The Shotgun Blog
« Satiric Site Skewers the Left |
| Bureaucratic stress »
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Not all aboriginals live in a Marxist paradise
Larrie Goldstein asks in today’s Toronto Sun - Why, no matter who’s in charge, does nothing ever get better for aboriginals?:
All in, Canadians spend through their federal,
provincial and municipal governments more than $10 billion a year on
Canada’s aboriginal people.
All in, there are about 1.3 million aboriginals.
So all in, Canadians are spending more than $7,500 per aboriginal per year or over $30,000 for a family of four.
That’s almost half what the average Canadian family earns in a year.
So why isn’t it making the lives of aboriginal Canadians any better?
Where’s all that money going?
Why are so many reserves locked in third-world conditions decade
after decade when it comes to such basic needs as safe drinking water,
decent housing, schools and health care?
Why are crime, suicide and addiction so rampant? What about the 70%
of aboriginals who live off the reserves? How can $7,500 per person per
year be doing so little to help them?
Clearly, the major problem is the distribution system for all this
cash, a huge government bureaucracy — both native and non-native — that
stands between every aboriginal and that $7,500 a year. Eighty per cent
of the money the federal Department of Indian Affairs spends on
aboriginals is transferred not to individuals, but to native bands
where it is then disbursed through local chiefs and band councils.
. [sorry for the long post folks I didn't realize this place didn't take the more tag]
Posted by Darcey on June 14, 2006 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not all aboriginals live in a Marxist paradise:
Mr. "Let me be very clear" ex-Liberal PM Paul Martin, Jr., pimps/lobbies in the House of Commons, on behalf of the Chiefs, including "Go for $10 Billion Dollars" Fontaine.
Find Dithers saying: "Let me be very clear". ...
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION - EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 032
Friday, June 2, 2006
Kelowna Accord Implementation Act
Right Hon. Paul Martin (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.) moved that Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
"The Kelowna accord is a comprehensive 10 year plan to achieve a clear set of goals and targets. We provided $5.1 billion for the first five years. Let me be very clear. The funds were fully provided for in the fiscal framework. The government has the money. It is a fiscal framework, incidentally, which has, since that time, produced a surplus substantially larger than was originally projected. We made it clear that for the second five years of the program, enhanced resources based on the success obtained would be provided."
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-06-14 8:45:55 PM
I love you Mazz! The money from the original agreement was slated to go directly to the aboriginal lobby groups - MNC/AFN/INC. They fought tooth and nail to keep it that way and are still bitching
Posted by: Darcey | 2006-06-14 9:09:56 PM
maybe good old dithers could explain why his government looked at the 100 houses that were damaged on the blood reserve at cardston last summer, cut a cheque to the band for 5 million and then one enterprising fellow took the cheque into town cashed it and put in his personal account. is there any explanation forthcomming to those whose houses were flooded as to why there was no money and worse yet no charges against this fellow while this fool for the left runs around raging against these so called injustices.
Posted by: bartinsky | 2006-06-14 11:18:32 PM
If it is any consolation, Darcy, you are not alone in the situation you are in - the Big Shots in the Band Councils and the bureaucrats involved in the Indian Affairs don't want successful people; they want dependant people who will kow tow to the people with $$$ power, keep their mouths shut and their heads down. If anyone dares to confront a stoolie big shot then he cuts off the money to that person; if that person is independent , they find a way to 'ruin' him or her. I know several people in your situation - and it makes me rage at the crooks. Solzhenitsyn should be read aloud to the people of Canada because all Canadians have contributed to the corruption; the old saying 'first they did in the Jews, I was not Jewish so I said nothing.....when they came for me, there was no one left to say anything." Wonderful post Darcy, you are an incredible writer.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-06-15 3:49:09 AM
I think it’s time to re-name the Department of Indian Affairs the Department of Enabling.
Posted by: Jim Hutchinson | 2006-06-15 7:44:27 AM
I have been around the native culture of victomhood for many years and in that time have run across some eye-openers.
Natives are human and as such suffer from the same foibles that plague most of us such as anger,greed,blind ambition,fear etc.
The one thing that seems to stand out above the rest is resentment towards the status quo but that is mainly found at lower levels on the social status index than say at the local gov't level where funding enters the reserve.
I have seen local native leaders blatantly exploit this so called "dogma" and I personally feel that it is no more than a smokescreen, being just yet another take on the divide and conquer and reap theory.
In other words its a business and just like any business if you want it to continue then one has to "feed" it.Unearned money always brings corruption with it.
An incident that happened around me some years back, when I was building a house for an industrious and successful native,who was footing the bill with his own coin was that he was being harassed about not using gov't funding.
His reply to the coucil rep was that first he didn't need the funding and second that he wanted to own his home.
The council rep's reply was that he couldn't pay for his own home as it made the rest of them look bad.
I also know that the rep had a very nice home on the reserve and a very nice pickup truck parked outside beside his wife's expensive car with many other expensive toys in the carport.
