Bryan Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 With eachother you would think. That would be a nice place to start, wouldn't it? Quote
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Who do the Chiefs collaborate with when the government is only interested in getting its way? But as we've already seen, the government has been willing to compromise. It's the chiefs who can't agree on anything except they want more money and power. And who does that help? Just them. For many, living on the streets of Vancouver’s notorious Downtown Eastside was the better option. What Ms. Turpel-Lafond discovered was staggering: Nearly $66-million of federal and provincial funding had gone to aboriginal child-welfare authorities without a single penny of it going to help children http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-native-leaders-ready-to-be-part-of-the-solution/article20259741/#dashboard/follows/ Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
scribblet Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Who do the Chiefs collaborate with when the government is only interested in getting its way? Other aboriginals who only want to get their way. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 But as we've already seen, the government has been willing to compromise. It's the chiefs who can't agree on anything except they want more money and power. And who does that help? Just them. For many, living on the streets of Vancouver’s notorious Downtown Eastside was the better option. What Ms. Turpel-Lafond discovered was staggering: Nearly $66-million of federal and provincial funding had gone to aboriginal child-welfare authorities without a single penny of it going to help children http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-native-leaders-ready-to-be-part-of-the-solution/article20259741/#dashboard/follows/ another half-assed article from a "journalist" who, apparently, can't even bother to flush out the actual position from the principal reference/source he presumes to leverage within his article - go figure! The B.C. Child Advocate is calling for a national inquiry... a focused & targeted national inquiry (one that won't get bogged down and turn into a long protracted multi-year study)... she is encouraged by the Premier's actions towards an inquiry while expressing that Stephen Harper needs to show more leadership in this regard. She also states the need to act now on certain matters... if I might suggest, IMHO, the "HOW" of that action, the 2-WAY-COOPERATIVE PLANNING required for that action toward "immediate changes" is easier said than done. To me, that planning is a natural extension of a focused & targeted national inquiry. recent days CBC interview with B.C.'s Child Advocate, Ms. Mary Ellen Turpel Lafond: http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/Daybreak%2BKamloops/ID/2498309016/ Quote
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 But as we've already seen, the government has been willing to compromise. in what regard? If it's your education angle I challenge you to provide the rationale as to why Harper Conservatives brought a draft act to the table... one that became the framework... without bothering to engage First Nations in the creation of that draft. And you wonder why some of the chiefs/bands were suspect of the initiative from the onset. You don't engage your main stakeholders by alienating (some of them) from the process to begin with. The creation of that draft should have involved FNs..... if that had been done, it either would have failed from the onset or been the true reference point for negotiation. Quote
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 in what regard? If it's your education angle I challenge you to provide the rationale as to why Harper Conservatives brought a draft act to the table... one that became the framework... without bothering to engage First Nations in the creation of that draft. Uhm, because it was a draft. And the basis of negotiations with the Assembly of First Nations, which obviously involved considerable give and take (that's that engagement you're speaking of) before it was agreed to by the head of that organizations and many of its Chiefs. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Uhm, because it was a draft. And the basis of negotiations with the Assembly of First Nations, which obviously involved considerable give and take (that's that engagement you're speaking of) before it was agreed to by the head of that organizations and many of its Chiefs. nonsense! You engage stakeholders, you don't alienate them from the onset. The very fact that Harper Conservatives apparently didn't know that the Assembly of First Nations doesn't have complete authority to speak for all chiefs/bands, on all matters, speaks volumes. Well... let's give Harper Conservatives the benefit of the doubt that they didn't know! As I said, the creation of a draft starting point for negotiations should have involved FNs... if so, again, creating that draft would have either presented the failure at the beginning... or a real legitimate starting point for negotiation would have been realized. Instead... what did the failed undertaking cost? On the other hand, it sure gives Harper Conservatives and their supporters a most convenient (and false) talking point that Harper Conservatives "bent over backwards... were so, so, so, accommodating... " Quote
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 nonsense! You engage stakeholders, you don't alienate them from the onset. The very fact that Harper Conservatives apparently didn't know that the Assembly of First Nations doesn't have complete authority to speak for all chiefs/bands, on all matters, speaks volumes. You act like Harper himself simply came up with this draft in a vacuum and threw it down on a table in front of the Chiefs. You think the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has no clue what chiefs are asking about? It is in contact with them on a daily basis, after all, and they have a lot of aboriginals working there. You think nobody consulted anybody over there before pushing their recommendations up the ladder to the point where the government turned it into a draft proposal? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) You act like Harper himself simply came up with this draft in a vacuum and threw it down on a table in front of the Chiefs. You think the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has no clue what chiefs are asking about? It is in contact with them on a daily basis, after all, and they have a lot of aboriginals working there. You think nobody consulted anybody over there before pushing their recommendations up the ladder to the point where the government turned it into a draft proposal? you don't know anything of the like happened! Step up and support your fantasising. If, as you attest, the draft was an embodiment of pre-consultation, why wasn't it accepted by all the chiefs/bands? Edited August 31, 2014 by waldo Quote
