British Columbia NDP Majority Government 2024-(no later than) 2029

[Cloud Cover]

Just wait until everybody understands the consequences of transferring the oversight control of the ALC to a council of First Nations, with the full power to tax farms and have full authority to control activity on ALR land province wide.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Just wait until everybody understands the consequences of transferring the oversight control of the ALC to a council of First Nations, with the full power to tax farms and have full authority to control activity on ALR land province wide.

I wonder if these brainiacs in the BC Provincial Government realize that the public is beginning to ask the question:

If the Provincial Government gives away all of it’s powers and authorities to unelected councils of First Nations that will, seemingly, make all of the important decisions for BC residents, why does the Provincial Government even need to exist?

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wonder if these brainiacs in the BC Provincial Government realize that the public is beginning to ask the question:

If the Provincial Government gives away all of it’s powers and authorities to unelected councils of First Nations that will, seemingly, make all of the important decisions for BC residents, why does the Provincial Government even need to exist?

I ask that question of provincial AND federal governments. When they fail to adequately represent enough peoples' interests and in fact actively militate against those interests, they will lose consent of the governed. ("Government" is the legislative, judicial, and what passes for an executive.)

If "they" cannot unfuck this situation quickly and recognize that "reconciliation" is bi-directional and that aboriginal local governments will have to "reconcile" themselves to federal and provincial governments having complete and ultimate authority over lands and resources (the latter having all authority over local governments in the bounds of its province) and to having exactly one class of citizenship and to having no governments from which anyone can be exempted from voting or running for office, I expect the country to start unravelling.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sneaking around behind the public's back won't go well...

I wonder if I apply my "shaking the dice" theory if this would apply.

As Vaughan points out there are more claims than land.
Different hunter-gatherers could scavenge the same land at different times of the year for different resources. And if they ended up at the same point at the same time then they had a discussion that may or may not have involved physical violence and slaves being taken.

I digress.

Back to shaking the dice.

We, in Alberta, want a pipeline to the coast. The federal government wants us to send them money. The two issues are related.

Both issues are blocked by these multitudinous bands of hunter-gatherers and their sub-divisions. Are you a council supporter, a hereditary supporter, a reserve supporter or an off-reserve supporter....?

Up in the Rupert area, decisions have been made and decisions have been challenged and everything has been blocked.
From an Albertan stand point this Musqueam, Tsawassen, Cowichan, Squamish, Sto'lo (I haven't heard them mentioned yet but I have no doubt their lawyers are in the offing) discussion in the heart of Green Country might be a blessing.

It is easy to want a park you can visit in some one else's back yard.
It is harder to accept that you are being evicted to create a park.

And for the natives? If the feds, and the settlers and the courts all go away, are you going to go back to salmon and berries?

Because if you want money you are going to have to give somebody something.

....

I wonder, if given all the rest of the discombobulation in the world, if somebody in Ottawa hasn't decided that this is as good a time as any to give the dice a rattle and bring the whole issue of BC governance to a head in hope of a better resolution.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But without the economic common sense

Or the land giveaways, which this announcement seems to be a smokescreen for...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2028599789320081907

The clips from the debate in the house are wonderful

 

[Kirkhill]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2028614984528519606

One of the clips posted mentioned that some villages had slave populations of up to 40%. Some were as few as 2% and the average seems to have been around 10 to 15%.

The problem with the slave economy is that if you lean to heavily on them the make like Moses and the Jews. Or Spartacus. Or Wat Tyler ---- and he didn't work out well for the local clergy and taxmen.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Starting to see open conflicts kicking off...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030098806629716056

 

[brihard]

Starting to see open conflicts kicking off...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030098806629716056

Is Dallas Brodie not one of the two turfed from the BC Conservatives for being too fringe? An attention stunt in a federal Liberal constituency office is hardly surprising, but I’m not sure it’s significant…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is Dallas Brodie not one of the two turfed from the BC Conservatives for being too fringe? An attention stunt in a federal Liberal constituency office is hardly surprising, but I’m not sure it’s significant…

She's raking in all the attention she can, and there's alot of it these days:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2026096876899229754

 

[Brad Sallows]

The money taps that are typically opened for people with grievances or disadvantages are classic opportunities for beak-wetting. It is prudent to expect some - maybe a lot - of it (beak-wetting) to go on.

Federal and provincial governments cannot really afford the waste (as if they ever could). They have to stop shoveling money out the door without restraint and accountability, and especially without hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis. Too much money is being spent to assuage feelings, or to benefit very small numbers of people. The political response to (inevitable) criticism ought to be "we're spending that money to keep hospitals open", or "to provide basic shelter and care for people living with mental illness on the streets", or anything else on a long list of underfunded more essential services.

 

[Good2Golf]

Federal and provincial governments cannot really afford the waste (as if they ever could). They have to stop shoveling money out the door without restraint and accountability, and especially without hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis. Too much money is being spent to assuage feelings, or to benefit very small numbers of people. The political response to (inevitable) criticism ought to be "we're spending that money to keep hospitals open", or "to provide basic shelter and care for people living with mental illness on the streets", or anything else on a long list of underfunded more essential services.

Particularly interesting to note that for all of Canada’s efforts to increase defence spending to 2-3.5+%, funding for First Nations still outstrips a nations (and alliance’s) defence, by a notable margin (4.3B or 13%) and is the largest Voted (vice Statutory) expenditure of the federal government.

