First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[Guest Manny]

I've had your number since you started posting here Bill. Funny that you don't even try to hide it anymore.

Yeah, the latest shtick around here now seems to be, everybody's a racist or bigot in some capacity, so it's ok for me to be one. What a deluded, sad bunch they are.

Hey bigots, guess what. I'm not like you

[prairiechickin]

What is required is that our governments live up to our legal agreements.

Nothing more.

Except perhaps to tell Canadians the truth about what those agreements are.

Living up to the letter of the Treaties is cheap beyond belief. Where I am is Treaty Four country, southern Saskatchewan, and the Cree, Sauteaux and other assorted left-over bands from the late 19th century signed a deal whereby they agreed to cease and desist any hostility toward Canada, in exchange for a piece of land based on roughtly the same conditions available to new settlers, that is, a 160 acres per family of five. They were not forced into any particular location, but they were not allowed reserves within a hundred or so miles from the American border, on account of the Indian wars underway down there. They were ultimately forced onto reserves with the promise of rations. Decimated by disease over the previous decades, and beggered by the end of the buffalo, the Plains Indains were starving and destitute in the 1870s when they signed Treaty Four. Its only two pages long, but its pretty precise in its language. The Indians gave up any claim on the land around them for reserves, some tools to start farming, and cash payouts of $20 for chiefs down to $5 for your average Indian. The other two big ticket items were a school with a teacher, and a 'Medecine Chest', which in 19th C language meant a first aid kit. That's it. It wasn't fair, but it is what it is. If you don't believe me, go read Treaty Four. Its only two pages long.

[charter.rights]

Living up to the letter of the Treaties is cheap beyond belief. Where I am is Treaty Four country, southern Saskatchewan, and the Cree, Sauteaux and other assorted left-over bands from the late 19th century signed a deal whereby they agreed to cease and desist any hostility toward Canada, in exchange for a piece of land based on roughtly the same conditions available to new settlers, that is, a 160 acres per family of five. They were not forced into any particular location, but they were not allowed reserves within a hundred or so miles from the American border, on account of the Indian wars underway down there. They were ultimately forced onto reserves with the promise of rations. Decimated by disease over the previous decades, and beggered by the end of the buffalo, the Plains Indains were starving and destitute in the 1870s when they signed Treaty Four. Its only two pages long, but its pretty precise in its language. The Indians gave up any claim on the land around them for reserves, some tools to start farming, and cash payouts of $20 for chiefs down to $5 for your average Indian. The other two big ticket items were a school with a teacher, and a 'Medecine Chest', which in 19th C language meant a first aid kit. That's it. It wasn't fair, but it is what it is. If you don't believe me, go read Treaty Four. Its only two pages long.

You are out of touch.

The treaties are just not what is written. The Supreme Court has verified that Indian Agents and negotiators often left things out of the treaties that they promised to the Indians. For this reason the Supreme Court has held that oral history where it concerns the agreements made in the treaties is to be given equal of BETTER weight when determining the actual agreements.

Further, for the last 20 or so years the government has been playing with semantics and changing definitions of terms and words contained in the treaties to favour us over our obligations to the Indians. To this end, the Supreme Court has also ruled that when determining the meaning of ambiguous words and phrases "all consideration must be given to interpret the treaties in a manner in which the Indians would have understood them at the time of the signing" and must be interpreted in a way that benefits the Indians. The Honour of the Crown demands that there is a fiduciary and honour-bound duty to protect the Indians from the mis-dealings and underhandedness of those who would want to cause the Indians harm.

And a "medicine chest" under Treaty 4 didn't mean "a first aid kit" in 19th century language. The Supreme Court has already held that the promises made under Treaty 4 were for complete stocks of medicines and access to doctors and practitioners that would have been available to an British subject in the day. In modern terms that means full health care, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Bryan]

The Indians gave up any claim on the land around them for reserves, some tools to start farming, and cash payouts of $20 for chiefs down to $5 for your average Indian. The other two big ticket items were a school with a teacher, and a 'Medecine Chest', which in 19th C language meant a first aid kit. That's it. It wasn't fair, but it is what it is. If you don't believe me, go read Treaty Four. Its only two pages long.

