CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:34 pm
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Well where corruption or geaft is at hand it should be addressed but denying a water treatment plant to band in Ontario because they are the same “race” as an overpaid Chief in BC isn’t right.



Nobody's saying they shouldn't get that water treatment plant or the training to run it but that money should be spent on the plant and not on other "niceties" the position of power gives certain people.

But, by the same token the race argument is only partially correct because it's not just about race, it's about the same Gov't representation. When a "race" decides to band together to form a Gov't like the Assembly of First Nations that claims to speak for all their peoples then, what happens to a corrupt Chief in BC does have a bearing on how people perceive and treat others in that same organization.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1562
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:39 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Coach85 Coach85:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I think this will improve the lives of indigenous peoples and the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples.


How so?


Because the First Nations would have control over their lands. They would be free to oversee those lands as they see fit, subject to the Constitution and Criminal Code of Canada, and that would provide, to borrow the American phrase, the agency for them to pursue their happiness. You break a culture of dependence. You make self-sufficiency possible.


For the most part, reserves have control over their land. They lease land to non-Natives and they're free to come and go as they please. They profit from natural resources.

I want to understand how this will help with the systemic problems in the Aboriginal Communities? The alcoholism, the drugs, the crime and the corruption?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:39 pm
 


With no oversight the FN don't have control over their lands and titles, only a few corrupt leaders do while everyone else starves or remains living in third world Bannock Republics. Do you believe being screwed over by their own Chiefs and their cronies is any better than the federal government? Look at how many reservations are under third party management now. Removing further oversights means more corruption will occur. The only way to make sure the money is distributed more fairly for housing, health and education is having it done by an outside agency.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:12 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:


Nobody is claiming the Natives shouldn't get the help they need but with that payment should come accountability.


It's not the help they need, it's the rights and title they have. The money sent by the feds is just a pittance to justify Canada's continuing refusal to live up to its own laws and sign treaties with First Nations recognizing their rights and title to the land.

That should include direct royalties from, say, mining operations on indigenous land. It should include free, prior, informed consent for any activities on their lands, as Canada committed to when they signed the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People.

The older generation stole the babies of the Indians from their mothers arms and sent them death, disease and abuse at residential schools and to white families, and actively sought to destroy their culture and now sits around and whines about the problems the Indians cause them. Best thing the old timers can do, if they can't muster any shame for their actions, is to just shut the fuck up and walk away.


Show me where it's written anywhere in any document that says we have to support all the natives in perpetuity with our tax dollars? If we haven't signed a treaty with certain bands of Natives then fine sign them and let's get on with getting them into society so they can contribute like the rest of us. As for the ones who signed decades and over century ago then, they have no legal right to expect anything from Canada because of their situation and should in all honesty be happy that we're still willing to work with them because the reality is that other than maybe morally, we have zero legal obligation to do so.

I'm sorry but until someone shows me the legal obligation we have to give all natives unregulated tax dollars your arguments remain based on personal "opinion" and "morals" rather than "laws" which, makes it just another Desmond Tutu style rant intended to justify the extortion of more of our money for natives who in some cases can't manage money, are corrupt or just plain don't give a shit what happens to their own people.

As for your dig at the "old timers" allow me to point out that the ones who are alive today didn't enslave the native children, didn't sign those treaties a century ago, didn't draft the Indian act and didn't create the perpetual state of welfare most natives find themselves in. So, despite your fervent wishes that all opposition to your point of view disappear, none of us old or not are going to shut up and walk away because you don't have to be an old timer to see that the system's broken and needs some form or overhaul to stop the insanity and throwing money down an hole to make yourself feel good hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:30 pm
 


Coach85 Coach85:
For the most part, reserves have control over their land. They lease land to non-Natives and they're free to come and go as they please. They profit from natural resources.

I want to understand how this will help with the systemic problems in the Aboriginal Communities? The alcoholism, the drugs, the crime and the corruption?


They don't own their land on reserves. They can't sell land or buy land on their reserves. The land belongs to the Crown. The bands, for the most part, were forced onto discontiguous pieces of land that had little in the way of economic prospects, which is kind of funny, since one of the stated goals of the reserves was to encourage the First Nations to adopt agriculture. The bands, at least in BC, do not own the mineral rights on their reserves. When the Crown wanted more land, they simply expropriated it from reserves. Even at the time, indigenous leaders were saying the reserve system, away from the their traditional sustenance activities, would force them to rely on the government, which is exactly what happened.


