Police and Natives protest Fracking, New Brunswick

[GostHacked]

I don't actually believe that's as widespread as you think. There are too many people working just to keep things like that from happening. That's why government is so big.

Oscar Wilde — 'The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.'

[g_bambino]

Oh ... I don't know.

Okay, thanks.

[Smallc]

Oscar Wilde — 'The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.'

Precisely, and I've seen that too much to feel any differently now.

[jacee]

This article makes a good point: Our governments still try to minimize indigenous rights and push resource development ahead. However, that approach ends up in court or protest delays for businesses.

Canada, Aboriginal Tension Erupting Over Resource Development, Study Suggests

Canada has been singled out as the country with the most risk of conflict with aboriginal communities in a new study examining treatment of indigenous rights and resource development around the world.

...

The group said Canadian projects scored so poorly partly because of the governments failure to uphold its obligations to First Nations, which is in turn inflicting financial and reputational damage on companies trying to do business in the country.

The Canadian government may be pro-business but its policies towards First Nations will have very anti-business results, Adamson said.

You can already see this in the fact it has the highest number of risky sites. Eventually the companies pull out.

Edited November 3, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Oscar Wilde 'The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.'

And the legal fees mushroom as the government fails to consult with Aboriginal communities on resource development.

the-high-cost-to-canadians-where-the-crown-resist-consultation-with-aboriginals

In fact, since the release of the Haida decision, there has been a substantial increase in AANDC spending on legal services, from $7.1 million in 2002-2003 (the year prior to the release of Haida), to the recently-reported $106 million in 2012-2013.

...

To put it bluntly, in far too many cases, the Crown is failing to get on with the clearly required legal obligation of Aboriginal consultation, and is playing an expensive game of chicken to see if First Nations will respond by litigating. And that game of chicken comes at a heavy price tag for the federal government and thus for Canadian taxpayers.

[eyeball]

...that game of chicken comes at a heavy price tag for the federal government and thus for Canadian taxpayers.

It's even worse than that, I think Ottawa also counts on the expense fuelling exasperation and a sense of being fed-up with indians amongst non-natives. It's goddamn poisonous.

Edited December 3, 2013 by eyeball

[Accountability Now]

And the legal fees mushroom as the government fails to consult with Aboriginal communities on resource development.

the-high-cost-to-canadians-where-the-crown-resist-consultation-with-aboriginals

In fact, since the release of the Haida decision, there has been a substantial increase in AANDC spending on legal services, from $7.1 million in 2002-2003 (the year prior to the release of Haida), to the recently-reported $106 million in 2012-2013.

...

To put it bluntly, in far too many cases, the Crown is failing to get on with the clearly required legal obligation of Aboriginal consultation, and is playing an expensive game of chicken to see if First Nations will respond by litigating. And that game of chicken comes at a heavy price tag for the federal government and thus for Canadian taxpayers.

Jacee...I'm glad to see that you are at least down to 106 million versus that bogus 10 billion that you used to blast off about. Remember this one? That was a hoot.

And certainly justice has not yet been served on the' land claims' issues, as Van Ryswyk points out. And unless voters left right and centre make it an issue, it won't be resolved any time soon. Governments drag their feet because there's no political payoff.

We've paid out billions and billions of dollars for governments and bureaucrats to drag their feet and NOT resolve claims, much more over the years than settlements would have cost.

eta ...

Maybe someone here can help make sense of this.

Looking at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development 2012 financials:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1343917447368/1343917513262

Settled claims (note 7) $519,626,000

Provision for claims and litigation (note 8) $10,964,626,000

$10b PER YEAR for negotiation and litigation of land claims!!!!

And what do we get for that money every year?

I certainly haven't heard $10b worth of announcements of settled claims every year!!!

That's 20 times the cost of those already settled!

Just taking your info above, there was $519 million in settled claims. Do you think these actually come for free. Apparently you have never been in a car accident and seen what lawyers take. Of course we can't just look at the $519 million as the legal services aren't just for litigation. They are also there to administer the 5.8 billion in transfer payments made to First Nations. I'm quite happy spending $123 million to ensure the 5.8 billion is handled correctly.

[jacee]

Jacee...I'm glad to see that you are at least down to 106 million versus that bogus 10 billion that you used to blast off about. Remember this one? That was a hoot.

You are confused.

Consultation and accommodation on land use

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014686/1100100014687

is a different issue than settlement of land claims.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030285/1100100030289

The problem is the same with both, though: Our governments are spending massive amounts of OUR money in litigation to AVOID both consultation/accommodation and land claims settlement.

I'd rather they spend my money on resolving both types of issues than avoiding them, trying to evade legal responsibility.

