Attawapaskit Indian nation.

[jacee]

I will be the first to say that the one article was written by the Fraser Institute so I am aware of bias. So I am actually looking to see if someone has numbers that contradict what that article said.

Milke made claims without providing sources, comparisons that weren't valid.

Per student funding numbers for our schools do not include capital costs for facilities, only program and maintenance costs.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/capital.html

.

[cybercoma]

If they are a separate 'nation' then why should they expect the same standards?

Exactly!

Are you guys also good with the criminal code not applying to them either?

I highly doubt it. You've got a very limited understanding of the nation to nation relationship.

[Scott Mayers]

You are wrong. Metis will never be and can never be First Nations. First Nations is a legal term applied to that specific group which does not include Metis, Inuit or Non-Status Indians. By your standard, it would be like British Columbians trying to be Manitobans. They can't and won't be however they both can be Canadians.

Essentially, the entire group of aboriginals is termed Indian by the 1867 Constitution. The recent SCC finding was about including the Metis as Indians. It had NOTHING to do with making them First Nations. Please read the SCC link provided and see for yourself when it says:

Up to this point the only ones called Indian were First Nations, however this ruling changed that.

However, as I posted in the other thread, this decision doesn't necessarily change much as per the blog from Pam Palmater:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2016/04/dont-partake-celebrations-over-new-supreme-court-ruling-on-mé

For greater clarity:[from "A Note on Terminology": https://www.itk.ca/note-terminology-inuit-metis-first-nations-and-aboriginal]

Aboriginal is an all-encompassing term that includes Inuit, First Nations (Indians), and Métis.

"First Peoples" is also an all-encompassing term that includes Inuit, First Nations (Indians) and Métis.

Aboriginal and First Nations are NOT interchangeable terms.

"Aboriginal" and "First Peoples" ARE interchangeable terms.

Inuit is the contemporary term for "Eskimo".

First Nation is the contemporary term for "Indian".

Inuit are "Aboriginal" or "First Peoples", but are not "First Nations", because "First Nations" are Indians. Inuit are not Indians.

NOW Metis ARE First Nations (== 'Indian' by the old term). I'm not sure what you are thinking I don't understand? AND this was in part to assure they can directly appeal to the Federal government without being handed off back and forth as they had before between federal and provincial governments trying to pass the buck.

Critical Edit: An end quote closed the portion of the last quote above from that site making it look as if this was my quote, not the site of reference. Corrected. I bolded the words this Native community defined and interprets the meanings equivalently.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[cybercoma]

Métis are second nations....Maybe 1.5 nations heh

Edited April 20, 2016 by cybercoma

[Accountability Now]

Not true.

(You know that AN. You are intentionally trying to mislead people. No court agrees with you.

Maybe you should read the WHOLE post rather than what you want to read or what fits your meme. I specifically stated in that post they have the right to hunt and fish. When I stated they had no rights, it was to the land itself. This is explicitly stated in the treaties and shown even to be true on the reserves where the Government still owns the land.

Please try, for just once, to actually comprehend the conversation.

Not true.

They are calculations based on treaties and other agreements that governments didn't fulfill, expressed in today's currency values.

Some examples here

Seriously????? That is the same example you have trotted out twice with the most recent time in the Metis thread. Both times I have shown you the fallacies in your arguments. Why do you do this? There is no audience listening to us debate....you know that right?? Even if there is then they can just go over to the Metis thread and see your points being torn to shreds over there.

Not true.

As allies of the Crown, "under the protection of the Crown", citizenship rights and benefits are extended to all Indigenous people.

LOL. You actually believe this ignorance that you spew? They get citizenship rights because they are citizens even thought THEY say they aren't. They became citizens when they signed the treaties. Its clearly written there....maybe read it some time.

AN's desire to mislead people and to deny Aboriginal and treaty rights is inconsistent with Canada's Constitution Act and an entire body of Canadian case law. His bizarre claims are what we used to call 'really out to lunch'.

Deny treaty rights? I have said multiple times in this thread alone that they are entitled to their treaty rights but nothing more. Its the fact that you can't handle/understand that there are a limit to to those treaty rights and not a full ride as you wish it to be.

Again...I like how you are talking in the third person as if you are preaching. Hilarious!!!!

Milke made claims without providing sources, comparisons that weren't valid.

Per student funding numbers for our schools do not include capital costs for facilities, only program and maintenance costs.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/capital.html

So you have no numbers to refute his claims, only to say that he made his claims without providing sources...even though he states that he got his numbers from Federal Archives and AANDC.

