All Things First Nations - CF help, protests, solutions, residential schools, etc. (merged)

[Brad Sallows]

I don't know much about laws. Can decisions made under common law be changed?

The current system isn't working. Many reserves are rife with sexual abuse, domestic abuse, drugs and alcohol abuse, child abuse, fraud, criminal behavior, and so on. Money get's thrown at reserves and intercepted by a few gate keepers who merit it out how they see fit, mostly with no transparency or accounting. Look at Lytton BC. $290 million dollars in recovery funds and not a single house rebuilt yet. First Nation suffering is a self-perpetuating business. Maybe the solution is to just rework those 300 year old contracts from scratch.

Not all of the money goes to LFN. Much of it goes to the Village.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Maybe the solution is to just rework those 300 year old contracts from scratch.

That would be quite a gamble to take. At one (oversimplified) level, if Canada/the Crown "out-lawyered" them way back in the days of the Treaties, what are the odds of Indigenous groups being out-lawyered again for a deal that's better just for Canada/the Crown? Careful what you wish for ...

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not all of the money goes to LFN. Much of it goes to the Village.

I believe it, that would be part of the profit business. $120M for "recovery support", still not a single house built. Some people in the village are making bank.

That would be quite a gamble to take. At one (oversimplified) level, if Canada/the Crown "out-lawyered" them way back in the days of the Treaties, what are the odds of Indigenous groups being out-lawyered again for a deal that's better just for Canada/the Crown? Careful what you wish for ...

I would expect nothing less from the government.

Ottawa spent $110K in legal fees fighting First Nations girl over $6K dental procedure

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I would expect nothing less from the government.

Ottawa spent $110K in legal fees fighting First Nations girl over $6K dental procedure

Oh yeah, the old "precedent that must be avoided" thing. There's a line from "Yes, Minister" about that when the Deputy Minister suggested it may not be a good idea linking honours to seeing measurable results from the honours recipients

Agree 1000% on how much fight Club Fed would put up, no matter what colour team jerseys are in Ottawa.

I was suggesting the lawyers on the Indigenous side would be WAY less trusting (and have more tools in their tool belts) than the Chiefs who signed the original Treaties between the 1700's and mid-late 1800's.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I was suggesting the lawyers on the Indigenous side would be WAY less trusting (and have more tools in their tool belts) than the Chiefs who signed the original Treaties between the 1700's and mid-late 1800's.

For sure. I know I sound like a broken record but just imagine how much money lawyers in Canada on both sides have made off of this issue. I bet lawyers would absolutely love cracking open the treaties for a redo.

 

[brihard]

I don't know much about laws. Can decisions made under common law be changed?

The current system isn't working. Many reserves are rife with sexual abuse, domestic abuse, drugs and alcohol abuse, child abuse, fraud, criminal behavior, and so on. Money get's thrown at reserves and intercepted by a few gate keepers who merit it out how they see fit, mostly with no transparency or accounting. Look at Lytton BC. $290 million dollars in recovery funds and not a single house rebuilt yet. First Nation suffering is a self-perpetuating business. Maybe the solution is to just rework those 300 year old contracts from scratch.

Common law precedent in the form of court decisions can usually be overridden with legislation (unles it’s, e.g., a constitutional/Charter decision), or worked around by finding a different, constitutionally compliant way to achieve the same police ends.

Renegotiating the treaties with the various First Nations though? I’m totally unable to speak to that, save for being pretty confident that those are very solidly entrenched in law and can’t just be arbitrarily wiped clean. This is always a fun part of the discussion when groups within various provinces talk about separation.

 

[Maxman1]

This is why one sticks to no tattoos, or standard nautical ones....

Nobody misinterprets a hula girl or "HOLD FAST".

Or

 

[Jarnhamar]

Renegotiating the treaties with the various First Nations though? I’m totally unable to speak to that, save for being pretty confident that those are very solidly entrenched in law and can’t just be arbitrarily wiped clean.

Yeah it's really a throw away COA.

It's just sad. Short of a Star Trek post-armageddon style decision for change I don't see First Nations lives improving in the next 300 years. Tempus fugit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yeah it's really a throw away COA.

It's just sad. Short of a Star Trek post-armageddon style decision for change I don't see First Nations lives improving in the next 300 years. Tempus fugit.

I do. In the 20 years I spent working with FN in BC and Yukon mainly, I have seen a steady climb in the abilty of the Bands to improve life. It varies a lot from band to band. Some are still held back by internal bickering, some suffer from a location that limits what they can do.
In consultations I would always ask; "Where do you want to be in 20 years?" That often stumped them as many didn't think in concrete terms beyond today. Those that did generally saw steady improvement. One meeting I asked about recreational boating for the band, they replied "Oh we don't do that" and II said but they will when the money from the project starts flowing in. The band council was shocked that I saw a good future for them, they get wrapped up in the victim story to much sometimes.
The successful bands are creating the path and the leaders of the future who aren't interested in the victim game and that will pull the other bands forward.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Common law precedent in the form of court decisions can usually be overridden with legislation (unles it’s, e.g., a constitutional/Charter decision), or worked around by finding a different, constitutionally compliant way to achieve the same police ends.

