Argus Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 As they promised to do, the Trudeau government has decided that while transparency in government is all very well and good, we can't expect natives to be capable of that sort of sophisticated communication. Besides, native voters don't need to know what their local government is spending money on, or their salaries. It would just confuse them. The fact the money is coming from the Canadian taxpayer is also no reason for the taxpayers to be able to see whether the money is being wisely spent. No, a thick layer of secrecy is much more comfortable for native government. It's like, a uh, cultural thing. Yeah, a cultural thing. The federal Liberal government showed more solidarity with Canada’s First Nations on Friday as it lifted sanctions against indigenous communities that have not complied with a Conservative spending-transparency law. The decision was quickly condemned by the Opposition Tories and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), which warned that the move would leave First Nations people in the dark about how their elected leaders spend public money. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-drop-sanctions-against-first-nations-who-didnt-comply-with-financial-transparency-law 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 December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 As they promised to do, the Trudeau government has decided that while transparency in government is all very well and good, we can't expect natives to be capable of that sort of sophisticated communication. Besides, native voters don't need to know what their local government is spending money on, or their salaries. It would just confuse them. The fact the money is coming from the Canadian taxpayer is also no reason for the taxpayers to be able to see whether the money is being wisely spent. No, a thick layer of secrecy is much more comfortable for native government. It's like, a uh, cultural thing. Yeah, a cultural thing. The federal Liberal government showed more solidarity with Canada’s First Nations on Friday as it lifted sanctions against indigenous communities that have not complied with a Conservative spending-transparency law. The decision was quickly condemned by the Opposition Tories and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), which warned that the move would leave First Nations people in the dark about how their elected leaders spend public money. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-drop-sanctions-against-first-nations-who-didnt-comply-with-financial-transparency-law please correct/adjust my apparent confusion/misunderstanding. I thought there was always full transparency to the government level... that, effectively, unless First Nations provided an audited accounting of how taxpayer funding was handled, subsequent funding was 'held back'. I was also under the impression that related First Nation persons could request the related audited accounting from the government. it was my impression that Harper Conservatives chose to provide an online, publicly available, representation of audited submissions available to 'anyone/everyone'. When you speak of, per your thread title, "transparency is only for white people', can you provide examples of like government public disclosure/presentation for whitey? Quote
Argus Posted December 19, 2015 Author Report Posted December 19, 2015 please correct/adjust my apparent confusion/misunderstanding. I thought there was always full transparency to the government level... that, effectively, unless First Nations provided an audited accounting of how taxpayer funding was handled, subsequent funding was 'held back'. I was also under the impression that related First Nation persons could request the related audited accounting from the government. it was my impression that Harper Conservatives chose to provide an online, publicly available, representation of audited submissions available to 'anyone/everyone'. When you speak of, per your thread title, "transparency is only for white people', can you provide examples of like government public disclosure/presentation for whitey? http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/lists/Salaries.aspx?Menu=HOC-Politic&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp http://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/toc-tdm-eng.html 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 December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 if you have something to say... best you say it. I certainly won't play "go fetch" to your dropped links! Quote
Argus Posted December 19, 2015 Author Report Posted December 19, 2015 if you have something to say... best you say it. I certainly won't play "go fetch" to your dropped links! Is clicking on something too complicated for you? It took me about ten seconds to find links which list the salaries, expenses and benefits for parliamentarians, the salaries of public servants, and the federal budget for last year. Somehow you feel it's wrong for natives to have that kind of information about their government. Instead they should put in a formal request for information to the federal government to get information about what their chief is spending the tribe's money on? Care to explain why that seems a more equitable arrangement to you? 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
Shady Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Its people of the ilk of waldo that are responsible the lack of progress. Now we have a PM that is as ignorant as well. 1 Quote
Keepitsimple Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Marty Patriquin on Power and Politics was very upset with this dumb move. He said over and over that he's seen the abuses of the band chiefs and councillors on several reservations and it's not fair to the communities that they are left with no way to hold them accountable - what does transparency mean when there are no consequences for not being transparent? Only 31 "nations" - a small minority - chose to hide their finances.....and for what purpose? But now, Sunny Ways has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Quote Back to Basics
dialamah Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Apparently, it's not that the current government isn't expecting transparency from First Nations, they just plan to use a more collaborative method rather than a confrontational method. Not a bad idea, since collaboration can often get results demands, threats and punishments can't achieve. From your link: “Transparency and accountability are paramount to any government, whether it is municipal, provincial, federal or First Nation,” she said in a statement. “We will work in full partnership with First Nations leadership and organizations on the way forward to improve accountability and transparency. This cannot be achieved without the engagement of First Nations and its members.” Quote
