Attawapaskit Indian nation.

[taxme]

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.

[The_Squid]

Indian can be considered a racist term. Why did you choose the term "indian" rather than go by the actual name of their band?

The proper term is Attawapiskat First Nation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attawapiskat_First_Nation

[August1991]

Indian can be considered a racist term. Why did you choose the term "indian" rather than go by the actual name of their band?

The proper term is Attawapiskat First Nation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attawapiskat_First_Nation

WTF? You choose wikipedia to describe your "nation"?

IMV, a person has the right to be what they are; Left-handed or right-handed, a person is who they are. I have always been respectful of (and polite to) an individual.

[The_Squid]

WTF? You choose wikipedia to describe your "nation"?

It's not my nation... I'm not from there. The wiki page has references if you need to check them.

IMV, a person has the right to be what they are; Left-handed or right-handed, a person is who they are.

What does a dominant hand have to do with anything?

I have always been respectful of (and polite to) an individual.

umm... good for you, I guess...

[Topaz]

IF u want to know the answers to your questions, u should watch the senate committee hearing on the First Nations and u will learn much. There are many problems with the way the feds and the FN deal with each other and the fault is on both sides. The way Some FN build their homes is not right for the environment they live in and then it causes black mold to form which can kill people or make them very sick. Their locations are so far away, that anyone living in that environment would get depress and want to die. Just think about it, yourself living that way.

[PIK]

Whining about the word Indian is just whining. I am so sick of people and their fake rage. It does nobody any good what so ever. My understanding that reserve gets 29 million every yr from both governments, is that true??. Harper was right about wanting receipts, but trudeau has now cancelled that.

[Accountability Now]

Indian can be considered a racist term.

That's funny....the Supreme Court didn't consider the term racist when they deemed all those Metis as 'Indians'

[The_Squid]

That's funny....the Supreme Court didn't consider the term racist when they deemed all those Metis as 'Indians'

I didn't say it was in every case... it depends on context. In the context of the "Indian Act", then no.

Ranting about "them Indians" could be seen as using the term in a derogatory way. Particularly when it is used incorrectly, as was done in this case.

Why did the OP use the term Indian, rather than the correct term First Nation?

Edited April 18, 2016 by The_Squid

[?Impact]

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?

It we look at Attawapiskat for example, the tax dollars amount to less than $7,000/year per band member. I don't know about you, but I would find it difficult to build a million dollar mansion on $7k/year.

[The_Squid]

It we look at Attawapiskat for example, the tax dollars amount to less than $7,000/year per band member. I don't know about you, but I would find it difficult to build a million dollar mansion on $7k/year.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-"Indian" rant!!

[Accountability Now]

Why did the OP use the term Indian, rather than the correct term First Nation?

You keep saying that First Nations is the correct term. If its the correct term then why did the Supreme Court not use it? Why do many of the First Nations call themselves Status Indians?

The fact is the word is still largely in use and still correct. Its when people use 'them Indians' or 'F***ing Indians' that the negative connotation is applied and generally casts the idea the the word Indian is not correct.

An anecdote to add to this (whether you believe it or not). I spent some time up in Prince Albert, SK this summer and asked this question to a number of whites and First Nations in the area and not one person was offended by the term Indian. They were mostly confused and said why would that bother us...that's what we are.

[Scott Mayers]

[Warning...an essay again. This is in context with the discussion here but I generalize the problem in line with what I believe others (maybe everyone?) could probably agree to.]

The whole problem deals with how the original Canadian/British government(s) made the agreements in the first place. I think that all the Treaties, Reserves, and our Constitution which defines these people as distinct Nationals are all illegitimate and should be undone. The intention of Reserves is to treat these people like the wild untamed animals many of the original settlers thought of them as by placing them in wild-life refuge expecting them to opt to live on those lands independent of the rest of the 'civilized' society.

