Attawapaskit Indian nation.

[Accountability Now]

Why can't they provide for their communities?

Its a good question. As Cyber points out the amount of total funding that happens comes from municipal, provincial and federal funding. It is up to the First Nation to provide the first two of those. My thought is they feel the Federal government is supposed to supply for all their needs however if you look at the treaties it is very limited.

[cybercoma]

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.

They were taxed when they agreed to cede use of their lands in exchange for the Crown providing for them. They're owed trillions on those land use agreements that the government is supposed to be holding in trust. We all know they aren't, but that's not the First Nations' fault.

[cybercoma]

Its a good question. As Cyber points out the amount of total funding that happens comes from municipal, provincial and federal funding. It is up to the First Nation to provide the first two of those. My thought is they feel the Federal government is supposed to supply for all their needs however if you look at the treaties it is very limited.

If you look at the Canada Health Act and the various provincial education acts, you will note there is a service standard that had to be met. If the various levels of government need to spend around $15000 per person on average but the First Nations only get $7000 do you really think the government is living up to the standards that it requires of itself?

[?Impact]

... the amount of total funding that happens comes from municipal, provincial and federal funding. It is up to the First Nation to provide the first two of those...

I guess you never heard of federal transfers to provinces and municipalities, and the real kicker - equalization. Maybe Attawapiskat needs to put in a subway, then they could get a billion dollar grant?

[TimG]

If you look at the Canada Health Act and the various provincial education acts, you will note there is a service standard that had to be met.

And how is this standard met for non-aboriginals that choose to live in the middle of nowhere? At some point the government has to say that it is not practical to provide anything close to the level of service that people expect in large towns and cities which means there is no uniform standard for 'level of service'.

[jacee]

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.

First Nations communities are not funded at the same rate we are. Funds per person for education, health care, social services including social housing are far less than what we have. That's why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommends closing the gaps in funding.

While there is no doubt some corruption in some First Nations governments, as there is in ours too, those accusations are generally exaggerated to distract people from the gaps in funding.

Despite widespread disagreement with Harper's 'accountability' act, almost all First Nations complied with the requirements and demonstrated good money management.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-myth-of-the-first-nations-financial-transparency-act/article27125271/

First Nations had a shockingly good success rate: From a pool of well more than 1,000 band councillors, when remuneration from political posts and positions in band companies were combined, only a handful of packages raised eyebrows. Many municipal politicians also work for companies that receive work from their municipality. If they had to report both salaries, wed be pleased if they performed as well as First Nations have.

So forget that nonsense.

Funding gaps are the issue.

And over 100 years and six generations of trauma, as our governments attempted to destroy Indigenous civilization by forcibly alienating children from their own culture, communities and families, outlawed their culture, broke every agreement we ever made with them, to benefit corporations that clearcut and poisoned their land with industries that destroyed their livelihoods and their food sources, with no financial benefit to them ...

... and then called them 'corrupt'. :/

.

[WestCoastRunner]

First Nations communities are not funded at the same rate we are. Funds per person for education, health care, social services including social housing are far less than what we have. That's why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommends closing the gaps in funding.

While there is no doubt some corruption in some First Nations governments, as there is in ours too, those accusations are generally exaggerated to distract people from the gaps in funding.

Despite widespread disagreement with Harper's 'accountability' act, almost all First Nations complied with the requirements and demonstrated good money management.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-myth-of-the-first-nations-financial-transparency-act/article27125271/

First Nations had a shockingly good success rate: From a pool of well more than 1,000 band councillors, when remuneration from political posts and positions in band companies were combined, only a handful of packages raised eyebrows. Many municipal politicians also work for companies that receive work from their municipality. If they had to report both salaries, wed be pleased if they performed as well as First Nations have.

So forget that nonsense.

Funding gaps are the issue.

And over 100 years and six generations of trauma, as our governments attempted to destroy Indigenous civilization by forcibly alienating children from their own culture, communities and families, outlawed their culture, broke every agreement we ever made with them, to benefit corporations that clearcut and poisoned their land with industries that destroyed their livelihoods and their food sources, with no financial benefit to them ...

... and then called them 'corrupt'. :/

.

Thanks Jaycee. This helps in my understanding of the financial issues.

[Accountability Now]

They were taxed when they agreed to cede use of their lands in exchange for the Crown providing for them.

Yes...taxed federally and in exchange given things like education and health care....not a complete free ride. The rest of the stuff is up to them to create an economy and taxation of said economy to provide funds to pay for the rest of the items required.

They're owed trillions on those land use agreements that the government is supposed to be holding in trust. We all know they aren't, but that's not the First Nations' fault.

