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

[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

This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.

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

This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.

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.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I can guess that there is enthusiastic advocacy for keeping the advantageous bits and trimming the disadvantageous bits ...

... 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.

And like with other problems, if it was simple and easy to do, it would have been done long ago simply and easily.

In your fed-prov-muni model, since municipalities tend to be "creatures" of the province (exist by way of provincial legislation), will provinces now take the lead in dealing with First Nations? How will FNs feel about that? How will the provinces feel about that?

And the Treaties signed by the Queen's reps of the time - toss those, or start from scratch? I'm going to guess starting from scratch, with both sides well lawyered up with a ton of legal decisions in place (at least generally) supporting the Indigenous claims most times they've come up, it could mean a ton more $ from Team Fed at least.

Yeah, having federal legislation in place since time immemorial has painted both sides into a corner, with add-on's here & there trying for better solutions, but leading to a messier shack. Don't know the answer, only that it ain't going to be easy.

 

[Eaglelord17]

It is going to get interesting in my neck of the woods with these settlements. Payments will be going out around mid August and are generally in the 100k area depending on the band the members belong to.

I imagine a lot of local business are going to make a lot of money shortly, especially car dealers. I also expect the death rate to climb pretty quickly for a short while unfortunately.

Lots of infighting over the money already, which is just sad to watch.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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?

This was the official policy at the root of the Indian Reservation system, ostensibly copied by South Africa in the implementation of their Homeland system...

 

[Brad Sallows]

And like with other problems, if it was simple and easy to do, it would have been done long ago simply and easily.

Yes. What I wrote is just my usual this-is-the-way-it-ought-to-be, based on the aspiration of one class of citizenship and the notion that neither citizens by birth nor naturalization are obligated to pay rent to people who happened to live on or near a particular piece of ground at a particular point in time. The rentiers and their layers of advocates would be losers, and all the people locked into living in particular places with particular lacks of opportunity would be winners.

In your fed-prov-muni model, since municipalities tend to be "creatures" of the province (exist by way of provincial legislation), will provinces now take the lead in dealing with First Nations?

Yes, but the "dealing" would be no different than the relationship between the province and municipal councils and mayors.

How will FNs feel about that?

Probably some would hate it. The fiction of a nation-to-nation relationship with a G7 country is attractive, but absurd for groups of a few hundred or even tens of thousands. The entire edifice is a colonial hack suitable for maintaining peaceful relations between locals and chartered monopoly trading companies which really, really needs to be modernized.

How will the provinces feel about that?

No idea. But they're already stepping in to provide some services. Either the government of Canada should be covering everything, or the provinces.

And the Treaties signed by the Queen's reps of the time - toss those, or start from scratch? I'm going to guess starting from scratch, with both sides well lawyered up with a ton of legal decisions in place (at least generally) supporting the Indigenous claims most times they've come up, it could mean a ton more $ from Team Fed at least.

Some groups have already settled and moved on, and some have not. There'd have to be some sort of initial startup funding to set up municipal governance and establish boundaries within which munipalities have powers of taxation. Some of the existing lands would have to be trimmed and revert to crown land. After that, municipalities are either viable - meaning, they have a commerce and tax base and customary provincial funding which can support a community of whatever size they are - or they're not. Those which are not revert to whatever the status is of all the small communities without self-governance.

Yeah, having federal legislation in place since time immemorial has painted both sides into a corner, with add-on's here & there trying for better solutions, but leading to a messier shack. Don't know the answer, only that it ain't going to be easy.

It isn't merely difficult; it's essentially impossible. There won't be a negotiated solution to "one status of citizenship". What's unforeseeable is the alternative - what eventually happens when all the people taxed by governments with immoderate spending appetites are fiscally pressured beyond reasonable tolerance and start asking hard questions about hereditary privileges? (They won't care about the hereditary obligations, which often enough are sufficiently harmful that their input won't be needed to get the obligations trimmed.)

 

[lenaitch]

This was the official policy at the root of the Indian Reservation system, ostensibly copied by South Africa in the implementation of their Homeland system...

Our treaty 'system' pre-dates the SA apartheid policy. Segregation no doubt existed informally, but as a state policy, it and the 'homeland system' only dates back to the 1950s.