Accountability Now Posted September 22, 2014 Report Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) Here are some numbers: Over $1 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure to address health and safety priorities in communities across Canada. Over the 2010–2012 period alone, 48 major water and wastewater infrastructure projects were completed in First Nations communities. In addition to funding under the new Building Canada plan, Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program will continue to provide support to First Nations primarily for health and safety related infrastructure projects such as water, wastewater treatment facilities, schools, and housing. Approximately $7 billion over the next 10 years will be invested under existing programming in building, operating and maintaining infrastructure on reserve. http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf Seems like a fair amount of money is going to support a population that is roughly 300,000. For every other person in Canada, water and wastewater are mostly funded through muncipal taxes with some Federal injections from time to time (again still tax payer money). So my question is how much funding do the First Nations provide? How much do they expect the Federal government to provide as a percentage? Last time I checked, water and wastewater treatment plants weren't a part of the treaties. I thought we weren't supposed to interupt their 'way of living'? Edited September 22, 2014 by Accountability Now Quote
cybercoma Posted September 22, 2014 Report Posted September 22, 2014 I've never heard of municipal, provincial, or federal governments mismanaging money, so I think it's fair that we hold First Nations governing bodies to the same standard. Quote
jacee Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Here are some numbers: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2013/doc/plan/budget2013-eng.pdf Seems like a fair amount of money is going to support a population that is roughly 300,000. For every other person in Canada, water and wastewater are mostly funded through muncipal taxes with some Federal injections from time to time (again still tax payer money). So my question is how much funding do the First Nations provide? How much do they expect the Federal government to provide as a percentage? Last time I checked, water and wastewater treatment plants weren't a part of the treaties. I thought we weren't supposed to interupt their 'way of living'? We already have 'interrupted' their traditional water supplies in many cases by contaminating lakes rivers and groundwater through resource extraction and other industrial activities ... without their consent and without benefit or compensation to them.EG Grassy Narrows: As many as 1,000 people showed symptoms of the dreaded Minamata disease in the 1960s and 1970s. Pollution meant the English-Wabigoon River had to be closed to commercial fishing. Jobs vanished and welfare dependency increased. In 2002, 86% of Grassy Narrows residents tested showed signs of mercury poisoning. ... The population of Grassy Narrows is 800 people, three quarters of them are under the age of 17 and its not because they have a particularly high birth rate, says Thunder Bay Indymedia editor Dave Clement. Its because most of the older people are dead. /grassy-narrows-a-community-resisting-genocide/ And you have missed the point - smallc's allegation that money for water treatment has been misspent. Neither of you have provided any evidence to support that slur. smallc was perpetrating a racial stereotype with unsupported and thus libellous allegations. . Edited September 23, 2014 by jacee Quote
jbg Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) Double post Edited September 23, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 We already have 'interrupted' their traditional water supplies in many cases by contaminating lakes rivers and groundwater through resource extraction and other industrial activities ... without their consent and without benefit or compensation to them. EG Grassy Narrows: As many as 1,000 people showed symptoms of the dreaded Minamata disease in the 1960s and 1970s. Pollution meant the English-Wabigoon River had to be closed to commercial fishing. Jobs vanished and welfare dependency increased. In 2002, 86% of Grassy Narrows residents tested showed signs of mercury poisoning. ... The population of Grassy Narrows is 800 people, three quarters of them are under the age of 17 and its not because they have a particularly high birth rate, says Thunder Bay Indymedia editor Dave Clement. Its because most of the older people are dead. /grassy-narrows-a-community-resisting-genocide/ And you have missed the point - smallc's allegation that money for water treatment has been misspent. Neither of you have provided any evidence to support that slur. smallc was perpetrating a racial stereotype with unsupported and thus libellous allegations. . This may be the case for some reserves but certainly not all. A large number of reserves are so remote that our impact is minimal at best yet it is our responsibilty to provide a state of the art treatment facility? You avoided my question quite nicely....how much of the costs do First Nations expect the feds to pay and how much do they actually kick in? As for the so called slur...I wasn't trying to prove that the money was misspent. I was showing that a lot of money has been given to First Nations. I would guess that its more per capital than the Feds give