I also know that his only business was band administration.
Posted by: in ques t | 2006-06-15 12:46:08 PM
Is there any reason we can't give every 'aboriginal' a cheque for a couple hundred grand and ordinary fee simple title to reserve land then tell them they're now Canadian and the treaties just got terminated?
Cuz ya know that any sovereign nation can terminate a treaty anytime it wants too and the other sovereign nation can like it or lump it. If they want to lump it, let them start a war.
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-06-15 1:36:41 PM
One usually progresses from negotiations to settlement. If Canadians did things your way, we would walk away from the table, and then go to war.
Sounds akin to neanderthalensis.
Sure, some folks would rather spend their lives at the table, as the table has become the industry of their choice. While others are just sick and tired of it, and want to get on and finnish this interminable situation.
The folks who are interminable, want more than can be, and the folks who want this situation over and done with, are willing to sign whatever it takes to get to the point where they can walk around and not have some biased individual look at them and then come up with every negative stereotype known in Western-modernity.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-15 1:57:02 PM
Sorry, Lady, but I'm with Fred Z on this one. The only people to benefit from "the table" are the fat cat lawyers from either side, and the Canadian people get to pick up the tab ad infinitum.
Enough already. If our spoiled brat "First Nations" can't handle a final monetary settlement for each individual, then take us to the UN and let Kofi figure it out.
Posted by: JK | 2006-06-15 3:09:56 PM
It appears that the actual system is going nowhere. Throwing more money at it is of no use.
The problem with minorities is not an easy one. Think of Kurdes in Turkey and Irak. Turkey was accused of genocide of Armenians in the 1900.
Maybe we could start questioning the reserve system. As a suggestion, we could tell Indians if you want to keep the reserves, you will have to find a way to finance them yourselves. And if you want to integrate, we will help you in many ways. Maybe we could make reserves less and less attractive and being a true Canadian rather than a poor aboriginal in his reserve, more attractive.
How can we achieve that is left to the reader to suggest!
In my area, there was a silly project called "L'approche commune" giving back the land to Indians. For example, every person going fishing ot hunting would have to pay rights to Indians. People generally oppose the project and it will probably fade away.
I think we have to make very clear to Indians that time and history will not go backward. I suspect many Indians think some day they will regain their country. We should find creative ways to go forward not backward.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-06-15 3:57:41 PM
I've met a few of the lawyers negotiating for the Indians. They are Indians. The Residential School System worked.
The purpose of the lawyers is to 'renegotiate' the Treaties. Heavy on the 'Renege'.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-15 4:32:53 PM
Lady, calling me a neanderthal just makes makes my point stronger and makes you sound like...
My point being, the Indians will not start a war if we terminate the treaties and stop paying anyone any more money.
Further, the treaties and the reserves are disgusting racist apartheid. Indians are being patronized because the Canadian establishment is racist and firmly believes the Indians cannot succeed on their own.
Finally, the treaties come from a time when our elites believed in the glorious communal of the wild and free tribes, living in harmony with nature and themselves blah blah blah, from each according to his ability blah blah. Socialist hogwash then and socialist hogwash now.
The reserve experiment has failed, and it was and is a disgrace that we experiment on human beings and visit laws on them we would never accept. End the reserves now. Let the Indians have the rights and duties of all Canadians.
Not to mention getting rid of innumerable legal and civil service parasites.
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-06-15 5:03:56 PM
Interesting comment Remi:
"Maybe we could start questioning the reserve system. As a suggestion, we could tell Indians if you want to keep the reserves, you will have to find a way to finance them yourselves. And if you want to integrate, we will help you in many ways. Maybe we could make reserves less and less attractive and being a true Canadian rather than a poor aboriginal in his reserve, more attractive."
Try and apply that to the east coast where many subsist on unemployment insurance and welfare and scams galore, there was already flak about bringing more of them to Alberta to work.. Imagine the outcry if the Liberal dough was shut off and those proud easteners had to replace the imported russians at the local lobster factory.
The problem is greater than just the reserve systems, the problem lies with Canada's undying harmful love for socialism and the inability or fear of its politicians to retreat from it as they would lose votes. The guys who gives the most wins.
As an aside, I wonder what we would find if we compared typical aboriginal crime or abuse statistics against one of the welfare communities on the east coast..
Posted by: Darcey | 2006-06-15 6:24:47 PM
Interesting thoughts from all.
One of the most nocuous aspects of this whole dilemma of Canadian apartheid and I will call a spade a spade,is as Fred Z said Bureaucracy... and that is spelled big business.
Its BIG BUSINESS... the money is large and the stakes are high.
Most of the natives on reserves are caught in a culture of dependancy. A web that has been continually tightening up over the years.
Never mind that the Canadian taxpayer is played for the rube that he is in this one.
The bureaucratic machine is so large now that it is practically self-propelling;mowing down in its wake any form of reasonable thought or debate as to its worth, under the guise of political correctness or the hue and cry of racism upon those who dare question it.