All activities are micromanaged by INAC, or whatever they are calling them now. Transactional costs are high, which hinders development on reserve. They do profit sometimes from natural resource extraction through Impact Benefit Agreements signed with project proponents. However, the record is spotty and the IBAs typically pale in comparison to what the Nations would receive as part of royalty agreement.


Will it end systemic poverty, substance abuse and violence on reserves? Who knows. But telling the natives to suck it up and get on with it certainly hasn't worked to date, so my idea has the virtues of novelty and lawfulness.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:35 pm
 


ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
With no oversight the FN don't have control over their lands and titles, only a few corrupt leaders do while everyone else starves or remains living in third world Bannock Republics. Do you believe being screwed over by their own Chiefs and their cronies is any better than the federal government? Look at how many reservations are under third party management now. Removing further oversights means more corruption will occur. The only way to make sure the money is distributed more fairly for housing, health and education is having it done by an outside agency.


Corruption already occurs. We just got done with the Christy Clark Crew here in BC. They had a frickin black belt in corruption. Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister, is growing his own little economic empire quite well using his position.

Housing, health and education are already administered by an outside agency and by all accounts it is not effective and doesn't seemed to have fixed the corruption problem.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:04 pm
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Show me where it's written anywhere in any document that says we have to support all the natives in perpetuity with our tax dollars?


This is the beauty of it. If First Nations are given control over the land which they have title to, they can tax as they see fit. So there won't be the transfers of billions from federal coffers to First Nations anymore. They will have an actual economic base upon which to prosper, as well as the land base to pursue their cultural practices.

The Nisgaa--te first "modern day treaty--recently paid off the $85 million they borrowed from the federal government to negotiate their treaty.

As for the legal aspect, there's S. 35 of the Constitution, recognizing Aboriginal rights and title, along with the King George Proclamation of. There's Supreme Court decisions including Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Haida-all pointing to the existence of aboriginal title.

Not to mention that the government supports all its citizens, in perpetuity, with its tax dollars, through healthcare, welfare, tax incentives, subsideies, regulation, etc.









$1:
...should in all honesty be happy that we're still willing to work with them because the reality is that other than maybe morally, we have zero legal obligation to do so.


I feel quite the opposite. I am happy that the First Nations are still willing to work with us, considering the brutality with which we have treated them these past three or four hundred years.

$1:
As for your dig at the "old timers" allow me to point out that the ones who are alive today didn't enslave the native children, didn't sign those treaties a century ago, didn't draft the Indian act and didn't create the perpetual state of welfare most natives find themselves in. So, despite your fervent wishes that all opposition to your point of view disappear, none of us old or not are going to shut up and walk away because you don't have to be an old timer to see that the system's broken and needs some form or overhaul to stop the insanity and throwing money down an hole to make yourself feel good hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future.


You were a citizen of a democratic country that did all those things, therefore you bear responsibility for the actions of the that country. You know that the last residential schools weren't shut down until the 80s, right? That the "60s Scoop" when indigenous children were taken from their homes and sent to white families was the 1960s, not the 1860s, right? That status Indians didn't get to vote until 1960? This isn't exactly ancient history.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1562
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:10 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:

They don't own their land on reserves. They can't sell land or buy land on their reserves. The land belongs to the Crown.

Will it end systemic poverty, substance abuse and violence on reserves? Who knows. But telling the natives to suck it up and get on with it certainly hasn't worked to date, so my idea has the virtues of novelty and lawfulness.


Many reserves have leased out their land to others to raise money. Residential and commercial. The band on Georgina Island started doing this in the mid-80's and there are hundreds of cottages and homes built on the land by non-Aboriginals with 99-year lease agreements.

We've never told them to 'suck it up'. We lie, we stall and we pay lip service while throwing billions at them.

Being able to sell or own a piece of land won't do anything. They already live there. Pay zero property taxes. Owing the land will give them the warm and fuzzies and all will be better?