to other Canadians. So I think its a joke when I hear FIrst Nations complaining about water treatment. Of course the only way we know it is properly spent and not going into the pockets of the cheifs is fiscal accountability. Here's a quick look at the numbers I saw. Since 2006 the Feds have spent about 5 billion per year on all infrastructure (roads, treatment plants, etc). This works out to roughly $166 per person based on 30 million Canadians. In my example above, it was shown that 7 billion over the next 10 years will be spent on First Nations infrastructure. Based on the rough 300,000 people on reserves this works out to $2333 per person or 14x what other Canadians get. Add to this....they get the extra 1 billion over two years directly for water and wastewater which is another $1666 per person per year. Obviously the costs per person are higher as its more cost effecient to service high population densities but the fact is that money is being sent their way. So the question again is what are the expectations and how much are they willing to chip in to reach those? Quote
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 ...I wasn't trying to prove that the money was misspent. So the question again is what are the expectations and how much are they willing to chip in to reach those? what is your expectation? In terms of First Nations capabilities to contribute, what is your underlying premise in regards to financial capabilities? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 You avoided my question quite nicely....how much of the costs do First Nations expect the feds to pay and how much do they actually kick in? As for the so called slur...I wasn't trying to prove that the money was misspent. I was showing that a lot of money has been given to First Nations. I would guess that its more per capital than the Feds give to other Canadians. I know you didn't intend it but I just had to correct it. The Feds don't give Canadians anything - they redistribute money that we have already paid in taxes. First Nations on the other hand, do not pay taxes - so indeed they get money given to them. Quote Back to Basics
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 I know you didn't intend it but I just had to correct it. The Feds don't give Canadians anything - they redistribute money that we have already paid in taxes. First Nations on the other hand, do not pay taxes - so indeed they get money given to them. I'll say it before jacee does....only First Nations working and living on reserves don't pay taxes. Otherwise you are correct. We also pay taxes to our local municipalities who pay the brunt for such infratstructure expenditures which I feel the First Nations should do the same. Quote
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 We also pay taxes to our local municipalities who pay the brunt for such infratstructure expenditures which I feel the First Nations should do the same. again, "In terms of First Nations capabilities to contribute, what is your underlying premise in regards to financial capabilities?" Quote
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 again, "In terms of First Nations capabilities to contribute, what is your underlying premise in regards to financial capabilities?" Again...I choose not to engage you in discussion as you have proven yourself to be dishonest in past debate. Not interested in having a discussion with such a person. Quote
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Again...I choose not to engage you in discussion as you have proven yourself to be dishonest in past debate. Not interested in having a discussion with such a person. notwithstanding your prima donna act, apparently, the question is one most difficult for you to deal with! Quote
jbg Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) We already have 'interrupted' their traditional water supplies in many cases by contaminating lakes rivers and groundwater through resource extraction and other industrial activities ... without their consent and without benefit or compensation to them. What you are implicitly saying is that migration of peoples is forbidden. Unless you just mean white Europeans. Seriously, do you think that when the FN's ancestors crossed the "land bridge" from Siberia to Alaska they knew, or cared, if there were any people there "before" who would be displaced? What about the impact of human habitation on "indigenous" wildlife? Other impacts of FN movement may have been setting of fires, which may have increased global warming. Why is one movement of peoples different from another? Oh, I think I know the answer. The relatively free and open nature of the societies created by descendants of the English can be guilt-tripped into handouts. Try doing that back in the 800's. Do you think the Tlingit would have been so charitable with the Haida or the Kwakiutl? I doubt it. As for the so called slur...I wasn't trying to prove that the money was misspent. I was showing that a lot of money has been given to First Nations. I would guess that its more per capital than the Feds give to other Canadians. So I think its a joke when I hear FIrst Nations complaining about water treatment. Of course the only way we know it is properly spent and not going into the pockets of the cheifs is fiscal accountability. Here's a quick look at the numbers I saw. Since 2006 the Feds have spent about 5 billion per year on all infrastructure (roads, treatment plants, etc). This works out to roughly $166 per person based on 30 million Canadians. I think we need some "accountability now." Sorry, couldn't resist. Edited September 23, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
