People are getting fed up with natives

[Smallc]

Assimilation is typically used to suggest that Indigenous Peoples should give up their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

They really should. I don't see how it's helping most of them.

[eyeball]

No. We should probably give them back their country instead.

[jacee]

The Conservatives did bring forth a law which would at least let the community see how the chiefs were spending all that money, but Trudeau is ditching that so a blanket of silence falls over reserve spending once again.

Harper did not consult properly so there was no consensus on his legislation.

It will be rewritten, hopefully with proper consultation and ratification this time.

Financial transparency is inevitable because Indigenous communities demand it of the government.

But they were signed in a time when none of them and none of us could even imagine natives living as part of the 'white' community! It's irrelevant now!

No native considered himself a Canadian, or a member of our society. Times have changed.

The treaties are still very relevant and they are not going away.

They can be renegotiated by both parties, but can't be removed unilaterally.

Where there are no treaties, Aboriginal rights cannot be removed either.

A little hard to do when what they're spending funds on is going to be secret.

Check any First Nation website. You will see financial statements there.

Assimilation is the only answer. That doesn't mean they surrender everything about their past or culture. Lots of people are successful at retaining their cultures while still being part of the overall Canadian community. And my 'view' is one of logic and realism not a pie in the sky romantic attachment to a centuries dead lifestyle that is no longer tenable. You think it better for them to stay on their isolated reserves to 'preserve their identity' at the cost of miserable wasted lives of poverty, violence and addiction!? Seriously!?

There is gross underfunding of Indigenous communities and services that accounts for the horrible conditions in some.

There are several centuries of attempts to destroy them and their cultures and especially their rights, including six generations of children stolen and mistreated in Canada's 'Indian' Residential schools, that accounts for some social problems. And there is a lack of opportunities and jobs for some. All of these things can be addressed.

Maybe it's you who needs to have an empathetic look from their perspective. I don't know what your ethnic background is, but I bet you're happy speaking English now and living as a Canadian and wouldn't exchange it for living in some miserable old world shithole where you had to scrounge for food every day but retained your glorious culture. People have come to Canada from all over the world, and their descendants are WAY better off than they'd have been staying back in their old crappy NATION and living in poverty.

They didn't come here. They were here.

We tried to destroy them as peoples.

They survived.

They have no intention of giving up their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Discriminatory underfunding of education, health care, social services, housing and other government services must end.

And treaty violations must end so they get proper revenues from their land.

.

Edited March 26, 2016 by jacee

[Guest]

No. We should probably give them back their country instead.

Where would you live? Don't think you're moving in with me...

[eyeball]

Earth.

[jacee]

They really should. I don't see how it's helping most of them.

?

Aboriginal Title to a large swath of BC?

Oh I think that helps.

Sharing in revenues from development and business on treaty land?

Yup that helps.

Protecting the environment from destructive industry?

That helps.

.

Edited March 26, 2016 by jacee

[Guest]

Earth.

It can get cold...

[Guest]

Aboriginal Title to a large swath of BC?

Oh I think that helps.

Sharing in revenues from development and business on treaty land?

Yup that helps.

Protecting the environment from destructive industry?

That helps.

.

So, they're doing okay then?

[Smallc]

Aboriginal Title to a large swath of BC?

Oh I think that helps.

Sharing in revenues from development and business on treaty land?

Yup that helps.

Protecting the environment from destructive industry?

That helps.

Improving the quality of life of aboriginal people? Nothing so far.

[Argus]

Assimilation has nothing to do with "gadgets" or living a modern lifestyle.

Assimilation is typically used to suggest that Indigenous Peoples should give up their Aboriginal and treaty rights.

They can live a modern lifestyle and still retain cultural practices, values, ceremonies ... and land and other rights.

Not out in the boonies, they can't, not unless someone else is paying for it and they're living on welfare, like they do now.

[Argus]

Where would you live? Don't think you're moving in with me...

Maybe he'd be happy in one of those refugee camps in Turkey.

[Argus]

Harper did not consult properly so there was no consensus on his legislation.

The chiefs didn't want their salaries revealed, so no, there was no consensus.

There is gross underfunding of Indigenous communities and services that accounts for the horrible conditions in some.

There is gross mismanagement of indigenous communities BY indigenous governments. And there is a limit as to how much the Canadian taxpayer is going to be willing to spend on an ever growing population of individuals who do no work.

[SunnyWays]

600 "nations" that don't talk to each other. Chiefs that dole out money to their elite with no accountability. Reservations in the middle of nowhere. Women with little or no rights. All issues that should have been resolved by aboriginals decades ago - by aboriginals. Instead, they perpetuate their own policy of apartheid - a determination to live apart from a society that would welcome them. Yes - Canadians are indeed getting fed up.