It is after all the perfect scam and the rewards of continual financial satiation are available to those who sign on. The most important prerequisite being of course to have a large bucket to carry the $$$ in. Another being to keep your mouth shut.
Like nationalized health care,this one is going to take a lot of weaning to get off the gov't tit but then again so will alot of things in Canada.
The prognosis is that the patient will die if something isn't done soon.
My final thought on this is that yes Natives should be given a cash buyout and reserves should be disolved as we know them now.Then perhaps some things should improve.
Posted by: in ques t | 2006-06-15 7:17:02 PM
Keep in mind Darcey that the Justice System subscribes to sensitivity training for judges where minority groups are concerned.
The demographics Have to line up as we can't have too many folks from one ethnicity doing time etc over another group.
The judges have to show more leniency towards offenders when quotas are reaching peak.MAN what a system,a regular socialists dream.
More likely a multi-culti nightmare.
Posted by: in ques t | 2006-06-15 7:28:43 PM
Was there a thread sometime back discussing if your new PM does/should have any "big ideas"?
How about investigate if any one of your native tribes would like to be "privatization" test pilots?
Incorporate tribal assets, distribute shares per capita, hire a professional manager (with big time farming - recreational lands management - extractive industries operations) and run the tribal corporation as a business, generating dividends to the owners (er, Indians).
Anyone who remained on the tribal lands, would have to pay rent to the corporation for whatever he was using personally, but he would get his share of the profits to help him pay his rent.
Make the shares non-transferrable for some long period of time (a couple generations?), sort of operating income only until the corporate management got going real good.
This could be a model for the eventual sale - distribution of all of Canada's "Crown Assets" to your own people (and get the Communist big government folks all the way to Hell out of your hair).
Can you imagine how exciting it would be to get involved in that kind of huge new private enterprise, either as an owner or as an employee?
You folks have so many great things to look forward to, right after you send ALL of your Communists out of government and back to Russia.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-15 7:51:41 PM
I did not call you a Neanderthal. I called walking away from negotiations and going to war, Neanderthalensis.
And it appears you missed my point and we are cross debating.
"Interminable" refers to those who, whether first nations or not, legal beagles or administrators and bureaucrats, who are lapping up at the negotiation troughs, and would like to spend their lives there at taxpayers expense, as it is both cushy and well paid job, are not doing what it will take to resolve matters. It does not appear to be in their individual interests.
But that is just a tiny bit of the matter.
The others who want this mess cleared up, both first nations and non-first nations alike, are not interested in the "interminable" trough, and would like matters settled once and for all.
In other words, there are First Nations and non-First Nations on both sides. If you google the First Nations Assembly, and read their material, you will find they are interested in getting rid of the Indian Act as well. And yet no one is certain or agrees on how to get there, without causing harm and disolving peace.
And, there are so many different groups, with different historical contexts, that to deal with everyone with the same solution you propose, robs each different context of an application of justice for all.
Did you ever wonder WHY, I mean really WHY the world got in a hissy-fit about South African Apartheid, and never said "boo" about Canada's reserve system?
Especially since to impose Apartheid, they actually had to come to Canada to study the reserve system here.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-15 8:38:01 PM
There are many models across the nation, such as the Nisga'a Treaty. It has yet to be ratified. If ratified, there would be a 12 year period of time in which they would go from non-taxpaying to taxpaying. The lands would belong communally to the Nisga'a people.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-15 8:43:48 PM
Hate to call you on an error, but the Nisga'a treaty was ratified more than six years ago. (No thanks the Reform/Alliance folks, who tried to kibosh the process in Parliament). The Lisims government is up and running.
I hate to call you on the error, because compared to the "solutions" offered by ignoramuses like Fred Z, you actually seem to live in the real world. Fred on the other hand, seems believe that a country that operates under the rule of law could unilaterally abrogate nearly 350 years of laws, treaties, judgments and other legal instruments to relieve itself of the obligations of its agreements while retaining the benefits (i.e. the land).
Funny, I thought conservatives actually believed in the rule of law, but apparently this is just a ruse. According to Fred Z, a true conservative only signs agreements to gain an advantage and as soon as he can retain by use of force what he's gained by consent (and, incidentally, could gain by no other means at the time), he's prepared to abandon his end of the bargain.
There are obviously problems with aboriginal government, some of which are connected to the parternalism of Indian Affairs, some of which are the result of the fact that it's hard to establish any substantial government structure for few than, say, 5,000 people without cronyism becoming a problem. But any solutions will involve making agreements, not breaking them.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-15 11:45:02 PM
I stand corrected.
I made the honest mistake of referring to the Canadian encyclopedia. I'll never do that again. When I read the document, I thought I was seeing something that made no sense, given the reports I have read. The following link confirmed my doubts after the fact.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-16 12:19:11 AM
Thanks for the research assistance to web links relevant to this topic. Lots of interesting information.