overthere Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Here's a quick look at the numbers I saw. Since 2006 the Feds have spent about 5 billion per year on all infrastructure (roads, treatment plants, etc). This works out to roughly $166 per person based on 30 million Canadians. In my example above, it was shown that 7 billion over the next 10 years will be spent on First Nations infrastructure. Based on the rough 300,000 people on reserves this works out to $2333 per person or 14x what other Canadians get. Add to this....they get the extra 1 billion over two years directly for water and wastewater which is another $1666 per person per year. I don't get your numbers at all, or the point you are trying to make. Rehabilitation of infrastructure such as roads, water and sewage treatment plants, hospitals, police and fire services etc is rarely a federal responsibility. There are few federal roads relative to the overall highway network- the highways in national parks and the Alaska Highway are two examples of federally maintained roads but these are a tiny part of the total. Provinces and municipalities are responsible for the vast majority of infrastructure. Both raise funds via taxation for this purpose. The feds spend money on First Nations infrastructure because they have treaty and constitutional obligations. First Nations have no choice in it. They have no powers of taxation on the land where the infrastructure is located, and they don't own the land either. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 I don't get your numbers at all, or the point you are trying to make. Rehabilitation of infrastructure such as roads, water and sewage treatment plants, hospitals, police and fire services etc is rarely a federal responsibility. As I outlined above, typically we bear the cost for water treatment at the municipal level with little support from the Feds which is how the FN should treat it too. The comparison is to show much money the Feds give the FN versus regular tax paying citizens for these events. The feds spend money on First Nations infrastructure because they have treaty and constitutional obligations. First Nations have no choice in it. Show me where in the treaties we said we would build infrastructure like roads or wastewater treatmentment plants for them. Where in our constitution does it say this as well? They have no powers of taxation on the land where the infrastructure is located, and they don't own the land either. No power? Taxation results from employment. Most people realize they have to create work or go to where the work is or they don't survive. However, many FN reserves choose to live in economically unviable places and then scream for the handout when things aren't going so well. There are also some FN reserves that are situated in great spots and the group has done great things with those opportunities (Onion Lake for example). The bottom line is that if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere then you shouldn't expect big city treatment. Many rural Canadian towns face the same restraints when it comes to infrastructure. My point is that if a community is not economically feasible where they are FN or Canadian then we should not be throwing tons of money to solve a perpetual problem. Of course this in light of the number of examples where money coming into the FN ends up going towards zambonis or into the cheif's pocket rather than towards the things needed most. Quote
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 My point is that if a community is not economically feasible where they are FN or Canadian then we should not be throwing tons of money to solve a perpetual problem. Of course this in light of the number of examples where money coming into the FN ends up going towards zambonis or into the cheif's pocket rather than towards the things needed most. you clearly know nothing about the history of reserves, the where/why reserves exist as they do, about the Indian Act, etc. ... I repeatedly asked you about the underlying premise you hold in regards to financial capabilities (of those reserves in need of infrastructure build-up)... following your comments along the lines of, "why don't they contribute anything... why don't they finance their own infrastructure?" Perhaps you might want to start with understanding what historical difficulty the Indian Act presented for reserves/residents in obtaining financing for development on any level. Ya, start there, hey! Quote
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 you clearly know nothing about the history of reserves, the where/why reserves exist as they do, about the Indian Act, etc. ... I repeatedly asked you about the underlying premise you hold in regards to financial capabilities (of those reserves in need of infrastructure build-up)... following your comments along the lines of, "why don't they contribute anything... why don't they finance their own infrastructure?" Perhaps you might want to start with understanding what historical difficulty the Indian Act presented for reserves/residents in obtaining financing for development on any level. Ya, start there, hey! You clearly don't understand what honest conversation is which is why I won't engage you. Keep trying! Quote