[jacee]

The chiefs didn't want their salaries revealed, so no, there was no consensus.

There is gross mismanagement of indigenous communities BY indigenous governments. And there is a limit as to how much the Canadian taxpayer is going to be willing to spend on an ever growing population of individuals who do no work.

Those are gross distortions of the issues and generalized stereotyped attacks without merit.

The remaining issues weren't about salaries, but about money earned from private and band-owned businesses, all of which Indigenous people would like revealed to them, as shareholders. However it was questioned whether the government/public had a right to demand that information.

It is worth noting that the government hasn't provided an accounting of the earnings it holds in trust for First Nations, from the original treaty agreements, often one to two hundred years worth of transactions - land leases and sales and resource revenues included.

In fact many of those transactions are the subject of successful land claims and litigation because the government's handling of First Nations' business and monies 'under protection of the Crown' was shoddy at best, and fully fraudulent in most cases heard to date.

Settlement of those past frauds that drained Indigenous monies would go a long way toward addressing many of the social and poverty issues we know of today.

The Canadian taxpayer is only paying due to past government fraud that spent 'Indian' monies on our infrastructure and services, and we are nowhere near paying back the money stolen yet.

It was never set up that way legally: All of the money for their services was to come from their own trust accounts ... but their accounts were gutted by successive Canadian governments and the money was used for our benefit instead.

.

Edited March 28, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

Improving the quality of life of aboriginal people? Nothing so far.

Nonsense. Where past frauds have been settled or litigated, great improvements have occurred.

.

[jacee]

Not out in the boonies, they can't, not unless someone else is paying for it and they're living on welfare, like they do now.

In cases where unemployment is an issue, Indigenous people are entitled to the same protections as we are, income, health and housing supports etc.

However they do not receive the same benefits, and that discriminatory funding gap is the reason for the current government attempt at catch-up funding.

.

[Accountability Now]

It is worth noting that the government hasn't provided an accounting of the earnings it holds in trust for First Nations, from the original treaty agreements, often one to two hundred years worth of transactions - land leases and sales and resource revenues included.

Are you claiming that those transactions aren't included in this https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1321564482345/1321564505320

If so, what basis are you making that claim on?

[jacee]

Are you claiming that those transactions aren't included in this https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1321564482345/1321564505320

If so, what basis are you making that claim on?

There are hundreds of outstanding "specific land claims" based on historic treaties that are not accounted for in those contemporary Trust Funds.

This audit did not include any Lands Settlement Claims that are maintained in third party trusts and therefore, are subject to different management processes.

This is an example of outstanding claims and litigation for a comprehensive accounting of all Six Nations property "before and after Confederation":

http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/lsuSNvCo.htm

And the shady dealings continue: When this litigation was first submitted in 1995, the government "ceased all research dollars" for Six Nations Lands and Resources. The litigation is still in preparation and covers financial transactions for all historic claims.

.

[hitops]

Aboriginal Title to a large swath of BC?

Oh I think that helps.

Sharing in revenues from development and business on treaty land?

Yup that helps.

Protecting the environment from destructive industry?

That helps.

.

More substantial handouts does not = helps. Often it makes things worse. Some politicians are fine with that, a permanent dependent class is sometimes useful for votes.

Edited March 29, 2016 by hitops

[eyeball]

More substantial handouts does not = helps. Often it makes things worse. Some politicians are fine with that, a permanent dependent class is sometimes useful for votes.

Calling a treaty a handout is what you can expect in a sloppy debate found in any typical web-forum, where definitions and terms mean next to nothing. It won't fly in Parliament or the SC though but do give it your best shot - nothing works better to underscore one's intentional stance towards another than their political impoliteness.

[Guest]

Calling a treaty a handout is what you can expect in a sloppy debate found in any typical web-forum, where definitions and terms mean next to nothing. It won't fly in Parliament or the SC though but do give it your best shot - nothing works better to underscore one's intentional stance towards another than their political impoliteness.

That's two now. Is this a new phrase?

[hitops]

Calling a treaty a handout is what you can expect in a sloppy debate found in any typical web-forum, where definitions and terms mean next to nothing. It won't fly in Parliament or the SC though but do give it your best shot - nothing works better to underscore one's intentional stance towards another than their political impoliteness.

Handouts have many more names than just treaties. What name you prefer is beside the point.

Cocaine also has many names. I can't think of any that make it good though.

[eyeball]

Handouts have many more names than just treaties. What name you prefer is beside the point.

Cocaine also has many names. I can't think of any that make it good though.

Go run that by a panel of SC judges and let us know how it works.

[eyeball]

That's two now. Is this a new phrase?

Two what?

[Guest]

Two what?

Political politeness.