Some realized this but then opted to try getting them to 'catch up' to the Old World adaption to the more 'evolved' form of civilization through "assimilation" concepts. But the governments (and people) falsely interpreted this to mean that the North American Indian just had to adapt to the religious ideology as many today STILL think or treat as the actual cause of all problems. I DO think that religious differences ARE a problem and why I tackle Nationalism including all ethnic definitions associating religion to one's genetics.

The problem originates with economy and so when attempting to help others by merely ALTERING their culture, they mistake that it IS cultural Nationalistic ideals that hides the actual means to repair the problems. To our Western idea of capitalism, we emphasize it normal to COMPETE by leaving our hands off of interventions, like social welfare systems, in which those paying taxes resist actual means to solve problems using money. Instead, the Native assimilation was tackled not to repair their actual economic conditions to match with others but to expediently attempt to alter their cultures.

The 'cultural' assimilation was also preferred to be done with the Christian churches as it saves money to tax payers by transferring the onus onto relatively 'voluntary' organs to help. If 'culture' is the problem though, it is missed that 'culture' in general, not specific, that is the problem.

To expect that either these Natives opt to actually live on the land like wild animals OR to adapt to the religious-focused culture (generally "christian") as exclusive options was the problem again with the problem with those schools set up for them. They were RELIGIOUS-arrogant schools. Attempting to repair this requires recognizing that:

(1) Multiculturalism/Monoculturalism must be redressed. Ours system set this up to conserve the established interests of most Christian groups, especially of the Catholic Anglican and French/Roman versions with most concern as these two main cultures represent those of our most powerful establishment. Christianity in all forms agree in common that their cult/religion IS what granted all of us the prosperity and to those economically stable. In reality, religion is just an institute most functioning to deceive the masses by the established to KEEP (conserve) their own power as without it, they can't defend why they should or should not create laws of inheritance to posterity (their own children) in the perpetuity they'd like of themselves. This conflict means that for the Natives, while they KNOW the real problem lies with the fact they are DEFAULTED to being on the bottom of the economic ladder because they had no universal acceptance of land-ownership based on the Tribal phase of evolution they were in. The European/(Old World) idea was to OPTIMIZE the difference of this major factor and attempt to literally take advantage of this against the interests of the North American Indian as they would against each other of the Old World.

So focusing on 'culture' is intended to hide the sincere problem of the Natives AND to also ENHANCE those related to the original Canadian establishments who have also gained the wealth they have based on this discrimination against the Natives. While not 'personal' against their people necessarily, focusing on culture is what is deemed necessary to keep people from realizing we need to also take away those culturally-based laws that gave the establishment the power they have and still maintain through it.

(2) Isolation. This is clearly understood as a mechanism to abuse whether one directly isolates others (like reserves or prisons) or by positing spaces as one's own that act to isolate those who simply don't have spaces left to claim except for the remaining waste lands (ghettos). Thus it should be CLEAR that the first step is to retry a form of assimilation. But it CAN'T be based on culture in any way as it is being done today because this still only keeps people isolated when you enhance their own rather than to teach them how to succeed universally in an economically dependent society that we ALL have in common. We need to abandon these isolated non-economically derived reserves because they are culturally/ethnically defined (Nationalistic).

(3) Cost to All by established cultural-arrogance to distribute fault to the rest of society rather than give up their own unjust inheritances. To me, I see our Liberal federal party as the ones most interested in conserving their Catholic roots and privileged power based on their own cultural arrogance. This is mostly of the Ontario/Quebec-based interests especially among those who have gained their power from their own ancestral inheritances. But in a clever misdirection, they have had the advantage to create our Constitution legally to preserve the 'rights' to lock in their own cultures and cannot be validated UNLESS they appear to foster other cultures with the same privilege. The trick is to appear as though they ARE accepting of all cultures when they aren't. As long as they are the ones kept in inherent power, they can command WHICH groups they entitle to be certified, "official" cultures.