Instead of actually showing how his numbers don't work, you instead come up with some claim about Capital and then decide to throw a link about Ontario schools as if that represents all of Canada. YEEESH.

I'll await your finely executed rebuttal showing that Milke's numbers are incorrect.

[Accountability Now]

Are you guys also good with the criminal code not applying to them either?

You want to check on that one again??? They get special treatment but the code certainly does apply to them....on and off the reserve!

[Accountability Now]

Metis ARE First Nations (

I want you to go tell a Metis person or First Nation person that and see what they say. LOL

[cybercoma]

You want to check on that one again??? They get special treatment but the code certainly does apply to them....on and off the reserve!

Then legislation does apply to them. So all of your bluster about them not being Canadian and statutes not applying to them is for nothing.

[Accountability Now]

Then legislation does apply to them. So all of your bluster about them not being Canadian and statutes not applying to them is for nothing.

Serious Facepalm!!! Please go back and TRY to read where I said its the First Nations who say they aren't Canadian citizens.

Of course we can agree that the idea of them not being Canadian citizens is a bluster. At least you got that part right

[jacee]

Instead of actually showing how his numbers don't work, you instead come up with some claim about Capital

You didn't understand that part?

Try reading it again.

I'll await your finely executed rebuttal showing that Milke's numbers are incorrect.

I'll await you providing a source link for Milke's numbers. I have no idea where he got them and he didn't reply to my email request at the time.

I pointed out the "capital" issue to him too. I guess he didn't understand it either.

.

[Accountability Now]

You didn't understand that part?

Try reading it again.

No..no one understands your bluster. You see when one makes an argument that one side receives more funding that others then USUALLY you actually provide numbers for both sides and then compare. Of course, I say usually because you clearly don't do that. Instead you made a claim that Provincial schools don't include the Capital costs in the funding number....yet you have not even given or agreed to a funding number. Instead you just posted a link showing the capital that the Province of Ontario is providing for schools.

If you want to actually make some sort of argument, then prove that the funding numbers for CDN schools DON'T include capital costs. You have not done that.

Perhaps your point was to show that Capital Costs are higher in Provincial schools? I don't know....because you don't really make a point.

I'll await you providing a source link for Milke's numbers.

Its not up to me to prove his numbers are correct. Its up to you to prove they are not. If you can't do it then retract your statement about the under funding.

I have no idea where he got them and he didn't reply to my email request at the time.

He stated it in the article and I restated it in my post. He got his numbers from Federal Archives and AANDC website. Go find them or find other numbers that contradict what he's saying.

Like I said in a previous post, I'll gladly review and even accept another credible source that proves his numbers are not correct.

I pointed out the "capital" issue to him too. I guess he didn't understand it either.

Like I said, no one understands your bluster. Again, prove that 'capital' is included in First Nations funding numbers but not the Canadian ones.

Of course, I do find it interesting that you bring up Capital because a number of treaties actually state the Government is only responsible for providing teachers salaries and never mention providing schools. But again that would be in the treaty which doesn't mean anything, right?

So...what has Canada supplied for capital:

First Nations own and operate education facilities on reserve and are responsible for managing projects to renovate or build new facilities. The Government of Canada provides funding to First Nations to build new schools, renovate and expand existing facilities, and operate and maintain existing education infrastructure. Education infrastructure can include school facilities such as classrooms, gyms, science labs, sports fields, home economics and shop facilities.

Between 2008 and 2014, the Government of Canada invested some $1.7 billion in school infrastructure including building new schools, major additions, renovations and the operation and maintenance of existing facilities.

As part of the $1.7 billion investment in school infrastructure, INAC has invested $175 million in the initial Education Infrastructure Fund (EIF) towards 15 projects across the country between 2012 and 2015 (projects are in various stages of completion).

Beginning in 2015-2016, INAC has also committed an additional $500 million into the initial EIF over seven years for education facilities, plus $175 million in additional departmental funding.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1456150810793/1456150845232

[Accountability Now]

Here's half the equation jacee....

On a per capita basis, INAC provided about $15,290 per FTE student in 2013-2014 for K-12 education operating expenditures. This calculation does not include an investment of an additional $102 million in education facilities on reserve. The per-student averages calculated below vary across the country, and any funding comparisons must consider the factors that influence per-student funding levels in order to be meaningful (consult Per Student K-12 to find out more).

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1349140116208/1349140158945

[jacee]

No..no one understands your bluster. You see when one makes an argument that one side receives more funding that others then USUALLY you actually provide numbers for both sides and then compare.

You said you didn't trust the source.

