Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Not true. Very true. Tell you what, form a native self government and disperse all funds according to your own desires. I suggest that the federal government have been foolish not to come to this conclusion. The First Nations peoples have for some time sought self government and that is what many believe to be the best solution. So be it, take the total funding currently devoted to payments to all bands and lump sum it into a financial institution. Disbursement from there the responsibility of some form of native government established by an Assembly of First Nations. In this manner the Government of Canada can avoid any accusation of corruption regarding First Nations from this day forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 The Supreme Court has upheld the Royal Proclamation 1763 - that is a given. However, the government still doesn't accept it as the beginning of any negotiation and at the end of the day is where most negotiations stall. Are such negotiations a prerequisite for dealing with the problems that face First Nations people today, though ? I hope not. I'm interested in what is being done now, and how to improve things. Waiting on multi-year court challenges seems to perpetuate the main problem we have, which is that improvements happen too slowly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) Wrong. Reserves are not apartheid constructs. They are sovereign territories held back in deals made with the Crown. They belong to the First Nations and are entirely out of Canada. Not really all that sovereign when they can only exist with outside money! It's kind of like a young adult having their expenses paid for them by their parents. And then claiming that they're independent. Edited June 13, 2011 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Not really all that sovereign when they can only exist with outside money! European settlement did make it impossible for the First Nations to maintain their way of life. The only reason they can't exist the way they used to is that Canada took that away from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 European settlement did make it impossible for the First Nations to maintain their way of life. The only reason they can't exist the way they used to is that Canada took that away from them. That's true, and as destructive as that change was to them there are aspects of it that are universal to all people. For example, people don't live close to the land any more. Then again, who would want to. I think that discussion and negotiation are the key to moving forward, but then again it hasn't helped up until now. Why not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Not really all that sovereign when they can only exist with outside money! It's kind of like a young adult having their expenses paid for them by their parents. And then claiming that they're independent. Kind of like Canada and US eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Kind of like Canada and US eh? So Canada owns the First Nations like the USA owns Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Very true. Tell you what, form a native self government and disperse all funds according to your own desires. I suggest that the federal government have been foolish not to come to this conclusion. The First Nations peoples have for some time sought self government and that is what many believe to be the best solution. So be it, take the total funding currently devoted to payments to all bands and lump sum it into a financial institution. Disbursement from there the responsibility of some form of native government established by an Assembly of First Nations. In this manner the Government of Canada can avoid any accusation of corruption regarding First Nations from this day forward. Why should the Assembly of First Nations establish "some form of native government?" Should the United Nations establish some form of world government to make you happy? How about government by NATO? Methinks you sacrificed a little too much real complexity to try and render your hypothetical response as a self-evident truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 So Canada owns the First Nations like the USA owns Canada? In Shady's world this appears to be true, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Very true. Tell you what, form a native self government and disperse all funds according to your own desires. I suggest that the federal government have been foolish not to come to this conclusion. The First Nations peoples have for some time sought self government and that is what many believe to be the best solution. So be it, take the total funding currently devoted to payments to all bands and lump sum it into a financial institution. Disbursement from there the responsibility of some form of native government established by an Assembly of First Nations. In this manner the Government of Canada can avoid any accusation of corruption regarding First Nations from this day forward. It isn't that easy. 1. The government owes First Nations a fiduciary by law. 2. The government is presently holding an estimated $2trillion trust fund owed to First Nations. The annual compounded interest rakes in at about $35 billion per year. So before we even get off the ground, and even before we start making payments on principles we have to pay First Nations their portion of the $35 billion a year interest, which is about 2 1/2 times the total annual INAC budget and 5 times what First Nations receive now. 3. We don't get to decide what type of self-government First Nations use, or whether or not they will be under the AFN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 :lol: Never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 The only reason they can't exist the way they used to is that Canada took that away from them. Complete nonsense. Nobody's stopping them from living like they did 300 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Kind of like Canada and US eh? Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 2. The government is presently holding an estimated $2trillion trust fund No it isn't. You're in la-la land again. There's no trust fund, and there's no $2 trillion dollars in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Are such negotiations a prerequisite for dealing with the problems that face First Nations people today, though ? I hope not. I'm interested in what is being done now, and how to improve things. Waiting on multi-year court challenges seems to perpetuate the main problem we have, which is that improvements happen too slowly. Some things negotiations alone cannot solve. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is one such case. In order to undo 150 years of genocide, oppression and entrench white male control of today's institutions and government we all have to go through a social restructuring of sorts. The first place to start that is through education of younger people. Interestingly enough that is going on as we speak. However, there are insufficient accurate materials to fully explore the native - colonial relationship especially those written from a more aboriginal centric perspective (necessary to provide balance to the discussions). The pre-Family Compact era actually saw settlers and natives living side by side. However once the Victorians wrestled domestic power from Great Britain they set out to destroy that relationship, and to oppress and commit genocide on any natives that stood in their way of taking resources and land that did not belong to them. When people complain they had nothing to do with the condition of First Nations today, one need only point to the Family Compact and the laws and profits they stole to suggest that we are all complicit. Multi-year, multi-court challenges have been the government's preferred method until recently when they have lost all kinds of Charter challenges. The Supreme Court has been short with government insisting there is an obligation to First Nations under the Charter that extends beyond self-serving statues and laws that force FNs to follow the government's procedures and definitions. Yet instead of honouring the Crown and negotiating honestly, the government's position is no less a colonial one set out on keeping natives subservient to departments and regulations. The result as we see in the news is something short of rebellion when government stalls and obfuscates the process. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples warned that the consequences of delay and failure to recognize and accept aboriginal rights would be revolt and economic disruption. And as if taken from a page in a book, First Nations are no longer accepting of development and industrialization of their lands without consultation. Through stand-offs and through confrontation, First Nations have been rapidly changing law and procedure. While it is not a favourable method of progress, it nonetheless works. And until we can come up with something better, stand-offs, occupations and economic disruption will be escalating. Negotiation that begins with recognition of the Royal Proclamation 1763, the autonomy and absolute title over lands it acknowledges and the rights that existed before it, can be a new way. Government doesn't want to give up power but I suggest we have no choice. Aboriginal jurisprudence is evolving and the future will bring more expensive settlements and more risk of uprising if they are ignored. Aboriginal people were here first and they were smart enough to secure their future through treaties and agreements. We just have to get out of the 18th century to see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Complete nonsense. Nobody's stopping them from living like they did 300 years ago. 300 years ago? In 1711? So you are saying that if the Mohawks wanted to plant hundreds of acres of corn, they could simply walk onto any farmland in the area and start planting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Complete nonsense. Nobody's stopping them from living like they did 300 years ago. Nobody is stopping you from living the way they did 300 years ago either. The point is no one has to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 300 years ago? In 1711? So you are saying that if the Mohawks wanted to plant hundreds of acres of corn, they could simply walk onto any farmland in the area and start planting? Yes, there's a ton of land that they could do so with. Some of the same areas that were used hundreds of years ago for the same purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Nobody is stopping you from living the way they did 300 years ago either. The point is no one has to. I agree. Nobody would want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Aboriginal jurisprudence is evolving and the future will bring more expensive settlements and more risk of uprising if they are ignored. Aboriginal people were here first and they were smart enough to secure their future through treaties and agreements. We just have to get out of the 18th century to see that. Right, but for the here and now there are pressing issues in administration - for FNs and other Canadians too. Where is the money going, what is working and what isn't working ? There are opportunities for us to look closely at the issue now, rather than ignore things or wait for the courts to decide on these big questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Yes, there's a ton of land that they could do so with. Some of the same areas that were used hundreds of years ago for the same purposes. Wow, this is so easy! I wonder why the government hasn't thought of this already! I mean, if the Mohawks see arrable land, you know - because it is already being farmed - they can simply go in there, take it over and start to farm it themselves. We'll call this 'Shady's Law.' And, according to Shady's Law, what was all that kerfuffle over the Douglas Estates in Caledonia, ON for? It was merely the Mohawks doing what they did 300 years ago. But someone tried to stop them. Good thing the government stepped in to assert Shady's Law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 No it isn't. You're in la-la land again. There's no trust fund, and there's no $2 trillion dollars in it. Why...'cause Shady says so? One small parcel of land 290 acres, at Six Nations that was flooded for the Welland Canal was valued at between $12,000 and $14,000 in 1829. Today with compounded interest dictated by and Order in Council, at annual interest rates the value of that land in trust is between $500 million and $1 billion. Six Nations alone has transferred over $100 million prior to 1769 to the British (and to Canada) to be held in trust to the benefit of Six Nations. With compound interest based on that same table of interests paid that fund is well over $1 trillion on its own. Six Nations also has a claim for the other 900,000 acres illegally occupied by us, in the Haldimand Tract. This does not include other Mohawk territories whom also have claims for large tracts. That 900,000 acres at 1830 value would have been worth $38 million then, and brought forward with interest would be worth an additional $1.5 trillion today. The accounts are there and the government is legally obligated to First Nations for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Right, but for the here and now there are pressing issues in administration - for FNs and other Canadians too. Where is the money going, what is working and what isn't working ? There are opportunities for us to look closely at the issue now, rather than ignore things or wait for the courts to decide on these big questions. Conservative government policy for one. There is very little problem with First Nation administration of funding. That has been made out to be a red herring. Just read the Auditor General's report for the last 10 years. Protest, occupation and economic disruption is working for them. What would you suggest that works more effectively? So if we want to engage in a dialog with First Nations, we have to do the right thing - acknowledge the Royal Proclamation to its full extent and then take everything form the basis that they have title and rights to all of Canada. Then when government can show that proper surrenders were completed we have room for negotiation, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 Conservative government policy for one. There is very little problem with First Nation administration of funding. That has been made out to be a red herring. Just read the Auditor General's report for the last 10 years. Aha. This is what I'm looking for. Do you have a link for that ? Protest, occupation and economic disruption is working for them. What would you suggest that works more effectively? That's effective for getting visibility and making policy change happen, but I'm talking about helping people who need it. Allocating resources to solve problems, and monitoring to see how the various programs are working. So if we want to engage in a dialog with First Nations, we have to do the right thing - acknowledge the Royal Proclamation to its full extent and then take everything form the basis that they have title and rights to all of Canada. Then when government can show that proper surrenders were completed we have room for negotiation, right? I understand your desire for fairness here, and I wish you luck in getting a just settlement. But, I'm more interested in the mundane details - where are people hurting, what is being done to help them ? This is a particular problem for FN people, but also for Canadians in general. Since all of Canada allocates funds to help the FN people, we are all stakeholders (if only in a financial sense) in the outcomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted June 13, 2011 Report Share Posted June 13, 2011 It's not up to us the taxpayer to fund them. I say give them their land back and then let them fend for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.