Then, by also rhetorically appearing to FAVOR the Natives as one of these accepted official groups, they preserve their own at the same time as make the rest of ALL other people in Canada adapt an accepted guilt. This is then the justification to pass the established cultures of Ontario/Quebec to the WHOLE of society rather than to take on this cost themselves. Thus through appearing to support the Natives, they are just intending to preserve their own cultural biases which caused the problems as if an 'ideal' that WE ALL SHARE and to distribute the COSTS of their own particular abuse to the rest of us.

So, to solve, for instance, we have to redress the Residential School problems that the whole of society has been taxed to pay back on by targeting those who ACTUALLY abused the Natives. The SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS institutes AND the PARTICULAR abusers, both of which has been successfully buried. And then we've been distracted by a fog of obscurity unable to actually determine what or where the abuses occurred using 'conspiratorial' innuendo that WE ALL supposedly caused by our own faults.

(4)Reparations. I believe since it is about economics, we need to repair this with distributed social welfare ideas but treat it WITHOUT consideration of culture. Poor people are poor people. It is false and only feeding the very problem of discrimination to treat Poverty as a function of BEING NATIVE. If cultural discrimination is considered the reason one is poor, then cultural discrimination has to be considered why those are rich or even middle-class too. So how the hell can you repair cultural discrimination by using discrimination unless you destroy both poverty and wealth based on this cultural assumption? It is deluded to think that people will give up their wealth no matter how trivial it is to distribute among everyone but leave people's personal 'cultures' untouched.

The costs of reparations should come from the wealth of those who benefit on the forms of things most associated with Culture. In particular, the Catholic Anglican foundation through the Church of England, the sovereignty associations of having a Royalty, of which the Queen is considered the conduit of the Anglican god, should be held accountable; the Protestant non-catholic (non-priestly formed, that is) institutes that supported or contributed to their own abuses, the Separate School System (if people should have a right to alternatively spend taxes to the Catholic institutes, they should require also being liable to the debts of their onus to the problems associated with this major contributing causal factor), and to all those inheriting fortunes based on the cultural biases that created the cultural discrimination against the Natives in the first place.

Money should NOT be given to Culturally designated groups, like the Nation of X, Y or Z, as this is like having everybody's taxes again being used to pay for ANY privileged Cult in power.

Also, the Natives should BE Canadian citizens, not Nations within Canada, but separate. If NOT, then Canadians should NOT be liable to non-Canadians and justifies why anyone should demand NOT paying taxes.

Conclusion. Stop feeding the particular concept of "Multiculturalism" because it is rhetorically designed to appear as "multicultural" with universality when it is NOT. Technically, this concept is NOT progressive and is intrinsically conservative to those supporting segregation, isolation, and intolerance under a fog intended to make the rest of us 'interpret' this rhetoric according to our own feelings when they are actually very PROPRIETARY. (It's like how businesses might say, "Buy one, get one free*" where the word 'free' here is just a rhetorical device meant to distract us from thinking they mean the same as the regular meaning of 'free'. This example actually means the cost is half-price, STILL A COST, not FREE!)

Dismantle the Reserves and/or make them actual economic communities where feasible without forcing its members to require being culturally Aboriginal-only (including those who are Aboriginal). Use money to entice people to move to economically more competent environments AND NOT in ghettos....distribute means to enable mixed communities, not enclaves of culture and their associated wealth.

Require institutes of those culturally favored, to be penalized in the taxes towards the repairs, including offshoot entities or businesses that took advantage of this. Have these too be dismantled if they are constitutionally privileged (like the Separate/Catholic School system).

Bring

[Scott Mayers]

You keep saying that First Nations is the correct term. If its the correct term then why did the Supreme Court not use it? Why do many of the First Nations call themselves Status Indians?

The fact is the word is still largely in use and still correct. Its when people use 'them Indians' or 'F***ing Indians' that the negative connotation is applied and generally casts the idea the the word Indian is not correct.