jacee Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) As they promised to do, the Trudeau government has decided that while transparency in government is all very well and good, we can't expect natives to be capable of that sort of sophisticated communication. Besides, native voters don't need to know what their local government is spending money on, or their salaries. It would just confuse them. The fact the money is coming from the Canadian taxpayer is also no reason for the taxpayers to be able to see whether the money is being wisely spent. No, a thick layer of secrecy is much more comfortable for native government. It's like, a uh, cultural thing. Yeah, a cultural thing. The federal Liberal government showed more solidarity with Canadas First Nations on Friday as it lifted sanctions against indigenous communities that have not complied with a Conservative spending-transparency law. The decision was quickly condemned by the Opposition Tories and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), which warned that the move would leave First Nations people in the dark about how their elected leaders spend public money. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-drop-sanctions-against-first-nations-who-didnt-comply-with-financial-transparency-law Argus, you differentiate only between Indigenous and "white" people? ? There are issues with the Act demanding accounting of non-government sources of income, something we don't demand of federal, provincial and municipal councillors, many of whom have income from businesses that have government contracts. (And they aren't all "white" either. ?) Ie, it isn't about accountability for government funding. No one objects to that. FN's are being punished -government funding is being held back - for not wanting to reveal private income. The Act, like many others needing revisions, is just a little too 'Harperesque', and will be fixed. . Edited December 19, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted December 19, 2015 Author Report Posted December 19, 2015 Apparently, it's not that the current government isn't expecting transparency from First Nations, they just plan to use a more collaborative method rather than a confrontational method. Not a bad idea, since collaboration can often get results demands, threats and punishments can't achieve. From your link: Do you seriously think chiefs who are misspending money and granting themselves huge indemnities are going to make those records available simply by smiling and saying please? 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 December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Is clicking on something too complicated for you? It took me about ten seconds to find links which list the salaries, expenses and benefits for parliamentarians, the salaries of public servants, and the federal budget for last year. Somehow you feel it's wrong for natives to have that kind of information about their government. Instead they should put in a formal request for information to the federal government to get information about what their chief is spending the tribe's money on? Care to explain why that seems a more equitable arrangement to you? all rightee... and here I thought you might actually be addressing the following... but, apparently, you just chose to ignore it: please correct/adjust my apparent confusion/misunderstanding. I thought there was always full transparency to the government level... that, effectively, unless First Nations provided an audited accounting of how taxpayer funding was handled, subsequent funding was 'held back'. I was also under the impression that related First Nation persons could request the related audited accounting from the government. I'm shocked you would play the public servant disclosure card... let me know when that "transparency" you're so after includes private sector and unionized worker salaries. Oh wait... I guess in your round-about way you confirmed what I wrote when you highlight that, prior to the Harper Conservative ploy, a FOI request from a First Nations band member would bring forward the related audited submission. Thanks for your back-handed acknowledgement. why do you think government civil servants and Parliamentarians are unable to deal with First Nation audited submissions sent directly to the government level? If you're really after some kind of a "First Nations Sunshine List"... then say so... and argue for appropriate legislation in that regard. And that would be legislation brought in with consultation with appropriate stakeholders... not just a presumed "public shaming wall/avenue" that Harper Conservatives chose to present/follow. Quote
waldo Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Its people of the ilk of waldo that are responsible the lack of progress. Now we have a PM that is as ignorant as well. oh my! Are you sure you want to leave this post up with your implication that "I'm ignorant"? Are your strike negotiations stalled out... is that why you're lashing out? Quote
Argus Posted December 19, 2015 Author Report Posted December 19, 2015 all rightee... and here I thought you might actually be addressing the following... but, apparently, you just chose to ignore it: I did mention it. I asked for the logic behind your belief natives need to do an access to information request to get information on their government when all I have to do is click on a link to find out similar information about mine. I'm shocked you would play the public servant disclosure card... let me know when that "transparency" you're so after includes private sector and unionized worker salaries. Are private sector and union workers being paid through my tax dollars? Do they have jobs which are elected by the public in their jurisdiction? I realize it's hard to come up with something to deflect the wild illogic of the Trudeau government's actions here, but you're really stretching it. 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
jacee Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) If (edit) some of you guys ever figure out that it isn't accountability for 'government funding' that is the issue, but private income ... then we can have a real conversation. Until then (some of) you are ... just blowing smoke about nothing that is relevant to the issue. . Edited December 19, 2015 by jacee Quote