Time to gut the Indian Act.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:21 pm
 


Coach85 Coach85:
Many reserves have leased out their land to others to raise money. Residential and commercial. The band on Georgina Island started doing this in the mid-80's and there are hundreds of cottages and homes built on the land by non-Aboriginals with 99-year lease agreements.

We've never told them to 'suck it up'. We lie, we stall and we pay lip service while throwing billions at them.

Being able to sell or own a piece of land won't do anything. They already live there. Pay zero property taxes. Owing the land will give them the warm and fuzzies and all will be better?

Time to gut the Indian Act.


My experience is almost exclusively the west coast. Yes, time to gut the Indian Act.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:47 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Coach85 Coach85:
For the most part, reserves have control over their land. They lease land to non-Natives and they're free to come and go as they please. They profit from natural resources.

I want to understand how this will help with the systemic problems in the Aboriginal Communities? The alcoholism, the drugs, the crime and the corruption?


They don't own their land on reserves. They can't sell land or buy land on their reserves. The land belongs to the Crown. The bands, for the most part, were forced onto discontiguous pieces of land that had little in the way of economic prospects, which is kind of funny, since one of the stated goals of the reserves was to encourage the First Nations to adopt agriculture. The bands, at least in BC, do not own the mineral rights on their reserves. When the Crown wanted more land, they simply expropriated it from reserves. Even at the time, indigenous leaders were saying the reserve system, away from the their traditional sustenance activities, would force them to rely on the government, which is exactly what happened.


All activities are micromanaged by INAC, or whatever they are calling them now. Transactional costs are high, which hinders development on reserve. They do profit sometimes from natural resource extraction through Impact Benefit Agreements signed with project proponents. However, the record is spotty and the IBAs typically pale in comparison to what the Nations would receive as part of royalty agreement.


Will it end systemic poverty, substance abuse and violence on reserves? Who knows. But telling the natives to suck it up and get on with it certainly hasn't worked to date, so my idea has the virtues of novelty and lawfulness.


Don't get me wrong. I lived on 2 reserves and I understand fully the conundrum they have with not being able to own land. And for the record I agree 100% that they should be able to have same legal rights and responsibilities to private property ownership that we enjoy.

By not allowing them to "technically" own property it causes untold hardship and is blatantly unfair. A prime example was the Tsartlip Nation on the Saanich Peninsula. One family owned property (as far as a native can own property) and went ahead and built a brand new modular home park with the Band's approval. Well things went along okay till the band council changed a few years later. Then the new band council decided they didn't want white people living on their reserve and told the family that built the park that they'd have to evict all the white homeowners despite the fact that these people had signed 99 year leases with the family and were paying a fair rate for pad fees.

Anyway long story short. The Federal Gov't refused to intervene despite the fact that the land is still crown land and when the case was taken to court the SCoC it ruled that the band had the right to evict anyone they didn't want off their reserve which meant that there were around 100 people displaced and a family that lost a good income and a chance to get ahead.

Yet across the Peninsula another band is running modular home heaven with their own City Hall, council and economic development officer. They want their tenants to participate in both their culture and their economic windfall and work with the residents to make sure things run smoothly. Go figure but, they have allotted each band family a piece of the pie in property and allow them to use it as their own with the same type of restrictions and regulations you'd find in any small town.

So, it works both way but until the Federal Gov't cedes's all the reserve land to the natives after ensuring that every native gets his proper share, things like the Tsartlip disaster will continue and natives who want to get ahead will keep getting stepped on by assholes in their own communities and gov't who can't stand the fact that they'll break free from the victims shackles.

I also agree the reserve system is crippling in it's entirety and has to be revamped but then how do you equitably fix the fact that some bands land is worth hundreds of millions while others are basically worthless? I thought maybe that giving more money to the bands that own worthless land for compensation would be fair but after time that money would be gone and then all we'd have are a bunch of people living on worthless land with no potential for income.

There's no simple solution to the problems of reserve life but, throwing money at it with no accountability as to how that money is spent obviously isn't the best approach especially given past history.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8738
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:35 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Coach85 Coach85:
For the most part, reserves have control over their land. They lease land to non-Natives and they're free to come and go as they please. They profit from natural resources.

I want to understand how this will help with the systemic problems in the Aboriginal Communities? The alcoholism, the drugs, the crime and the corruption?