An anecdote to add to this (whether you believe it or not). I spent some time up in Prince Albert, SK this summer and asked this question to a number of whites and First Nations in the area and not one person was offended by the term Indian. They were mostly confused and said why would that bother us...that's what we are.

There is no need to be sensitive of the choice of words. "First Nations" was the legal word required to use, not the colloquial ones we use. Just like the word, "Multiculturalism" has both the legal proprietary meaning and the assumed connection of the generic idea that confuses, it should be noted that "First Nations" is to imply the set of people who have been accepted in LAW as a distinct set of Nations that don't actually relate to the Nation we call Canada. Its based on the fact too that all Natives are NOT of the same opinion but at least agree they are NOT bound to the Nation of Canada as an entity. Unfortunately, even this term is insulting and politically biased to say we all accept this distinction as we accept our own sovereign authority as subjects to the Queen and associated cultures and ethnicity related to religion.

[Accountability Now]

There is no need to be sensitive of the choice of words. "First Nations" was the legal word required

I'm not sensitive to the choice. I'm ok with either. It is Squid that is not.

Having said that you state First Nations is the 'legal' term, however the recent Supreme Court ruling was to determine if the Metis are Indians or not. It didn't ask if they were First Nations

[?Impact]

...the wild untamed animals many of the original settlers thought of them...

While I can't answer for the thoughts of the original European invaders, there are several problems I have with that characterization.

1. There was not a cohesive whole aboriginal nation, but rather a very diverse set of people with varying forms of social order on the American continents before the Europeans arrived

2. All societies have a social order or hierarchy based on blood line, conquest, and democratic decision making. That is true the world over, in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Certainly as technology has enabled movement between societies, and conquest went from local through regional to global scope, there has been a influence mostly from the conquering onto those societies they invaded.

3. Societal evolution doesn't just span different cultures, but also the ages. By the same token, today`s First Nations could call the societies of the middle ages in Europe as wild untamed animals.

It is very common for societies not to want to loose their cultural legacy, yet live in the modern world. This is not unique to the first nations, just look at the British Isles and the various cultures there that don`t want to be assimilated. This involves much more than just preserving a language and folksy song and dance, it extends to self government.

[DogOnPorch]

The natives in my particular region were too busy hiding from the predations of the Haida and like tribes to form much of a civilization. More like...Ayyyyyyeeeee! Run!!!

[Scott Mayers]

I'm not sensitive to the choice. I'm ok with either. It is Squid that is not.

Having said that you state First Nations is the 'legal' term, however the recent Supreme Court ruling was to determine if the Metis are Indians or not. It didn't ask if they were First Nations

This decision WAS to clearly define where Metis should go to for concerns, Provincial or Federal government. They decided Metis were considered an official "First Nation" and so belong to the jurisdiction of the federal government. This conflict was based on the fact that each level of government would keep passing their concerns back and forth as neither level wants to own up to the responsibility to respond. This is an example of our government staging an appearance of being 'multicultural' (in the minds to mean all cultures welcome) but mean 'Multicultural' (meaning only specifically indicated cultures). The Metis had been defended as historical to Canadian origins and so technically have to be granted the same privileged status as other groups to maintain being non-hypocritical.

[Accountability Now]

This decision WAS to clearly define where Metis should go to for concerns, Provincial or Federal government. They decided Metis were considered an official "First Nation" and so belong to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

No. You're wrong. Indians is the general term used for Aboriginal. First Nations are Indians. Inuit are Indians. And now Metis are Indians. However, Metis are NOT First Nations.

From the SCC ruling:

The trial judge’s conclusion was that “Indians” under s. 91(24) is a broad term referring to all Indigenous peoples in Canada. He declined, however, to grant the second and third declarations. The Federal Court of Appeal accepted that “Indians” in s. 91(24) included all Indigenous peoples generally.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/15858/1/document.do

[Scott Mayers]

While I can't answer for the thoughts of the original European invaders, there are several problems I have with that characterization.

