Native Indian Corruption

[RT_1984]

The "problem" with going over the heads of executives like the the AFN is that it would violate provisions in the constitution and conventions and say we must negociate on a nation to nation basis with the aboriginals. This means that "Us" being the other nation have supposedly no right to invoke a referendum or democratic apparatus on the aboriginals (that's supposedly the AFN's job). For example: The govt. of Canada would call a referendum in France to prevoke change in France since it isn't it's jurisdiction. Therefore it's once again left up to the AFN and other executive groups to basically relinquish the awesome, power that they have. And forgive me for being skeptical but I doubt that they would ever agree to this. And meanwhile, while we're waiting the average aboriginal is meant to suffer. I'm a populist and as a populist I'm generally opposed to recognizing special group interests in the constitution. To draw up another agreement (even if it's different) would be doing just this. I also find it ironic Hugo that you invest so much loyalty to a contract that as you said was made at gunpoint, and the aboriginals had no choice in anyway. That doesn't really sound like a contract at all. It's an ultimatum, and today if an agreement was made in that manner it would'n't be considered a "treaty." Therefore I would say that there were never really any true treaties and that they were invalid and not genuine in the first place. Special deals, a constitutional agreements for special groups in general are what caused many of this countries conflicts (Meech Lake, Charlottetown). And look what happens whenever the govt. actually tries to rid the system of corruption under this special agreements of self-governance: We have the native governance bill deemed by the aboriginal elites, and Canadian political elites of all politically correct stripes calling it "neo-colonialism." I see no other alternative but to eventually give Aboriginal the same rights as others and to give these nations the status of muncipalities (as the CA proposes).

[Hugo]

I also find it ironic Hugo that you invest so much loyalty to a contract that as you said was made at gunpoint, and the aboriginals had no choice in anyway.

I can see your point with this. I am not an advocate of the original treaties, due firstly to their unfairness and secondly to the fact that they've already been broken so many times. However, I believe that a man's word should be his bond, and if we have given our word to do a thing we should do that, or propose something to replace it, rather than just break our word. I prefer revision and reform of the treaties, but I would rather that the existing treaties be retained than be scrapped altogether without replacement. At least then, we could argue that we were keeping our part of the bargain.

This means that "Us" being the other nation have supposedly no right to invoke a referendum or democratic apparatus on the aboriginals

This is true, and it is a problem. I would argue that we could force a democratically approved revision of the treaties, however.

Let's look at a historical comparison. Most Indian culture, I believe, holds that land cannot be owned but merely used. However, our culture and law hold that land is property that can be owned. If the Indians were willing to abide by our law and not theirs when drawing up the treaties and leasing their land, could we not insist that they abide by our law when the treaties are being revised?

We could also argue that, while the government of the First Nations remains so corrupt and autocratic, that we will not deal with them. Basically, that would be the same idea as refusing to recognise the government of a foreign country as the legitimate government because it does not rule with the mandate of its people.

[RT_1984]

"I would argue that we could force a democratically approved revision of the treaties, however."

Enforcing democracy on aboriginals would be reneging on the contracts which you previously mentioned since we have guarenteed them the right to self-governance and consult on a nation to nation basis.

"We could also argue that, while the government of the First Nations remains so corrupt and autocratic, that we will not deal with them. Basically, that would be the same idea as refusing to recognise the government of a foreign country as the legitimate government because it does not rule with the mandate of its people. "

- Here I agree with you but in an ironic way. My previous post was a "tongue in cheek" assessment of this situation. We both know that they are not nations in any traditional sense and really have never been treated as such. What the govt. has been doing is treating them as a nation in some ways but not in others. This is unsustainable and undemocratic and you seem to agree with me. We both know that dealing with the Nisga is not the same as dealing with the French Government. We don't impose laws in France like we do on Reserves. I'm saying this hybrid approach is not working. I think that is obvious looking at the last 100 years. You speak of consitutional revision of their recognition. I would suggest that the mere fact they are recognized as having special status at all in the constitution is the problem. You must keep in mind that whatever the government decides in the way of bills can be overuled by the activist court we have. Parliament's power has increasingly diminished and this is no longer considered solely an issue of public policy as has been discussed earlier. If there is special legal provisions in the constitution then these groups can and will (as we have seen) go around parliament and through the courts to get what they want through litigation. Parliament can do little to stop this while the court has grounds under the constitution. All they need are expensive lawyers and we're back to square one. Which is where we are. I'm not concerned with honoring an contract which was made at gun point and is therefore irrevelant. Consider what's happened since them and what that invalid contract has achieved. It reminds me of the Godfather where a character was made an offer he couldn't refuse. I say today, we extinguish that contract and constitutionally recognize them the same way we recognize Quebec: "unique" with no strings attached. That's it for me on this topic.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I find the posts on this thread really interesting. Even Hugo's beliefs, which run contrary to mine, are very persuasive and have to be given merit. RT, you got some great points as well. Mentioning the CA's stance on the Native issue reminds me on how Stockwell Day almost got my vote. As I've said earlier, being on the prairies this topic has much importance in my life.

[Craig Read]

Even the Lie-beals recognise the need for reform. Any time a Liberal actually moves on reforming anything you know that the case in question is nearly a disaster. In 2002 the Indian Act was very timidly reformed.

The Indian Act is and of itself discriminatory and demeaning to both sides. 3 Areas need reform:

1. Governance

2. Financial accountability

3. Assimilation and the end of land claims

Some argue here and elsewhere that there have been 'reforms'. I disagree. The recent reforms were not really 'reforms' but more a sop to critics [Classic Lieberal political move]. Closer examination of the legislation reveals there is no requirement for native governments to hold elections, or report on the progress of federally funded programs. Furthermore, there is "limited liability" for a band government's legal capacity.