They don't own their land on reserves. They can't sell land or buy land on their reserves. The land belongs to the Crown. The bands, for the most part, were forced onto discontiguous pieces of land that had little in the way of economic prospects, which is kind of funny, since one of the stated goals of the reserves was to encourage the First Nations to adopt agriculture. The bands, at least in BC, do not own the mineral rights on their reserves. When the Crown wanted more land, they simply expropriated it from reserves. Even at the time, indigenous leaders were saying the reserve system, away from the their traditional sustenance activities, would force them to rely on the government, which is exactly what happened.


All activities are micromanaged by INAC, or whatever they are calling them now. Transactional costs are high, which hinders development on reserve. They do profit sometimes from natural resource extraction through Impact Benefit Agreements signed with project proponents. However, the record is spotty and the IBAs typically pale in comparison to what the Nations would receive as part of royalty agreement.


Will it end systemic poverty, substance abuse and violence on reserves? Who knows. But telling the natives to suck it up and get on with it certainly hasn't worked to date, so my idea has the virtues of novelty and lawfulness.




I can't get this URL to cough up its info.
"
Western Development Museum/Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre Partnership Project
By Eric Tang Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre

Here is the conclusion, the above info should make the paper easy to find

$1:
Conclusion
The idea of agriculture was not new to the First Nations people of the plains. They had previous experience through contact with First Nations people of the South, who planted and harvested corn and other crops. The use of agriculture as a means to a stable and plentiful supply of food was initially welcomed. This fact is evidence by provisions in the treaties for farming implements and oxen. Once surveys were completed in order to establish the reserves, farm instructors and agents arrived to help with the farming and home farms were established. By the late 1880’s farming was well established activity among several reserves. The ability to act as a collective by sharing both input costs and labour allowed for a degree of success. Though the success did not go unnoticed by the non-Aboriginal farmers or the Canadian Government. New policies were developed to protect markets for the settlers. The major architect of the new policies was a man named Hayter Reed. The implementation of the policies created difficulty for the Aboriginal farmers and a further consequence was that the new policies also impacted the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal farmers.
Reed believed, that if individual First Nations farmers were to be successful, they needed to learn how to farm in a “peasant” manner with simple tools. They also needed to stop acting as a collective. In the Severalty Policy, reserve land was further subdivided into small acreage lots. The size of these lots provided little more than subsistence levels of food. The Peasant Policy restricted Aboriginal to the use of small simple to tools to do their farming. They were not allowed to purchase large labour-saving machines which were required to farm in the harsh prairies. The Pass and Permit system enforced barriers on the flow of people, goods and services between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal farmers. The government policies effectively stifled the entrepreneurial spirit of most Aboriginal farmers.
It is under these conditions that relationships or contact between Aboriginal farmers and general society developed. While there are isolated case where the relationships developed into friendships most were not on such good terms. The Severalty Policy This research paper was written as background information for the creation of the 2005 "Winning the Prairie Gamble" exhibits at the WDM and is copyright of the Western Development Museum and the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre. 20
prohibited Aboriginal farmers from expanding their livelihood beyond subsistence levels. Small farms were not commercially viable. The Peasant Policy made the already arduous task of farming even greater. Non-Aboriginal farmers were able to purchase laboursaving machinery, but Aboriginal farmers were denied the use of such machinery.
The policy that created the most damage to the relationship between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal farmers was the Pass and Permit Policy. This policy severely limited the movement and contact opportunities between Aboriginal communities and the rest of society. In order to enter or leave the reserve a pass was required and to legally sell and goods or products a permit was needed. Settlers were not allowed to purchase goods or products from any First Nations person without ensuring that a permit had been obtained.
Farming at the turn of the century was extremely labour intensive. Many settlers hired First Nations farmers and labourers to help with rock picking, fence building, breaking of land, and harvesting. Though when large machinery began to make its way into farms, the jobs began to disappear. During the Second World War, there was once again a labour shortage and many Aboriginal farmers were re-hired for harvesting.
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal farmers faced many common trials and tribulations. At times, the need to help assist others overshadowed the color of the farmer’s skin. Neighbours helped neighbours in times of need. Many of these relationships were based on mutual respect and developed into lasting friendships. Still a lot of work is required to obliterate the disparities between Aboriginal people and modern Euro-Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:19 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
Show me where it's written anywhere in any document that says we have to support all the natives in perpetuity with our tax dollars?