1. There was not a cohesive whole aboriginal nation, but rather a very diverse set of people with varying forms of social order on the American continents before the Europeans arrived

2. All societies have a social order or hierarchy based on blood line, conquest, and democratic decision making. That is true the world over, in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Certainly as technology has enabled movement between societies, and conquest went from local through regional to global scope, there has been a influence mostly from the conquering onto those societies they invaded.

3. Societal evolution doesn't just span different cultures, but also the ages. By the same token, today`s First Nations could call the societies of the middle ages in Europe as wild untamed animals.

It is very common for societies not to want to loose their cultural legacy, yet live in the modern world. This is not unique to the first nations, just look at the British Isles and the various cultures there that don`t want to be assimilated. This involves much more than just preserving a language and folksy song and dance, it extends to self government.

I already recognized the North American original peoples as diverse. But, at least for North America, they were still in a phase of civilization that has NOT reached the level of organization dealing with the advances earned through intellectual advances (technology infrastructure stages, like "Stone" to "Industrial" to "Information", for instances). These are NOT arbitrary cultural factors. But the cultures associated with religion and ethnicity ARE irrelevant but are also the ones that are being focused on.

The actual 'culture' of the Europeans with respect to 'civilization' is NOT Christian nor any religiously connected inheritances. In this respect, North American Indians are no more nor less superior or inferior. But this IS the damn distraction that I'm pointing to. By treating culture as the 'cause' of civil advancement, as in the preamble to the Charter is

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

The actual cause of advancement is tied up with an evolution towards more advanced technology and stages of these that require large infrastructure and time to evolve. The New World American Indians everywhere had just passed the phase of evolution as ancient ancient Egypt (when the Pyramids were built)...and they had not adapted fully to settlements. This was also not even caught up by all of the New world either. And while you admit all cultures of even North America were diverse, what you don't recognize is that with respect most, and especially North American Indians, is that they had not yet had the time nor infrastructure to catch up to the inevitable technological stage that ALL intellectual beings like humans would go through.

That is, even Aboriginals naturally are inclined to FAVOR technology, and the advances of civilization. If this wasn't the case, than our Natives would limit their existence to the same exact means they had before Europeans came. They'd only prove they are a culture of the past if they live WITH the constraints defined of that past, which includes reverting back to living in tepees, cyclic hunting, using non-modern tools or devices, etc. Note that things like alcohol wasn't used but while tobacco is considered 'native' to North America, that the Europeans brought horses which were extinct here, etc.

My point is that the Aboriginal has the technological disadvantage part of civilization which defaulted them to be disadvantaged of the same degree of concern to the concept of "land/resource" ownership that comes with SETTLEMENT lifestyles, not hunting and gathering. So to assert they 'own' some right to revere the culture associated with this is naive because these stages are in high contrast and cannot coexist together. Another reason I choose the word, Nationalism, is to distinguish this from mere 'culture'. People all have culture. But you are WRONG when you assume all of us are most conservative and loyal to some Nationalistic viewpoint. This is true of about half the population who does always favor strict allegiance to their genetic heritage and why the combination of culture to ones' genetic inheritance are inappropriate to accept; instead, the 'culture' of progress through non-ethnic, not religious forms of behaviors that often reflect our intellectual/industrial stages, are what matters.

You are right that we are all at fault for wanting to preserve our cultures or traditions where existent. But such CONSERVATION is in direct violation against those who either don't fit into some static culture OR they opt to PROGRESS, such as having intermarriage of different people from different ethnicities, or to create NEW ones where privileged. Conserving Nationality IS what always defines the extremes, like those religious factions who believe their direct ancestors require having leaders of specific families (Saudis, Israelis, strict Christian+someRace group.)

[Scott Mayers]

No. You're wrong. Indians is the general term used for Aboriginal. First Nations are Indians. Inuit are Indians. And now Metis are Indians. However, Metis are NOT First Nations.

