A fn canadian government

[Machjo]

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.

First off, the Frist Nations signed the treaties under duress. The US was fighting its Indian wars but Canada faced a minor problem: the amount the US was spending on its Indian wars exceeded the entire Canadian government budget of the time, so treaties were the next best thing.

First Nations knew that not signing any treaty was not an option: we inteded to take the land treaty or no treaty, and we were already violating the spirit of the older treaties while signing the new ones. The First Nations were essentially digging the bottom of the barrel for protection, any kind of protection. They knew the treaties would not be honroured, they just didn't know how bad it woudl really be.

The government itself expoited the treaties to its own ends, even using the treaty right to education as an excuse to establish the residential school system.

In reality, the treaties never should have happened seeing the FN really just wanted to keep their land if they could.

Looking at it that way, it's not so much that they were naive; it was their last option.

Essentially, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel with the treaties.

 

[L Gilbert]

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.

I don't have the answer to that either, ATM. It also doesn't help when a few roundeye politicians are also nefariously digging into public funds and suchlike.

 

[JamesBondo]

I am Canadian. My land can be expropriated.

If I am paid fair market value for my land, I am getting a fair deal, but I might feel like I am getting screwed.

If I am paid some money, plus land, I am getting a slightly better deal because I can reapply my funds towards fixing up my new land.

If I am paid some money, plus land, and I am provided for with a promise that they will take care of me, I am getting one hell of a good deal.

If my family for many generations is still getting some sort of support, even if it is close to welfare, then I am getting a freaking awesome deal.

If my family many generations later believe that they are entitled to full support well beyond a welfare state, then I must have been telling them fairy tales.

Most land is not worth that kind of money. The only land that is....is for those that are able to hang onto it...not the ones that lose it.

 

[CDNBear]

I mean this in a respectful way, but I have to be brutally frank with you...

You can be Frank, or Bob or Shirley for all I care.

But it would be nice if you were just educated.

I am Canadian.

Cool, so am I.

My country is so resource rich, there is no reason why I should have to work.

Cool.

We could sit back on a reservation with a treaty that allows some other country to exploit the natural resources.

If you negotiated a treaty that provided for that.

I don't know of one.

The treaties of my people aren't written to include that.

We could even add a clause that ensures that the other country is forever responsible for my welfare and for my future descendants.

Yes you could.

But guess what? It would not happen that way.

And yet it did in some cases, lol.

It could not happen that way.

And yet it did in some cases, lol.

It should not happen that way.

Maybe, maybe not.

There is something called reality.

You really should acquaint yourself with it.

Oh and the Indian Act.

You should really acquaint yourself with that.

Your forefathers didn't have much of it.

And yet they managed to get along just fine.

Even formulating a constitution, whose style and make was adopted by the worlds biggest super power.

Go figure, lol.

And, you need to get more of it.

Funny you should say that.

Maybe you can pick a treaty and we can discuss it.

I bet we see who's in touch with reality in short order, lol.

I am Canadian. My land can be expropriated.

If I am paid fair market value for my land, I am getting a fair deal, but I might feel like I am getting screwed.

welcome to our world.

You should have been there when our land was sold without our consent, the proceeds illegally invested in schemes and unrealistic ventures, or outright stolen.

If I am paid some money, plus land, I am getting a slightly better deal because I can reapply my funds towards fixing up my new land.

This is true.

Unless of course it's in a flood plain. Then you get to have it washed away and rebuild.

Or better yet, you take the cash and the land, clear the land, build farms, build industry only to have the gov't swindle you out of it so they can sell your labours to the highest bidders.

If I am paid some money, plus land, and I am provided for with a promise that they will take care of me, I am getting one hell of a good deal.

Except, you can't bank, you can't actually borrow against the land anyways, your new land is slowly stolen in small increments until it's a fraction of what it was.

If my family for many generations is still getting some sort of support, even if it is close to welfare, then I am getting a freaking awesome deal.

In some cases, you would be.

If my family many generations later believe that they are entitled to full support well beyond a welfare state, then I must have been telling them fairy tales.

Not that anybody is telling their family that, but if it's in the contract, it's part of the deal.

Deal with it, lol.

Most land is not worth that kind of money.

That depends.

The only land that is....is for those that are able to hang onto it...not the ones that lose it.

That's why we have laws.

Welcome to reality.

I hope it didn't hurt to much.

 

[JamesBondo]

getting something into contract is one thing, collecting it is another. especially hundreds of years later.

 

[CDNBear]

getting something into contract is one thing, collecting it is another. especially hundreds of years later.

Hey, now you're starting to understand the reality.

Good for you.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

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.

Hey Chris, long time no see.

 

[JamesBondo]

I offer no apology for believing that life is what you make of it yourself. I do not support the self defeatist belief that you can't get a fair shake in life unless the government cuts you a large enough cheque.

If money and standard of living had anything to do with happiness, there wouldn't be so many screwed up people in Hollywood.

 

[PoliticalNick]

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...

How about they form a party and just get elected where they can....it's called democracy

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.

To put it simply, F*ck that. That just gives the indians control of the country if they vote as a bloc in any type of way.

