Native complaints about Canada's 150th

[jacee]

22 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

We do actually know that the $90M was over 5 years -- that point is stated in nearly every article.  My point about the money being "pretty much upfront" is because DeBeers hadn't actually made the allotted money before handing it to the reserve.

So, what did the $90M do to help the community?  Once you answer that, then maybe go back to the question about what it would take to bring that reserve up to the standards that you're seeking. 

 

$90m is 5 years of normal federal funding. I gave you the list of what it's for - normal government services.

DeBeers has nothing to do with that and did not give them any money "upfront".

You are not being sincere. You are misleading and misinforming.

[Accountability Now]

On 7/8/2017 at 6:33 AM, jacee said:

$90m is 5 years of normal federal funding.

Do you think $18M per year is normal? That works out to $12,000 per person on that reserve. Most urban communities have total expenses around $500-1000 per person. The smaller, more remote ones are around $2500 per person. 

Even Kaschwechewan only received approximately $4M for 1700 people or about $2352 per person which is inline with my statement above about how much things cost for a smaller norther community. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Do you think $18M per year is normal? That works out to $12,000 per person on that reserve. Most urban communities have total expenses around $500-1000 per person. The smaller, more remote ones are around $2500 per person. 

Even Kaschwechewan only received approximately $4M for 1700 people or about $2352 per person which is inline with my statement above about how much things cost for a smaller norther community. 

It's for

Education (eg, facility, teachers, supplies, heating, etc)

Health care

Social services,

Roads and other infrastructure

Housing (ie, public housing)

Governance and other government services

Urban municipalities  DO NOT PAY FOR EDUCATION OR HEALTH CARE, and only some social and government services.

It isn't directly comparable.

Either your data on Kashechewan is wrong, or they're horribly underfunded.

Edited July 10, 2017 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

47 minutes ago, jacee said:

 

Roads and other infrastructure

Housing

 

 

Where in the treaty does it say Canada will provide roads or housing?

 

58 minutes ago, jacee said:

Either your data on Kashechewan is wrong, or they're horribly underfunded.

Nope. Not wrong jacee and they don't seem to be underfunded either.  The info is right on their webpage listed on their financial statements....you know, in the spot you always tell others to look.

Here are three more examples:

Matachewan First Nation, with a registered population of 722, showed federal funding received of $1.3-million. In March 2014 the band reported that Chief Elenore Hendrix was paid $18,200 with expenses of $4,274, for 12 months.

Moose Cree First Nation with a registered population of 4411, showed federal funding received of $16.8-million. In March 2014 the band reported that Chief Norm Hardisty Jr. was paid $154,340 with expenses of $53,000, for 12 months.

Moose Cree deputy chief Earl Cheechoo was paid $112,809 with expenses of $52,000 for the same period.

Wahgoshig First Nation, with a registered population of 318, showed federal funding received of $2.2-million. In March 2014 the band reported that chief Dave Babin was paid $102,550 with expenses of $58,750, for 12 months.

http://www.timminstimes.com/2014/08/11/northern-ontario-first-nations-ignore-financial-demands

This works out to $1800, $3800, and $6900 per capita for these FNs in those given years. Some are probably higher or lower based on what needs are present in a given year but based on the numbers presented do you not think it's obvious that $12,000 per person for five years is way more than any other reserve and yet they were the ones screaming about no funding? 

Can you now figure out why Harper was scratching his head on this one??

Can you now admit that in this example, the First Nation in question was responsible for poor management of said funds which caused the crises?

 

 

[jacee]

16 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Where in the treaty does it say Canada will provide roads or housing?

 

Nope. Not wrong jacee and they don't seem to be underfunded either.  The info is right on their webpage listed on their financial statements....you know, in the spot you always tell others to look.

Here are three more examples:

Matachewan First Nation, with a registered population of 722, showed federal funding received of $1.3-million. In March 2014 the band reported that Chief Elenore Hendrix was paid $18,200 with expenses of $4,274, for 12 months.

Moose Cree First Nation with a registered population of 4411, showed federal funding received of $16.8-million. In March 2014 the band reported that Chief Norm Hardisty Jr. was paid $154,340 with expenses of $53,000, for 12 months.

Moose Cree deputy chief Earl Cheechoo was paid $112,809 with expenses of $52,000 for the same period.

Wahgoshig First Nation, with a registered population of 318, showed federal funding received of $2.2-million. In March 2014 the band reported that chief Dave Babin was paid $102,550 with expenses of $58,750, for 12 months.

http://www.timminstimes.com/2014/08/11/northern-ontario-first-nations-ignore-financial-demands

This works out to $1800, $3800, and $6900 per capita for these FNs in those given years. Some are probably higher or lower based on what needs are present in a given year but based on the numbers presented do you not think it's obvious that $12,000 per person for five years is way more than any other reserve and yet they were the ones screaming about no funding? 