I agree: Milke and the Fraser Institute are lousy sources. A waste of time.

Remember when we were forced to acknowledge under funding when some Attawapiskat school kids took to social media and started a national movement:

Shannen's Dream

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Serious Facepalm!!! Please go back and TRY to read where I said its the First Nations who say they aren't Canadian citizens.

Of course we can agree that the idea of them not being Canadian citizens is a bluster. At least you got that part right

Serious facepalm is right. Maybe you should go back and read the legislation that requires a standard of care in both education and medicine across the country, then ask yourself why in Canada, a G7 nation, we have rat infested schools and bacteria infested drinking water. Ask yourself why First Nations get roughly $0.50 for services to every $1.00 the rest of Canada gets.

[cannuck]

As heard on CTV/CBC this week there seems to be a big problem with suicides happening on many Indian reserves these days. One in particular is called the Attawapaskit Indian band. Suicides are a plenty on that reserve. So the question I have to ask is why? Why are there so many Indians killing themselves or are trying to kill themselves? I saw the communities that they live in, and from what I saw on TV, the buildings look like they are in need some fixing up.

With so many hundreds of millions of taxpayer's tax dollars being poured into these reserves year after year why aren't they living in million dollars mansions by now? Now I could understand that if the Indian Affairs branch of the federal government was being looked after by some corporation, I could then understand as to why they still appear to be living in shacks. But they are not being looked after by corporations. The taxpayer's are looking after them.

I think the time has come to abolish Indian Affairs, and stop stealing taxpayer's tax dollars, which according to Ezra Levant of TheRebel.com said years ago on one of his shows that most of the money ends up in the chiefs bank account. This would be one reason alone to stop the welfare checks from going to bands that do not appear to be doing anything good for their people with tax dollars. I feel as a taxpayer that we should be all saying enough already. The taxpayer's of today were not around when the Indians were being hard done by, and the taxpayer's of today should not be still paying for what others did to the Indians in the past. It's in the past now, leave it be. The Indians have had plenty of chances, and tons of money given too them to have rectified their problems but yet all the money given as not appeared to have solved anything. I say abolish Indian Affairs, and let the Indians get out there like the rest of us have to do, and stop expecting the taxpayer's to continue to keep them on welfare forever. It just makes common sense and logic to me.

Works for me.

First, I suggest you read Scott Mayers' and Accountability Now's posts, as I imagine you have. Collectively, they have a fairly accurate picture of the situation.

The idea of there being "nations within a nation" is simply preposterous and unworkable. AND: Canada is pretty much ignorant of what this means and how to deal with it. This thread is a perfect analogy: most of the discussion has been railing over what the politically correct name for aboriginals should...or MUST be. Who gives a rat's ass? There are serious problems that simply go on ignored while we idiotically dispute pure BS.

We, as a nation have created a dependent society of persons isolated from the physical balance of Canada, and by "funding" this model, have enabled a ruling class who are skilled at exploiting this situation to their personal benefit (I/we call them "per diem men"). We did a study at one point when trying to help one particular group of aboriginals, and 20-odd years ago, adding up ALL of the programmes that were to benefit treaty Indians the total was far closer to $20,000 per capita, not $9k. Our estimate, though, was that less than 1/3 of that ever saw a living, breathing aboriginal. The vast majority disappeared into what we called the "Indian Industry" - the incredible maze of government employees and preferred consultants who soaked up most of the money. The little bit that did dribble through was then placed in the hands of Chief and Council, and you can believe the level of corruption and incompetence was staggering (and I assume still is).

If you ever bother to actually GO to a remote reserve (and I have spent years living among them) you would usually find that there was only a tiny couple of businesses on reserve: always a Bay store (now called "Northern" stores) and some kind of storefront of a token band business of some kind. ALL of the service businesses that we all take for granted that ANY remote community would have to support life on that reserve are simply not there. Nobody is fixing the cars, trucks, boats and snow machines that litter every front yard. Nobody is running a carpentry shop to build or repair structures, no electricians are there to keep the lights on, no plumbing shop is there to keep the toilets flushing, and on it goes. WHY?

Simple. In the rest of this fantastic nation, people are pretty much on their own to earn a living and considered to have "failed" if they require the state to care for them. So, we generally earn some money by looking at what we can do to earn some money and do so. On reserve, we (and, yes, I DO blame the Royal "WE" for perpetuating this problem) have developed this model where these remote communities exist by some kind of declaration, and are "funded" by handing money to band and council. So, what little services DO exist happen by accident as once those with pretty much unaccountable access to the "funding" buy themselves and their family new trucks and homes, take a trip to Vegas and pretty much ignore the ridiculous reality that is right on their doorstep. IF any services are provided (and as you can see from video coverage of homes falling to pieces and schools burned down and replaced with hockey rinks), they are provided by the band - as there is simply no local economy outside of booze and drug distribution that is not communally controlled by council.

