First Nations Issues

[jacee]

Maybe it would be better if the government simply paid the bands and bought all the reserves back from them and forced the Natives to join the civilized society,

"forced" ?

Genocide by deprivation and forced assimilation was Canada's historical strategy.

We're trying to get beyond genocide now.

Much of Canada's resource wealth comes from traditional lands near remote reserves.

They are legally entitled to share in revenues from that, and to negotiate jobs, training and contracts for their private businesses, and sometimes infrastructure improvements.

The 'solutions' for remote reserves are slowly being implemented.

.

[eyeball]

They already lived on a reserve, but just recently signed a treaty?

What do you mean?

What I said - in response to LPF, that life on reserves is largely pretty bleak. It's much better for folks on the reserve here and for everyone all around, post-treaty.

What it is you're confused about?

[overthere]

This is what you said:

the reserve I live next to has surged since our treaty was signed.

In Canada, people live on reserves as a result of treaties signed long ago.

How did your neighbours come to reside on their reserve before they signed a treaty?

Do you perhaps mean a land claims settlement was signed recently?

[eyeball]

This is what you said:

the reserve I live next to has surged since our treaty was signed.

I said a lot more than just that. What I said is The population and economic well being of the reserve I live next to has surged since our treaty was signed.

In Canada, people live on reserves as a result of treaties signed long ago.

Not always. Like most of the nations in BC the Nuu-Chah-Nulth never signed a thing.

How did your neighbours come to reside on their reserve before they signed a treaty?

That's where they were told to go live.

Do you perhaps mean a land claims settlement was signed recently?

That's the treaty we're talking about. The settlement includes the reserve which I suppose is really a moot thing to call it now. It's more like a municipality in it's own regional district but with way way more local control and influence than anything we would expect in similar non-native jurisdictions. Natives even possess the right to directly influence the decisions we make in our local jurisdictions but for us to influence the decisions they make in their's we have to rely on our federal and provincial governments and representatives to speak for us.

These are very powerful times for native people where I live. I think when some and maybe most First Nations elsewhere in Canada compare the near useless treaties they signed back in the day to modern day treaties that are being negotiated and signed on the west coast that those treaties will be brought back up for renegotiation. I certainly hope so in any case.

[overthere]

That's the treaty we're talking about.

Just so you know, the term used for recent contracts is an agreement or land claim settlement.

If you say 'treaty' I and others will assume you refer to a written agreement from long ago, as was common in the Praiiries and Central Canada..

Natives even possess the right to directly influence the decisions we make in our local jurisdictions but for us to influence the decisions they make in their's we have to rely on our federal and provincial governments and representatives to speak for us.

Yes, common in Yukon and the other Territoires too. self government!

[Accountability Now]

These are very powerful times for native people where I live. I think when some and maybe most First Nations elsewhere in Canada compare the near useless treaties they signed back in the day to modern day treaties that are being negotiated and signed on the west coast that those treaties will be brought back up for renegotiation. I certainly hope so in any case.

The only reason this modern 'treaty' or land claim happened was because no treaty was signed back in the day. Most other locations don't have that luxury and hence will most likely have to live with the deal they signed.

[overthere]

The only reason this modern 'treaty' or land claim happened was because no treaty was signed back in the day. Most other locations don't have that luxury and hence will most likely have to live with the deal they signed.

Well, no. Many of the 600+ First Nations are changing the deals they have, with federal govt concurrence.

That is what self govt is all about.

[PIK]

Jacee,what were the natives doing to each other ,before the whiteman came. And it had nothing to do with one nation.

[Accountability Now]

Well, no. Many of the 600+ First Nations are changing the deals they have, with federal govt concurrence.

That is what self govt is all about.

I would disagree that its with federal govt concurrance rather its through the courts.

[overthere]

I would disagree that its with federal govt concurrance rather its through the courts.

You can disagree if you like, but the reality is that many bands have established First Nations governance, both is areas with treaties and those without treaties. And it was done with the cooperation of several successive federal govts, starting with perhaps Mulroney but it really increased with Chretien and has become the norm now.

It would be impossible to have done what has been accomplished so far without the full and complicit help of the federal government. The big aboriginal affairs the feds once completely micromanaged is now largely managed by First Nations. It's been that way for a while.

There have been disputes to be sure, and failures and successes as well in terms of local management, but by and large that tranistion has been remarkably calm. And overdue IMO. It's a huge step away from the 150 years of failed paternalism that preceded it.

[Accountability Now]

You can disagree if you like, but the reality is that many bands have established First Nations governance, both is areas with treaties and those without treaties.

What do you mean by 'many'? According to the AANDC site, only 21 agreements covering 35 communities have been made. So that means 35 out of 617 which is around 5%. Doesn't seem like many to me and this is the total sefl government agreements....not just non-treaty areas.

