Natives to win HST concessions from Ottawa

[Moonlight Graham]

Yeah, the native people are always keeping the white man down.

Those rich corporate bastard natives.

[Moonlight Graham]

Between residential schools and all of us allowing the holocaust - I guess both groups are entitled to a bit of a free ride.

Yeah, i'm thinking the fact us whities completely decimated their race and ripped off much of their land and many of them now live in disgraceful poverty, giving them a bit of tax break won't kill the rest of us.

That reminds me, my great-great grandmother was metis so i think i might go get my native status card. HA!

[Guest TrueMetis]

That reminds me, my great-great grandmother was metis so i think i might go get my native status card. HA!

Those things are ridiculously hard to get.

[Shady]

Yeah, i'm thinking the fact us whities completely decimated their race and ripped off much of their land

Complete nonsense.

and many of them now live in disgraceful poverty.

Not our fault. Natives are in charge of native society. Breaking news: If you live out in the middle of nowhere, you might have a difficult time accessing jobs. Gee, what a suprise.

giving them a bit of tax break won't kill the rest of us

They already get tax breaks. Now they're getting more tax breaks. On top of the already completely free post-secondary education, and completely free healthcare they recieve, as well as housing, etc. While the rest of us serfs actually pay into social programs, pay our student loans, and pay our taxes.

[charter.rights]

They are not getting any more tax breaks than they have always enjoyed. The provincial exemption (would would apply to all goods delivered to the reserve) is now back to where it was originally - at the point of sale. There is absolutely no change to the way has been for at least 30 years.

Perhaps you better pay attention to what it about to happen with the Residential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We have collectively done far more to native peoples than we have even realized. I have heard some of the stories of abuse told by native Elders and the Canadians that perpetuate, hid and now try to cover up that abuse are monsters. Those who continue to deny the abuse are idiots.

Funny (or not too funny) the thinking that created residential schools is alive and well in the Canadian ethic. There are more native children in foster care today (you know forced removal) than all of the children that went through residential school in 100 years. The number one reason for their removal is poverty - something the United Nations defines as "genocide".

And what are you doing about that? (Hint: If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.)

Edited June 20, 2010 by charter.rights

[dre]

Im definately not a guy that whines about natives getting breaks from the Feds here and there.

But I DO think that there should be a shift so that these sorts of programs are based on income/poverty instead of race. A native millionaire shouldnt get any tax breaks, and white or asign family living in poverty has as much need for exemptions as a native family.

Edited June 20, 2010 by dre

[charter.rights]

Im definately not a guy that whines about natives getting breaks from the Feds here and there.

But I DO think that there should be a shift so that these sorts of programs are based on income/poverty instead of race. A native millionaire shouldnt get any tax breaks, and white or asign family living in poverty has as much need for exemptions as a native family.

It isn't based on race. Tax exemption and sect. 25 Charter Rights (The Royal Proclamation 1763) stem from international treaties. These treaties can't be undone or altered without altering the terms that we get the land in exchange for their favours.

[Shwa]

We won, they lost. Usually the losing side doesn't get treated so well. Just take a look at history. I'd say a completely free education, completely free healthcare, not paying taxes, along with the rights and priviledges everyone else has, is a fairly good deal.

What a curious twist of logic.

According to your thinking, if we look at "history" to see how the "losing side" is "usually...treated" we see that the natives get "completely free" this and that. Which would clearly indicate that we did not win and they did not lose. You unravelled your premise and contradicted yourself within four short sentences. Well done!

[Leafless]

It isn't based on race. Tax exemption and sect. 25 Charter Rights (The Royal Proclamation 1763) stem from international treaties. These treaties can't be undone or altered without altering the terms that we get the land in exchange for their favours.

Treaties are agreements formed between sovereign countries and NOT ethnic groups.

[Topaz]

We won, they lost. Usually the losing side doesn't get treated so well. Just take a look at history. I'd say a completely free education, completely free healthcare, not paying taxes, along with the rights and priviledges everyone else has, is a fairly good deal.

Shady, IF YOU think the First Nations has it so GOOD, would you trade your life to go live it as a FN?

[charter.rights]

Treaties are agreements formed between sovereign countries and NOT ethnic groups.

You might want to review Canadian and British history. There are many treaties - many numbered treaties since the inception of Canada - that have been signed between the Crown on behalf of Canada and sovereign First Nations.

Yet in our history there is not an instance where a "First Nations" capitulated to the Crown, or to the government of Canada. As they were sovereign First Nations when they signed the treaties, there has never been any change that made them "un-sovereign"

You are not only Leafless but clueless as well.

[Shady]

There are many treaties - many numbered treaties since the inception of Canada - that have been signed between the Crown on behalf of Canada and sovereign First Nations.

Which treaty states that natives are excused from paying the HST?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Which treaty states that natives are excused from paying the HST?

I'm assuming the same ones that excuse them from paying PST and GST.

[Shady]

I'm assuming the same ones that excuse them from paying PST and GST.

And which one is that?

[Guest TrueMetis]

And which one is that?

No idea, what I don know is that they've been exempt from sales taxes in the past so it makes sense that they would be exempt from this one.

[charter.rights]

Which treaty states that natives are excused from paying the HST?

