A fn canadian government


View Poll Results: What are your thoughts?
Yes I agree 4 44.44%
Are you insane? 5 55.56%
I don't know. 0 0%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Retired_Can_Soldier
+3
#1
I know I'm a white guy, but here's what think we need to do.

I think that all elected Chiefs should be appointed as MP's under the party of their choosing and sit as a representative of their constituents in the House of Commons. This would foster cooperation, promote transparency and give FN People a stronger voice in this country.

Thoughts.
 
petros
#2
I brought it up weeks ago and agree.
 
gerryh
+1
#3
No option for no.

A Chief sitting as an MP, in my opinion, would be giving up sovereignty.
 
petros
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

No option for no.

A Chief sitting as an MP, in my opinion, would be giving up sovereignty.

Not Chiefs no. They'd still run their Rez and it leaves out those who are are off Rez.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

No option for no.

A Chief sitting as an MP, in my opinion, would be giving up sovereignty.

'Are you insane?' would count as a 'No.'

A Chief sitting as an MP would be representing the people in his riding. It would give them a legitimate voice in Ottawa. He could still hold the position of Chief, but this gives him a seat. Heck they could form a First Nations Party.
 
petros
#6
A Chief from a Tribal Council.

SK has 70+ Rezes which are part of 9 Tribal Councils.

70+ Chiefs/MPs from 1 Province is over the top representation for the 110,000 people in SK.
 
Trex
#7
So 630 Native MP's to represent 500000 Canadians.
And then 308 MP's to represent the other 36 million Canadians.
Bad bad idea.

How about a permanent elected seat in the House of Commons and another permanent elected seat as a Senator.

As to Federal constituencies, if the riding has a high percentage of First Nations than electing a Native MP should follow democratically.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TrexView Post


As to Federal constituencies, if the riding has a high percentage of First Nations than electing a Native MP should follow democratically.

Well, it has. There are native MPs and Senators. Not many though.


As has been pointed out there are way too many chiefs to put into the HOC. There is probably a decent compromise though. Have a few of the senior ones in perhaps.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post


A Chief sitting as an MP, in my opinion, would be giving up sovereignty.

Perhaps but sovereignty doesnt seem to be working out for them.
 
petros
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Well, it has. There are native MPs and Senators. Not many though.

I hang out with the granddaughter of the first native Senator and founder of the National Indian Brotherhood which is now the AFN. Walter Dieter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We've talked about this topic long ago, I'd like to get her on her to post some comments.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by TrexView Post

So 630 Native MP's to represent 500000 Canadians.
And then 308 MP's to represent the other 36 million Canadians.
Bad bad idea.

How about a permanent elected seat in the House of Commons and another permanent elected seat as a Senator.

As to Federal constituencies, if the riding has a high percentage of First Nations than electing a Native MP should follow democratically.

Personally I think that the Natives should start their own Party and run. It would go a long way to finding a resolution to the present quagmire we find ourselves in. Perhaps every chief is too much, but a working government within FN would be an effective avenue for dispute and bind FN leaders to a set code of ethics.
 
Machjo
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I know I'm a white guy, but here's what think we need to do.

I think that all elected Chiefs should be appointed as MP's under the party of their choosing and sit as a representative of their constituents in the House of Commons. This would foster cooperation, promote transparency and give FN People a stronger voice in this country.

Thoughts.

First Peoples National Party of Canada

They have a good idea too:

"The Vision of the FPNP is to:
- Promote the implementing of compulsory Indigenous Studies courses for Graduation in High School and University. Without education reforms we can not move forward as a nation.

- Abolish the Senate and replaced with an equal but second house, the First Nations House / Gimaa-gamig (First Nations elected representatives for First Nations Peoples of Canada) in the House of Commons equal to that of the present parliament."

I don't know if I agree with the ideas above, but they have some merit.

Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Well, it has. There are native MPs and Senators. Not many though.

But native canadian voters are so outnumbered it risks becoming tyranny of the ethnic majority. Just look to Official Bilingualism for proof of that.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

No option for no.

A Chief sitting as an MP, in my opinion, would be giving up sovereignty.

giving up sovereignty is not always a bad option if it's fair. After Indonesian independance, the former dutch colonies chose, instead of going back to their separate little nations, to form a united Indonesia. However, they ensured all were treated fairly. If giving up sovereignty meant a more equitable Canada, many First Nations might go for it. Question is, would English and French Canadians be willing to give up their privileges for this to happen?