waldo Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Only 31 "nations" - a small minority - chose to hide their finances.....and for what purpose? But now, Sunny Ways has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. without checking I'll accept your number... if I recall correctly, there are some ~650 recognized First Nation bands. So 5% or so, hey? Were they, as you say, "hiding finances", or unwilling to abide by imposed legislation they felt was... perhaps... unnecessary (given prior legislation that required full audited submissions), perhaps unwarranted, perhaps imposed without consultation, perhaps etc.. . Quote
waldo Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 If you guys ever figure out that it isn't accountability for 'government funding' that is the issue, but private income ... then we can have a real conversation. Until then you are all just blowing smoke about nothing that is relevant to the issue. . "you guys"! Hey sista... I know exactly what its about... I hooked him, I was reeling him in! Quote
dialamah Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Do you seriously think chiefs who are misspending money and granting themselves huge indemnities are going to make those records available simply by smiling and saying please? Did the demands of the Harper government, followed by sanctions and legal action, make those records *more* available while creating good-will with First Nations? Collaboration isn't just smiling and saying please. In any case, the point is that this government hasn't given up on accountability and transparency from First Nations - as your OP implies - but plans on using a different approach. Perhaps you can address that point, instead of exhibiting ignorance of what words actually mean. From vocabulary.com, definition of collaborate: Work together on a common enterprise or project. " If you don't just split a project up evenly but work together on creating solutions, you collaborate." Quote
Keepitsimple Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) without checking I'll accept your number... if I recall correctly, there are some ~650 recognized First Nation bands. So 5% or so, hey? Were they, as you say, "hiding finances", or unwilling to abide by imposed legislation they felt was... perhaps... unnecessary (given prior legislation that required full audited submissions), perhaps unwarranted, perhaps imposed without consultation, perhaps etc.. . That's the entire point that has seemingly swooshed over your head, hey? As you rightly point out, 95% of First Nations had no problem in complying with the Act. This is an Act that has more to do with holding the Band Chiefs/Councils accountable to band members - than it is to the government. Shovelling billions to an unaccountable few elite creates an environment rife for corruption - it wouldn't matter what colour your skin is. It's just common sense. Edited December 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
dialamah Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 That's the entire point that has seemingly swooshed over your head, hey? As you rightly point out, 95% of First Nations had no problem in complying with the Act. Given that non-compliance resulted in sanctions - ie: withholding funding - as well as legal action, is "no problem complying with the Act" accurate? Coercion does work, but it's not generally considered an acceptable motivator. Quote
waldo Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 That's the entire point that has seemingly swooshed over your head, hey? As you rightly point out, 95% of First Nations had no problem in complying with the Act. This is an Act that has more to do with holding the Band Chiefs/Councils accountable to band members - than it is to the government. Shovelling billions to an unaccountable few elite creates an environment rife for corruption - it wouldn't matter what colour your skin is. It's just common sense. oh pleeeese! Again, band members could make an FOI request and that audited submission would have been available. If, as you say, the Harper Conservative imposed legislation was "all about providing accountability to band members", restricted access to an online presence could have been the route taken... restricted access to band members only. Is that what happened, hey? . Quote
waldo Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 Given that non-compliance resulted in sanctions - ie: withholding funding - as well as legal action, is "no problem complying with the Act" accurate? Coercion does work, but it's not generally considered an acceptable motivator. exactly! Quote
eyeball Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 The federal Liberal government showed more solidarity with Canada’s First Nations on Friday as it lifted sanctions against indigenous communities that have not complied with a Conservative spending-transparency law. The decision was quickly condemned by the Opposition Tories and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), which warned that the move would leave First Nations people in the dark about how their elected leaders spend public money. I would have been more impressed if the thread title read Transparency isn't for Governments and if the CTF warned the move would only reinforce the perception that the little people should know their place and show more respect for their betters. Of course if that happened I wouldn't have expected a peep out the Conservatives or their supporters. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ReeferMadness Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 When I saw the title of this thread, I had to assume that Harper, who just ran the most secretive and unaccountable government in history, isn't white. Is that the implication? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Keepitsimple Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 oh pleeeese! Again, band members could make an FOI request and that audited submission would have been available. If, as you say, the Harper Conservative imposed legislation was "all about providing accountability to band members", restricted access to an online presence could have been the route taken... restricted access to band members only. Is that what happened, hey? . And how do you think the band member who requested the FOI would be treated if there was something going on? It supports your contrariness but it's a pretty naïve viewpoint......and I didn't say it was "all about" - I said "more about".....you won't hear everyday band members complaining about holding their Chiefs and Councils accountable. Quote Back to Basics
jacee Posted December 19, 2015 Report Posted December 19, 2015 "you guys"! Hey sista... I know exactly what its about... I hooked him, I was reeling him in!Edited ... ☺Carry on! . 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.