My shoot from the hip comment was based on an impression that the Indians were a big drain on Canada, via welfare type transfer payments. Thus I thought that cutting off the bleeding of taxpayer money into a never ending problem was a positive obvious "good thing" for Canada.
I read your referenced web links and evidently missed the discussion of "non-taxpaying to tax-paying" as associated with the Indian folks.
My suggestion was based on the idea that Canada would get to stop taking money from all of its citizens in order to waste it on a punishing government program of "benefits" to Indian people who evidently don't prosper under such kind attentions.
In return the Indians would get to develop their own resources and prosperity and keep it for themselves, as a legacy from their own sovereign nation of origin.
If some of them moved off the original land and over into other parts of Canada, then they would get taxed on whatever they earned, etc. but the stream of income from their original legacy holdings would remain untaxed, like if you moved to America and an uncle in Canada sent you $10,000 each year on your birthday (I don't think Hillary would tax you on that, but just don't talk about it a lot).
When your reaction to my naive simple suggestion was to talk about taxes, I kind of lost steam.
Down here in California we have Indian Tribes openning gambling casinos, right along the road from LA to Las Vegas (our cultural center).
Our new "conservative Republican" governor was way into the debate about taxing these Indians to "share" their income with the "rest of California" (i.e. the government union members-robbers).
My question is, how much money did the Las Vegas (i.e. in the adjacent State of Nevada) gambler cassino owners "share" of their income with the "rest of California"?
Answer: ? Anyone?
Let the Indians keep ALL of their tribal lands income, and hope that they get real rich!
How can that be bad, versus being phony "compassionate"?
Anyway, thanks again for the excellent information resources and (your concise) response.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-16 8:38:08 AM
The solution is quite simple.
Treaties were signed andthe crown has to honour its agreements.
One small change will shift the power relationship forever.
Instead of cutting one cheque to the band, the crown cuts cheques to each individual band member. It's an easy thing to do in the computer age.
So, the crown will meet its obligation as outlined in the treaties and people will actually get the money on a regular basis, instead of being beholden to hereditary chiefs.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-16 10:26:28 AM
The Crown absolutely does not have to honour its treaties. The Crown has the sovereign right to terminate a treaty. Supporters of the treaties want to follow just the parts of international law that suit them.
The Crown can, and should, terminate treaties (and laws) whenever they have become useless, outmoded and counterproductive. These ones have; they were probably always wrong.
By the way, what part of the treaties gives Indians the right to a new house every time they trash an old one? What part of the treaty gives every Indian the right to $7,500.00 per year forever? Treaty 7 money was $15.00 a year for chiefs and $5.00 for 'ordinary' indians? Oh, right, that part of the treaty we change. Necessary change in circumstances, doncha know.
Nisgaa land will "belong communally to the Nisga'a people". Aaaaargh. Socialism. Does. Not. Work.
And as for 'truewest', is your email really a federal government email? Is it appropriate for any poster, much less a government employee to call other posters 'ignoramuses'? is it appropriate for them to make snide comments about arguments not made? What makes you think I'm conservative? I conclude from your manners and manner of argument that you're a liberal holdover. Am I right?
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-06-16 2:56:19 PM
You got me. I'm at the PMO. I'm Stephen Harper's evil twin, Bonsai.
As for treaties, you're talking out of your hat. It's been settled law since 1763 that the Crown must sign treaties with the occupants of land it wants to take up. And it's a measure of your ignorance that you can't tell the difference between international treaties that are, essentially, agreements between states to cooperate and adhere to certain agreed standards and treaties involving land that are supported by consideration.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-16 3:56:26 PM
Figure out how much money is currently going to each tribal chief.
Divide that by the number of people on the reserve.
Send each member a cheque, with children's portion given to their parents.
From that money, each individual is responsible for their own housing and elected chiefs have to set up a tax system for the purposes of administration.
All issues can be hashed out in an election campaign.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-16 5:16:36 PM
Set you free -
You have become accustomed to your government sending checks drawn on citizen-taxpayers' money out to other citizens (evidently non-taxpayers).
If they ran these huge tracts (nations?) of land as business enterprises, and kept the government completely to Hell out of it, then NO checks would have to come to or from the government.
It would seem the Indians should be able to get "rich" (or a least supplimental income on top of their own earnings).
In and around California and America there are various big office buildings in different cities which are actually the operations headquarters of great big FARMS. Making bunches of money.
One of the biggest farmers in Arizona (lots, lots, lots of acres, but certainly NOT a "nation") had his offices in the top floors of a huge office building on top of a hill overlooking Newport Beach, CA. That old hay seed.
"Just farmers...but surprisingly smart..." per Darcy several days ago. :- )
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-16 5:38:43 PM
Ah, truewest, the lawyerish jolly roger is up. You are a feddie snivel service lawyer, not?
Lovely argument style though, bait and switch and bedazzle them. One day they're treaties between sovereign nations, the next they're private treaties of some sort, or maybe a half-assed expropriation.