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

And who might 'they' be? And who 'gave' us a nation. The explorers took it and would have taken it by force if there wasn't another option.

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.

Are they all children? Are they all mentally or physically challenged? Each individual on this earth has the responsibility to look after themselves unless they are children or handicapped.

You can be Frank, or Bob or Shirley for all I care.

But it would be nice if you were just educated.

Cool, so am I.

Cool.

If you negotiated a treaty that provided for that.

I don't know of one.

The treaties of my people aren't written to include that.

Yes you could.

And yet it did in some cases, lol.

And yet it did in some cases, lol.

Maybe, maybe not.

You really should acquaint yourself with it.

Oh and the Indian Act.

You should really acquaint yourself with that.

And yet they managed to get along just fine.

Even formulating a constitution, whose style and make was adopted by the worlds biggest super power.

Go figure, lol.

Funny you should say that.

Maybe you can pick a treaty and we can discuss it.

I bet we see who's in touch with reality in short order, lol.

welcome to our world.

You should have been there when our land was sold without our consent, the proceeds illegally invested in schemes and unrealistic ventures, or outright stolen.

This is true.

Unless of course it's in a flood plain. Then you get to have it washed away and rebuild.

Or better yet, you take the cash and the land, clear the land, build farms, build industry only to have the gov't swindle you out of it so they can sell your labours to the highest bidders.

Except, you can't bank, you can't actually borrow against the land anyways, your new land is slowly stolen in small increments until it's a fraction of what it was.

In some cases, you would be.

Not that anybody is telling their family that, but if it's in the contract, it's part of the deal.

Deal with it, lol.

That depends.

That's why we have laws.

Welcome to reality.

I hope it didn't hurt to much.

How about this, we will honor the contracts as they were written. You can have your 5 axes and 10 rifles and $0.04 a hectare, I'll even toss in a few cases of that firewater that seems popular with 'your people'.

 

[CDNBear]

I offer no apology for believing that life is what you make of it yourself.

So you don't go to the hospital?

Drive on public roads?

Use any govt services?

Wow!

I do not support the self defeatist belief that you can't get a fair shake in life unless the government cuts you a large enough cheque.

Who thinks that?

And who might 'they' be? And who 'gave' us a nation.

The First Nations.

Geezus, pick up a history bbok.

The explorers took it and would have taken it by force if there wasn't another option.

But they didn't take it, not even by force.

They negotiated for it.

One day you'll reach a level of education where you'll be able to understand that.

Are they all children? Are they all mentally or physically challenged? Each individual on this earth has the responsibility to look after themselves unless they are children or handicapped.

The Indian Act... lol.

How about this, we will honor the contracts as they were written.

No, they'll be honoured as they were made and interpreted by the Crown.

You know, when they were made a living document so they could exploit First Nations land and people to exploit resources.

I know how much that upsets the bigots now that some of us went to school and became lawyers and figured out how to exploit that.

But you'll get over it.

You can have your 5 axes and 10 rifles and $0.04 a hectare, I'll even toss in a few cases of that firewater that seems popular with 'your people'.

We already know you have to say something stupid in every post, lol.

 

[earth_as_one]

We already have 308 MPs. I am against increasing this number as its far too many already. The proposed change would make our system even more bureaucratic and expensive. Also I doubt the chiefs as MPs would join existing political parties. More likely they would form their own political party like the Bloc Quebecois and clog the federal system with bills representing a narrow self interest rather than represent Canada.

Canada must respect its treaty obligations with First Nations, as these treaties define Canada as well as the First Nations.

Many First Nations are still negotiating their treaties. As far as I am concerned neither side should be able to develop disputed land or exploit their resources until the treaty settles the dispute and borders are defined.

Regarding governance and political power, no one is satisfied with the status quo. I would support amending Canada's constitution and granting the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations the same powers/responsibilities/jurisdiction as a provincial premiere. I would also support giving the AFN the equivalent of provincial powers/responsibilities over all First Nation land. How that power translates down to individual governing bodies on the reserve would be the business of the AFN, but I envision Chiefs of First Nations as having similar powers as mayors.

Also the National Chief of the AFN would have to sign Canada's constitution and agree to any future changes, just like provincial premieres do now.

 

[Machjo]

I am Canadian. My land can be expropriated.

If I am paid fair market value for my land, I am getting a fair deal, but I might feel like I am getting screwed.

If I am paid some money, plus land, I am getting a slightly better deal because I can reapply my funds towards fixing up my new land.

If I am paid some money, plus land, and I am provided for with a promise that they will take care of me, I am getting one hell of a good deal.

If my family for many generations is still getting some sort of support, even if it is close to welfare, then I am getting a freaking awesome deal.

If my family many generations later believe that they are entitled to full support well beyond a welfare state, then I must have been telling them fairy tales.

Most land is not worth that kind of money. The only land that is....is for those that are able to hang onto it...not the ones that lose it.

Is that civilization? Is that what we pride ourselves on? That if I can threaten you into giving me what I want, then it's mine and to hell with your rights?

My understanding of civilization is a tad different. It goes something like this: even if I could get away with stealing your stuff, I still wouldn't on a matter of principle. The mentality you describe is the source of many ills in our world. Even animals are better behaved than that.

