$127 Million cut from reservation housing

[Shady]

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!

Or how about the land they already own? Gee, what a concept.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Shady

[Shady]

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.

Good point. But for some reason, accountability and efficiency regarding government spending stops at monies allocated to natives. One has to wonder why. Probably has to do with all those 6 figure salaries cheifs.

[charter.rights]

Or how about the land they already own? Gee, what a concept.

That would be all of southern Ontario for Six Nations to start and most of BC, Quebec and the prairies. So is that what you want. First Nations kicking farmers off the land so they can grow, hunt, fish and otherwise sustain themselves? It worked for Zimbabwe didn't it?

[Michael Hardner]

Good point. But for some reason, accountability and efficiency regarding government spending stops at monies allocated to natives. One has to wonder why. Probably has to do with all those 6 figure salaries cheifs.

I see what you're saying, but I also agree with CR that we haven't done a great job of bringing accountability to the Canadian government. ( Understatement intentional. )

[charter.rights]

Aha. This is what I'm looking for. Do you have a link for that ?

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.

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.

What do you want a link for the AG's report? Or Conservative policy in not returning land in lands claims?

INAC and the Auditor General are doing everything you asked for. They are looking after people, providing for education, health, housing etc. BUT they are funding it at less than half of the mainstream funding and way less than what is needed in some cases to compensate for decades of underfunding. People complain about INAC spending nearly $14 billion every year, yet double will still not be enough to remove the years of the effect that genocidal policies have created. Most Canadians - and that includes Shady - haven't a clue of the actual costs.

Regardless the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook since we have received the benefit from stolen lands and resources. Industry, mining and resource harvests have taken place on unceded lands, and any profits and royalties received by the government directly funds our government costs.

[Michael Hardner]

What do you want a link for the AG's report? Or Conservative policy in not returning land in lands claims?

AG report claims on FN government effectiveness.

INAC and the Auditor General are doing everything you asked for. They are looking after people, providing for education, health, housing etc. BUT they are funding it at less than half of the mainstream funding and way less than what is needed in some cases to compensate for decades of underfunding.

Is it that the funding is too low, or that the funds that are there aren't being used effectively ?

People complain about INAC spending nearly $14 billion every year, yet double will still not be enough to remove the years of the effect that genocidal policies have created. Most Canadians - and that includes Shady - haven't a clue of the actual costs.

Regardless the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook since we have received the benefit from stolen lands and resources. Industry, mining and resource harvests have taken place on unceded lands, and any profits and royalties received by the government directly funds our government costs.

As I said, good luck with your negotiations. You have already said what will happen if you lose, which sounds like bargaining in bad faith to me but it's not like the Canadian government hasn't done that either. This is what makes me think that the problems need to be addressed apart from these big court cases.

[WIP]

I haven't really been following this issue, but off the top, I'm not surprised that Harper is going to take the ax to First Nation budgets now that he has a majority government. They don't vote Conservative and never will for the most part, so money will be diverted to where it's needed most: buying more fighter jets and guided missiles to support the U.S. war efforts.

[Shwa]

I haven't really been following this issue, but off the top, I'm not surprised that Harper is going to take the ax to First Nation budgets now that he has a majority government. They don't vote Conservative and never will for the most part, so money will be diverted to where it's needed most: buying more fighter jets and guided missiles to support the U.S. war efforts.

And prisons! Don't forget more prisons!

[WIP]

And prisons! Don't forget more prisons!

Oh, there are no failed Republican ideas that the Harper Conservatives aren't going to try out on us.

[Shady]

That would be all of southern Ontario for Six Nations to start and most of BC, Quebec and the prairies. So is that what you want. First Nations kicking farmers off the land so they can grow, hunt, fish and otherwise sustain themselves? It worked for Zimbabwe didn't it?

Really, all of southern Ontario would be needed to support them? Do they all need 10,000 acres per person to live?

[Shwa]

Really, all of southern Ontario would be needed to support them? Do they all need 10,000 acres per person to live?

Well hell yes since, according to Shady's Law, no one is stopping them from doing what they were doing 300 years ago and that means trading their surplus goods with other people. So 10000 acres per person -naturally some would be left fallow for a few years, the rest could fetch a tidy sum in trading with the Americans.