But you avoid the only real point like you would a a client without funds. Parliament is supreme and it can cancel treaties, change statutes, amend the constitution, countermand the courts and blow 'settled law' out your cheese hole.
And it ought to. The treaties and the Indian Affairs system are racist, dishonest and corrupt. Despite them the Indians are Canadians and we Canadians are all equal; except government lawyers, who are more equal than others.
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-06-16 11:37:29 PM
The wisdom of hindsight was not present during the signing ceremonies.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-17 1:49:21 AM
Free Enterprise Doesn't Work <<<<
Chief Habitat of the UN Habitat has not been to the Kashwantanamo-money Reserve which is located in downtown James Bay, Ontario: ya know, the one.. the one with the 14 billion dollar, mal-functioning water purification systems/lagoonless sewerage sytems; where the spring run-off couldn't/wouldn't run off because the houses/sewage beds, etc., were built on a flood-plain by scum contractors hired/paid for by the Dept. of Innn.. Affairs.
Chief says: da proof is da proof is da Jean Chretien. AdScam Jean got his start at Indian Affurs; learned real good, he did: Bribery Inc. Ti-Jean is a fa$$$$$t learner.
The word habitat brings to mind "Habitat for Humanity: the $$$$$ swindle of the peanutty Jimmah Carter, the Iran from Iran Democrat.
One caveat; Habitat's 5 "Chief" features includes "insecure tenure".
But... Chiefs are "elected"/given a life sentence, no? It was so in the MacDonald clan....
FIVE CHIEF FEATURES OF A SLUM
Lack of durable housing
Insufficient living area
Lack of access to clean water
definition: UN Habitat
"The average aid worker is not aware of the extent of the problem - this report is the proof," UN Habitat's executive director added. ...
FIVE CHIEF FEATURES OF A SLUM
Lack of durable housing
Insufficient living area
Lack of access to clean water
definition: UN Habitat
"The average aid worker is not aware of the extent of the problem - this report is the proof," UN Habitat's executive director added.
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-06-17 4:38:15 AM
Wrong again. Wrong about me. Wrong about the law. Wrong about Parliament. Wrong about pretty much everything.
But nice try.
Interesting idea, but I think it would be more difficult to implement than you imagine.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-17 12:09:33 PM
The Department of Indian Affairs needs a serious overhaul. Successive governments fail to improve the lot of too many reserve Indians. Why? The buck stops with the Chiefs is one very obvious reason. We keep having pictures shown of the squalour and slum conditions on some reserves so what's the problem.? No appreciation? No ambition? No shame? No rules? No accountability? It's disgusting. On top of everything else we even put up with outright thuggery and lawlessness, as in Caladonia and since the tactics worked expect more of the same.
Posted by: Liz Jackson | 2006-06-17 12:58:05 PM
Where would the primary points of resistance be?
1) There would be no need for a crown bureaucracy to paternalistically supervise the goings-on at a reserve. Just have a database of registered receipents and send cheques on a regular basis. That, in itself could save billions of dollars a year. Naturally, the Indian Affairs bureaucrats would not like this idea.
2) The residents of the reserve, if this idea were put to a vote, would vote overwhelmingly for their fair share of treaty money. Currently, they see little of it.
3) The Federation of the Chiefs, or whatever they call themselves, would put up the biggest fight because they have the most to lose. Money is power and if you put the power in the hands of the ordinary tribesman, he will make sure the chief does his bidding of the tribe in a bottom-up system.
4) Their societal development could welll end up in the same place it is today, but at least they would be unable to blame-shift their failures onto somebody else ... namely whitey.
5) That''s all I could think of off the top of my head.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-17 12:59:11 PM
How will the first nations issues ever be solved.
Caledonia is one single, isolated issue that, with will/guts, might have been solved. Perhaps it still can be but a betting person probably wouldn't touch this with a $5 bill. About all that has happened so far is to pave the way for more of the same by other minority groups who choose not to use the courts to go about getting their way. Success brings success - even if it is success achieved by home grown terrorism and this situation has been nothing more, nothing less than home grown terrorism in action.
Soooo, the taxpayers bought some Caledonia land. From whom did the developers initially buy the land (presumably it was "owned" by some non-native interest prior to this). How was "fair market value" established?. Did the taxpayers also pay for a very good rate of return on investment to the developers? Fair maret value of the land in question is surly close to zero these days - who who be dumb enough to even want to go in there now. A betting person might place that $5 bill that the property will quietly be turned over to the Natives at "nominal value". Does the word Casino have any relevance.
The building of a ring road that is desperately needed in Southwest Calgary has been held up for decades because it necessitates dealing with the First nations and their Reserve on the City's western boundary. Two words: by-pass highway (majority) and Casino (a few).
I guess we can be happy that the reserve is not connected with Six Nations but no doubt people on all sides are very keen observers of Caledonia these days.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-06-17 2:06:35 PM
No, the Proclamation of 1763 states that the Crown owned the lands and that nobody but the Crown could purchase lands occupied by Indians. It does not state that the Crown was going to buy those lands or that the Indians were sovereign nations. Rather, it specifically refers to Indians as subjects and the Crown subsequently granted millions of acres without either purchasing or entering into treaties.