 

[CDNBear]

Some people, for a lack of educate, frustration, bigotry or just plain stupidity, just don't get it Mach.

 

[Machjo]

getting something into contract is one thing, collecting it is another. especially hundreds of years later.

Seeing that the contracts were signed in bad faith to begin with, and under duress, one could argue the treaties are null and void (duress), and so the land shoudl be given back and guess to whom you'd be paying your taxes then.

Heck, maybe they should fight to argue the treaties are null because of duress when they were signed and the land should just be given back, end of story.

Now, as for life being what we make of it, the constitution and the laws play a big role here too. While I don't deny extra-legal factors like how well one chooses his parents and such, we can't deny that the Indian Act puts indigenous Canadians at a disadvantage all else being equal, just as the Official Languages Act puts us at a distinct advantage, all else being equal.

You can't deny that discriminatory laws play a role.

We already have 308 MPs. I am against increasing this number as its far too many already. The proposed change would make our system even more bureaucratic and expensive. Also I doubt the chiefs as MPs would join existing political parties. More likely they would form their own political party like the Bloc Quebecois and clog the federal system with bills representing a narrow self interest rather than represent Canada.

And we have not represented a narrow self-interest ourselves with the Indian Act and the Official Languages Act, etc. Inasmuch as the Con, Lib and NDP are different ideologically, ethnically they essentially vote as one block for the most part. In this context, you ignore that when you say 'Canadian', you mean 'Anglo-French Canadian'. You're just not aware of your own ethnic bias and so consider 'Anglo-French Canadian' as the norm, and so call it 'Canadian'.

Canada must respect its treaty obligations with First Nations, as these treaties define Canada as well as the First Nations.

Especially when we consider how one-sided the treaties are to begin with.

Many First Nations are still negotiating their treaties. As far as I am concerned neither side should be able to develop disputed land or exploit their resources until the treaty settles the dispute and borders are defined.

I can agree with this with respect to defining borders between First Nations. But between First Nations and (Anglo-French) Canada, if there is no treaty, then guess to whom the land belongs. Them.

Regarding governance and political power, no one is satisfied with the status quo. I would support amending Canada's constitution and granting the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations the same powers/responsibilities/jurisdiction as a provincial premiere. I would also support giving the AFN the equivalent of provincial powers/responsibilities over all First Nation land. How that power translates down to individual governing bodies on the reserve would be the business of the AFN, but I envision Chiefs of First Nations as having similar powers as mayors.

Careful there. The Assembly of First Nations is an international intergovernmental orrganizatio, similar to the UN. There's a reason there's an -s at the end of nation in their name. Each nation has a right to its own sovereignty unless they choose to join in a confederation as the Six Nations had done.

Also the National Chief of the AFN would have to sign Canada's constitution and agree to any future changes, just like provincial premieres do now.

Again, if all the narions agree to it.

 

[#juan]

I doubt they would accept the pay cut.

In that case they shouldn't expect a second salary as an MP. There is a small
problem in parliament in that there isn't enough seats for 5000 more MPs in the
house of commons. It would be ridiculous to even consider it.

 

[JamesBondo]

Your posts are a bit off. It is like you are piggy backing on my posts to make canned responses to an argument that is running in your head.

 

[gerryh]

In that case they shouldn't expect a second salary as an MP. There is a small
problem in parliament in that there isn't enough seats for 5000 more MPs in the
house of commons. It would be ridiculous to even consider it.

What's rediculous is paying for transportation and housing so that MP's can be in Ottawa to sit in Parliament. There are more cost effective ways of doing it.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I just want to make it clear that I didn't want to appoint an additional 300 MP's, but I think a solution that involves cooperation is a must.

 

[PoliticalNick]

The Indian Act... lol.

Is that your idea of a proud, independent people? I say every man should care for himself and you respond with 'the indian act' which I have to assume means you think the white man should look after you and 'your people'.

No, they'll be honoured as they were made and interpreted by the Crown.

Oh, so now you think a written contract is open to interpretation for your benefit. What a crock of sh*t. A contract is a contract and a real man would honor it as it was written and signed whether it was a bad deal or not. I guess you're not a real man and neither are 'your people'

You know, when they were made a living document so they could exploit First Nations land and people to exploit resources.

It's funny how all that 'exploitation' funds all the programs in your beloved indian act. You benefit from it even more than any other Canadians.

I know how much that upsets the bigots now that some of us went to school and became lawyers and figured out how to exploit that.

I'm not a bigot and you're not a lawyer. All the indians want to exploit is the white man's money. Why you just can't get over the past and get on with life as an equal Canadian I don't know. The way things are going there will soon be a war over it all and I don't think you have F-18s and tanks at your disposal but best of luck if that's the way 'your people' want to go.

We already know you have to say something stupid in every post, lol.

Nothing stupid about offering to honor a contract as it was written and signed. It is required by law.

 

[JamesBondo]

Some people, for a lack of educate, frustration, bigotry or just plain stupidity, just don't get it Mach.

What don't I get? This is a wide open question, what is on your mind that isn't being discussed?