Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

Bryan · February 13, 2015

The natives are going to wake up a sleeping bear eventually and then......

I wonder sometimes if that's the actual endgame. Do they actually want people to decide that they have had enough so that we can have physical confrontations? It shocks me to see just how peacefulyl some of the blockade situations go over.

eyeball · February 14, 2015

Which is exactly what I'm saying here.

Yes but the symbolism of the church acknowledging it's error in judgment of one individual is almost infinitesimal in comparison to the symbolism of acknowledging it's judgement of hundreds of millions if not billions of individuals. A judgement that is embodied in a wrongheaded perception of reality and that is still largely extant in the world as reflected in the manner by which many players still operate.

Again...they are focused on the bulls from the 15th century. What about the bull from the 16th century which already addressed this? Now we are in the 21st century and still worried about something they corrected almost 500 years ago.

Whatever the intent of the corrective Bulls back at head office it was pretty much ignored along with everything that had already transpired judging by the lack of impact it had on slowing the conquest of the indigenous world. Now we are in the 21st century and concerned about moving forward based on a more precise understanding of our starting point.

Canada has already apologized. Not sure if the Queen of England even matters anymore but maybe she could too. Having said that, what about the other First Nations tribes that warred amonst themselves. Are we going to see apologies for the brutal savagry they commitment upon other tribes causing near extinction?

Apologizing is not repudiating they're different things. Like I said I think our entire species could benefit from a good tidal wave of reconciliatory sentiment. Will it wash away all the grime and crap that every nation is stained or stained the world with, I doubt it but that's no excuse for not giving it a good rinse.

The point is that these events happened in a past where all was fair in love and war. We didn't have a Geneva convention to guide us so the thought that there may be consequences or implications of something that happened hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

Again the point is that we're moving forward and we can clearly see the consequences are still present and still moving with us into the future to no good purpose and often worse.

I don't agree with you on this. I know that you are a proponent of your Earthling thing but I wouldn't go that far. I am however a proponent of a unified Canada and I think that most would agree with that and as such they do beleive in the sovereignty of our land and do so by respecting the laws that we have in place which were created by our history. We live in one of the best countries in the world because of the laws we have governing us make it that way.

I don't subscribe to the view that we bask in the magnificence of the government, I say it''s more or less the other way around. That's said, exceptionalism and getting all full of ourselves don't come naturally to us and as such I think our laws put us in a great position to move on our better nature. National and ideological and religious revolutions have often coalesced around indigenous aspirations and this is really no different except its more a revolution of outlook and perception.

Despite our recent excursions as an aggressive participant in the big geo-political games I don't think we've entirely exhausted our supply of goodwill and political capital. I think we should be offering the basic model of our truth and reconciliation process and expertise, especially indigenous, as a possible template for the global process that must inevitably it would seem be a necessary step towards broader peace in the world. I also think that repudiation should be part of that process especially as it relates to exceptionalism be it, religious, imperialist, ideological, nationalist, economic or any combination thereof. It's only out of the ashes of exceptionalism that a more principled realistic common global vision will ever arise.

Edited February 14, 2015 by eyeball

jacee · February 14, 2015

(Mr Capt Canada, your cave misses you.)

-------

Interesting comment here:

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674my_little_corner_of_canada_feb._13/

Since 2005 the Government of Canada has spent in the excess of $200 BILLION to fight Aboriginal people in court. In the Supreme court the Govt. has lost 170 times since that time. But they ignore the ruling or continue to appeal it.

I can't verify the figures but don't doubt them.

Then there are more billions spent in phony 'negotiations', the purpose of which is to stall evade and avoid settling, and to keep Indigenous groups from going to court.

Whatever your position or politics, I think Canadians likely all agree that there's likely a CHEAPER way to resolve and reconcile differences than spending billion$ in adversarial processes.

.

Accountability Now · February 14, 2015

Whatever the intent of the corrective Bulls back at head office it was pretty much ignored along with everything that had already transpired judging by the lack of impact it had on slowing the conquest of the indigenous world. Now we are in the 21st century and concerned about moving forward based on a more precise understanding of our starting point.

.