Can you now figure out why Harper was scratching his head on this one??

Can you now admit that in this example, the First Nation in question was responsible for poor management of said funds which caused the crises?

 

 

If Kashechewan gets about the same funding per capita as a municipality of similar size as you said, then they are horribly underfunded because they also have to pay for health care, education and some other government services that municipalities do not pay for. 

Can you grasp that concept yet? 

It's a lot of work to sort through what the funding is allocated for (eg, one time capital costs vs operations, etc) to make accurate comparisons. You are blythely and inaccurately making statements you can't back up, and you don't even yet comprehend that FN are funded for more and different services than municipalities.

Not interested in playing the funding game with someone so incompetent and ill intentioned.

[Hal 9000]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

If Kashechewan gets about the same funding per capita as a municipality of similar size as you said, then they are horribly underfunded because they also have to pay for health care, education and some other government services that municipalities do not pay for. 

Can you grasp that concept yet? 

It's a lot of work to sort through what the funding is allocated for (eg, one time capital costs vs operations, etc) to make accurate comparisons. You are blythely and inaccurately making statements you can't back up, and you don't even yet comprehend that FN are funded for more and different services than municipalities.

Not interested in playing the funding game with someone so incompetent and ill intentioned.

I don't blame you for not wanting to play the FN's funding game anymore.

[Accountability Now]

15 hours ago, jacee said:

It's a lot of work to sort through what the funding is allocated for (eg, one time capital costs vs operations, etc) to make accurate comparisons. You are blythely and inaccurately making statements you can't back up, and you don't even yet comprehend that FN are funded for more and different services than municipalities.

I'm fine with moving on from the First Nation to Municipality comparison as it was only preface to the point I was really trying to make...which is what Attawapiskat received in federal funding versus what other First Nations received. Again, you persist that the $12,000 per per person is 'normal' yet various surrounding First Nations show much lower numbers. You also confirmed that the $90M was for normal government services and excluded the  capital costs for housing but now you are purposely throwing that back into the mix and saying its too complicated. Maybe for you it is. 

The reality is that the funding to a given First Nation in the area remained fairly consistent over the 2006-2010 period in discussion. (This is clearly noted on the Financial Transparency site if you care to look.)  But to account for any irregularities, one can look at the five year average funding and you would still find that Attawpiskat had much higher per capita funding that surrounding First Nations.  I didn't do the research on every First Nation in Ontario so it is quite possible that other First Nations receive as much or more however the point is that the complaint that Attawapiskat is underfunded just can't be taken seriously. 

I know....your assertion is that all First Nations are underfunded which again comes down to what the Treaties say. What is the government supposed to provide? But yet you steered clear when I asked about why is funding for housing or roads included when the Treaty covering this area says nothing about that. It seems very obvious that objectivity is not a strong suit of yours. The reality is that other reserves make it work because they have more 'own source' revenue which is the way is should be. The reserve system is not intended to provide EVERYTHING for these people but to supplement them. If a reserve needs the government to fully subsidize it then it shouldn't be in existence. 

You can use your personal insults all you want. In fact I love when you get to that point because it makes me realize that you don't really have any facts to argue instead you are arguing from emotion.  I get it....you feel bad for these people and think that we should just hand over the bank accounts and let them do what they want. Unfortunately it can't and won't work that way. There needs to be objectivity and accountability which again by the audit done, there was neither accountability or objectivity to be found in Attawpiskat. So....instead of playing the victim role and making all other, lower funded yet still properly functioning reserves look bad, you should instead point out the poor leadership and issues that Attawiskat presented. But you just can't do that can you? And you wonder why all aboriginals get lumped into the bad stereotypes. Yeesh. 

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Where in the treaty does it say Canada will provide roads or housing?

Where in the treaty does it say Canada can apply 21st century technology to enforce it? 

[Accountability Now]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Where in the treaty does it say Canada can apply 21st century technology to enforce it? 

You're right. We should be using 19th century technology all around. Tipis for houses, scythes and sickle for farming and only horses alllowed on reserve....none of those fancy automobiles!! 

[jacee]

21 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

I'm fine with moving on from the First Nation to Municipality comparison as it was only preface to the point I was really trying to make...which is what Attawapiskat received in federal funding versus what other First Nations received. Again, you persist that the $12,000 per per person is 'normal' yet various surrounding First Nations show much lower numbers. You also confirmed that the $90M was for normal government services and excluded the  capital costs for housing but now you are purposely throwing that back into the mix and saying its too complicated. Maybe for you it is. 