However, I do recognize that at times litigation is appropriate to clarify legal responsibilities and set legal precedents that guide future negotiations.

Edited December 4, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

You are confused.

Consultation on land use is an entirely different issue than settlement of land claims.

The issue is the same though: Our governments are spending massive amounts of OUR money in litigation to AVOID both consultation and land claims settlement.

I'd rather they spend my money on resolving both types of issues than avoiding them.

However, I do recognize that at times litigation is appropriate to clarify legal responsibilities and set legal precedents that guide future negotiations.

Nope...not confused. Are you still saying the government spent 10 billion in 2012 for litigation in land claims? We've been through this already.

According to the AANDC audit, the total bill for legal services was 123 million. Total amount which includes consulation on use, settlements and everything else AANDC requires legal services for.

[jacee]

Nope...not confused. Are you still saying the government spent 10 billion in 2012 for litigation in land claims? We've been through this already.

According to the AANDC audit, the total bill for legal services was 123 million. Total amount which includes consulation on use, settlements and everything else AANDC requires legal services for.

Link?

I don't know where you got that info, but here's what's at my previous link:

Provision for claims and litigation (note 8)

10,964,626

[Accountability Now]

Link?

I don't know where you got that info, but here's what's at my previous link:

Provision for claims and litigation (note 8)

10,964,626

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1343917447368/1343917513262

On this link you'll see a PDF for the 2012 audit. On page 30 it shows the breakdown for all expenses including Legal Services.

Your figure of 10 billion is for provision of future claims and the legal fees to process those claims.....SHOULD they arise. The 10 billion is not for legal alone.

[jacee]

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1343917447368/1343917513262

On this link you'll see a PDF for the 2012 audit. On page 30 it shows the breakdown for all expenses including Legal Services.

Your figure of 10 billion is for provision of future claims and the legal fees to process those claims.....SHOULD they arise. The 10 billion is not for legal alone.

I can't find the audit, but you're right about the $10b for future liabilities. My mistake.

However, the current discussion is about the cost of governments failing to consult and accommodate Aboriginal land use rights and settle land claims, instead engaging in expensive litigation:

http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.php/news/2044-the-high-cost-to-canadians-where-the-crown-resist-consultation-with-aboriginals

Edited December 4, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

I can't find the audit, but you're right about the $10b for future liabilities.

However, the current discussion is about the cost of governments failing to consult and accommodate Aboriginal land use rights, instead engaging in expensive litigation:

http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.php/news/2044-the-high-cost-to-canadians-where-the-crown-resist-consultation-with-aboriginals

I know...which is why I said 106 (or 123) million in legal fees is not bad considering it manages 5.8 billion in transfers.

[jacee]

I know...which is why I said 106 (or 123) million in legal fees is not bad considering it manages 5.8 billion in transfers.

It isn't about the normal budget transfers.

This is what the Law Times had to say:

/feds-pouring-big-money-into-aboriginal-litigation

According to McRobert, there have been resolutions to about 24 comprehensive claims so far in Canada.The process is incredibly time consuming, says McRobert. Usually, youre talking about a lot of money.

"Since the early 1980s, there have been more than 175 cases brought before the courts involving corporations that want to pursue development on aboriginal lands, says McRobert. In 90 per cent of cases, the aboriginal people win, he adds.

In a recent landmark ruling, the federal government lost a 13-year legal battle over Métis status. The case was a travesty, says McRobert, adding theres absolutely a better way to resolve these issues.

"The direction from the Supreme Court of Canada has been fairly clear resolve these things, resolve these things with the aboriginal people. . . . You have to work with First Nations.

"The drawn-out process is also a tragedy for [First Nations] communities, says McRobert. Even when the parties reach a deal and the communities have to pay 10 per cent of their settlement to lawyers, thats money not spent on education, he adds.

Instead of lengthy legal battles, the parties should be engaging in serious roundtable talks, according to McRobert.

You know it's frivolous legal costs when even the lawyers are saying the government is paying them too much!

.

Edited December 4, 2013 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

It isn't about the normal budget transfers.

This is what the Law Times had to say:

/feds-pouring-big-money-into-aboriginal-litigation

According to McRobert, there have been resolutions to about 24 comprehensive claims so far in Canada.The process is incredibly time consuming, says McRobert. Usually, youre talking about a lot of money.

"Since the early 1980s, there have been more than 175 cases brought before the courts involving corporations that want to pursue development on aboriginal lands, says McRobert. In 90 per cent of cases, the aboriginal people win, he adds.

In a recent landmark ruling, the federal government lost a 13-year legal battle over Métis status. The case was a travesty, says McRobert, adding theres absolutely a better way to resolve these issues.