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 you don't know anything of the like happened! Step up and support your fantasising. If, as you attest, the draft was an embodiment of pre-consultation, why wasn't it accepted by all the chiefs/bands? Well, let's put it this way. We know it originated with Aboriginal Affairs, a department which, unsurprisingly, is full of Aboriginals. So your belief that the proposals were developed in a hidden room by a bunch of nordic blondes and kept secret from anyone with darker skin just doesn't wash. AS for why it wasn't accepted by ALL of the chiefs, you can probably lay most of that down to ambition and politicking among the membership. A number of Chiefs wanted to unseat the current leadership, and I believe the position of their principal leaders of this group is that every single one of them is a 'nation', even if a nation of a few hundred souls, and the federal government must sit down across the table with each of them separately, 'nation to nation'. Then, too, I wouldn't doubt that a number of the chiefs didn't feel the proposals as signed off on by their leadership provided sufficient opportunity for personal economic growth on their part. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 keep your fantasy alive Argus... anything to perpetuate your unwillingness to accept any fault/failure by your party... by your boy! but hey now! You've quite nicely fixated on this "bending over backwards, so accommodating" talking point of yours, you somehow managed to miss my reply to your other post - here: you know, your reference extension that actually speaks to the want/need for a national inquiry... don't tell me you're trying to bury that post now, hey? Quote
Smallc Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 The draft did include cobsultatitive talks. I read the draft and the explanation of how they got to that point was in the preamble. Quote
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 The draft did include cobsultatitive talks. I read the draft and the explanation of how they got to that point was in the preamble. nuff said... lil'c has spoken! Oh wait, hey now... back it up just a bit. Somehow, for example, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations said that it was not consulted. Wait, what's this? What's this about the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador taking the Harper Conservative government to court because it was not consulted? Why... I guess there's "Harper Conservative consultation"... and then, there's consultation! Quote
Smallc Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 Obviously not everyone can be consulted. Most of the consultation was done among reserves with education success, many of which are in bc. Quote
eyeball Posted August 31, 2014 Report Posted August 31, 2014 But as we've already seen, the government has been willing to compromise. It's the chiefs who can't agree on anything except they want more money and power. And who does that help? Just them.Leaders who want more power and money?Go figure. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2014 Report Posted September 1, 2014 But as we've already seen, the government has been willing to compromise. That's your opinion. Quote
Smallc Posted September 1, 2014 Report Posted September 1, 2014 It's not an opinion. The AFN got many changes to the education bill for example. All of that work - compromise - was killed by the most radical of chiefs. Quote
overthere Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 Here is a fact, something pretty much absent here: there are about 650 First Nations in Canada. Another one: it is absolutely fucking impossible for anybody to negotiate with 650 parties on the other side. Once Atleo quit when he recognized his organization was no longer united behind this deal, or behind him, the government had no choice but to withdraw and wait for the other side to decide what they want to do. If the govt tried to form a consensus without the involvement of the AFN it would get truly ridiculous. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 It's not an opinion. The AFN got many changes to the education bill for example. All of that work - compromise - was killed by the most radical of chiefs. Saying that the government is very willing to compromise is an opinion. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you the difference between facts and opinions. You see, your description of certain AFN chiefs as "radical" is an opinion. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 Here is a fact, something pretty much absent here: there are about 650 First Nations in Canada. Another one: it is absolutely fucking impossible for anybody to negotiate with 650 parties on the other side. Once Atleo quit when he recognized his organization was no longer united behind this deal, or behind him, the government had no choice but to withdraw and wait for the other side to decide what they want to do. If the govt tried to form a consensus without the involvement of the AFN it would get truly ridiculous. The federal government negotiates with 308 constituencies every single day. Quote
overthere Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 The federal government negotiates with 308 constituencies every single day. Nonsense, and not even a good try. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 I agree, it isn't even close to the same thing. The AFN...or what's left of it, has pledged they will never compromise. Good luck negotiating. Quote
PIK Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 I agree, it isn't even close to the same thing. The AFN...or what's left of it, has pledged they will never compromise. Good luck negotiating. Must be using the hamas playbook. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
overthere Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 I have thought for many years that the turning point in the situation with First Nations would come when a charismatic leader emerged and united enough Nations to form a critical mass that could effect change. It has not happened yet. . I still hope to see that person emerge soon. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted September 2, 2014 Report Posted September 2, 2014 The federal government negotiates with 308 constituencies every single day. Now you're simply being silly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.