[charter.rights]

Really, all of southern Ontario would be needed to support them? Do they all need 10,000 acres per person to live?

Ask an Albertan.

[charter.rights]

AG report claims on FN government effectiveness.

The AG Report has stated that First Nations are more accountable than any other organization receiving government funding and that their audits often end up on bureaucrats' desks for such a long time and never get read. Because they are there so long, INAC usually asks for them over and over again.

Is it that the funding is too low, or that the funds that are there aren't being used effectively ?

Funding is too low. It is generally less than 50% of the mainstream funding per capita. And the fact is that First Nations generally have greater issues and would need more than that per capita funding we allot ourselves for the same services ad institutional funding.

As I said, good luck with your negotiations. You have already said what will happen if you lose, which sounds like bargaining in bad faith to me but it's not like the Canadian government hasn't done that either. This is what makes me think that the problems need to be addressed apart from these big court cases.

I am not directly involved in negotiations but I do advise my First Nation clients on occasion. What I said isn't a consequence or bad faith. It is in response to the government bad faith that is currently going on. Is was predicted in RCAP. However, in many cases those stand-offs occupations and economic disruptions are the impetus for negotiations. While you think it gets media attention, it also gets the attention from the politicians because their lack is to blame and they are legally exposed.

[Michael Hardner]

CR, you're really giving me some surprising facts here.

The AG Report has stated that First Nations are more accountable than any other organization receiving government funding and that their audits often end up on bureaucrats' desks for such a long time and never get read. Because they are there so long, INAC usually asks for them over and over again.

This makes sense, but again I'd appreciate a link.

Funding is too low. It is generally less than 50% of the mainstream funding per capita. And the fact is that First Nations generally have greater issues and would need more than that per capita funding we allot ourselves for the same services ad institutional funding.

Another interesting fact that I'll bet people aren't aware of. Again, I'd appreciate a link.

While you think it gets media attention, it also gets the attention from the politicians because their lack is to blame and they are legally exposed.

One leads to the other. If we depend on network TV to highlight what is going on, then only television-ready events will get quick action, I don't doubt.

[charter.rights]

CR, you're really giving me some surprising facts here.

This makes sense, but again I'd appreciate a link.

Another interesting fact that I'll bet people aren't aware of. Again, I'd appreciate a link.

One leads to the other. If we depend on network TV to highlight what is going on, then only television-ready events will get quick action, I don't doubt.

All the AG Reports

2008 May AG Report

"The funding INAC provides to First Nations child welfare agencies for operating child welfare services is not based on the actual cost of delivering those services. It is based on a funding formula that the Department applies nationwide. The formula dates from 1988. It has not been changed to reflect variations in legislation and in child welfare services from province to province, or the actual number of children in care. The use of the formula has led to inequities. Under a new formula the Department has developed to take into account current legislation in Alberta, funding to First Nations agencies in that province for the operations and prevention components of child welfare services will have increased by 74 percent when the formula is fully implemented in 2010. "

2006 May AG Report

"Overall, the federal government's progress in addressing our 37 recommendations on First Nations issues has been unsatisfactory. While the issues are extremely complex, federal organizations had agreed with most of our recommendations and had committed to taking action. We found their progress on 15 of our recommendations to have been unsatisfactory. These are generally the recommendations that are most important to the lives and well-being of First Nations people. We found that little had been done to deal with the serious problem of mould in houses on reserves. We also found that progress has been unsatisfactory in analyzing patterns of prescription drug use and drug-related deaths among First Nations people, implementing comprehensive land claim agreements, eliminating unnecessary reporting required of First Nations communities, and addressing gaps in the Third Party Manager Policy. "

There are lots more in the AG Reports that would take way too much time to eke out. These problems are not new and are on-going concerns of the AG.

[Michael Hardner]

There are lots more in the AG Reports that would take way too much time to eke out. These problems are not new and are on-going concerns of the AG.

These are good, but doesn't support your assertions: that FN administrations are more accountable (or better at administering perhaps?) and that funding is too low.

I still suspect that administration is poor (both by the Feds and the local government).