We all want to take away their sovereignty on condition that they assimilate, that they become apples so to speak. What kind of a deal is that?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#12
I think the main issue is folks in FN abandoning the Little Ivory Towers for the Good of all.
 
CDNBear
#13
I live in a grey bungalow.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I live in a grey bungalow.

I heard those are the worst.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I live in a grey bungalow.

I can get you the blue prints for this... E-Z Tower designs... Comes in grey as well!

 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I know I'm a white guy, but here's what think we need to do.

I think that all elected Chiefs should be appointed as MP's under the party of their choosing and sit as a representative of their constituents in the House of Commons. This would foster cooperation, promote transparency and give FN People a stronger voice in this country.

Thoughts.

Appointed??? I think not. Are you looking for another Senate??? A Senate with an agenda to fracture our nation into warring factions??? Let them stand for election like everyone else. If they have a platform that represents everyone they will get the votes. If they get the votes, they get a seat.
 
Machjo
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Appointed??? I think not. Are you looking for another Senate??? A Senate with an agenda to fracture our nation into warring factions??? Let them stand for election like everyone else. If they have a platform that represents everyone they will get the votes. If they get the votes, they get a seat.

You have to realise though that not all FN have a 'republican system of government. Some have a inheritance-based monarchic one and are prepared to defend it just as many English Canadians defend the monarchy. To ask them to abandon that would be the same as asking us to abandon our monarchy. Same idea.

That said, some FN have had a democratic system even before we arrived on the scene, such as the Six Nations Confederacy.

But agian, in the end is that one nation not impose their will on others, and let's remember the English and French are nations in Canada too; the main difference being that the English and French nations have the power to make themselves the tyranny of the majority at will, and we have done so to a degree.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

You have to realise though that not all FN have a 'republican system of government. Some have a inheritance-based monarchic one and are prepared to defend it just as many English Canadians defend the monarchy. To ask them to abandon that would be the same as asking us to abandon our monarchy. Same idea.

That said, some FN have had a democratic system even before we arrived on the scene, such as the Six Nations Confederacy.

But agian, in the end is that one nation not impose their will on others, and let's remember the English and French are nations in Canada too; the main difference being that the English and French nations have the power to make themselves the tyranny of the majority at will, and we have done so to a degree.

If we were a tyranny of the majority (another description of democracy) we wouldn't even be listening to the natives. We would just lay down the law and that would be that.
 
CDNBear
+4
#19  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

If we were a tyranny of the majority (another description of democracy) we wouldn't even be listening to the natives. We would just lay down the law and that would be that.

The Indian Act, lol.

I love it when you expose how little you know, lol.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I know I'm a white guy, but here's what think we need to do.

I think that all elected Chiefs should be appointed as MP's under the party of their choosing and sit as a representative of their constituents in the House of Commons. This would foster cooperation, promote transparency and give FN People a stronger voice in this country.

Thoughts.

Do you know how much MPs are paid? We can't afford to pay 5000 FN chiefs MP salaries. How about we
keep all the ridings as they are and elect FN members where they have a majority...
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Do you know how much MPs are paid? We can't afford to pay 5000 FN chiefs MP salaries. How about we
keep all the ridings as they are and elect FN members where they have a majority...

I doubt they would accept the pay cut.
 
Machjo
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

If we were a tyranny of the majority (another description of democracy) we wouldn't even be listening to the natives. We would just lay down the law and that would be that.

There are different degrees of tyranny of the majority. Consider the Indian Act, the Official Languages act, among others. In a sense these two are corollaries of one another. The one discriminates explicitly against indigenous Canadians, the other discriminates explicitely in favour of the French and English Canadians.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
+4
#23
There are options for how a system such as this can work effectively. We need only look to the Parliament of New Zealand, where the House of Representatives has seven (7) Māori electoral districts. These districts overlay the entire map of New Zealand (i.e., they form a kind of separate electoral map), and Māori citizens can decide whether they fall onto the general voters' list, or the Māori voters' list (i.e., each Māori citizen is entitled to one vote). Only Māori citizens are eligible to be candidates and voters in these Māori electoral districts.

The number of electoral districts created for Māori seats is proportional to the number of Māori citizens who have placed themselves on the Māori voters' list (which is they there are only 10% Māori seats, despite an 18% Māori population; nearly half of Māori voters choose to vote in the main electoral districts).