Please stop making your arguments based on the comments section from Rabble. The lands were ceded and surrendered in full with no rights given to the First Nations. The trillions you talk about are speculations based on what the Federal government has made from the ceded land since then even though there is NOTHING in the treaties about sharing the land. It does state that they can use the land for hunting/fishing except for the tracts to be taken up by mining and other resource development. The compensation received thus far is largely as a result of what has happened to their ability to hunt/fish due to these resource development projects, not because they have a land use agreement.

If you look at the Canada Health Act and the various provincial education acts, you will note there is a service standard that had to be met.

The Canada Health Act is for Canadian citizens. The First Nations have often stated they are not citizens of Canada but rather a nation on its own for which we must respect them in nation to nation talks. As a result, our only obligation is to fulfill the treaties and not to the liberal translation that the AFN wants but to the actual meaning of the treaties. If at any point they want in on the Canadian Dream, then by all means they are more then welcome.

If the various levels of government need to spend around $15000 per person on average but the First Nations only get $7000 do you really think the government is living up to the standards that it requires of itself?

Again...you purposely leave out the fact that large portions of municipal and provincial funding comes from taxing the people. Its not from Federal funding. So before you continue talking about the different levels please adjust your numbers to reflect apples to apples comparisons

[Accountability Now]

I guess you never heard of federal transfers to provinces and municipalities, and the real kicker - equalization.

Oh no...I have certainly heard of them and also know they only make up about $1900 per capita.

https://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp

In total, Canada spends around $7500 per person on all program spending which INCLUDES these transfers to provincial and municipal governments. This is the number that you need to compare to what the Feds give to First Nations. According to this article, the funding given to First Nations averages $9,056 per capita....or about $1500 more per person.

Data gleaned from federal archives and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada show that spending per registered First Nations person jumped to $9,056 per person by 2012, from $922 in 1950 (the figures are adjusted for inflation, so this is an apple-to-apple comparison)

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/milke-the-facts-about-aboriginal-funding-in-canada

Again....one should not make apples to apples comparisons about how much WE get versus the First Nations. The reason they get what they get is due to the treaties and the agreements made. Having said that, the reason they are limited to what they get is for the exact same reason

It we look at Attawapiskat for example, the tax dollars amount to less than $7,000/year per band member.

I would like to see a citation showing where you get this $7k per year number. Even in this article defending Attiwapiskat, they show that the Federal Government gave $17.6M per year for approximately 1900 people which equals about $9263 per year. This number is even higher than the average stated above.

Add to the fact that the province kicks in an additional $4M per year for reasons that I don't know about so won't comment.

[Accountability Now]

First Nations communities are not funded at the same rate we are. Funds per person for education, health care, social services including social housing are far less than what we have. That's why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommends closing the gaps in funding.

Please provide citations to back your claims.

The article I read on this states the following:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/milke-the-facts-about-aboriginal-funding-in-canada

First, in some cases, it corrects the record. The commission claims there is currently inequity in education funding for First Nation students on reserve vis-a-vis students in provincial public schools. Wrong. National on-reserve funding per student in the 2010/11 school year amounted to $13,524, compared to $11,646 per student, on average, in provincial public schools across Canada.

Data gleaned from federal archives and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada show that spending per registered First Nations person jumped to $9,056 per person by 2012, from $922 in 1950 (the figures are adjusted for inflation, so this is an apple-to-apple comparison). That’s an 882 per cent per capita increase in real terms.

In comparison, all federal program spending on all Canadians (including First Nations ) rose to $7,316 per person in 2012, from $1,504 per capita back in 1950 — a 387 per cent increase in real terms

If the above claims the article makes are correct, then the amount of funding they receive is actually above the averages. On top of that, the government has kicked in extra

Lastly, Canadians have often been generous through the tax system in ways not required by treaty or the Constitution. For example, some government programs exist that provide tax-funded benefits solely for First Nations people, which are unavailable to the general population.

For example, in 2013/14, Health Canada spent almost $1.1 billion on supplementary benefits such as dental care, vision care and pharmaceutical drugs for eligible First Nations and Inuit Canadians. That coverage is not required by treaties or by the Constitution. And most other Canadians must spend out-of-pocket or buy insurance for such items.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Accountability Now

[cybercoma]

And how is this standard met for non-aboriginals that choose to live in the middle of nowhere? At some point the government has to say that it is not practical to provide anything close to the level of service that people expect in large towns and cities which means there is no uniform standard for 'level of service'.

That's the issue in NB. The government has set its own obligations. These laws were written that way (not by courts, mind you) because Canadians value consistent healthcare wherever they are in the country. Why should workers in the middle of nowhere on an oil patch get worse healthcare than someone in downtown Toronto? And why should First Nations get substandard funding at nearly half the rate for their healthcare, education, housing, water treatment, etc? Most reasonable people don't think that people should get worse healthcare and education depending on where they live, just like they don't believe people should get worse healthcare and education based on their ability to pay. That's noting more than libertarian antisocial fantasies.