Posted by: b g | 2006-06-17 7:27:07 PM
Truewest, is parliament supreme, or not.
Come on truey, straight answer, no lawyerly fairy stories. Supreme or not? Yes or no, true or false, 0 or 1?
If I'm 'wrong on the law' (that phrase alone is a lawyer's sticky little fingerprint), tell me where? Is there a court decision somewhere that says so? Cite me a good juicy judicial one truey, cite me, gimme a case, gimme even an obiter. Any judge ever said parliament cannot end this shameful thievery of money from the taxpayer and of freedom, honour and dignity from the Indians?
Notwithstanding silence on notwithsanding things and suchlike, I am curious about your several emails when you troll around here in the fevered right wing swamps. Drink your quinine before you come here?
Why two email addresses in your various posts? Either one real? 'pm.gov.ca' - really? I'll send you a test to see what happens.
Posted by: Fred Z | 2006-06-18 9:56:38 PM
No, Fred, Parliament is not supreme. We live in a constitutional democracy; the constitution is supreme. And no, I'm not a lawyer, although I know something about the law. Unlike, say, you. So go do your own legal research. Cite a case for your proposition, since you're the one who made it.
If the crown owned the land, why did it have to purchase the land occupied by Indians. Doesn't that suggest that the Crown recognized the Indians had an interest in the land? The courts seem to think that's what the Royal Proclamation means, but perhaps you have some other authority?
I don't object in principle to the idea you propose (although it does sound a little like the 40 acres and mule promised freed slaves after American civil war.) But one party to a treaty can't simply unilaterally alter the terms of an agreement by, for instance, pretending that the existing form of governance for the other party doesn't exist.
That said, kudos for pointing out, in the face of ignorant populist nattering from the likes of Fred Z, that treaties are binding and simply can't be set aside because a bunch of cracker MPs decide they don't like the deal.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-19 12:00:07 AM
"I hate to call you on the error, because compared to the "solutions" offered by ignoramuses like Fred Z, you actually seem to live in the real world. Fred on the other hand, seems believe that a country that operates under the rule of law could unilaterally abrogate nearly 350 years of laws, treaties, judgments and other legal instruments to relieve itself of the obligations of its agreements while retaining the benefits (i.e. the land)."
Funny, isn't the extinguishing of treaty rights what was being discussed by Trudeau and Chrétien prior to writing the new constitution? In 1969, the Liberal government produced the White Paper under PM Trudeau and Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Chrétien. Like all Liberals when they come up with the rare good idea, they backed down and did the opposite but Indian Affairs minister Chrétien was a firm advocate of eliminating native treaties from the new constitution. Instead of following through they did the opposite and entrenched them even further into law a decade later.
See a brief description of the "White Paper" of 1969:
There are better links but this gives you the skinny right off the bat. Very convenient...
As for what we can do today, a constitution that can be replaced once can be replaced twice. In other countries this is easier to do but it isn't impossible with a non-separatist government in Quebec...
Funny how you find it so abhorrent that we should end the race-based special laws in Canada. Didn't we lead the boycott of South Africa's Apartheid regime?
As for state-to-state negotiations and treaties, the original treaties were penned by England prior to Canada's political independence (we still have the crown but laws do not have to be passed in England any more.) Back when those treaties were signed, Canada was not sovereign. It was a colony. A foreign state negotiated with the inhabitants of what is now Canada. We are now a sovereign country. We are all the inhabitants now. We are citizens of Canada. There is no reason to treat "natives" any different than natives. A native is a citizen born in Canada. A "native" is a legal apartheid concept based on racial heritage.
Canada's new constitution has ushered in 25 years of racial animosity, special status, the destruction of equality before the law, a brand spanking new "victim" industry, PC lawsuits in "human rights" tribunals which throw out the human rights, and the elimination of freedoms (speech, association, equality under the law, and most importantly - property rights. Consequently as an aside, "natives" have never enjoyed property rights on our Native Bantus we call reserves.)
It was Trudeau's charter that changed 350 years of law. So you're saying that it can be done by the Liberals but no one else then? Your logic is a bit fuzzy and inconsistent. And if things aren't allowed to change, if society isn't allowed to change, then you would be a housewife... Change in law is just fine when it suits you then? If our race relations are not allowed to change, how come marriage is up for grabs? I support SSM but don't see why the left can have the changes it want but declares that any change is sacrilege when they don't want it. It's hypocrisy.
Best stick to what you do best:
"Wrong again. Wrong about me. Wrong about the law. Wrong about Parliament. Wrong about pretty much everything.
But nice try."
Offer no arguments while declaring everyone you disagree with to be wrong without saying why.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-19 9:06:38 AM
Are you suggesting that Canada, which was created by an act of the British Parliament, isn't bound by treaties signed before 1867? Want to provide some authority for that position?
