First Nations paying tax payers bills for services

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Editorial

Turtle Island News - North America's #1 Native Weekly Newspaper

*First Nations paying tax payers bills for services*

The Chiefs of Ontario are meeting in a special assembly in Toronto this
week to take a look at what they believed would be a collective push to
get Ontario to recognize First Nation resource and benefit rights. The
basic plan to act collectively and push for Ontario First Nations rights
is a good plan and goes a long way to growing and fostering First Nation
relationships and protection of rights. But Premier Dalton McGuinty’s
one pot serves all premise with a meagre $30 million a year given to
First Nations communities that don’t even have decent water supplies is
an insult to the very communities from whom Ontario is taking its riches
from. And these are resource riches that have nothing to do with
taxpayer ’s dollars. In fact these First Nation resource riches are used
to offset taxpayer dollars that build the infrastructure in towns and
cities that surround First Nation communities, while those communities
suffer without the same services, but they are p aying for them for t he
cit y of Toronto, or Ottawa, or any other town and village. The Chiefs
who have expressed concerns that while McGuinty may say the $30 million
is just a start they are right to fear that will be the only crumb First
Nations will see as Ontario digs in to take more than $97 billion in
resources riches from the lands that belong to the First Nations of
Ontario. From the Ring of Fire’s chromite and golds to Six Nations
aggregates and gypsum and water loss First Nations deserve not only a
better deal, they deserve the respect owed as treaty partners in a land
that has become overridden with visitors who have failed to live up to
their end of the treaty. With a provincial election just months away,
Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty is already in election mode and looking
for a successful First Nations issue to hang his hat on. And securing a
motherlode of mineral riches for Ontario’s economy taken from the
traditional lands owned by First Nations will win that election for him.
First Nations have a right to resource and benefit agreements, the
Supreme Court has ruled they have to be consulted and Ontario doesn’t
get to write the rules. But they do get to sit at the table.

It's about time we got to touch the brass ring. Especially since the materials were stolen from our lands.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
There are municipal governments all over NA that don't have "resource and benefit rights" that manage to provide "decent water supplies" to their citizens. I wonder why that is.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
There are municipal governments all over NA that don't have "resource and benefit rights" that manage to provide "decent water supplies" to their citizens. I wonder why that is.

Angelo explained that there are more than 500 boil-water advisories in B.C.—accounting for nearly a third of all such notices across the country. “In Dodge Cove, not far from Prince Rupert, they've had a boil-water advisory in place for 32 years,” he said.
B.C. isn't immune to planet's water woes | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com

1766 boil water advisories?

Investigative report: 1766 boil-water advisories now in place across Canada -- Eggertson 178 (10): 1261 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

97 boil water advisories on reserves?

In a progress report released in January 2008, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister,Chuck Strahl, says that the government has "significantly changed the way water quality iss addressed in First Nation communities". In 2006, 193 water systems among the first nations were classified as high-risk. That number has been cut to 58. Also, of the 21 priority communities that had both a high-risk water system and a drinking-water advisory, only four still make the list.
Drinking Water in First Nation and Native Communities

I wonder why that is, indeed.

Now that that's settled, I know you have great difficulty doing this, but maybe you could stick to addressing the gist of the OP. Instead of your weak side tracking/hijacking.

N'kay.
 
Last edited:

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
There are municipal governments all over NA that don't have "resource and benefit rights" that manage to provide "decent water supplies" to their citizens. I wonder why that is.

Funding inequities and buck passing by the looks of it. Allowing for many streams of funding for one group and only a single stream for another means committees can address the differences in problems like road, water or crime from various funding sources while Chiefs can draw from the single 30 million dollar fund. How many priority calls for funding do you think gets submitted to that pot?
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
B.C. isn't immune to planet's water woes | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com

1766 boil water advisories?

Investigative report: 1766 boil-water advisories now in place across Canada -- Eggertson 178 (10): 1261 -- Canadian Medical Association Journal

97 boil water advisories on reserves?