This is the beauty of it. If First Nations are given control over the land which they have title to, they can tax as they see fit. So there won't be the transfers of billions from federal coffers to First Nations anymore. They will have an actual economic base upon which to prosper, as well as the land base to pursue their cultural practices.

The Nisgaa--te first "modern day treaty--recently paid off the $85 million they borrowed from the federal government to negotiate their treaty.

As for the legal aspect, there's S. 35 of the Constitution, recognizing Aboriginal rights and title, along with the King George Proclamation of. There's Supreme Court decisions including Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Haida-all pointing to the existence of aboriginal title.

Not to mention that the government supports all its citizens, in perpetuity, with its tax dollars, through healthcare, welfare, tax incentives, subsideies, regulation, etc.









$1:
...should in all honesty be happy that we're still willing to work with them because the reality is that other than maybe morally, we have zero legal obligation to do so.


I feel quite the opposite. I am happy that the First Nations are still willing to work with us, considering the brutality with which we have treated them these past three or four hundred years.

$1:
As for your dig at the "old timers" allow me to point out that the ones who are alive today didn't enslave the native children, didn't sign those treaties a century ago, didn't draft the Indian act and didn't create the perpetual state of welfare most natives find themselves in. So, despite your fervent wishes that all opposition to your point of view disappear, none of us old or not are going to shut up and walk away because you don't have to be an old timer to see that the system's broken and needs some form or overhaul to stop the insanity and throwing money down an hole to make yourself feel good hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future.


You were a citizen of a democratic country that did all those things, therefore you bear responsibility for the actions of the that country. You know that the last residential schools weren't shut down until the 80s, right? That the "60s Scoop" when indigenous children were taken from their homes and sent to white families was the 1960s, not the 1860s, right? That status Indians didn't get to vote until 1960? This isn't exactly ancient history.


Interesting, I just read section 35 of the Constitution and while it recognizes aboriginal rights it doesn't say we have to pay them in perpetuity.

As for King Georges Proclamation allow me to point out that he's wasn't a Canadian Citizen so as you succinctly put it we, as a democratic country bear no responsibility for any of his actions.

Oh, the SCoC rulings may have established Aboriginal Title but they still didn't establish a requirement or obligation for our Gov't to pay natives taxpayer dollars for ever especially to bands with signed treaties.

And, I'm sorry but your argument about the Residential Schools has no relevance for me because, despite your attempt to lay a guilt trip on everyone who's older than and doesn't agree with you, I like most of my peers refuse to bear responsibility for a Gov't action started 140 years ago that we never endorsed or voted for. So, trying to hold anyone hostage for what some Gov't started over a century ago is nothing short of emotional blackmail and is almost as bad as the continual playing of the race card.

And, allow me to remind you that if your end date is anywhere near accurate the residential schools program was happily carried out by both the Liberals and Conservatives but mostly the Liberals who, for some strange reason didn't think it should stopped till the 1980's.


Nobody is going to dispute the fact that Aboriginals have rights and those rights shouldn't be violated but, by the same token we as citizens should have the same expectation that our rights won't be violated either and if that includes accountability for where our tax dollars go then so be it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:29 pm
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Interesting, I just read section 35 of the Constitution and while it recognizes aboriginal rights it doesn't say we have to pay them in perpetuity.


If we recognized their title and gave them control over their traditional territories they could establish their own tax base. If we force them onto tiny reserves with few economic rights, we will be transferring tax dollars in perpetuity.

$1:
As for King Georges Proclamation allow me to point out that he's wasn't a Canadian Citizen so as you succinctly put it we, as a democratic country bear no responsibility for any of his actions.


You need a lesson in common law.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:08 am
 


Image


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9445
PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:48 am
 


The Left's band aid solution with First Nations has always been to throw money instead of trying to help them. It's the same band aid solution limousine Liberals use when they go to a small village in Kenya in their Range Rovers to build a new shiny water well. After it's built they pat them selves on the back leaving in their Range Rovers and 10 minutes after they're gone the villagers strip the water well selling the parts to feed their families.


Last edited by BRAH on Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.