A fn canadian government
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
They should all work together to find the key.
Then unlock the ****ing door and let themselves out.
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.
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.
Then they should share equally. Half the money AND half the moths. Not just the loot.
I have to laugh -- uncontrollably, really -- when people bring out the money argument.
"But it costs me so much money... I don't want my several dollars per year of tax money to go to Aboriginal issues. It's ridiculous!" Yeah, well, if Canadians want to go back on their commitment -- through the continuous institution of the Crown -- to defend Aboriginal rights and to meet the obligations that we have made as a people, then they should be equally prepared to have the land pulled out from under them. That's only fair, right? You don't get to break your contract with Telus, and stop paying your phone bill, but keep sending phone calls over their carrier.
GAH.
"But it costs me so much money... I don't want my several dollars per year of tax money to go to Aboriginal issues. It's ridiculous!" Yeah, well, if Canadians want to go back on their commitment -- through the continuous institution of the Crown -- to defend Aboriginal rights and to meet the obligations that we have made as a people, then they should be equally prepared to have the land pulled out from under them. That's only fair, right? You don't get to break your contract with Telus, and stop paying your phone bill, but keep sending phone calls over their carrier.
GAH.
we can always just rescind the treaties. If we did that, I guess I'd be paying my taxes to the Algonquin Nation and it would make the law.
Ummm, you really may want to rethink that one.
If we want to revisit equally with regards to remuneration, you may not come out on the top end.
That isn't taxslaves position. He's just righteously frustrated with the waste and criminality he sees.
But there are a couple people around here that not matter how many times you explain that to them, they just can not wrap their heads around it.
I blame the education system generally, then you go and post and ruin that generalization, lol.
So I'm left with inferior genetics as the cause.
Well, that's a part of the problem, isn't it?
This isn't a black-and-white issue on either side.
On the one hand, the Government of Canada has an obligation to respect the treaties entered into between First Nations and the Crown. Canada has an obligation to ensure good living conditions for Aboriginal peoples. Generally, the only practical way to do this (and practicality aside, by far the preference of bands representing First Nations), is to make payments to bands to coordinate those services and conditions themselves, presumably with the understanding that self-government (or something close to it) is the most responsible model.
However, if there is no check on the rampant corruption and mismanagement at many (certainly not all) bands and their governments, then those payments may not be used appropriately. To have a situation where the Government is responsible for conditions and services, but cannot directly implement those services for fear of offending First Nations' notions of self-government, but then more money is needed because the money already being paid is not being used appropriately, and First Nations groups accuse the Government of not meeting its obligations because a considerable portion of payments was not used for what it was intended...
Well, I have no idea what the answer to that one is.
This isn't a black-and-white issue on either side.
On the one hand, the Government of Canada has an obligation to respect the treaties entered into between First Nations and the Crown. Canada has an obligation to ensure good living conditions for Aboriginal peoples. Generally, the only practical way to do this (and practicality aside, by far the preference of bands representing First Nations), is to make payments to bands to coordinate those services and conditions themselves, presumably with the understanding that self-government (or something close to it) is the most responsible model.
However, if there is no check on the rampant corruption and mismanagement at many (certainly not all) bands and their governments, then those payments may not be used appropriately. To have a situation where the Government is responsible for conditions and services, but cannot directly implement those services for fear of offending First Nations' notions of self-government, but then more money is needed because the money already being paid is not being used appropriately, and First Nations groups accuse the Government of not meeting its obligations because a considerable portion of payments was not used for what it was intended...
Well, I have no idea what the answer to that one is.
One possible solution would be to give them more land and less money. That way instead of the governments of Canada and Ontario taxing the mining company, it's the local First Nation doing so. That way it's their money and they do what they want with it.
I disagree with this idea. a large part of the animosity toward FN is due to the culture of entitlement that the FN have. I say no to handing them more self entitlement BS like MP positions that they haven't earned. If they want to become an MP, let them compete on a level playing field with our current MPs. Teach the FN a little about merit and democracy.
Expecting to have the obligations set out in negotiated treaties fulfilled is not a culture of entitlement.
Only the uneducated, ignorant or bigoted think otherwise.
It's funny you should say that, the Six Nations taught the US all about democracy Six Nations style.
It took the Crown and later the Canadian version thereof to destroy it.
And what about our entitlements? We control the resources; they don't. We then decide how they're to be used; they don't. We spend the revenue from these resources on us, not them. Then we iimpose democracy. Heck, that's like imposing North American democracy on Canada when the US has ten times our population.
Democracy in that sense is plain tyranny of the ethnic majority.
Maybe we should just amalgamate into the US to understand how indigenous nations feel. Or how about India. Hey, it's democratic, right. Just nevermind that Canada's seats in the Indian parliament would represent not even 10% of the seats. But hey, it's democracy, right?
I mean this in a respectful way, but I have to be brutally frank with you...
I am Canadian. My country is so resource rich, there is no reason why I should have to work. We could sit back on a reservation with a treaty that allows some other country to exploit the natural resources. We could even add a clause that ensures that the other country is forever responsible for my welfare and for my future descendants.
But guess what? It would not happen that way. It could not happen that way. It should not happen that way.
There is something called reality. Your forefathers didn't have much of it. And, you need to get more of it.