The church is being lambasted because their initial mandate was to kill the indigenous. They relatively rescinded that notion and have held that ever since. You can't hold the church responsible for people who act in its name under false pretenses. Again...the official mandate was to not harm the indigenous.

Accountability Now · February 14, 2015

(Mr Capt Canada, your cave misses you.)

-------

Interesting comment here:

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674my_little_corner_of_canada_feb._13/

Since 2005 the Government of Canada has spent in the excess of $200 BILLION to fight Aboriginal people in court. In the Supreme court the Govt. has lost 170 times since that time. But they ignore the ruling or continue to appeal it.

I can't verify the figures but don't doubt them.

Then there are more billions spent in phony 'negotiations', the purpose of which is to stall evade and avoid settling, and to keep Indigenous groups from going to court.

Whatever your position or politics, I think Canadians likely all agree that there's likely a CHEAPER way to resolve and reconcile differences than spending billion$ in adversarial processes.

.

Jacee....your quite comes from the comments section of a relatively obscure newsprint which appears to have a bias from the start.

You and I have been through this one already when we saw the official government audit where you were confused by the $11 billion legal portion where most of that included the costs of the actual settlement. Remember???

jacee · February 14, 2015

Jacee....your quite comes from the comments section of a relatively obscure newsprint which appears to have a bias from the start.

You and I have been through this one already when we saw the official government audit where you were confused by the $11 billion legal portion where most of that included the costs of the actual settlement. Remember???

No.

eyeball · February 14, 2015

You can't hold the church responsible for people who act in its name under false pretenses. Again...the official mandate was to not harm the indigenous.

That's why I mentioned the Queens, Kings, and other Heads of States and Governments earlier. Edited February 14, 2015 by eyeball

Smallc · February 14, 2015

No.

Nice rebuttal.

jacee · February 14, 2015

Nice rebuttal.

Thx

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

No.

Here's a reminder:

It's only in the best interest of politicians to drag their feet - no political payoff, no votes in it for them.

It's certainly not in our best interest to pay $10b a year on stalling and evading settling anything.

And my reply at the time:

It is very apparent that you don't understand the crap that you are spewing. If you would have actually read the line it says PROVISION FOR CLAIMS and litigation (i specifically highlighted the parts that you need to understand). First off, the money has not been spent rather budgeted for as a provision for future claims they believe they will have to pay in the future. In that, yes...there is litigation fees but the major portion is the claim itself.

If you would have actually read note 8 you would see two key points:

1. Claims and pending and threatened litigation cases outstanding against AANDC are potential liabilities that may become actual liabilities when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. To the extent that the future event is likely to occur, and a reasonable estimate of the loss can be made, an estimated liability is accrued and an expense recorded in the financial statements.

2. AANDC has recorded a provision of $10,964,626,000 ($11,988,760,000 in 2011) as an estimate of the likely liability that will result from the above claims. This estimate includes projections based on historical rates and costs of settlement for similar claims. Exposure to liability in excess of the amount accrued is $151,460,000 ($157,505,000 in 2011) and an additional amount of $4,068,722,000 ($3,836,000,000 in 2011) is considered uncertain as the probability of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the future event confirming that a liability existed at the financial statements date cannot be determined.

Jacee...you have proven my point once again. We have people like yourself that see these numbers and start spewing this stuff to anyone who will listen. These people then go on and turn it into an urban legend which then gets the natives resteless once again. This reminds me of the other urbran legend out there that says there is 2 Trilion dollars in the trust when in fact it is currently at 1.15 billion as per this same site. Please stop trying to help your cause and let the coherent professionals do their jobs.

Its no wonder that the government drags its feet....

Ah yes, you are right.

Now why, after all this time, do we have 20 times the outstanding liabilities as we have settled claims?

And, if they can estimate how much they're going to have to pay, why don't they just settle and pay it?

How do you know that?

So...do you have a citation for your $200 billion on legal fees or would prefer to stop here?

Edited February 15, 2015 by Accountability Now

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

That's why I mentioned the Queens, Kings, and other Heads of States and Governments earlier.