Drinking Water in First Nation and Native Communities

I wonder why that is, indeed.

Now that that's settled, I know you have great difficulty doing this, but maybe you could stick to addressing the gist of the OP. Instead of your weak side tracking/hijacking.

N'kay.
Um....boil water advisories have nothing to do with it. Boil water advisories have little to do with the realities of operating and much to do with an overly litigious society. That said, one of our systems has been on a boil water order for over 4 months because the local heath unit knows little about water treatment realities (there is nothing wrong with the water...I would, and have drank it myself). Even if it were an actual problem, we wouldn't look to the federal government to solve our problem. I stand by my original point. There are municipal governments all over NA that don't have "resource and benefit rights" that manage to provide "decent water supplies" to their citizens. I wonder why that is. If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Um....boil water advisories have nothing to do with it. Boil water advisories have little to do with the realities of operating and much to do with an overly litigious society. That said, one of our systems has been on a boil water order for over 4 months because the local heath unit knows little about water treatment realities (there is nothing wrong with the water...I would, and have drank it myself). Even if it were an actual problem, we wouldn't look to the federal government to solve our problem. I stand by my original point. There are municipal governments all over NA that don't have "resource and benefit rights" that manage to provide "decent water supplies" to their citizens. I wonder why that is. If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one.
If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one.

I do have an answer but you won't like it. You have a problem with you and your buddies letting go of the government tit and taking responsibility for yourselves. If you did, you could create adequate utility systems like the rest of the country without relying on the federal government or "resource and benefit rights". That's what the rest of us do.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I do have an answer but you won't like it. You have a problem with you and your buddies letting go of the government tit and taking responsibility for yourselves. If you did, you could create adequate utility systems like the rest of the country without relying on the federal government or "resource and benefit rights". That's what the rest of us do.
If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one.

There's no need to resort to racially charged slurs and generalizations, to shout me down, because you can't formulate a proper rebuttal.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one.

There's no need to resort to racially charged slurs and generalizations, to shout me down, because you can't formulate a proper rebuttal.

There's no need to pout because you can't formulate a proper rebuttal.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
There's no need to pout because you can't formulate a proper rebuttal.
Fallacy number 2.

Let's see how many you can use to avoid a challenge, before you go right into inflammatory commentary. Oh wait, to late, you already tried racial slurs and generalizations, to shout me down.

If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting an intelligent one.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting an intelligent one.

To be honest, I'm not really sure if I have an answer as you haven't bothered to ask a question. The OP was just a rant from North America's #1 native weekly newspaper (that's like bragging about winning a Juno for best polka album). Your second post prattled on about boil water orders (as if that was somehow relevant to my original comment). Your third post was "If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one" which is very interesting given that you never really asked a question. Then you just started repeating yourself and pouting. You really need to suck it up buttercup. If you are going to pout everytime somebody disagrees with your political agenda, you are going to do a lot of pouting. Given that you claim you are interested in serious debate, this behavior strikes me as kind of odd.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
To be honest, I'm not really sure if I have an answer as you haven't bothered to ask a question. The OP was just a rant from North America's #1 native weekly newspaper (that's like bragging about winning a Juno for best polka album). Your second post prattled on about boil water orders (as if that was somehow relevant to my original comment). Your third post was "If you don't have an answer, that's fine. I wasn't really expecting one" which is very interesting given that you never really asked a question. Then you just started repeating yourself and pouting. You really need to suck it up buttercup. If you are going to pout everytime somebody disagrees with your political agenda, you are going to do a lot of pouting. Given that you claim you are interested in serious debate, this behavior strikes me as kind of odd.
Fallacies 3 and 4.

Sorry Cannuck, you lost any remaining credibility you may have thought you had, and the debate, when you introduced racially charged slurs to shout me down.

Better luck next time.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
You can't debate without resorting to fallacy to win.

Debate? Who's debating? Certainly not you. I responded to your OP. You went off on some tangent and said I wasn't answering your non-existent question. You have funny ideas about what debate is or isn't.