If the Parliament of Canada were to adopt a similar model, then we would have (under the new 338-seat adjusted composition in the House of Commons for the next general election) an additional thirteen seats established for Aboriginal representation.
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadoxView Post

There are options for how a system such as this can work effectively. We need only look to the Parliament of New Zealand, where the House of Representatives has seven (7) Māori electoral districts. These districts overlay the entire map of New Zealand (i.e., they form a kind of separate electoral map), and Māori citizens can decide whether they fall onto the general voters' list, or the Māori voters' list (i.e., each Māori citizen is entitled to one vote). Only Māori citizens are eligible to be candidates and voters in these Māori electoral districts.
The number of electoral districts created for Māori seats is proportional to the number of Māori citizens who have placed themselves on the Māori voters' list (which is they there are only 10% Māori seats, despite an 18% Māori population; nearly half of Māori voters choose to vote in the main electoral districts).
If the Parliament of Canada were to adopt a similar model, then we would have (under the new 338-seat adjusted composition in the House of Commons for the next general election) an additional thirteen seats established for Aboriginal representation.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
The 388 would still crush the 13. Still tyranny of the majority. I think a separate assembly to replace the senate with maybe one representative per indigenous nation might be a better option. This way the majority could pass no law without a majority of nations agreeing.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
+3
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The 388 would still crush the 13. Still tyranny of the majority. I think a separate assembly to replace the senate with maybe one representative per indigenous nation might be a better option. This way the majority could pass no law without a majority of nations agreeing.

The issue, in my view, is not the capacity to veto decisions of the elected House of Commons. The issue, in my view, is some assurance that there will be a dedicated voice in the Lower House for Canada's First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. I do not know that it would be appropriate to abolish The Honourable the Senate, when so many of its essential functions would not be performed comparably by a new legislature as proposed above. This is not something that I would be supportive of.

What might be a more appropriate option would be to provide the Aboriginal community, through its elected leadership, with the opportunity to provide its consent to legislation that would affect the unique interests of Canadian Aboriginal peoples. For example, consider the legislative mechanism for recommendations related to appropriations.

Any member of the House of Commons can propose a bill that calls for money to be spent, and this includes opposition parties. They could propose an entire "shadow budget" if they wanted to, and it would snake its way up the legislative process. The reason why normally only ministers' bills are passed to spend money is because, before it can be voted upon at third reading, a money bill must receive a Royal Recommendation (from the Governor General of Canada, on the advice of ministers). If the bill does not receive that recommendation by the time the Speaker would put the question on third reading, then the bill is ruled out of order and dropped.

We could adopt a similar mechanism for bills that are proposed by members of Parliament and that would affect the unique rights or interests of Aboriginal communities. This recommendation (whether it would come from the Governor General on address of the Assembly of First Nations, or through some other similar mechanism) would allow the bill to move forward through the legislative stages. This would likely be a much more practical option, and one which could likely be adopted with a single clause of legislation.
 
Nuggler
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I think the main issue is folks in FN abandoning the Little Ivory Towers for the Good of all.


They should all work together to find the key.

Then unlock the ****ing door and let themselves out.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The 388 would still crush the 13. Still tyranny of the majority. I think a separate assembly to replace the senate with maybe one representative per indigenous nation might be a better option. This way the majority could pass no law without a majority of nations agreeing.

That is working on the rather dubious assumption that all the non native members would vote as a block. Besides which Canada is supposed to be ONE nation, not a North American version of the EU.
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

That is working on the rather dubious assumption that all the non native members would vote as a block. Besides which Canada is supposed to be ONE nation, not a North American version of the EU.

Seeing that we have tended to vote as a block (more or lsee) to the detriment of human rights for First Nations, and that they do in fact have different nations, we are in fact like the EU or UN in that sense. We are not just one nation. Maybe that's part of the problem; that we don't acknowledge that.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Seeing that we have tended to vote as a block (more or lsee) to the detriment of human rights for First Nations, and that they do in fact have different nations, we are in fact like the EU or UN in that sense. We are not just one nation. Maybe that's part of the problem; that we don't acknowledge that.

Anyone wanting their separate nation can also find their separate funding and quit digging into my wallet.
 
CDNBear
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Anyone wanting their separate nation can also find their separate funding and quit digging into my wallet.

But they negotiated the contents of your wallet as part of giving you your nation.
 

Similar Threads

1
Canadian government hacked
by Andem | Jun 3rd, 2011
4
Tell me about the Canadian Government
by Johnnny | Apr 14th, 2010
7
15
Canadian Recession Government Created
by Francis2004 | May 16th, 2009
no new posts