$127 Million cut from reservation housing

[dre]

CR - what do you think is realistic ? What would be the best way to move forward ?

Trade them big swaths of land for them signing away every legal aspect of their native status. I think thats the current long term plan.

[Michael Hardner]

Nope never said that. But nice try on a straw man argument.

I'm asking in good faith. What does it mean then ?

[Smallc]

Trade them big swaths of land for them signing away every legal aspect of their native status. I think thats the current long term plan.

Well, it usually isn't actually land mot of the time, but payment in lieu of.

[charter.rights]

Trade them big swaths of land for them signing away every legal aspect of their native status. I think thats the current long term plan.

Can't sign away rights. They tried that with enfranchisement in the early 1900's but it was all reversed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We don't need to trade them the land though. It is theirs already.

Edited June 10, 2011 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

I'm asking in good faith. What does it mean then ?

Read the second part. I provided clarification.

"Aboriginal rights are not subject to Canadian law. The Charter guarantees it."

[cybercoma]

That wasn't a military jet, dingbat, it is his private jet.

It's the taxpayers' private jet.

[RNG]

It's the taxpayers' private jet.

Mandated, due to his position. Deal with it.

[cybercoma]

Mandated, due to his position. Deal with it.

Using the jet for leisurely activities, like going to see a hockey game in Boston, is mandated too?

[RNG]

Using the jet for leisurely activities, like going to see a hockey game in Boston, is mandated too?

He's got a right to a life. Didn't you follow the thread? Where have you been, loser?

[fellowtraveller]

When did the policy change from the "used to be" situation to the "now the money is just given" approach ?

It varies quite a bit, the level of independence may depend on whether or not a treaty and/or reserve exists, on the status of land cliams settlemts, and whether or not the individual band/reserve is aggressive, organized and willing/able to take on DIAND.

I have a close family member who works as an adminstrator for a non treaty band, they are business savvy and DIAND has little input into capital funding and even less into operational money.

In general, DIAND wants little to do with any of the decision making- if and when the wheels come off they don't want to be around. THey can tolerate a culture of utter failure at DIAND since that is all they have had really, but for some bands/reserves the old paternal system and the same old shitty results are no longer acceptable. Of course, DIAND wants to control the money but blame the results on anybody else.

[fellowtraveller]

Using the jet for leisurely activities, like going to see a hockey game in Boston, is mandated too?

Mainstream media reports here stated that he paid for the jet at the chargeout rate of some $3800 /hour out of his pocket, and paid for the hockey tickets too. Harper goes to quite a few games, and reportedly almost always sits in seats, not private boxes.

He does not fly commecial for obvious security reasons.

[kitt]

The Liberlas, progressive conservatives, conservatives and the First Nation are at fault. They made promises but never kept them. Have any of you ever watch the senate committee meeetings when the First Nation are there to speak their views? I did watch back early this early and they told the senate the promise of good drinking water never came.The conservatives promise a school in one area and they didn't deliver. If non-natives don't want the First Nations living and working among them, then at least Canada gave make sure they get the basics in life.

Who negotiated and signed the Kelowna Accord to fix the infrastructure, education and Health services on reserves? And who canceled it as soon as he got voted in? The fix was there, with federal, provincial and First Nations cooperation and Harper canceled it and blew the money on increased spending in the PMO

Edited June 10, 2011 by kitt

[Michael Hardner]

Read the second part. I provided clarification.

"Aboriginal rights are not subject to Canadian law. The Charter guarantees it."

But what does this mean:

aboriginal people not only have legal standing over and above Canada, but that the rights and land title are above Canadian law.

"Above Canadian law" ?

[Shwa]

That wasn't a military jet, dingbat, it is his private jet. Regs in this country mandate that. There's a whole gazillion page thread on that topic going now. So bugger off.

In the past she has stated that First Nations are scrutinized more than any other organization in Canada, and are held more accountable than any government departments.

Bureaucrats indifferent to Indian Affairs fiasco

Auditor General Sheila Fraser kicked off the Feb. 12 hearings with an overview of her highly critical May 2008 report on First Nations child- and family-care services. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada oversees these programs.

Fraser's team found Indian Affairs doubled its spending over 10 years to half a billion dollars on child-care services in 2007 – without knowing whether programs met federal policy that requires they be "reasonably comparable" to provincial standards, as well as "culturally appropriate" so aboriginal children won't lose their identity.

In her remarks, Fraser said 8,300 aboriginal children were in care nationally in March 2007, taken from reserves at a rate eight times that of children in the general population.

Indian Affairs slack with third-party managers, says auditor general

"The funding arrangements with third-party managers require that the third-party manager conduct detailed monthly monitoring of the First Nation's financial condition; yet we found little evidence that Indian and Northern Affairs officials assessed the manager's performance in the region."

...

Indian Affairs currently has third-party managers assigned to six First Nations in northern Ontario: Ginoogaming, Neskantaga, and Nibinamik in Treaty #9 territory; Pikangikum, and Saugeen in Treaty #5; and Washagamis Bay in Treaty #3.

Pikangikum Chief Paddy Peters said the third-party manager assigned to his community has never visited Pikangikum.

"It's been a difficult situation ever since this third-party manager was put in place," Peters said.

"He's never once stepped into this community even though we invited him."

But of course, the real problem is with Chiefs taking trips to Vegas and buying big boats and such...