As for the rest, I'm not suggesting that Canada's relationship with aboriginal people should be frozen in time. But that relationship started on a different footing than the Crown's relationship with other citizens and continued to exist on a different footing for 350 years. To suggest that the Crown can unilaterally change it would be contentious even before s.35 of the constitution act came into play. Now it's just wrong. You want to change the relationship, you have to deal with the people on the other side.
As for the Charter, sorry you don't like it. I understand that many paleo-conservatives don't. Well, you can always campaign to revoke it; that should be a clear path to majority government.
Oh, and the chances of my being a housewife, now or at any other time, are pretty slim. Unless "wife" has taken on a new, genderless meaning while I wasn't looking.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-19 9:37:38 AM
I'm not saying the treaties don't have the force of law at this moment, I'm saying that a country can repudiate any treaty it wants. I can change any law it wants. It just has to pass the law and/or change the constitution.
France is on what, the fifth republic now? I bet we could do Constitution 2.0 without having the Terror and Napoleon to contend with.
I wouldn't suggest just eliminating the treaties, I'd hand over the land that reserves sit on to be divided up into actual ownership of the individual band members then give them transition money. After x period of time, there's be no special status.
As you said, the law was in place as of 1793. It's time to get to 2006. In 2006, rights shouldn't be based on race or group characteristics. It's unfair to the "natives" (i.e. Indians) who are stuck in the middle of nowhere (in most cases) and it's unfair to natives (i.e. citizens) who get to pay for it. The other thing with those treaties is that we only talk of the special rights afforded to "natives" and not the restrictions that came with it. "Natives" couldn't vote, had to sell their wares only to the crown, didn't have citizenship, and on and on. The bad parts are gone but the "rights" remain. How come? If we have to pay for some inbred Duke from the 18th century because he spoke in our name, why should "natives" not be equally bound by what their lot signed?
As you say, a new constitution isn't the way to a majority government so it won't happen. Harper is a very smart guy and isn't about to attempt something so stupid. It would be nice if it were possible though. The current system helps no one (except corrupt chiefs and thugs) and costs everyone. Not an ideal situation.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-19 10:13:52 AM
Unless you amend the constitution to remove s.35 (ain't gonna happen) you can't repudiate the treaties. You can negotiate to change them, you can deal with issues of governance, you can sign new treaties on different terms. However, you can't just wave a magic wand and say, "Poof, you are no longer Indians."
There seems to be a misconception, especially on the right, that Indians in Canada were "conquered". That is simply untrue. From one end of the country to Alberta (B.C. is another matter) we cut deals to buy peace and cooperation and to get land. Those deals are guaranteed by the honour of the Crown.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-19 10:34:06 AM
Thanks for the quick education abut the source of your profoundly destructive Liberal government, i.e. the 1969 Charter.
Undoubtedly all Canadians can be made aware of this connection between the Charter and the Communist undermining of your nation.
Seemingly, by lifting one paragraph from your last post, you could create a winning political campaign to remove all Liberals from your government.
Does anyone actually run for office in Canada based on this basic issue of eliminating the systemic source of Communism from Canada?
If not, why don't YOU?
If you decide to run, please contact me so that I can first pesuade you to reconsider and then drop the same sex marriage plan (natural human families are hard enough to hold together without diminshing their fundamental cultural position; while homosexuals have been easily able to hold onto their identity without marriage-family status).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-19 10:58:47 AM
That's the 1982 Charter. It's our version of your Bill of Rights.
If you'd like to campaign on removing those elements from your Constitution, be my guest. But, as Warwick knows, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is enormously popular. And while the recent predecessors to our current Conservative Party of Canada -- in particular the Reform Party -- often voted for its revocation at their policy conventions, Harper is clever enough to know that even to suggest such a thing would make the CPC roughly as popular as the Flat Earth Party.
In the meantime, spare us the Reds under the Bed rhetoric.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-19 11:14:01 AM
Actually, our charter is popular in the same way that Kyoto is. People like it when they know jack s**t about it. The more they learn about the truth/history of the thing, they less they like it.
Good thing for the lefties that the media/school systems keep them in the dark.
Ask 10 people and I bet only 1 or 2 would know we had a Bill of Rights before we had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bill was about real rights including property rights (it also didn't have any caveats to give racial quotas a loophole over equality rights.)
The 82 charter was about destroying the old Canada and remaking it in the Liberal's image. It worked and our country has been sliding into the gutter ever since.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-19 11:20:03 AM
Adding to what truewest purports, the Charter of Bills and Rights is extremely popular with the advocacy groups who receive government funding to issue court challenges.
So, what we had in Canada, as perfected by the Liberal party is an activist government, rather than a government that acts in the best interests of all its citizens.
The origin of this was the 1977 Courts Challenges Program, set up by one of truewest's apparent heroes, Pierre Trudeau. Its original intent was to enforce, through court action, the idea of biligualism.