Predictably, native leaders opposed even these tepid reforms arguing a lack of consultation. It is ironic since it was native leaders who refused to take part in the federal governments attempt to consult natives. The federal government went ahead without the native leaders and spent $10 million to discuss governance issues with approximately 10,000 "grassroots" natives.

In fact the federal government established a House of Commons Committee to make substantive amendments to the legislation.

There is one substantial amendment that is good.

Assuming the draft legislation won't die on the order paper [it will need to be reintroduced], the proposed leadership selection criteria for native councils will put the power in the hands of those that require it - the native people. No longer will a chief have an opportunity to manipulate nominations or the eligible voters list. A band employee will no longer be subject to dismissal when a new government is formed simply because they may hold an opposing view. However, none of these new found liberties for native Canadians are worth much if elections are not guaranteed.

I started this post stating that currently, over 7 billion federal tax dollars are spent each year on aboriginal affairs. Under the existing Indian Act there is no requirement for native governments to reveal their financial records to their members, let alone the federal auditor general or to taxpayers. The proposed legislation will require native governments to provide their audited financial statements to any person who requests a copy. Assuming "any person" means any Canadian taxpayer the accountability is significantly better than what taxpayers were provided with before - nothing.

However i don't believe that this level of accountability is enough. Native bands still will not be required to report on the progress of federally supported - i.e., taxpayer funded - programs. Without annual audited progress reports, taxpayers will not be able to evaluate how well their money is being spent.

We need new legislation to provide legal certainty on a native bands legal capacity to sue or be sued, to contract or to borrow. However, the proposed legislation will not replace section 89 of the Indian Act, which makes it very difficult for a business/investor to sue a native band.

Section 89 protects native property and assets located on reserves from any process of garnishee, execution or attachment for debts, damages and other obligations, including taxes, however justly due and owing. This is wrong and a double standard.

Legislation must close section 89 loopholes, guarantee band elections will take place and make native governments accountable to all Canadians.

As well recognising individual private property, using that value to mortgage and create the securitisation of mortgages; the end of group discrimination and assimilation of these people into Canadian life is necessary.

It is also valid to end land claims which now account for $200 billion of Canadian land and special legal rights for natives. The entire land claim process is nothing more than left liberalism run amok over the rights of the 'average' Canadian and the creation of a disaffected minority group in Canada which clamours for more and more power and privilege. Claiming past grievances is liberal insanity. As I stated then each tribe across the globe can claim compensation from other tribes who expelled their people from 'their' land. In North America the French and Dutch would have legitimacy to sue Canada and the US since they were here 'first'. We would then, as RT stated, need to rank ALL tribes that arrived on the Continent by order of arrival, and pureness of bloodlines. Not even hard core fascists would extol such a plan.

The perversity of the diversity ideal is its inherent illogic. It creates and sustains racism, group identity and group think as it extolls 'integration', 'value from diverse thought' and 'cultural exchange'. Diversitys says to Native Indians 'you have different skin color, are inferior, have had a miserable history and we now expect you to act and think like the following.....' Diversiphiles explain to us that diversity creates 'multi-cultural' integration. Oh really. Exactly how this works when you create competing groups, which demand from the wicked white majority, status, money, tears and emotional group hugs is lost on me. Diversity creates conflict not harmony.

The diversiphile racism implicit in native affairs is shocking - on both sides and needs massive reform. Throwing up straw men 'past contracts', 'whiskey and guns during negotiations', 'native culture' and what not, is dishonest.

[Hugo]

I think that the Indian claims to land and privilege can be defended. They were here first, after all, and according to English Common Law possession is not absolute but relative. Relatively, they have a much better claim to ownership than we. That being said, that makes us interlopers on their property, for which they are entitled to be compensated, for example by the granting of privilege. We cannot claim to own this property, firstly because as we never gave the Indians freedom to alienate their lands we cannot claim to have purchased them, and secondly, because the original treaties were not in the spirit of a purchase but of a rental agreement, and as egregious as they were it would only compound the crime to claim now that they were agreements to purchase.

I would also hesitate to push for anything like cultural assimilation. It is fair enough to ask a new immigrant to try to assimilate (bring only one wife, she's allowed to work, no human sacrifice, etc), after all, that immigrant is asking to be allowed into Canada and to be part of our society.

However, the Indians never asked to become part of our neo-European society or culture. We simply arrived on their shores one day, took their lands and established our own society on them. Now, it's hardly fair to expect them to assimilate with us. It may be that it will happen eventually, that Indian culture may "naturally" die out, but that does not make it right to hurry the process. The Jews, statistically, are also a dying race, but nobody with a shred of common decency is calling for a second Holocaust to hurry this natural process along, or even for a restriction of Jewish religion and culture in order to promote assimilation.

As to the "forefathers" argument, to whit that we are not responsible for upholding agreements made by our predecessors, and are not bound to them, I don't think it holds water. Our law has established that a person does not have to have committed an act, or even to have allowed or enabled an act to have been committed by another, to be held responsible and culpable for the results of that act.

Furthermore, when one inherits benefits, one also inherits debts and obligations payable on those benefits. As we have inherited the benefits our forefathers gained from the Indians, we also inherit the obligations payable on them.

I am in favour of reform in the interests of fairness to the Indians themselves, e.g. more democratic distribution of benefits, or giving the Indians true ownership with alienation rights of their lands, however, I'm not in favour of simply cutting back or cutting off Indian benefits and Indian rights to their ancestral lands.