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

[OldSolduer]

That's because their assignment editors told them so. Residual effect of some news crews missing a ramp ceremony while being out and about with the soldiers.

Thank you- it helps to know the why.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Consent" is active. It is not acquiescence. Irrespective of "free" or "prior" or "informed", if consent is withheld and consent is required, it amounts to a veto. If consent isn't required, it's meaningless.
GoC: "We're going to do X."
IP: "We don't consent."
GoC: "Whatever."

The "legal interpretations" are trying to squirm out from under Article 26 without losing the whole document. But "right to lands ... and resources which they have traditionally ... occupied or otherwise used" is crystal. Nothing about a joint right, let alone ownership, is suggested, nor is anything about a "right relative only to other governments subordinate to the national government".

Any government determined to "implement UNDRIP" is either going to have to clarify that it is treating the declaration as guidelines, or implementing with reservations (ie. striking out parts that could be used to block exercise of the government's power).

 

[The Bread Guy]

"Consent" is active. It is not acquiescence. Irrespective of "free" or "prior" or "informed", if consent is withheld and consent is required, it amounts to a veto. If consent isn't required, it's meaningless.

That's what I meant re: DTC doesn't give a veto, at least by that name, anyway.

The "legal interpretations" are trying to squirm out from under Article 26 without losing the whole document. But "right to lands ... and resources which they have traditionally ... occupied or otherwise used" is crystal. Nothing about a joint right, let alone ownership, is suggested, nor is anything about a "right relative only to other governments subordinate to the national government".

Any government determined to "implement UNDRIP" is either going to have to clarify that it is treating the declaration as guidelines, or implementing with reservations (ie. striking out parts that could be used to block exercise of the government's power).

Key words from the legislation are these (all highlights mine)

... while The Supremes say this:

One law firm with a history of representing particularly activist FNs says this:

... What the Court appears to be doing in the C-92 Reference, therefore, is interpreting the UNDRIP Act as recognizing UNDRIP as a pre-existing set of rights that must continue to animate Canadian law ...

All that legalese aside, it still comes back to as little as one FN with enough resources to litigate to the hilt.

 

[YZT580]

If the

True in a broad sense, but pumping $ into infrastructure to lift all boats has off and on been suggested by both sides of the political spectrum.

Those aren't the First Nations with the long-standing boil water advisories, though.

If we believe PBO, they said in 2021 that "the total funding needed to meet current and future (sewer & water) needs on reserve from the period of 2016-2017 to 2025-2026 to be approximately $7.4 billion," or about $740M a year in 2021 bucks ($1.1B a year in this-year bucks according to the BoC inflation calculator).

True enough, but when one of the mega-projects might be the Ring of Fire, well, it only takes one community with aggressive legal counsel to gum up those works. And the grumbling is already pretty organized as of this week ....

Ontario MPP ejected from debate for claiming Ford is telling ‘untruths’ about Bill 5 | Globalnews.ca

The government has faced fierce pushback to its proposed law to create special economic zones to fast-track priority infrastructure projects in the province.

globalnews.ca

First Nations rally against Bill 5

Opposition MPP Sol Mamakwa terms government amendments 'unserious and worse than useless.'

www.snnewswatch.com

Rallies held in northern Ont. opposing Bill 5

Protests were held at Queen’s Park and accross northern Ontario on Monday opposing Bill 5.

www.ctvnews.ca

Some of the commentariat are saying that getting it done right with everyone on side early could be easier and cheaper than ploughing ahead and dealing with litigation later.

Also, with all the mentions of PMJT's seeming ignorance of all those advisories on reserves around here when criticizing the previous Red captain, I thought that would be a priority for at least some, right?

indigenous folks want clean water they should pay for it or at the very least contribute towards it instead of whining and moaning. In 2022 the budget carried over 25 billion for 1-8 million people. With that kind of financial backing it really isn't too great a stretch to imagine them digging their own wells or putting in a proper sewage/water system. Every town in Ontario is responsible for their own utilities. Granted there is some provincial money available but most of it comes out of the pockets of the locals.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If the

indigenous folks want clean water they should pay for it or at the very least contribute towards it instead of whining and moaning. In 2022 the budget carried over 25 billion for 1-8 million people. With that kind of financial backing it really isn't too great a stretch to imagine them digging their own wells or putting in a proper sewage/water system. Every town in Ontario is responsible for their own utilities. Granted there is some provincial money available but most of it comes out of the pockets of the locals.