In collaboration with its negotiation partners, Canada has signed 21 self-government agreements recognizing a wide range of Aboriginal jurisdictions that involve 35 Aboriginal communities across Canada. Of those, 18 are part of a comprehensive land claim agreement (modern treaty). These figures include the Yale Final Agreement and the Tla’amin Final Agreement which have been signed, but are not yet in effect.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016293/1100100016294

Edited February 23, 2015 by Accountability Now

[overthere]

What do you mean by 'many'? According to the AANDC site, only 21 agreements covering 35 communities have been made. So that means 35 out of 617 which is around 5%. Doesn't seem like many to me and this is the total sefl government agreements....not just non-treaty areas.

I guess you missed this part in your link:

Currently there are about 90 self-government negotiation tables across the country. These tables are at various stages of the negotiation process and in most cases are being negotiated in conjunction with comprehensive land claims. Explore this map or consult this list of negotiation tables to learn more about these negotiations.

They all get plenty of money to set up their organizations and govts while or before negotiating anything. And let us not forget the seismic shift that happened through the 90s in DIAND and then AADNC in the 2000s- nearly all the money micromanaged formerly by DIAND and hordes of federal bureaucrats is now micromanged directly by hordes of First Nations bureacrats- 600+ of them. You don't need a comprhensiveland claims agreement to get the money, and AADNC no longer has the staff even if you don;t want to manage yourself. That is part of the reason why there has been some much publiciized failures on first Nations- they have little capacity for self-governance in some cases.

Don't be deceived by the number signed, that will move at a snails pace for decades. The reason is prosaic and good business for the First Nations involved. Why get closure on a land claims agreement in a hurry, what is the local benefit unless you have some urgent projects that require independent attention?

[Accountability Now]

I guess you missed this part in your link:

Nope. Certainly did not miss that at all. Of course your claim was that many First Nations already had self governments...not are negotiating for them. But if you want to change your statement the go for it. I don't mind.

The reality is that I don't mind the idea of self government as long as they abide by the rules laid out at the the bottom of the linked page regarding the accountability required to become self governing. Only 23 out of the 617 have not disclosed their financial statements which isn't bad.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

Just so you know, the term used for recent contracts is an agreement or land claim settlement.

If you say 'treaty' I and others will assume you refer to a written agreement from long ago, as was common in the Praiiries and Central Canada..

Modern treaties are in progress and result from Comprehensive claims

"These claims arise in areas of Canada where Aboriginal land rights have not been dealt with by past treaties or through other legal means."

(different from Specific claims).

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

.

[eyeball]

Just so you know, the term used for recent contracts is an agreement or land claim settlement.

If you say 'treaty' I and others will assume you refer to a written agreement from long ago, as was common in the Praiiries and Central Canada..

If I say treaty in BC everyone knows what I'm talking about. But I'm just assuming everyone knows BC is also in Canada.

[jacee]

If I say treaty in BC everyone knows what I'm talking about. But I'm just assuming everyone knows BC is also in Canada.

Some don't realize that BC never had historic treaties, so in BC 'treaties' always means new ones.

.

[eyeball]

The only reason this modern 'treaty' or land claim happened was because no treaty was signed back in the day. Most other locations don't have that luxury and hence will most likely have to live with the deal they signed.

Good luck with that. I doubt many people would share your sentiment that a modern treaty in their backyard would be a luxury, governments especially. Their idea of luxury would probably be Newfoundland where the need for a treaty was simply exterminated.

[jacee]

Nope. Certainly did not miss that at all. Of course your claim was that many First Nations already had self governments...not are negotiating for them.

Petty quibble.

As said above, the first step in self government negotiations is setting up self government.

.

[eyeball]

Petty quibble.

As said above, the first step in self government negotiations is setting up self government.

.

I think the first real step towards being a self-governing people is the one that individuals take in their own attitudes and outlook. The very phrase self-government is evocative enough to inspire on its own. I mean it when I say that after seeing what self-government and the invigorating positive effect it can have on a people looks like it's something I've come to yearn for. Whatever sense of being self-governing that I felt before has paled to an underwhelming bland insignificance to say the least.

I'd invite natives across the country that have had to make do with the paltry treaties their ancestors were duped into 'signing' back in the day go for the gold ring now that it's clearer what it looks like. As for the rest of us, I think Canadians could use a good dose of yearning for something much better than we've been willing to settle for too - but that'll only happen if Canadians can actually see what it is they're missing.

Other revolutions in the New World have coalesced around indigenous aspirations before - we should take a cue.

[Accountability Now]

Good luck with that. I doubt many people would share your sentiment that a modern treaty in their backyard would be a luxury, governments especially. Their idea of luxury would probably be Newfoundland where the need for a treaty was simply exterminated.

The luxury reference was to the people in those first nations who did not have a treaty and can use that as leverage to establish a modern treaty with more benefits than the preexisting ones. The reference was not to people neighboring those modern treaty areas however if the claims are reasonable then I would be happier to live next to an area that signed a modern treaty versus a disgruntled First Nation still pissed off about something their forefathers signed away years ago.

[Accountability Now]

Petty quibble.

As said above, the first step in self government negotiations is setting up self government.

.