As we've recently learned in a book by a Quebec-based couple, Trudeau hated the English as much as any Quebecker. But, instead of favouring the solution of separation, Trudeau used the concept of biligualism to stack the civil service to an extent that currently Quebec-born bureaucrats in Ottawa are disproportionatley higher than its population in the country.
Since the bureauracy guides the politicians, in effect Trudeau oversaw the rebirth of New France, whose minority population now has been given the right to place social controls through the Charters of Rights and Freedoms on the majority population.
Hmm. Sounds a lot like National Socialism to me ... free enterprise by tight social control. No wonder Trudeau was riding around Europe on a motorcyle with a German WWII helmet on his head.
The Court Challenges Program of 1977 was a response to the election of the Parti Quebecois, a separatist provincial government. It was meant to provide funding for English speakers in Quebec and francophones outside the province to challenge laws they though were discrimiatory against them.
Other advocacy groups, purporting to be victims of discrimiation or another, saw this as an opportunity.
In effect, from that time on, parliament became merely a place through which taxpayers money could be funnelled to advocacy groups, who worked in cahoots with the government of the day to establish laws through the courts, rather than through the democratically-elected parliament.
Since discrimiation was a key concept in the original program, any group with a minority viewpoint could circumvent the democratic process merely by claiming victimhood and getting government funding to prove the legitimacy of their equality.
So, courts eventually decided that it was just fine to be in possession of child pornography, a concept the majority of Canadians would disagree with.
Any group holding a majority opinion is, of course, not eligible for government funding of a court challenge.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-19 11:43:53 AM
You might also mention that Dief's Bill of Rights was ordinary legislation, without any constitutional effect. In other words, it was utterly toothles.
And let's see some evidence that the more people learn about the Charter the more they want to get rid of it. An Environics survey in 2002 showed 88 percent of Canadian new about the Charter and an equal number supported it. You have numbers that say otherwise?
The Court challenge program recognizes the fact that it costs at least $500,000 to take a case through the system to the Supreme Court and that access to justice is an important issue in any modern society. The rest of your post is just the usual paranoid right wing blather about the Charter being some liberal conspiracy to circumvent parliament. It doesn't merit reply.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-19 12:16:59 PM
Canada should abrogate all race-based laws, including treaties. Anything less is racist.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-06-19 12:26:39 PM
Everyone "knows" about Kyto too. Just nothing of detail. Simply knowing that the Charter exists is not useful information. People "know" the very little that they are told. If the whole contents were as widely known things would change.
As for the court challenges program, I notice that it is highly selective in who would get money and for what causes. If you challenged the SSM law, would this provide money to a Christian organization? No. But it has no problem with funding the Gay lobby.
I choose this example deliberately because I support SSM so I have no axe to grind as far as the suit itself. What I object to is that the government will only fund left-wing groups using my tax dollars. It never funds conservative causes. Why should I be forced so subsidize an ideological war against the right? Most of the right I agree with. If you don't, take a collection box out to your own people and fund it yourself.
I also object no matter who gets the money as I don't think I should have to fund groups challenging the elected government. I'd rather have my money go to the causes I chose.
There is always some free money for the left. They never spend their own damn money. They always demand someone else pays their bills.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-19 12:33:50 PM
If everybody had same delusions you did, you'd be in a majority. You offer no evidence for the bald assertion that the more people know about the Charter, the less they like. I've offered evidence to the contrary. Time to step up or shut up.
Thanks for the majesterial pronouncement. Unfortunately, we've had race-based laws from day one. To suddenly up and pretend they didn't exist and didn't shape the economy and society we find ourselves with today is, to be kind, naive.
You want to abrogate the treaty? Fine. Then maybe you'd like to pay the local Indian band rent for the land you think you own. Because chances are it was obtained by way of some treaty or another.
Oh, I see -- you'd like to abrogate the treaty AND keep the benefit obtained? Well, of course you would.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-06-19 12:45:55 PM
Your words, sir, not mine.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-06-19 12:59:59 PM
How's this then?
"Still, opinion polls in 2002 showed Canadians felt the Charter significantly represented Canada, although many were unaware of the document's actual contents."
If you want some polls on how much Canadians know, here's a start:
Highlights include: 1 in 4 (26%) Canadians think Canada is a representative republic; 22% believe “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is Canada’s constitutional slogan; and fully 90% of Americans could name their first President versus 54% of Canadians who could name Canada’s first PM.
Since its adoption in 1982, Canadians have become very attached to the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. In fact, three-quarters (73%) of Canadians feel that Canada’s Charter of Rights and
Freedoms allows for more individual freedom than American’s receive under their Constitution’s
Bill of Rights (13%)
Then there's what Canadians want:
An Environics poll released yesterday found that two out of three Canadians surveyed favour the election of Supreme Court justices. The poll, which surveyed 2,000 Canadians, found support for election of the justices was lowest in Ontario, with 65% in favour, and highest in the West and Atlantic Canada, where 71% favour election.
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-19 1:26:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.