I think this is the thing that people are not taking into account when they make statements like "we aren't living up to our agreements".

The fact is, the bands have been given many times more than was required. Each treaty is different, but the basic requirements were as you said; a few acres of land, a very small sum of money, a few supplies, and a school if they wanted it. Nowhere in those agreements is there any guarantee of anything close to what they are already getting.

[cybercoma]

The fact is, the bands have been given many times more than was required.

Show me.

[Bryan]

Show me.

Read the treaties for yourself.

http://www.canadiana.ca/citm/themes/aboriginals_e.html

You'll see commonalities between them, $20 or so for the chief, $5 for the band members, so many acres per family, a few supplies, a school...

The guarantees are very minimal compared to what they've been getting. We've gone above and beyond.

[cybercoma]

The guarantees are very minimal compared to what they've been getting. We've gone above and beyond.

Yeah. I've read the treaties. Show me that we've given them many times more than we are required to. Bear in mind that the Numbered Treaties are not the only things that establish what the government is required to do.

Edited December 24, 2011 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

Yeah. I've read the treaties. Show me that we've given them many times more than we are required to. Bear in mind that the Numbered Treaties are not the only things that establish what the government is required to do.

$5 per person vs. $11 billion a year.

[cybercoma]

$5 per person vs. $11 billion a year.

Ridiculous. The government has committed itself to providing the First Nations with the same level of service that every other Canadian gets. That means someone in Ottawa gets roughly $14900 from the various levels of government. Meanwhile, the government only spends $7200 per person for Reserves.

[Bryan]

The government has committed itself to providing the First Nations with the same level of service that every other Canadian gets.

Which is significantly more than they were guaranteed in the agreements with the Crown. The Federal Government goes above and beyond what is required, and all they get is idiots on the left LYING and saying that they are UNDER funded.

someone in Ottawa gets roughly $14900 from the various levels of government.

The people in Ottawa don't "get" anything. It's a pool of money that they PAID into.

Meanwhile, the government only spends $7200 per person for Reserves.

Exactly. $7200 is many times more than $5.

[NWRS]

Yeah, the latest shtick around here now seems to be, everybody's a racist or bigot in some capacity, so it's ok for me to be one. What a deluded, sad bunch they are.

Hey bigots, guess what. I'm not like you

Some peoples bigotry is other peoples truth, throwing out those words every time a discussion like this comes up usually isn't warranted and only serves as a way shutting down debate.

[jacee]

My my, it seems there are some ruffled feathers. Oh well, thats the way it goes.

Okay we made treaties, and we exchanged government concessions for the right to occupy their former lands. By the way, what part of political correctness has us begging forgiveness for the sins of our fathers?

Um ... breaking the law.

And not 'back then', but now ... failing to live up to our legal oobligations under the treaties. It's not 'in the past', but now ... ongoing violations, underfunding and failure to distribute treaty monies from their trust funds adequately ... fraud, in other words, on a huge scale

What's this obsession about 'begging' 'forgiveness' and the often cited 'white guilt'?

It has nothing to do with emotions and blaming is a useless game.

It's just about the law ... our law.

Don't care how you 'feel' about it ... just respect it ... and the people who made it possible for us to be here.

Edited December 24, 2011 by jacee

[Wild Bill]

Some peoples bigotry is other peoples truth, throwing out those words every time a discussion like this comes up usually isn't warranted and only serves as a way shutting down debate.

Duh! Why do you think use that trick, anyway? It's like trying to debate with a Jehovah Witness at your door. You just can't get past the "holiness".

As far as the Witness is concerned, you're not supposed to!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Um ... breaking the law.

And not 'back then', but now ... failing to live up to our legal oobligations under the treaties. It's not 'in the past', but now ... ongoing violations, underfunding and failure to distribute treaty monies from their trust funds adequately ... fraud, in other words, on a huge scale

What's this obsession about 'begging' 'forgiveness' and the often cited 'white guilt'?

It has nothing to do with emotions and blaming is a useless game.

It's just about the law ... our law.

Don't care how you 'feel' about it ... just respect it ... and the people who made it possible for us to be here.

I don't actually "feel" anything about it. However I do think there is much to be resolved. Compromise will be required on both sides. Having said that, neither side can be harmed in any way.

