Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 11, 2006 Report Posted August 11, 2006 She:kon! Six Nations 2003 Annual Budget Just a rough estimate of those numbers in the transfer payments I posted, suggests over $5 billion given to, or otherwise spent on the natives of Canada in fiscal 2005-2006. According to this, it is way more than this, there was a report a few years ago pegging total payments at close to double that. Maybe someone could explain where all of that goes. http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=45684 According to the budget documents, the government spends $9.1-billion each year on programs for aboriginal people. The additional $450-million over two years will be spent on improving "education outcomes," improving access to clean drinking water and building and renovating housing on reserves. The budget also sets aside $2.2-billion for compensation for native people who suffered abuses in the residential-school system. Source: Globe and Mail, Jeff Gray http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...iginal/&c=1 Federal Spending on Aboriginal People: Budget Document The government spends approximately $9.1-billion each year to fund programs directed towards aboriginal people. * Indian and Northern Affairs Canada provides about $6.1-billion, of which about 80 per cent is for basic, province-type services for First Nations on reserve (e.g. education, social services, income assistance), where the government has primary responsibility. * Fifteen other federal departments and agencies, the largest of which is Health Canada, also provide about $3-billion for a wide variety of programs for First Nations on reserve, Inuit, Métis and off-reserve aboriginal people. * Over the last five years, spending has grown by about 4.3 per cent or $350-million per year. All true but, we are speaking of a very specific band of natives for which I believe Tsi or somebody else has already identified federal expenditures for their private uses. The numbers you are posting are accurate overall, but not relevant in this case. Funding for Six Nations is, you cannot suggest that the total reflects anything besides a generality. Quote
SickandTired Posted August 11, 2006 Report Posted August 11, 2006 Also, Will there be mention of the ' in trust ' monies lost through the mismanagement of The Grand River Navigation Company? How about the mention that these trust monies have already been accounted for and paid to Six Nations? Would that suffice? From the governments Statement of Defence to Six Nations claims... PART V56. The Grand River Navigation Company was incorporated to open navigation on the Grand River from Detroit and Buffalo, into the heart of Southwestern Ontario. John Colbourne, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, believed that such an effort would greatly increase the value of Six Nations lands. Private investors expected that the stocks of Company would be profitable. 57. Colbourne advised the Six Nations’ Council that the investment would not be made without their consent and obtained the consent of the Council before investing Six Nations funds in the stock. 58. Six Nations invested $160,000.00 in the Company. The project probed to be unprofitable, and the $160,000.00 was lost. 59. The Six Nations petitioned the Crown for redress. The Federal Crown at all times denied liability for the loss however, about January 1925, met with the Six Nations to address their concerns. 60. The Federal Crown offered “to make annual grants for roads and other public purposes on the reserve, gradually compensating for the ($160,000) loss. 61. The Six Nations accepted this offer. Accordingly, from 1925 to 1932 funds were appropriated from Parliament for public purposes such as roads, a hospital and an electric plant for a total of $164,938.61 and paid towards improvements on the Six Nations reserve. Such funds were paid and received in full satisfaction of any claim of the Plaintiff by reason of the investment of funds in the Grand River Navigation Company. Quote
SickandTired Posted August 11, 2006 Report Posted August 11, 2006 I suppose you don't wouldn't know any better, not having good listening skills and all. However, we have not only a precise recollection of the transaction but the intent as well, in our oral history. It has been established in your Supreme Court that our oral history has as much legitimacy as any possible written history (which has been determined by the SCC to be inherently biased on many occasions). We can tell you the intent and the nuance and disputes of every agreement ever made. Someone named Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne' posted this on another board that I thought were wise words... EVERY personal account when retold from the singular position will be biased. You only know what you think to be truth from that same biased position, having only seen what you wanted to see, and from a very equally limited viewpoint. That is the problem with oral history. We have seen oral history of the events of the last 5 months in Caledonia get twisted and turned to suit people's agenda on both sides of the issue... On another note, Canada should amend the Charter to ban stupid people from the internet. They represent the worst scourge to the information superhighway since road kill became an Alberta renecks favourite delicacy...... O:nen But then what would you do with your time??? Quote
Simple One Posted August 16, 2006 Report Posted August 16, 2006 Tsi has suggested 1 Trillion dollars as payment of land in dispute. Is this figure for Canada or Six Nations. Can clarification to this be brought into light for all to understand. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.