Not 'quibble' at all. A vast majority ( I think I counted 70 of 99) initiated their claims in the 1990s and they still haven't been implemented. Obviously someone is dragging their feet for some reason. I know you think its the government (with their 200 billion dollars in legal fees) however overthere made a good point about the First Nations stalling until future projects come to light.

There is also the idea that a certain amount of these may never get it based on the fact that they won't meet the economic criteria set forth by the government to achieve self government

Agreements must address the need to strengthen key elements of governance, including fiscal and management regimes. They must also promote governance systems with the capacity, size, resources and legitimacy to provide effective governance, positioning Aboriginal communities to pursue opportunities for economic development.

[overthere]

Of course your claim was that many First Nations already had self governments...not are negotiating for them

They do self-govern. And they negotiate land claim agreements. You don't have to have a comprehensive final agreeement to be recognized as a negotiating entity with the Feds.

And of course, you need funding for that management and development infrastructure at the beginning of the process, not the end.

So, your assumption that self governance implies some sort of agreement is false. They will have an agreement that the Feds will continue to fund operations and capital inprvements, as the Freds have done for decades, for better or worse. They'll have an interim agreemtentthat the Feds will fund self-government. Hope that helps.

[Accountability Now]

They do self-govern. And they negotiate land claim agreements. You don't have to have a comprehensive final agreeement to be recognized as a negotiating entity with the Feds.

And of course, you need funding for that management and development infrastructure at the beginning of the process, not the end.

So, your assumption that self governance implies some sort of agreement is false. They will have an agreement that the Feds will continue to fund operations and capital inprvements, as the Freds have done for decades, for better or worse. They'll have an interim agreemtentthat the Feds will fund self-government. Hope that helps.

Lol. Nice stretch but I'm not buying it. They are still ruled by the Indian Act until the point they achieve self government. They can negotiate all they which can also end up in the courts, however until they reach self government, the Feds are in control of the money that is given to them. At this point only 5% have self government which again conflicts with your 'many' comment.

Let's put it this way, if getting self goverment agreement was no big deal then why the 99 other claims for self government in the works?

PS...in the future you should use the quote button on the bottom as it actually includes the person's screenname and therefore notifies them that you are responding to their quote. Just makes it easier.

[overthere]

Lol. Nice stretch but I'm not buying it. They are still ruled by the Indian Act until the point they achieve self government. They can negotiate all they which can also end up in the courts, however until they reach self government, the Feds are in control of the money that is given to them. At this point only 5% have self government which again conflicts with your 'many' comment.

Let's put it this way, if getting self goverment agreement was no big deal then why the 99 other claims for self government in the works?

PS...in the future you should use the quote button on the bottom as it actually includes the person's screenname and therefore notifies them that you are responding to their quote. Just makes it easier.

The feds are in control of the money no matter what the band calls itself. And even when they have 'self governance ' status does not mean the the money stops. "Extinguishment" is avoided by the bands.

But the relationship between Feds and all bands has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. There iused to be hordes of engineers managers and specialist at DIAND, now they are mostly gone. Far, far fewer people in the field now. Nothing prevents a band from proclaiming their status as self governed, and many, many many have done just this. The Feds don't care because they still provide the money nobody what you call it. What they do not provide any more is day to day micromangement of everything, in most cases at the insistence of the locals.

And that is what you refuse to see: that 'self government' is the de facto reality nearly everywhere, except where the band has wholly floundered and is under third party management. Even then, it is usually not a bureaucrat running the show but a third party manager.

The 'claim' for self governance is also almost always a land claim agreement in the works. I wouldn't get too excited about these. Only a handful have been signed and many have been 'negotiating' for decades. They are not in a hurry in most cases.

[Accountability Now]

The feds are in control of the money no matter what the band calls itself. And even when they have 'self governance ' status does not mean the the money stops. "Extinguishment" is avoided by the bands.

The difference is that the current system has the Feds dictating how that money is to be spent once it gets transferred where as with Self Government, the band decides. As per the BC Treaty system:

There is no template for self-government; each First Nation establishes their own unique self-government arrangement. Self-government provisions may include:

Education Language and Culture Health care and social services Police services Housing Property rights Child welfare

http://www.bctreaty.net/files/issues_selfgovern.php

And who said anything about the money stopping?

Nothing prevents a band from proclaiming their status as self governed, and many, many many have done just this.

Nothing prevents me from saying I'm the best hockey player in the world. However reality does matter in the end and in the end, these bands are still under control of the Indian Act until they get the self government title.

And that is what you refuse to see: that 'self government' is the de facto reality nearly everywhere, except where the band has wholly floundered and is under third party management. Even then, it is usually not a bureaucrat running the show but a third party manager.

I can see that government may be more leniant with how the funds go out compared to the past however they are still in control of how those funds are spent. Its like living at home and being able to come and go as you please....however you are still under the control of your parents no matter what you tell people. Once you move out....then you are self governed.

I certainly don't doubt that the bureaucracy of the system has been significantly reduced however the Feds still have final say on what gets governed until they are in fact self governing. I do agree with you in that a lot are driven by the land claims too.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Accountability Now