Take it all and give it to the poor, suffering Old Stock Canadians.
How many centuries until we become native, too?
Take it all and give it to the poor, suffering Old Stock Canadians.
![]()
I do wish my non native friends here in canada had been taught this..instead of always saying mean things thinking their tax $`s are used by my people..not one dime is from their tax dollars..and incom tax has nothing to do with Indians..it came from the 2nd world war..was a war tax and it worked so good for the federal government that they kept it and changed its name to "incom tax" also I should point out that when the CN railroad was built the government stole Indian money to pay for it and never repaid that money to my people..and in 2009 when PM Harpers $22.7-billion stimulus package was handed out to farmers he took it from the Indian moneys and this also has never been paid back..just so every one knows it is not Indians but canada that is behind on its rent.. we have people on reserves living in third world conditions but we are not even aloud to access our own money to fix that problem..its about control and the keeping of power from us..its fear..we are an oppressed people and those who walk with the aliens hoping some how to become lil make believe white folks are all lost idiots..they will be eaten by that system. - Maskikiy Mahihkan
SUDBURY, Ont. - The provincial and federal governments have been short-changing First Nations in Ontario for more than a century, a superior court judge ruled last week as she ordered long-stagnant annual payments be raised.
The court found that the Crown has "a mandatory and reviewable obligation" to increase the annuity under the Robinson-Huron Treaty, which was signed in 1850.
Justice Patricia Hennessy wrote that it's the Crown's duty to fulfil the treaty's promise to increase the payments over time.
"The Treaties were not meant to be the last word on the relationship," she wrote. "Renewal of the relationship was necessary to ensure that both parties could continue to thrive in changing environments."
Hennessy did not say how much the payments should be, noting that there may be further steps and considerations in the implementation of her ruling.
A delegation of 21 First Nations argued in the 2014 lawsuit that it is unfair that the annual payment of $4 to each of its members has not been raised, even though some members have been living in poverty.
Hennessy's decision states that an increase hasn't occurred since 1875, despite the treaty's promise to "increase the collective annuity when economic circumstances warrant."
There are about 30,000 beneficiaries to the Robinson-Huron Treaty in the 21 communities.
The chiefs from the affected territory in northern Ontario have said the Anishinabek people agreed under the treaty to share their lands and resources with newcomers. In return, the Crown would pay annuities that were supposed to increase as the territory generated revenues from forestry, mining and other resource development.
A spokesman for the Ontario government said it's in the process of reviewing the court's decision and declined to say anything further. The federal government also said it was reviewing the ruling, adding it "remains open to discussions with the interested parties."
Ontario NDP legislator Sol Mamakwa, the Opposition's Indigenous relations critic, said the decision is a step forward to reconciliation and he expects a "significant" increase to the annuity.
"Indigenous people have always been treated as second-class citizens in this country," said Mamakwa. "When we think about the resources from the land, it's the livelihood of our culture, it's the livelihood of our people — and I don't think there's a set amount for that, but I think it matters to us."
Mamakwa said the annuity raise would increase access to resources along with programs and services offered in those communities.
Batchewana Chief Dean Sayers said the decision is "huge."
Hennessy said in her decision that the treaty was vague, and could be interpreted in many different ways, but that a payment of $4 per person "suggests that the Treaties were a one-time transaction.
"As the historical and cultural context demonstrates, this was not the case; the parties were and continue to be in an ongoing relationship," she wrote.
Hennessy also said the court and all parties involved in the treaty should develop processes and procedures for the "modern era" on how to move forward with the payment increases.
A quick google search says you are full of shit the only thing that even comes close to verifying your post is this
First Nations Trust Fund as of March 31, 2009 information from AANDC web site
And it could only come up with
With oral history and broken links in the article
Any other links on google are all from Oral history based on an American lawsuit
Cliffy why did the FN sue Ottawa/taxpayers? And not the Queen to get an increase from the the trust fund? The lawsuit is based on the treaty Ok'd by the Queen isn't it?
First Nations win case over $4 benefit
Another judge injecting her opinion on a treaty signed 170 years ago with todays standards, what implication will this have on the rest of the treaties? What will this cost us?
Really?? Somebody should start a thread, Right??Another example would be the HUNDREDS of people evacuated from Kashetchewan Reserve every spring- and flown to North Bay and other more southern towns and supplied with hotel rooms and meals till the ANNUAL FLOODING ABATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the old says Crees living in the Kashetchewan area simply packed up and headed to higher grown- on their own time and on their own dime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!