From the Main Estimates for 2025/26:

First Nations: $38.2B
Defence: $33.9B

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/government-expenditure-plan-main-estimates/2025-26-estimates.html

 

[Brad Sallows]

From the Main Estimates for 2025/26:

First Nations: $38.2B
Defence: $33.9B

Is that only "voted expenditures"? $38B of $230B is over 16%, which is a lot for spending mostly directed to the "benefit" (conceding that not everyone supposedly a beneficiary sees the system as beneficial) of about 5% of the population. Obviously some of that spending benefits other people living in the affected areas, and I could wish it were possible to determine how much is being spent on people living in small communities irrespective of local government, but for now I conclude we are stuck with a model that is horribly inefficient cost-wise. And that doesn't include all the other public monies (provincial and other local governments that are determined to kick into the pot) and the sporadic revenue/profit-sharing windfalls that accrue to only a lucky few rather than going into public coffers.

 

[Infanteer]

It's one thing to spend that kind of money and see it used to advantage by communities on the rise, but it's another thing to see it all spent on communities that continue to suffer from endemic poverty and lack of services and opportunity.

 

[YZT580]

The money taps that are typically opened for people with grievances or disadvantages are classic opportunities for beak-wetting. It is prudent to expect some - maybe a lot - of it (beak-wetting) to go on.

Federal and provincial governments cannot really afford the waste (as if they ever could). They have to stop shoveling money out the door without restraint and accountability, and especially without hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis. Too much money is being spent to assuage feelings, or to benefit very small numbers of people. The political response to (inevitable) criticism ought to be "we're spending that money to keep hospitals open", or "to provide basic shelter and care for people living with mental illness on the streets", or anything else on a long list of underfunded more essential services.

Harper tried that and it was reversed at first opportunity. Will the current government attempt to legislate the same accountability? After all, he is a banker.....

 

[Good2Golf]

Is that only "voted expenditures"? $38B of $230B is over 16%, which is a lot for spending mostly directed to the "benefit" (conceding that not everyone supposedly a beneficiary sees the system as beneficial) of about 5% of the population. Obviously some of that spending benefits other people living in the affected areas, and I could wish it were possible to determine how much is being spent on people living in small communities irrespective of local government, but for now I conclude we are stuck with a model that is horribly inefficient cost-wise. And that doesn't include all the other public monies (provincial and other local governments that are determined to kick into the pot) and the sporadic revenue/profit-sharing windfalls that accrue to only a lucky few rather than going into public coffers.

Yes, only the Voted monies to DIS & DCIRNA. That does not include the Statutory monies to FN, and I have no idea how much that is.

You were kind (16) to the % to FN…it’s actually 17.1% (38.2B/222.9B) of the entire Voted apportionment of the budget. DND is only 15.2% of the total Voted federal budget.

It's one thing to spend that kind of money and see it used to advantage by communities on the rise, but it's another thing to see it all spent on communities that continue to suffer from endemic poverty and lack of services and opportunity.

Infanteer’s point is one well made…notably more than Canada spends on defence and yet boil water and other ongoing challenges to basic sustenance and quality of life.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's one thing to spend that kind of money and see it used to advantage by communities on the rise, but it's another thing to see it all spent on communities that continue to suffer from endemic poverty and lack of services and opportunity.

... and then there's the First Nations

 

[Halifax Tar]

Things seem to be getting a bit sporting out on the left coast.

It will be interesting to see this... movement... spread across the country...

 

[Kirkhill]

Things seem to be getting a bit sporting out on the left coast.

It will be interesting to see this... movement... spread across the country...

308,775 Treaty Indians On Reserves
753,110 Treaty Indians
1,800,000 Indigenous

41,575,585 People in Canada

I think the willingness to become sporting might be tempered by the knowledge that while they may have the support of The Court Party, The Court Party may lose the support of the other 41,268,000 or so that do not live on Reserves.

We pride ourselves on having avoided most of the troubles experienced in the US. A sporting agenda might put that history at risk.

This will mellow eventually.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to ....

62,477 On Reserves in BC
1583 BC Reserves
203 BC First Nations

About 40 per Reserve,
8 Reserves per Nation,
300 or so Treaty Indians on Reserves per Nation

And "we" had no need to divide "them" to conquer them.

Our relations with the residents of our part of Turtle Island started with "us" being invited to pick a side in an ongoing dispute in 1609.

The same happened when the Spaniards started settling in 1493.

 

[Seyek]

Yes, only the Voted monies to DIS & DCIRNA. That does not include the Statutory monies to FN, and I have no idea how much that is.

You were kind (16) to the % to FN…it’s actually 17.1% (38.2B/222.9B) of the entire Voted apportionment of the budget. DND is only 15.2% of the total Voted federal budget.




Infanteer’s point is one well made…notably more than Canada spends on defence and yet boil water and other ongoing challenges to basic sustenance and quality of life.

That amount is the total amount, Voted and Statutory. If you're on the main estimates page you can go down to the individual breakdowns for each department where it'll break it out by voted and statutory. Very small statutory amounts but I think most of treaty obligated funding (healthcare, eduation, infrastructure support? I haven't had time to go look up what the actual obligations all are, much less by treaty) falls under voted rather than statutory. You could proably dig into the respective departmental plans for more details.

There are some programs not included in the main estimates (they're listed on the page in addition to the other budget info, but just their total amounts) such as EI, the Canada Child Benefit and some other tax credits. There might be some specific credits from the other category, but it's otherwise all captured there.