Our Head of State has already apologized. We don't have a King or Queen that really matter. Would you want the US President and German Chancellor to apologize to the Canadian Indigenous as well?

jacee · February 15, 2015

Here's a reminder:

And my reply at the time:

So...do you have a citation for your $200 billion on legal fees or would prefer to stop here?

As I said re the link above, it's an interesting comment.

Perhaps you can clarify how much we do spend per year in settlements v litigation and 'negotiation ' costs?

And while you're at it figure out where the rest of the $2T is hiding that should be in the trust.

.

Edited February 15, 2015 by jacee

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

As I said re the link above, it's an interesting comment.

Perhaps you can clarify how much we do spend per year in settlements v litigation and 'negotiation ' costs?

And while you're at it figure out where the rest of the $2T is hiding that should be in the trust.

.

Are you serious????? You are now trolling the 2 trillion urban legend which has clearly been shown to be a myth right after I showed you that your 200 billion line is a farce. Wow. You just don't get it. Again....your reference for the $200 billion came from the comments section of a questionable news source. Is that really what your're going to rely on? Perhaps you can look further into the official audit and see the numbers but that might actually prevent you from having something to gripe about.

jacee · February 15, 2015

Are you serious????? You are now trolling the 2 trillion urban legend which has clearly been shown to be a myth right after I showed you that your 200 billion line is a farce. Wow. You just don't get it. Again....your reference for the $200 billion came from the comments section of a questionable news source. Is that really what your're going to rely on? Perhaps you can look further into the official audit and see the numbers but that might actually prevent you from having something to gripe about.

Ah, so you can't identify the amounts spent on settlements v on avoiding settlements. I see.

Interesting comments here too.

opinion/myth-of-untaxed-indians/

The estimate for aboriginal spending is between $5-billion and $10-billion annually from 1990 to 2000, of which 10 cents on the dollar actually reached the Indigenous peoples or between $500-million and $1-billion.

I would guess that the cost of litigation and negotiation is buried somewhere in that missing 90% of funding.

.

Edited February 15, 2015 by jacee

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

Ah, so you can't identify the amounts spent on settlements v on avoiding settlements. I see.

Interesting comments here too.

opinion/myth-of-untaxed-indians/

The estimate for aboriginal spending is between $5-billion and $10-billion annually from 1990 to 2000, of which 10 cents on the dollar actually reached the Indigenous peoples or between $500-million and $1-billion.

I would guess that the cost of litigation and negotiation is buried somewhere in that missing 90% of funding.

.

Lmfao!!! Your claim was they spent $200 billion on legal fees based on a comment from a questionable news source....not even the source itself. This after you previously trotted out numerous accusations about the 10 billion and I have used credible facts to show you that you were wrong on both. Now, instead of defending your claim you are deflecting with a question about settled versus not settled??? With the amount of spurious claims out there clearly shown on your statements alone, I would fully hope that our government spends as much as they need to to ensure they are correct.

I also notice that instead of defending your initial claim of the $200 billion you are now onto yet another questionable claim from yet another questionable source. You've been asked to back up your claims with credible sources. Please do so

jacee · February 15, 2015

Lmfao!!! Your claim was they spent $200 billion on legal fees ...

Prove it isn't so. Go ahead.

Since 2005 the Government of Canada has spent in the excess of $200 BILLION to fight Aboriginal people in court. In the Supreme court the Govt. has lost 170 times since that time.

Waiting ... waiting ...

.

Smallc · February 15, 2015

Prove it isn't so. Go ahead.

That's not how this work. You made the claim. You have the burden of proof.

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

Prove it isn't so. Go ahead.

Since 2005 the Government of Canada has spent in the excess of $200 BILLION to fight Aboriginal people in court. In the Supreme court the Govt. has lost 170 times since that time.

Waiting ... waiting ...

.

I already did. See the audit.

Waiting for your proof.....waiting...

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

That's not how this work. You made the claim. You have the burden of proof.

No kidding

eyeball · February 15, 2015

Our Head of State has already apologized.

Yes that's right. Now it's time to repudiate.

Why are you such an apologist for the Bulls?

Accountability Now · February 15, 2015

Yes that's right. Now it's time to repudiate.