"The direction from the Supreme Court of Canada has been fairly clear resolve these things, resolve these things with the aboriginal people. . . . You have to work with First Nations.

"The drawn-out process is also a tragedy for [First Nations] communities, says McRobert. Even when the parties reach a deal and the communities have to pay 10 per cent of their settlement to lawyers, thats money not spent on education, he adds.

Instead of lengthy legal battles, the parties should be engaging in serious roundtable talks, according to McRobert.

You know it's frivolous legal costs when even the lawyers are saying the government is paying them too much!

.

So the lawyer on the aboriginal law section says we should just give them the money. Good to know! I trust there is no bias there! Lol. Of course the people paying the bills (ie the taxpayers) might have a different view.

Your article states that 90% of the cases are won...which means 10% are lost. I don't know all the numbers but lets take the 2012 land claims that cost 519 million. 10% of that is $51m...a good chunk of the legal bills and that's just for land claims.

The government has been screwed over already by these bleeding heart courts so I trust they are going to ensure its papered properly and done right this time so there is no more going back to the well.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Accountability Now

[roy baty]

Pay off Aboriginals? It's not that new really. It's been going on since Cabot and Cartier landed.. It worked well on many occasions and in the colonists' favor back then but it doesn't work now unfortunately. It only seems to be making matters worse and is a clear waste of real taxpayer's money. The courts and politicians need to grow a pair and start treating First Nations as equals under the law and build more prisons with the money saved if that is what it will take. Either way, enough is enough.,

[jacee]

[PIK]

Pay off Aboriginals? It's not that new really. It's been going on since Cabot and Cartier landed.. It worked well on many occasions and in the colonists' favor back then but it doesn't work now unfortunately. It only seems to be making matters worse and is a clear waste of real taxpayer's money. The courts and politicians need to grow a pair and start treating First Nations as equals under the law and build more prisons with the money saved if that is what it will take. Either way, enough is enough.,

Great article in the NP about how much money is given to the natives of canada.

[waldo]

Great article in the NP about how much money is given to the natives of canada.

great teaser!

[Argus]

It's even worse than that, I think Ottawa also counts on the expense fuelling exasperation and a sense of being fed-up with indians amongst non-natives. It's goddamn poisonous.

What I'm fed up with is paying something on the order of $10,000 per native in federal money so they can sit around doing nothing on their living museums and complain about life. I'm also fed up that many of them are doing their best to stop or slow resource extraction which ultimately pays the bucks for their cheques.

Meanwhile, have a look at this on native poverty. The median incomes for natives (including government incomes) are not really all that low. And those who leave the reserves have much higher incomes than those who stay on them doing nothing.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/Aboriginal-people-do-better-off-reserve-186812201.html

[jacee]

What I'm fed up with is paying something on the order of $10,000 per native in federal money ...

That's $10,000 in government services, you do understand?

I'm kind of resenting my contribution to your $10,000+ worth of government services per year too, Argus.

You'll have to give up a road, school, hospital or something!

I'm tired of explaining to the obtuse Fraser Institute that their comparison isn't valid as they haven't included provincial and municipal services.

Edited December 14, 2013 by jacee

[Argus]

That's $10,000 in government services, you do understand?

I'm kind of resenting my contribution to your $10,000+ worth of government services per year too, Argus.

You'll have to give up a road, school, hospital or something!

I'm tired of explaining to the obtuse Fraser Institute that their comparison isn't valid as they haven't included provincial and municipal services.

But those things are for everyone. The $10,000 is simply a direct handout to people who don't do any work, and who insist on remaining in a place where they will never do any work.

As for me, I pay far more in taxes than the govenrment, any governments, supply to me in services.

[eyeball]

But those things are for everyone. The $10,000 is simply a direct handout to people who don't do any work, and who insist on remaining in a place where they will never do any work.

You'd best get used to it because those who won't work will soon be joined by those who can't because there simply won't be anywhere near as much work to do.

As for me, I pay far more in taxes than the govenrment, any governments, supply to me in services.

Your resentment is going to be the biggest challenge our economy faces in the future. If everyone needs to be doing something to justify their existence then we're going to have to reinvent our economy.

You'll need to take more time off for example so your opportunity to work can be shared.

[Bonam]

As for me, I pay far more in taxes than the govenrment, any governments, supply to me in services.

Don't you work for the government?

[jacee]

But those things are for everyone. The $10,000 is simply a direct handout to people who don't do any work, and who insist on remaining in a place where they will never do any work.

No it isn't. Read again.

As for me, I pay far more in taxes than the govenrment, any governments, supply to me in services.

So do lots of people.

Many of them are Aboriginal.