From the SCC ruling:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/15858/1/document.do

You're telling me I'm the one wrong by this? You're the one misinterpreting me. I said that "First Nations" IS a legal term to which the Metis want established so that they can be considered with clear distinction as a Nation along with other aboriginals. I don't care what the terms are in context to the specifics. What matters is to understand the issues consistent to whichever definitions you use. The legal definitions have to be clarified from the colloquial uses. I think everyone here is defaulted to assume the colloquial unless we specify the term legal. "First Nations" is a formally legal defined term. I already agree that words like "Indian" or "aboriginal" or "indigenous" are equally useful and pose no concern to use. But if one uses the term "First Nations", this is to refer to the fact they are a set of sets of Nations within Canada, that are NOT Canadian Nationals, but DISTINCT set, like foreign political representatives having immunity to laws of a guest political country,....with the AGREEMENT by the Canadian Nation to have negotiated contract to this land upon which our politics reside (the Treaties). The First Nations are like diplomatic immune foreigners except that this is in the understanding that the First Nations don't confine their Nationalism to land-based concepts as they were tribal wanderers.

So their "National" place (land-wise) is not bound to Canadian borders but to WHERE they are anywhere in the Americas.

[?Impact]

...at least for North America, they were still in a phase of civilization that has NOT reached the level of organization dealing with the advances earned through intellectual advances...

Certainly the North American natives did not develop the advanced metallurgy of other civilizations, but I wouldn't say there were no intellectual advances. Farming, transportation, communication, trade were all part of pre-European society in North America. Mesoamerican society was fairly advanced in developing larger communities and included metallurgy but not advanced to the stage of hardened steel. While spoken language and passing down of oral history was well developed throughout the Americas, is was only the Mesoamericans that developed written language with their ideographic system.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ?Impact

[cybercoma]

It we look at Attawapiskat for example, the tax dollars amount to less than $7,000/year per band member. I don't know about you, but I would find it difficult to build a million dollar mansion on $7k/year.

Not to mention the combined spending between municipal, provincial, and federal governments for the average Canadian is roughly $15000 each.

[Accountability Now]

You're telling me I'm the one wrong by this? You're the one misinterpreting me. I said that "First Nations" IS a legal term to which the Metis want established so that they can be considered with clear distinction as a Nation along with other aboriginals.

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:

Constitutional law — Aboriginal law — Métis — Non-status Indians — Whether declaration should be issued that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” under s. 91(24) of Constitution Act, 1867 — Whether declaration would have practical utility — Whether, for purposes of s. 91(24), Métis should be restricted to definitional criteria set out in R. v. Powley, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207 — Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(24) — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35. Three declarations are sought in this case: (1) that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867; (2) that the federal Crown owes a fiduciary duty to Métis and non-status Indians; and (3) that Métis and non-status Indians have the right to be consulted and negotiated with.

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-m%C3%A9

Edited April 19, 2016 by Accountability Now

[WestCoastRunner]

Not to mention the combined spending between municipal, provincial, and federal governments for the average Canadian is roughly $15000 each.

What I am really grappling with here is the amount of money that is being handed over to the Chiefs. Why can't they provide for their communities? And I'm only asking as a naive citizen because I just don't understand what's going on with these communities and I don't think most Canadians do and are asking the same questions. I want to do what's best for these communities but I also want the chiefs to be held accountable. If it's the Canadian government then fine, lets address it but if it's also the Chiefs, let's address that too. There are far too many Canadians left in the dark on the issues with these communities.

[Accountability Now]

Not to mention the combined spending between municipal, provincial, and federal governments for the average Canadian is roughly $15000 each.

However, the money for the municipal and provincial taxes come from taxpayers. If the First Nations wish to tax their people to spend on First Nations items then they are more than welcomed to do so.

The only comparison that is even close to apples to apples is how much federal funding is spent on both. Even that is not a direct comparison since the First Nations don't consider themselves part of Canada and the money they receive from Canada is as a result of the treaties and not due to national obligation that Canada has to its taxpayers.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Accountability Now