In my view, the First Nations folks "NEED" self government. They need to deal with their own issues, in their own way. Only they can solve their problems. What really needs to happen is that all outstanding issues must be resolved. I really don't believe that any money will change hands, its not about the money, because if it is about money you can bet there will be more generations gone by before any resolution will likely be found.

[prairiechickin]

Um ... breaking the law.

And not 'back then', but now ... failing to live up to our legal oobligations under the treaties. It's not 'in the past', but now ... ongoing violations, underfunding and failure to distribute treaty monies from their trust funds adequately ... fraud, in other words, on a huge scale

I hear this refrain constantly from Native people, that is Canada is no fulfilling its treaty obligations. Which treaties exactly? And what is this I keep hearing about enormous trust funds that the government is not giving to Indians. What trust funds? I'm a little tired of these broad accustions with not a shred of evidence to back them. Do you have any specific examples of Canadian treaties being violated, or names and amounts of these trust funds, or are these just Indian Talking Points designed to shame the rest of Canada into sending more money?

[regroup]

Somehow, Natives and Liberals have come to believe that the Government has an obligation to fully support the Natives while they lounge around in an idle lifestyle. They seem to forget that Natives, just like all other Canadians, have a responsibility to care for themselves and their families. That is generally interpreted to mean gainful employment and a responsible lifestyle. The government certainly gives them every assistance in meeting these goals with preferential treatment in employment, particularly near their homes, and almost unlimited assistance in education and training.

[charter.rights]

Somehow, Natives and Liberals have come to believe that the Government has an obligation to fully support the Natives while they lounge around in an idle lifestyle. They seem to forget that Natives, just like all other Canadians, have a responsibility to care for themselves and their families. That is generally interpreted to mean gainful employment and a responsible lifestyle. The government certainly gives them every assistance in meeting these goals with preferential treatment in employment, particularly near their homes, and almost unlimited assistance in education and training.

I see the paid Conservative attack crew has infiltrated this site as well. The PMO has been busy this fall trying to downplay their incompetence.

[cybercoma]

I especially like the "unlimited" education thing, when Attawapiskat's books show quite clearly that there's a limit.

[jacee]

I see the paid Conservative attack crew has infiltrated this site as well. The PMO has been busy this fall trying to downplay their incompetence.

Ya and I sure hope it's paid-by-Con-party crew, not paid by Con government - ie, taxpayer. Edited December 26, 2011 by jacee

[Bryan]

I see the paid Conservative attack crew has infiltrated this site as well. The PMO has been busy this fall trying to downplay their incompetence.

As usual, charter.rights makes insane claims without anything to back it up.

What colour is the sky in your world?

[Guest Manny]

As usual, charter.rights makes insane claims without anything to back it up.

What colour is the sky in your world?

We know this is you, Mulgooney!

[regroup]

It certainly appears that the Left is resorting to attacking the poster rather than what is posted. "paid Conservative attack crew"? Where do they get these bizarre ideas?

[regroup]

I especially like the "unlimited" education thing, when Attawapiskat's books show quite clearly that there's a limit.

Care to offer ANY specifics from "Attawapiskat's books" which indicates ANY of the qualified band members were refused or limited in their educational aspirations due to financial constraints? I seriously doubt there are any Natives anywhere in Canada who are qualified to pursue higher education who have had to limit their educational pursuits due to lack of financial support.

[jacee]

Living up to the letter of the Treaties is cheap beyond belief. Where I am is Treaty Four country, southern Saskatchewan, and the Cree, Sauteaux and other assorted left-over bands from the late 19th century signed a deal whereby they agreed to cease and desist any hostility toward Canada, in exchange for a piece of land based on roughtly the same conditions available to new settlers, that is, a 160 acres per family of five. They were not forced into any particular location, but they were not allowed reserves within a hundred or so miles from the American border, on account of the Indian wars underway down there. They were ultimately forced onto reserves with the promise of rations. Decimated by disease over the previous decades, and beggered by the end of the buffalo, the Plains Indains were starving and destitute in the 1870s when they signed Treaty Four. Its only two pages long, but its pretty precise in its language. The Indians gave up any claim on the land around them for reserves, some tools to start farming, and cash payouts of $20 for chiefs down to $5 for your average Indian. The other two big ticket items were a school with a teacher, and a 'Medecine Chest', which in 19th C language meant a first aid kit. That's it. It wasn't fair, but it is what it is. If you don't believe me, go read Treaty Four. Its only two pages long.