Edited June 10, 2011 by Shwa

[charter.rights]

But what does this mean:

"Above Canadian law" ?

All rights come above Canadian law. Get it? So the reserves, funding for health and education, land rights etc can not be legislated out of existence.

[g_bambino]

"Above Canadian law" ?

Pay him no attention. He knows nothing of what he speaks.

[g_bambino]

Who negotiated and signed the Kelowna Accord to fix the infrastructure, education and Health services on reserves?

You assume yet another accord was going to actually make a difference.

[Shwa]

Pay him no attention. He knows nothing of what he speaks.

So what do we know?

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

( any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94)

It seems to be that this section guarantees rights and treaty obligations that existed prior to the coming of being of Canadian or Provincial law. Do you read something different?

[Michael Hardner]

All rights come above Canadian law. Get it? So the reserves, funding for health and education, land rights etc can not be legislated out of existence.

I don't get it. The rights of citizens of Canada come out of the law and the constitution. Are these rights above Canadian law because native lands are considered sovereign ? If that's the case then we're talking about two nations co-existing not one above the other.

It seems to me that you either have one nation within another, or one beside another. Either option has implications for rights, sovereignty and financial support.

[Michael Hardner]

Pay him no attention. He knows nothing of what he speaks.

He has an opinion, so I'd like to understand it. As I said upthread, I'm not informed on this issue so I want to hear his opinion. There are enough people on here who crow about defeated peoples, and who preach pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, as well as chauvinistic ideas. I have heard enough from them on other issues so I think I understand their position.

[g_bambino]

He has an opinion, so I'd like to understand it. As I said upthread, I'm not informed on this issue so I want to hear his opinion. There are enough people on here who crow about defeated peoples, and who preach pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, as well as chauvinistic ideas. I have heard enough from them on other issues so I think I understand their position.

Well, I'm not sure where I said anything about defeated people or pulling one's self up by the bootstraps. All I saw was you questioning yet another questionable statement from charter.rights about Aboriginal peoples and Canadian law. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to listen to it. Just be advised, though, that when he tells you something about the law, take it with a ten kilo grain of salt.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I'm not sure where I said anything about defeated people or pulling one's self up by the bootstraps.

I didn't say you - I was talking about the things that I have been reading on these threads since forever.

All I saw was you questioning yet another questionable statement from charter.rights about Aboriginal peoples and Canadian law. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion and you are entitled to listen to it. Just be advised, though, that when he tells you something about the law, take it with a ten kilo grain of salt.

Thanks for the warning. I feel pretty confident that I won't be taken for a ride.

[Smallc]

That wasn't a military jet, dingbat, it is his private jet.

No, it's a military jet.

[charter.rights]

I don't get it. The rights of citizens of Canada come out of the law and the constitution. Are these rights above Canadian law because native lands are considered sovereign ? If that's the case then we're talking about two nations co-existing not one above the other.

It seems to me that you either have one nation within another, or one beside another. Either option has implications for rights, sovereignty and financial support.

For the most part Canadian sovereignty has been built without a land base. If you go back through the legal history in Canada, the purpose of the BNA Act was for two primary reasons: to protect the economic independence of the British colony, and to help defend on a what was anticipated as another invasion by the US. IN reality there were no Crown colonies in Canada and most of the purported surrenders did not follow the rules and processes set out in the Royal Proclamation 1763. So as an establishment of fact, aboriginal title was not extinguished, and the pre-existing rights and title that go with the recognition under the Proclamation, as not being subject to either Confederation, or the assumptions and domestic laws built after the fact. Canada sits on land under aboriginal title, and there fore holds no jurisdiction in a strict legal sense over First Nations.

Aboriginal title underlies any claim to Canadian jurisdiction and therefore sits "above" Canadian laws. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined this as a "sui generis" title that cannot be defined under the context of our common law understanding.

Lord Denning, British High Court in a 1982 Judicial Review of the Canada Act (before it was proclaimed):

“That judgement was given at a time when, in constitutional law, the Crown was single and indivisible. In view of it , and in later cases, I think that the Indian title (by which I mean the ‘personal and ususfructary right’ of the Indians in respect of ‘lands reserved to the Indians’) was a title superior to all others save and in so far as the Indians themselves surrendered or ceded it to the Crown."

As Shwa points out, nothing can be abrogated form any of the rights identified in the Charter. That implies that neither the laws of Canada, or other rights contained in the Charter can reduce or interfere with the pre-existing rights of aboriginal people. While this hasn't yet been tested in the SCoC, other tests have suggested that the Court sees aboriginal rights over and above Canadian law, in that they have ruled that not only accommodations must be made where there are conflicts with our laws, but that we must interpret all treaties and agreements paying in some case more attention to their oral history than our written documents in a manner that aboriginal people would have understood them at the time they were made. As well we need only look at the requirement for full and honourable consultation as suppport for the idea that rights may very well be over and above our jurisdiction.

[g_bambino]

I didn't say you - I was talking about the things that I have been reading on these threads since forever.

Yes, I've seen it too.

Thanks for the warning. I feel pretty confident that I won't be taken for a ride.

Just a heads up, was all. I see, though, that you're already picking at his inconsistencies and contradictions. My tip-off was unnecessary, it seems.

[+]

Edited June 10, 2011 by g_bambino