The reality is that the funding to a given First Nation in the area remained fairly consistent over the 2006-2010 period in discussion. (This is clearly noted on the Financial Transparency site if you care to look.)  But to account for any irregularities, one can look at the five year average funding and you would still find that Attawpiskat had much higher per capita funding that surrounding First Nations.  I didn't do the research on every First Nation in Ontario so it is quite possible that other First Nations receive as much or more however the point is that the complaint that Attawapiskat is underfunded just can't be taken seriously. 

I know....your assertion is that all First Nations are underfunded which again comes down to what the Treaties say. What is the government supposed to provide? But yet you steered clear when I asked about why is funding for housing or roads included when the Treaty covering this area says nothing about that. It seems very obvious that objectivity is not a strong suit of yours. The reality is that other reserves make it work because they have more 'own source' revenue which is the way is should be. The reserve system is not intended to provide EVERYTHING for these people but to supplement them. If a reserve needs the government to fully subsidize it then it shouldn't be in existence. 

You can use your personal insults all you want. In fact I love when you get to that point because it makes me realize that you don't really have any facts to argue instead you are arguing from emotion.  I get it....you feel bad for these people and think that we should just hand over the bank accounts and let them do what they want. Unfortunately it can't and won't work that way. There needs to be objectivity and accountability which again by the audit done, there was neither accountability or objectivity to be found in Attawpiskat. So....instead of playing the victim role and making all other, lower funded yet still properly functioning reserves look bad, you should instead point out the poor leadership and issues that Attawiskat presented. But you just can't do that can you? And you wonder why all aboriginals get lumped into the bad stereotypes. Yeesh. 

Neither of us is qualified to make such comparisons. As you say, you don't even know why funding is included for  housing and roads (including ongoing maintenance, btw, not just capital costs).

I said Kashechewan is underfunded compared to municipalities (if your figures are accurate). I made no such comment about Attawapiskat.

I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Edited July 12, 2017 by jacee
Add

[eyeball]

Better I think to develop modern treaties that reflect modern times.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Better I think to develop modern treaties that reflect modern times.

 

Modern times =  the unceded land and resources belong to Canada and won't ever go back to "aboriginals".

[jacee]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Modern times =  the unceded land and resources belong to Canada and won't ever go back to "aboriginals".

Wrong.

Go fix your own country.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Modern times =  the unceded land and resources belong to Canada and won't ever go back to "aboriginals".

 

The safe bet.

[jacee]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The safe bet.

B_C has no clue about Canadian law.

Apparently neither do you.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

B_C has no clue about Canadian law.

 

Canadian law = hose "aboriginals"

[jacee]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Better I think to develop modern treaties that reflect modern times.

That's happening to some extent, though some processes are poisoned and stalled by  govt demands for an 'extinction' clause, a demand that is illegal in International law.

However, according to the Supreme Court traditional treaties are to be interpreted in the modern context. Thus, for example, 'hunting and fishing' rights are interpreted as the right to sustain themselves from their traditional lands, including receiving revenues from development and resource activity on those lands. Likewise, the medicine kit historically distributed to all Canadian communities including Indigenous communities, now interprets as modern health care benefits.

 

[jacee]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canadian law = hose "aboriginals"

??? 

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

B_C has no clue about Canadian law.

Apparently neither do you.

 

BC and I have seen enough things to know that barnacles form on the outside of the boat...not inside.

[Accountability Now]

 

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Modern times =  the unceded land and resources belong to Canada and won't ever go back to "aboriginals".

The funny thing is that aboriginals are a part of Canada and therefore it would be going to them as well. The root of the problem in my opinion is that the continue to distance themselves from the rest of the country and then wonder why we treat them as distant!

[jacee]

On 12/07/2017 at 11:05 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

The safe bet.

1750 sq km of BC is now Aboriginal title:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/26/supreme_court_grants_land_title_to_bc_first_nation_in_landmark_case.html

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 2017-07-04 at 0:26 PM, -TSS- said:

I think Greenland would be better off being a province or a territory of Canada rather than its current status as a Danish overseas territory as they really have nothing in common with Denmark anyway.

Typical Nordic modesty. Here are some reasons for staying under current management which I presume haven't changed too radically in the last five years: 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/greenlands-success-shows-canadas-child-mortality-disgrace/article1211264/?arc404=true

 

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

The current arrangements do not work well for aboriginal kids. The bands should be resettled in larger, more viable communities and far more accountability must be required regarding how money is spent.  

Edited July 22, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The current arrangements do not work well for aboriginal kids. The bands should be resettled in larger, more viable communities and far more accountability must be required regarding how money is spent.  

It needs proper oversight, from a non-indian.

[SpankyMcFarland]

10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

It needs proper oversight, from a non-indian.

I think an aboriginal person would be preferable in that they could be much tougher. There are native bands that have run things well and the people responsible should be encouraged to take leadership positions nationally.