Renegotiating the treaties with the various First Nations though? I’m totally unable to speak to that, save for being pretty confident that those are very solidly entrenched in law and can’t just be arbitrarily wiped clean. This is always a fun part of the discussion when groups within various provinces talk about separation.

One of the key issues in BC is that there are very few treaties, largely as a result of BC being comprehensively settled hundreds of years after eastern North America, and over 200 separate First Nations.

And, as with other similar human organizations, no two First Nations are the same with respect to their interests, organizational structures, and internal capacity.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... as with other similar human organizations, no two First Nations are the same with respect to their interests, organizational structures, and internal capacity.

And that'll affect how different places will have their own mileage vary re: trying for a new treaty - not to mention differential access to resources to take advantage of.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Supremes: No, just because you were paying $4 a year to each member when the Treaty was signed in 1850 doesn't mean you HAVE to keep paying only $4/head/year ....

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

Billions in compensation expected after Supreme Court rules Crown made a 'mockery' of treaty

A unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada says for the past 150 years, the Crown has broken revenue-sharing agreements signed with Anishinaabe First Nations, making a "mockery" of a treaty promise. Compensations will be worth billions.

www.nationalobserver.com

Supreme Court tells governments to pay for ‘empty shell’ treaty promises

New ruling says that Crown must pay some Ontario First Nations for 150 years of frozen $4 annuities that were supposed to have increased

www.theglobeandmail.com

Here's the court decision (also attached as PDF)

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule - SCC Cases

decisions.scc-csc.ca

Just one quick factoid to extrapolate how much more Canada may have to pay: $4 in 1914 (the earliest date available at the Bank of Canada inflation calculator) would be worth just under $108. Don't know enough about Ontario's formula for sharing resource revenues with First Nations to know how it'll affect them.

 

[medicineman]

The Supremes: No, just because you were paying $4 a year to each member when the Treaty was signed in 1850 doesn't mean you HAVE to keep paying only $4/head/year ....

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

Billions in compensation expected after Supreme Court rules Crown made a 'mockery' of treaty

A unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada says for the past 150 years, the Crown has broken revenue-sharing agreements signed with Anishinaabe First Nations, making a "mockery" of a treaty promise. Compensations will be worth billions.

www.nationalobserver.com

Supreme Court tells governments to pay for ‘empty shell’ treaty promises

New ruling says that Crown must pay some Ontario First Nations for 150 years of frozen $4 annuities that were supposed to have increased

www.theglobeandmail.com

Here's the court decision (also attached as PDF)

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule - SCC Cases

decisions.scc-csc.ca

Just one quick factoid to extrapolate how much more Canada may have to pay: $4 in 1914 (the earliest date available at the Bank of Canada inflation calculator) would be worth just under $108. Don't know enough about Ontario's formula for sharing resource revenues with First Nations to know how it'll affect them.

 

[OldSolduer]

 

[Haggis]

Time for Trudeau to dust off the "asking for more that we can afford to give". It worked last time.

 

[lenaitch]

Just a thought experiment. The negotiation and settlement for past 'behavior' and future compensation are separate issues. Once the annual per-member/per nation "compensation" amount is determined going forward, should this be instead of or in additional to all other government spending for things like housing, policing, resource royalties, etc., etc. Hmmm.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just a thought experiment. The negotiation and settlement for past 'behavior' and future compensation are separate issues. Once the annual per-member/per nation "compensation" amount is determined going forward, should this be instead of or in additional to all other government spending for things like housing, policing, resource royalties, etc., etc. Hmmm.

Very good questions.

On the past vs. future, I suspect there'll be a fair bit of negotiation/haggling re: how much is owed in no-longer-1850 rates of treaty annuity - I've only just skimmed the judgment, so that's a WAG.

On the per-capita vs. in addition to bit, apples and oranges. The Treaties (to grossly oversimplify) said they'd get the annuity (the $4/year or so - varies a bit from treaty to treaty, as well as things like fishing nets, ammunition, and even a suit a year for the Chief - those last two, I think, have $ given in lieu now) AND that the Crown would make sure they have places to live and schools to go to.

Again, I'm far from a legal beagle on this, so I (as always) stand to be corrected.

 

[Brad Sallows]

the Crown would make sure they have places to live and schools to go to.

Our version of apartheid is working so well.

I can guess that there is enthusiastic advocacy for keeping the advantageous bits and trimming the disadvantageous bits, but it's past time to throw out all the rent-seeking and differential privileges and responsibilities and fit everything into the federal-provincial-municipal model. What's good for one small community is good for all small communities, and the converse for what's bad.

 

[dimsum]

Our version of apartheid is working so well.

Apartheid is a pretty loaded term.

Are you suggesting that the Indigenous folks are being kept separate, not allowed to join “regular” Canadian society, inter-marry, etc? Or that non-Indigenous are not able to access certain benefits (taxes on Reserves) that Status people can? Or something else altogether?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Apartheid is a pretty loaded term.

Yes. "Version" necessarily implies something different. Is it acceptable if we just have "apartheid-lite"? Forbidding something outright is worse than structuring disincentives in legislation, which is worse than true equality before the law which is not contingent on birth, marriage, inheritance, votes of admission, etc.