent on assistance from us, from logging companies providing the timber to build their longhouses to government money for language programs. What was once a very strong and self-sufficient society is now anything but.

It's a mess, and the work needed to fix it is beyond what the governments and natives are willing to endure. And so on it goes...

Riverwind · November 6, 2007

I wouldn't call it a moral duty so much as a tactic used for expedient assimilation, and by what better means than with the (re)education of a new generation?

Universal and *mandatory* public education are key social policies in all succesful nations. Ensuring that everyone has a basic level of education increases productivity which, in turn, increases wealth. Every non-aboriginal kid was forced to go to school so it is kind of silly to suggest that the government should have simply let native kids grow up illiteral and ilnumerate in the name of cultural sensitivity. I realize that 'assimilation' is a four letter word among the native victim industry, however, that does not change the facts: the government had a *moral duty* to provide educational opportunities to natives.

Posit · November 6, 2007

Universal and *mandatory* public education are key social policies in all succesful nations. Ensuring that everyone has a basic level of education increases productivity which, in turn, increases wealth. Every non-aboriginal kid was forced to go to school so it is kind of silly to suggest that the government should have simply let native kids grow up illiteral and ilnumerate in the name of cultural sensitivity. I realize that 'assimilation' is a four letter word among the native victim industry, however, that does not change the facts: the government had a *moral duty* to provide educational opportunities to natives.

I'm kind of interested in how you can rationalize how murder, beatings, rape and kiddie diddling are part of an essential public education, Riverwind? I mean does the public school system have a moral duty to remove YOUR children from your home and care and use them as private sexual playthings?

Riverwind · November 6, 2007

I'm kind of interested in how you can rationalize how murder, beatings, rape and kiddie diddling are part of an essential public education, Riverwind? I mean does the public school system have a moral duty to remove YOUR children from your home and care and use them as private sexual playthings?

A yes. More propoganda without any basis in facts. The vast majority of kids who attended the schools never experienced the kind of abuse you describe. More importantly, the fact that individuals committed crimes at the schools does not alter the fact that the schools were set up to help natives. Do you really believe that the government should have done nothing and let natives grow up illiteral and ilnumerate in a world that requires those skills?

margrace · November 6, 2007

So you would like to live without the things we have today? I can guarantee that without Europeans, natives would not have really anything that we have today.

I lived the first 11 years of my life without hydro, running water or heat other than the cook stove in the kitchen etc. We didn't even have a car in the war years. It seems to me we were pretty happy, we lived on a farm and every other farm was the same. It really makes me look at myself when the hydro goes out and I seem to have nothing to do.

Sure I like using the computer, it is a built in encyclopedia but I could find what I want at the local library, oh no, they don't keep encyclopedia's anymore.

Our entertainment was our local church and community affairs. Our groceries were delivered as was our bread, everything else butter, vegetable, meat etc we made and grew ourselves. I suppose we would be considered poor but you can't miss what you never had can you.

Now I find we are a spoiled, self indulgence bunch of people.

Edited November 6, 2007 by margrace