jbg Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) What you are implicitly saying is that migration of peoples is forbidden. Unless you just mean white Europeans. Seriously, do you think that when the FN's ancestors crossed the "land bridge" from Siberia to Alaska they knew, or cared, if there were any people there "before" who would be displaced? What about the impact of human habitation on "indigenous" wildlife? Other impacts of FN movement may have been setting of fires, which may have increased global warming. Why is one movement of peoples different from another? Oh, I think I know the answer. The relatively free and open nature of the societies created by descendants of the English can be guilt-tripped into handouts. Try doing that back in the 800's. Do you think the Tlingit would have been so charitable with the Haida or the Kwakiutl? I doubt it. I think we need some "accountability now." Sorry, couldn't resist. Crickets. Especially when the points I'm making are hard to refute. You clearly don't understand what honest conversation is which is why I won't engage you. Keep trying!You expect an awful lot of people. Edited September 23, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 You clearly don't understand what honest conversation is which is why I won't engage you. Keep trying! no worries! Like I said, I could care less if you reply or not... I'll just keep taking my free shots and snicker at your perpetual whining/prima donna act. Carry on, hey! Quote
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Crickets. Especially when the points I'm making are hard to refute. You expect an awful lot of people. I've had numerous discussions with waldo and although we almost never agreed on anything I always appreciated the discussions. That was until realized that he would lie just so that he wouldn't 'lose an argument'. I have no interest in discussing any topic with someone that will outright lie just to prove a point. I have had numerous discussions with jacee, who again I rarely agree with but I don't mind discussing with her as she wouldn't lie. Quote
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 I've had numerous discussions with waldo and although we almost never agreed on anything I always appreciated the discussions. That was until realized that he would lie just so that he wouldn't 'lose an argument'. I have no interest in discussing any topic with someone that will outright lie just to prove a point. I have had numerous discussions with jacee, who again I rarely agree with but I don't mind discussing with her as she wouldn't lie. no - no lies, evah! Go ploy your sorry act elsewhere, yes? Quote
overthere Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 As I outlined above, typically we bear the cost for water treatment at the municipal level with little support from the Feds which is how the FN should treat it too. The comparison is to show much money the Feds give the FN versus regular tax paying citizens for these events. Show me where in the treaties we said we would build infrastructure like roads or wastewater treatmentment plants for them. Where in our constitution does it say this as well? No power? Taxation results from employment. Most people realize they have to create work or go to where the work is or they don't survive. However, many FN reserves choose to live in economically unviable places and then scream for the handout when things aren't going so well. There are also some FN reserves that are situated in great spots and the group has done great things with those opportunities (Onion Lake for example). The bottom line is that if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere then you shouldn't expect big city treatment. Many rural Canadian towns face the same restraints when it comes to infrastructure. My point is that if a community is not economically feasible where they are FN or Canadian then we should not be throwing tons of money to solve a perpetual problem. Of course this in light of the number of examples where money coming into the FN ends up going towards zambonis or into the cheif's pocket rather than towards the things needed most. I'll try to answer this a bit later, when the red mist in my head settles. In the meantime, I feel I have to point out that it is overtly racist while at the same time massively ignorant of reality. FNs choose to live in remote places with bad farmland? What the fuck are you talking about? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Accountability Now Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) I'll try to answer this a bit later, when the red mist in my head settles. In the meantime, I feel I have to point out that it is overtly racist while at the same time massively ignorant of reality. FNs choose to live in remote places with bad farmland? What the fuck are you talking about? Who is holding a gun to their head to stay??? Many FN leave the reserves all the time but others CHOOSE to stay for what they beleive is their God given right. Nice work on playing the race card but I'm not buying. This applies just the same any person in Canada who chooses to stay in an area that can't sustain them financially. Edited September 23, 2014 by Accountability Now Quote
Rocky Road Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 I used to hunt gophers and rabbits when I was a teenager. Never ate them though. Wild salmon is delicious although the Pacific is now a toxic waste pond. My Dad hunted moose and deer. Blended the meat with pork and spices to make sausage. Quote
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.