[cybercoma]

Accountability Now, First Nations are asking for the same standards of service as the rest of the country. What you ignorantly call a "free" hand out is owed to them for giving over the country you inhabit. That was the agreement and the government shortchanges them instead of holding up their end of the deal.

[Accountability Now]

Accountability Now, First Nations are asking for the same standards of service as the rest of the country. What you ignorantly call a "free" hand out is owed to them for giving over the country you inhabit.

Where have I stated its a FREE HANDOUT???? Seriously....quote where I said that. I have stated that the items they currently received were negotiated in treaty and are owed to them. I have no problem with that but if you want to lie about what I said instead of actually debate on the points presented then go for it.

That was the agreement and the government shortchanges them instead of holding up their end of the deal.

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.

The simple fact is that the problem is that the AFN believes the treaties were meant to be an all encompassing funding when clearly they are not. They are meant to provide the very basics and from that the First Nations are to supplement the rest....just like any other normal society.

Again....at any point the First Nations can come on over to Canada if they feel its that much better. The invite is always there. Instead, they choose to isolate themselves and churn up the discussion with their 'nation to nation' banter, the whole time acting like they are some separate country but then whining about why we don't treat them the same as other Canadians. They are certainly entitled to their treaties but in my mind....those treaties are screwing them over big time!

[Accountability Now]

And why should First Nations get substandard funding at nearly half the rate for their healthcare, education, housing, water treatment, etc?

Where was water treatment funding stated in the treaties?

[TimG]

Accountability Now, First Nations are asking for the same standards of service as the rest of the country.

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

[Accountability Now]

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

Exactly!

[PIK]

When the European 1st showed up ,there was not a 1st nation. But many nations that were hell bent on slaughtering each other. Genocide was the norm for the day. And now with more evidence that 1st nations also came from Europe, does changes things. I wanted harper to succeed with his plan for the natives by asking for receipts for how they spend the taxpayers money ,they said no and now trudeau has said they do not need to. So nothing is going to change because the poor native will never get anything until these chiefs and council are investigated, and cleaned up .Now it is my understanding that the regular folk/native on the reserve are not allowed to vote for their chiefs and councils' that true.

Edited April 19, 2016 by PIK

[Hydraboss]

So Accountability Now posted some pretty specific information in post #35 above. I'm curious if anyone is planning on actually disputing the numbers or if the plan is to simply ignore them and keep on with the "underfunded natives" narrative.

Still no takers?

[PIK]

How much more do other reserves bring in in illegal dealings? As In drugs, guns, cigarettes and human smuggling.

Edited April 19, 2016 by PIK

[Accountability Now]

So Accountability Now posted some pretty specific information in post #35 above. I'm curious if anyone is planning on actually disputing the numbers or if the plan is to simply ignore them and keep on with the "underfunded natives" narrative.

Still no takers?

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.

[The_Squid]

When the European 1st showed up ,there was not a 1st nation. But many nations that were hell bent on slaughtering each other. Genocide was the norm for the day. And now with more evidence that 1st nations also came from Europe, does changes things.

This is a bunch of racist claptrap. Genocide? Next you'll be calling them "savages" that needed to be civilized by the Europeans.

They came from Europe? Please provide a cite.

[Boges]

I can't get worked up over a 2,000 person community of people that are so far away from anything resembling civilization being upset that they don't have access to first world comforts. You can't have it both ways.

Is that land really all that sacred and if it is, why can't they use it to sustain themselves? The Inuit seem to do it in land a lot harsher than where this community is.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Boges

[The_Squid]

Is that land really all that sacred and if it is, why can't they use it to sustain themselves? The Inuit seem to do it in land a lot harsher than where this community is.

Yeah! And why don't those people on the east side of Vancouver just move over to the west side where it is WAY nicer to live??? Lazy bums...

[Boges]

Yeah! And why don't those people on the east side of Vancouver just move over to the west side where it is WAY nicer to live??? Lazy bums...

They have access to government services on both sides don't they?

[jacee]

The lands were ceded and surrendered in full with no rights given to the First Nations.

Not true.

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

Indigenous Nations retained hunting, fishing and other rights on land 'in trust' to the Crown - ie, they retained the right to sustain themselves from that land.

That is the basis of the Crown's duty to consult, and to accommodate Aboriginal rights when governments are contemplating development on their traditional territories.

The trillions you talk about are speculations based on what the Federal government has made from the ceded land

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

The Canada Health Act is for Canadian citizens. The First Nations have often stated they are not citizens of Canada but rather a nation on its own for which we must respect them in nation to nation talks. As a result, our only obligation is to fulfill the treaties and not to the liberal translation that the AFN wants but to the actual meaning of the treaties. If at any point they want in on the Canadian Dream, then by all means they are more then welcome.

Not true.

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

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'.

Edited April 19, 2016 by jacee