Perhaps you interpret the treaty too literally.

The principles of treaty interpretation have developed over decades of Supreme Court rulings (case law). For example, treaty rights are not 'frozen in time', but must be relevant in the modern context. Thus, as CR pointed out, Canada's treaty obligation to pay health care costs for Aboriginal people arises from the provision of a "medicine chest", the same health care provided for settler communities at the time the treaties were signed. Likewise, today's obligation to fund reserve education arises from the treaty provision of 'a school and a teacher'.

Canada chose to break up the traditional governance structures of Indigenous communities and replace it with the 'elected' system, thus assuming the responsibility for funding the current 'Band Council' system.

I would assume that the treaty obligations of annual payments to each Band member would also be updated to retain purchasing power as it existed at that time.

The same 'modern' interpretation would apply to the other items in the treaty - clothing, farm tools, etc (ie, means of sustenance) that replaced traditional Indigenous ways of life.

Thus, the treaties cover more present day obligations than it may initially appear.

Access to 'means of sustenance' also underlies Indigenous retention of hunting/fishing rights on land otherwise 'surrendered' to the Crown. The modern interpretation of that is the Supreme Court's clarification of the "crown's duty to consult with Aboriginal communities and to accommodate their rights, where development of any kind is being considered anywhere on their traditional lands.

Health, education and local governance funding comprises the vast majority of funding provided to reserves, all of it treaty obligations in return for our settlement and use of their traditional land.

And those services are generally not being funded at the same level as our communities. That is the oft-cited "underfunding" or 'funding gap' between the treaty rights and the reality of what the federal government has provided to date.

Tax free status is also a treaty right, since Indigenous Peoples were never "subjects" of the Queen, and thus not subject to the 'Crown's' taxes.

That's a beginning, and I hope it clarifies the fact that the treaties contain more funding obligations than may be immediately apparent in reading the text.

[prairiechickin]

Perhaps you interpret the treaty too literally.

The principles of treaty interpretation have developed over decades of Supreme Court rulings (case law). For example, treaty rights are not 'frozen in time', but must be relevant in the modern context.

See, here's where things go off the rails when Native peoples talk to the rest of Canada, and why we can't agree. Natives do believe what you are saying here, and you've done a good job summarizing what some of my friends in Treaty Four keep telling me. Problem is, its simply not true. Go read Treaty Four -- its pretty specific in its language that this was a one-time deal and the government had no intention of renegotiating or upgrading, or modernizing any of its terms. Which doesn't mean the feds haven't put a lot more money into health and education, but that's only because it had to be done. But its not a treaty right.

Here in Regina we proudly boast the only Native built university in North America -- First Nations University -- and it was built with a lot of extra money and effort from Treaty Four bands and all three levels of government. But when the feds and the province threatened to curtail funding because the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians were using it like a casino to provide jobs and expense accounts for families and friends, a great cry went up from Natives across the land that the government had no business sticking its nose into Indian affairs since the university was a treaty right. Now, can you see why this sticks in whitey's craw? What was a generous commitment far and above treaty obligations quickly became a 'right'. Somehow a single line in Treaty Four promising a school and a teacher on each reserve now had been redefined (in the Native mind) as whitey owes Natives a university, and all Natives a university education even when the Natives themselves ran the place into a sea of red ink, and chased away many of the real Native scholars (recruited from bands all over North America) in favor of their in-laws and cousins who may or may not have ever been to university.

Getting back to my original request. Can you supply any cases where Canada is not fulfilling its treaty obligations? And by that I mean the real literal treaty, not the imaginary ones Natives are so fond of dreaming about. And can you supply a link to where the Supreme Court has over-ridden a single clause in Treaty Four? Don't just tell me these things have happened, I've heard this a hundred times from my Native friends. Prove it, and prove to yourself that this has indeed really happened. As long as Indians keep spinning these fantasies about trust funds and broken treaties they are setting themselves up for a world of desappointment.