(on edit) I am ignoring outfitters for now - another can of worms.

Is there a solution? Sure. And it is very simple. If you really want to see "sellf government" on reserve, and you agree that Canada owes something more than the very basic allowances within treaties to aboriginal persons, then just simple calculate that value and write a check to each person with a treaty number. Then, their leaders can do as our off-reserve leaders and governments must do, and tax back what they need to provide the services that each community believes needs to be provided. Accountability then goes to the level where it belongs - within the community.

Worth noting: there are non-aboriginal communities all over the North, and they seem to do just fine being similarly removed from the comforts, conveniences and services of the South. Why do we not want to model remote reserves after those successful communities instead of trying to mimic some inner city core welfare community???? (hint: partly because there would be no benefit to the "Indian Industry" - that has now expanded to include news media).

Before someone tries to dismiss me as another Southern partisan junkie: as I have mentioned, I lived and done business in and out of the North and on reserves for two decades in the past. I have had the Forest Gump opportunity to discuss matters with a good friend when he was in office and after his retirement as Treaty Commissioner (we seldom agreed, but we remain friends) and my children are the last generation from my wife's side of the family eligible for status - which they refuse to seek.

Edited April 20, 2016 by cannuck

[Accountability Now]

You said you didn't trust the source.

I agree: Milke and the Fraser Institute are lousy sources. A waste of time.

I know that words and sentences are tough but you really should try to read what was said and not what you want to hear. I never said I didn't trust the source, I said I understand there is bias. I also gave you a million chances to counter the simple claims he made about funding and yet here you are still spinning your wheels calling out the source. STEP UP and show he's wrong.

On your very first post on this thread, you made the claim that First Nations are underfunded. I have asked you to provide a citation to back up that claim and you haven't even come close to doing that. Now, as per the rules of this forum please provide back up to your claim or retract it.

Remember when we were forced to acknowledge under funding when some Attawapiskat school kids took to social media and started a national movement:

Shannen's Dream

Actually I don't remember that because I don't buy into the media BS. Do you also contribute to every Tom, Dick and Harry that starts up a Go Fund Me page to support their fishing trip?

The reality is these kids know what they know from their elders. These elders of course have spewed lies and urban legends that we see all throughout the internet in the comments section. Yet when these lies are actually brought forth, examined and proven to be wrong they still bury their heads in the sand much like we've seen from you in these arguments.

It is sad to see this sort of thing happen but its mostly sad because its these parents failing their kids.

[Accountability Now]

requires a standard of care in both education and medicine across the country

They have been given the funds to do it and they request to be self-governing so its up to them to implement their standard.

then ask yourself why in Canada, a G7 nation, we have rat infested schools and bacteria infested drinking water.

I don't have to ask myself this as I know the answer. They don't take care of the these things because in their mind, these things don't belong to them....they belong to the white man. No native on reserve owns their own house so what incentive is their to upkeep it or improve it?? As for the schools, its the same mentality. As per a previous quoted link from AANDC:

First Nations own and operate education facilities on reserve and are responsible for managing projects to renovate or build new facilities.

I have shown that funding is there. It comes down to management which is on them.

As for the drinking water....I have asked before and I will ask again....where in the treaties does it say that we need to provide water or wastewater treatment. I don't know about you but my municipal government runs the those services here and I pay a monthly bill for those services.

Again...stop citing the treaties if you don't actually know what's in them.

Ask yourself why First Nations get roughly $0.50 for services to every $1.00 the rest of Canada gets.

I asked you to back your claims in post 38...

The agreements the government made are in the treaties....there for everyone to read. Please....show me where the government has short changed them. If you feel like bringing up examples or citations to support your unsubstantiated opinion then please do so. Otherwise, please stop your incessant whining.

Yet you continue to throw out random numbers with no backing. Are you not able to actually have an honest conversation on the topic, therefore you throw out random thoughts and numbers just to prove a point?

[jacee]

There are serious problems that simply go on ignored while we idiotically dispute pure BS.

Agreed.