Why are you such an apologist for the Bulls?

Repudiate what?

Apologist for the Bulls? Hell I had never heard of the Bulls before this conversation. There is just a lack of logic involved here. They want an apology for Item A claiming that was the churches mandate all along when Item B clearly shows it was not. Again...this is about getting leverage and using whatever false logic you need to do so

Accountability Now · February 16, 2015

Prove it isn't so. Go ahead.

Since 2005 the Government of Canada has spent in the excess of $200 BILLION to fight Aboriginal people in court. In the Supreme court the Govt. has lost 170 times since that time.

Waiting ... waiting ...

.

Just so that we are clear on this....you are quoting a comment...not a fact but a comment from a questionable news source that states the goverment has spent $200 billion on legal fees alone since 2005. That would be rougly $20 billion per year. Common sense states this isn't possible since the entire budget for AADNDC is $10 billion per year but then again common sense doesn't seem to be so common.

So...to further illustrate this point lets look directly at the AADNDC website to see the actual LEGAL breakout (https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1359569904612/1359569939970)

So even if you took the entire legal budget since 2007, you would find its only roughly 650 million.....that's million and not billion. There are few years missing from 2005 to 2007 but I'm sure you get the point (at least I hope you would).

Something of particular importance. They actually break these costs out into acutal litigation service and you can see that the litigation services over these years averages around $30 million per year. So over the 10 year period it is more like $300 million and not $200 billion....but don't worry you were only off by a factor of around 750!

The other interesting this is that they also show the amount of money paid in adjudicator fees which is described on this page as:

** Adjudicator Services: The Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat (IRSAS) hires adjudicators on contract (often these are lawyers) to provide adjudication services as part of the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. It is important to note that these adjudicators do not represent the Government of Canada but rather preside over claimants hearings in an independent, objective and impartial manner under the direction of the Chief Adjudicator of IRSAS.

I put the last part in red as its important to note that these legal costs are paid by the government but not for the government rather they are for any claimant for IRSAS. The amount on this service is between 20-30 million per year which is close to the litigation services.

The next time that you want to cry injustice....perhaps do it by quoting a reputable source and not the comments section.

Having said that....still waiting on your proof. Waiting....waiting......

jacee · February 16, 2015

And what about negotiation costs?

My point remains that we are spending a lot of money litigating and stalling/pretending to negotiate hundreds of individual claims when we could be settling claims and making appropriate payments instead. There are enough court precedents now to provide guidelines and compensation formulae for general use in claims, instead of dragging each one out as long as possible.

It's good to remind ourselves too that all these costs are incurred as a result of not honouring treaties in the past, whether in natural resource payments, land seized and not paid for, education delivered in a cheap, mean spirited and damaging way, etc. And in the meantime we have been reaping the benefit of development of tradional land without sharing those benefits as promised.

.

Edited February 16, 2015 by jacee

Smallc · February 16, 2015

And what about negotiation costs?

My point remains that we are spending a lot of money litigating and stalling/pretending to negotiate hundreds of individual claims when we could be settling claims and making appropriate payments instead.

Now you need to prove that, since you've admitted you were wrong up until this point.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2015

And what about negotiation costs?

My point remains that we are spending a lot of money litigating and stalling/pretending to negotiate hundreds of individual claims when we could be settling claims and making appropriate payments instead. There are enough court precedents now to provide guidelines and compensation formulae for general use in claims, instead of dragging each one out as long as possible.

It's good to remind ourselves too that all these costs are incurred as a result of not honouring treaties in the past, whether in natural resource payments, land seized and not paid for, education delivered in a cheap, mean spirited and damaging way, etc. And in the meantime we have been reaping the benefit of development of tradional land without sharing those benefits as promised.

.

1. Your idea of 'a lot' has zero credibility. You used to think it was $10 billion and recently it was $200 billion. Please excuse me if I don't take your comment of us spending ' a lot' seriously. Like smallc said, prove that it's a lot.

2. Show me where in the treaties it says that we would share the resources. Show me....actual text not your made up version found in the comment section. The only reason there is any resource sharing is due to the courts which again is brought on by legal costs.