[charter.rights]

These are good, but doesn't support your assertions: that FN administrations are more accountable (or better at administering perhaps?) and that funding is too low.

I still suspect that administration is poor (both by the Feds and the local government).

You'll have to read the reports. the AG has been complaining about First Nations funding and poor services for over 10 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/canada/north/story/2011/06/09/pol-ag-first-nations.html

What most people don't know is that funding to most programs is tightly controlled by INAC. Money is allotted to certain programs and before they get a cheque the First Nation must submit audits on how the money was spent....They have to borrow money on a Ministerial guarantee for things like housing, and other infrastructure projects before they get the money. While social services like childrens programs and schools they are funded on 1988 formula that has not kept pace (see the citation above).

There is no question that some First Nations get into trouble. However, when INAC has installed third party management the net result is that it cost about 3 times as much as the Band receives for a third party manager to come in. If they had funded the FN properly in the first place it is unlikely they would have ended up in trouble.

[Michael Hardner]

There is no question that some First Nations get into trouble. However, when INAC has installed third party management the net result is that it cost about 3 times as much as the Band receives for a third party manager to come in. If they had funded the FN properly in the first place it is unlikely they would have ended up in trouble.

Here's another report from 2003

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200311_09_e_12932.html

[Shady]

Well hell yes since, according to Shady's Law, no one is stopping them from doing what they were doing 300 years ago and that means trading their surplus goods with other people.

Surplus goods do they have now? Cigarettes?

Fact is, they have plenty of land to grow crops, etc. Shit, look at the size of tiny Israel. They seem to do ok. The abundance of land or lack there of isn't the issue. It's what they're doing with it. Which is pretty much dick all. That shouldn't be taxpayer's problem.

It's time natives stopped sucking on the government tit.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Shady

[charter.rights]

Surplus goods do they have now? Cigarettes?

Fact is, they have plenty of land to grow crops, etc. Shit, look at the size of tiny Israel. They seem to do ok. The abundance of land or lack there of isn't the issue. It's what they're doing with it. Which is pretty much dick all. That shouldn't be taxpayer's problem.

It's time natives stopped sucking on the government tit.

You might want to visit a reserve or two before you put your other foot in your mouth. Most reserves are on barren grounds.

And the fact is we owe them much more than they have ever received form us. We are dependent on First Nations land and resources, and have used their trust funds to build our infrastructure without (so far) paying back to the trust. Fact.

Edited June 13, 2011 by charter.rights

[cybercoma]

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.

You willing to move?

[cybercoma]

You might want to visit a reserve or two before you put your other foot in your mouth. Most reserves are on barren grounds.

And the fact is we owe them much more than they have ever received form us. We are dependent on First Nations land and resources, and have used their trust funds to build our infrastructure without (so far) paying back to the trust. Fact.

I know more than the average Joe about these issues, but I'm not nearly as well versed as you are. I had no idea about these things. I'm pretty sure not many others in Canada are aware of it. This is pretty devastating if there's written documentation and evidence to support these claims.

[Shady]

You might want to visit a reserve or two before you put your other foot in your mouth. Most reserves are on barren grounds.

That's not true at all. Pretty much all of the reserves in southern Ontario are on excellent arable farm land. So you're premise is false.

But yes, if one tries to grow something ABOVE THE TREE LINE, then yes, it can be difficult. That's why normal people with brains don't try and grow stuff there. It's not naturally good for farming and food production.

[charter.rights]

That's not true at all. Pretty much all of the reserves in southern Ontario are on excellent arable farm land. So you're premise is false.

But yes, if one tries to grow something ABOVE THE TREE LINE, then yes, it can be difficult. That's why normal people with brains don't try and grow stuff there. It's not naturally good for farming and food production.

Try one, just one.

I visit many of the reserves in southern Ontario and have frequented quite a few in northern Ontario. Most of them are on rock or marsh, neither one suitable for sustainable agriculture.

Do YOU know ANYTHING about farming?

Edited June 13, 2011 by charter.rights

[Shady]

I visit many of the reserves in southern Ontario and have frequented quite a few in northern Ontario. Most of them are on rock or marsh, neither one suitable for sustainable agriculture.

That's just plain bull plop. I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue to lie and lie. The reserves around London are on excellent farming land.