We, as a nation have created a dependent society of persons isolated from the physical balance of Canada, and by "funding" this model, have enabled a ruling class who are skilled at exploiting this situation to their personal benefit (I/we call them "per diem men"). We did a study at one point when trying to help one particular group of aboriginals, and 20-odd years ago, adding up ALL of the programmes that were to benefit treaty Indians the total was far closer to $20,000 per capita, not $9k. Our estimate, though, was that less than 1/3 of that ever saw a living, breathing aboriginal. The vast majority disappeared into what we called the "Indian Industry" - the incredible maze of government employees and preferred consultants who soaked up most of the money.

Agreed.

The little bit that did dribble through was then placed in the hands of Chief and Council, and you can believe the level of corruption and incompetence was staggering (and I assume still is).

In a few places, likely less than in our governments.

The real issue is, as you've pointed out, most of the money never makes it out of INAC except into the pockets of 'consultants'.

Is there a solution? Sure. And it is very simple. If you really want to see "sellf government" on reserve, and you agree that Canada owes something more than the very basic allowances within treaties to aboriginal persons, then just simple calculate that value and write a check to each person with a treaty number. Then, their leaders can do as our off-reserve leaders and governments must do, and tax back what they need to provide the services that each community believes needs to be provided. Accountability then goes to the level where it belongs - within the community.

Agreed that the 'simple' answer is for us to settle our debts with Indigenous Nations. But no government has ever had the guts to do it. Instead they pay millions a year to 'consultants' to appear like they're doing something, but they're just wasting money.

However, it appears now that the courts are making better progress.

I do agree with you that the onus is on us to insist that our governments resolve outstanding claims. I believe they should be adjudicated by the courts. And I believe the money exists to fund both sides to do this, instead of paying 'consultants' to do nothing.

But the money does not exist in current First Nations community funding allocations.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Before someone tries to dismiss me as another Southern partisan junkie:

Excellent post however it doesn't matter if you have true life experience or cold hard facts, the argument that you make will fly in the face of people that have no desire to actually fix the situation. They would rather assess blame as long as none of that blame lands near the First Nations themselves.

[Accountability Now]

Agreed that the 'simple' answer is for us to settle our debts with Indigenous Nations. But no government has ever had the guts to do it.

I am somewhat in agreement with you on the premise but I know we would disagree on the end game. I think there should be a one time payout to all First Nations that ends not only their land claims but also the treaties. The government would pay this sum and retain all lands which they could sell back to the individual person who wants to stay. Those who don't can move on.

You say that no government has had the guts but I think its the other way around. The First Nations would NEVER let this go. Not in a million years.

[jacee]

I am somewhat in agreement with you on the premise but I know we would disagree on the end game. I think there should be a one time payout to all First Nations that ends not only their land claims but also the treaties. The government would pay this sum and retain all lands which they could sell back to the individual person who wants to stay. Those who don't can move on.

We're mostly in agreement: Land and other legal claims must be adjudicated and resolved expeditiously. Some may be money, some may be land, revenues from land, etc.

However, there are legal problems with a couple of your wishes:

Treaties can be renegotiated or removed only by consent of both parties.

Removing treaties does not remove Aboriginal rights: It may make them stronger - eg, Aboriginal title in BC where there are no treaties.

Know the law, and be careful what you wish for. :-)

.

[Accountability Now]

Removing treaties does not remove Aboriginal rights

I don't think we are in agreement....the whole point of this payout would be to eliminate the treaties and any aboriginal right going forward. If they agreed, they would be compensated in a one time payout but after that, they would be regular ol' Canadians.

[jacee]

I don't think we are in agreement....the whole point of this payout would be to eliminate the treaties and any aboriginal right going forward. If they agreed, they would be compensated in a one time payout but after that, they would be regular ol' Canadians.

What rights and interests they retain will be determined through negotiation and/or litigation, and will result in new agreements.

.

[Accountability Now]

What rights and interests they retain will be determined through negotiation and/or litigation, and will result in new agreements.

I love how you are arguing a hypothetical. I have suggested that the only way to move on is for a complete buyout. You can either accept or reject that. I have already stated that there is no way the First Nations would actually accept it because they want to hang onto any little bit they can. You are proving that with your responses.

In theory...if the Government were to do this, they would not pay a whack load of cash and then still have lingering problems with new agreements. They would pay it to end all agreements.

Having said that, even if they were able to end all agreements with this payout, in about 20 years you'd have some nutbar claiming they paid the wrong guy or something stupid like that and the lawsuits would remain. Hence probably the reason the government wouldn't even consider it.

[cybercoma]

Accountability Now, you keep saying the funds are there, yet a federal commission on the issues says they're not. I'll let you take a wild stab at which conclusion I find more credible.

Edited April 20, 2016 by cybercoma