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that The Royal Proclamation 1763 in its protection of "Indians"

"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us...."

extends to taxation and seizure. The Royal Proclamation in the eyes of the law is a treaty.

[Shady]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that The Royal Proclamation 1763 in its protection of "Indians"

"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us...."

extends to taxation and seizure. The Royal Proclamation in the eyes of the law is a treaty.

That's irrelevant. And that's before they started accessing our social programs. They can't have it both ways.

[charter.rights]

That's irrelevant. And that's before they started accessing our social programs. They can't have it both ways.

In law nothing is irrelevant. And what is law today is relevant to the tax exemptions as well as lands claims as well as the residential school settlement.

Yes they can, and do have it both ways. Not because they are special, but because we have disturbed their communities and the honour of the Crown demands that native people be provided with the basic necessities of life (although government is increasingly falling short). And nothing in your feeble mind is going to change any of that. I would suggest that "acceptance" will go a long way in settling your agitated mental state, but that is just a suggestion. Or maybe a grade 5 history lesson might be in order. You apparently skipped class.

[Leafless]

You might want to review Canadian and British history. There are many treaties - many numbered treaties since the inception of Canada - that have been signed between the Crown on behalf of Canada and sovereign First Nations.

And they have not been recognized or you would not have 'comprehensive land claim settlements'.

Yet in our history there is not an instance where a "First Nations" capitulated to the Crown, or to the government of Canada.

Several treaties were signed after the Royal Proclamation and before Confederation in 1867. These include the Upper Canada Treaties (1764 to 1862) and the Vancouver Island Treaties (1850 to 1854). Under these treaties, the First Nations surrendered interests in lands in areas located in what's known today as the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. They surrendered their interest in lands in exchange for certain other benefits that could include reserves, annual payments or other types of payment and certain rights to hunt and fish.

AND:

Modern treaties – comprehensive claims

Comprehensive land claim settlements deal with areas of Canada where Aboriginal people's claims to Aboriginal rights have not been addressed by treaties, or other legal means. The first of these modern-day treaties was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. To date, the federal government has settled 24 self-government and comprehensive land claim areas (two are stand-alone self-government) with Aboriginal people in Canada.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/tra-eng.asp

As they were sovereign First Nations when they signed the treaties, there has never been any change that made them "un-sovereign"

If Natives are so damned sovereign why are they living on reservations? And why does anything that has to do with the word Indian or Aboriginals is mostly funded by the federal government and the tax payer of Canada?

You are not only Leafless but clueless as well.

Clueless is not a noun, dummy.

[charter.rights]

And they have not been recognized or you would not have 'comprehensive land claim settlements'.

Only "Treaty Indian Band" go through the Comprehensive Lands Claim Process. All others either go to court, or direct to negotiations - like The Six Nations Confederacy has with the Federal and Provincial Governments over Caledonia

If Natives are so damned sovereign why are they living on reservations? And why does anything that has to do with the word Indian or Aboriginals is mostly funded by the federal government and the tax payer of Canada?

Reservations came out of a treaty process made with ~some~ (but not all) First Nations. Many if not most First Nations enjoy unfettered access to their vast territories.

Clueless is not a noun, dummy.

It wasn't used as a noun, Twerp. It is an adjective.

[Leafless]

Only "Treaty Indian Band" go through the Comprehensive Lands Claim Process. All others either go to court, or direct to negotiations - like The Six Nations Confederacy has with the Federal and Provincial Governments over Caledonia

That is not what Indian and Northern Affairs Canada says:

Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements are negotiated in areas of the country where Aboriginal rights and title have not been addressed by treaty or through other legal means. These agreements are modern-day treaties between Aboriginal claimant groups, Canada and the relevant province or territory. While each one is unique, these agreements usually include such things as land ownership, money, wildlife harvesting rights, participation in land, resource, water, wildlife and environmental management as well as measures to promote economic development and protect Aboriginal culture. Many agreements also include provisions relating to Aboriginal self-government.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/al/ldc/ccl/index-eng.asp

It wasn't used as a noun, Twerp. It is an adjective.

An adjective modifies a noun.

Where is the noun it modifies, twerp?

[charter.rights]

An adjective modifies a noun.

Where is the noun it modifies, twerp?

"You" - an assumed pronoun

[Leafless]

"You" - an assumed pronoun

You and 'CANADIEN' must have went to the same school.

[bloodyminded]

You and 'CANADIEN' must have went to the same school.

charter.rights is correct....the original mistake was yours, when you told him , irrelevantly, that "clueless is not a noun," as if he had made some grammatical error.

No; "clueless" is not a noun. And c.r never said it was. He didn't say "you are a clueless," but rather "you are clueless."

Perhaps you're right when you worry about the French language making us ignorant of the English language. Now you've got a personal anecdote to prove it.

[Leafless]

charter.rights is correct....the original mistake was yours, when you told him , irrelevantly, that "clueless is not a noun," as if he had made some grammatical error.

No; "clueless" is not a noun. And c.r never said it was.

He said 'clueless is an adjective'.And that is what 'clueless' is, an adjective.

He didn't say "you are a clueless," but rather "you are clueless."

No,what he said was "You are not only Leafless but clueless as well".

This is wrong.

And to that I say,FAG you.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Leafless