As a Canadian taxpayer, are you sure you want to be ultimately responsible for wells dug by individuals in remote communities, digging them on (essentially) Canadian government property (reserve lands are held in trust by the Crown, but still ...)?

 

[YZT580]

As a Canadian taxpayer, are you sure you want to be ultimately responsible for wells dug by individuals in remote communities, digging them on (essentially) Canadian government property (reserve lands are held in trust by the Crown, but still ...)?

I have lived with a well for 60 years so yes, I have no problem with people taking the initiative and providing for their own health

 

[YZT580]

Financial help, persuasion, poh-TAY-toe, poh-TAH-toe ....

And since people living on reserve are, in a real (and oversimplified sense), tenants of Canada (since they can't own their own lots), you don't think the landlord would be liable if some folks got sick from bad well water? And since the government already pays for collective water treatment, who's going to be asked to pay? Not as simple as places where a homeowner owns the house and the land it's on.

so have the well tested annually. We did

 

[lenaitch]

"Consent" is active. It is not acquiescence. Irrespective of "free" or "prior" or "informed", if consent is withheld and consent is required, it amounts to a veto. If consent isn't required, it's meaningless.
GoC: "We're going to do X."
IP: "We don't consent."
GoC: "Whatever."

The "legal interpretations" are trying to squirm out from under Article 26 without losing the whole document. But "right to lands ... and resources which they have traditionally ... occupied or otherwise used" is crystal. Nothing about a joint right, let alone ownership, is suggested, nor is anything about a "right relative only to other governments subordinate to the national government".

Any government determined to "implement UNDRIP" is either going to have to clarify that it is treating the declaration as guidelines, or implementing with reservations (ie. striking out parts that could be used to block exercise of the government's power).

I agree. The challenging part for this government is the fact that its previous version enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021. Both of the cases cited by @The Bread Guy predate that legislation.

In particular is Article 32:

• 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
  [*]
  
  [*]2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
  [*]
  
  [*]3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret any new cases, and whether Clause 3 provides a legal 'out' for the government so long as it can establish that it tried to satisfy #2 but were unable. I suspect most FNs will view it narrowly.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If the

indigenous folks want clean water they should pay for it or at the very least contribute towards it instead of whining and moaning. In 2022 the budget carried over 25 billion for 1-8 million people. With that kind of financial backing it really isn't too great a stretch to imagine them digging their own wells or putting in a proper sewage/water system. Every town in Ontario is responsible for their own utilities. Granted there is some provincial money available but most of it comes out of the pockets of the locals.

Financial help, persuasion, poh-TAY-toe, poh-TAH-toe ....

And since people living on reserve are, in a real (and oversimplified sense), tenants of Canada (since they can't own their own lots), you don't think the landlord would be liable if some folks got sick from bad well water? And since the government already pays for collective water treatment, who's going to be asked to pay? Not as simple as places where a homeowner owns the house and the land it's on.

Many places under boil water orders have had water treatment plants built for them, they just fail to maintain them. Either the locals have no interest in running the place or just refuse to do what is necessary to keep them functioning. Finding qualified operators in small communities is difficult, and many in those regions aren’t exactly 9-5 type people.

This is a more complex issue than just building a water treatment plant. Unless the government holds their hand the whole way by building the plants, paying operators to go to these remote communities to operate it (which would cost a fortune to attract them, on top of the indigenous complaints that they aren’t being employed), and forcing it to happen it isn’t happening.

 

[Brad Sallows]

so have the well tested annually. We did

The point is liability. Annual testing wouldn't absolve a landlord of responsibility.

A root of many ills is that indigenous governments are overwhelmingly structurally socialist. In close to all cases, the people are either tenants of the GoC or tenants of a local government. That works well when they're colocated with (or reasonably close to) modern towns and cities, and fails miserably when they're isolated.

If every territorial holding were divided among extant members, over time that structural problem would disappear. The other, usual benefits and ills available to every other citizen of Canada would replace the prior problems. Lack of individual property ownership weighs them down. Collective ownership works because it is propped up by the technology and money of others.

 

[lenaitch]

Many places under boil water orders have had water treatment plants built for them, they just fail to maintain them. Either the locals have no interest in running the place or just refuse to do what is necessary to keep them functioning. Finding qualified operators in small communities is difficult, and many in those regions aren’t exactly 9-5 type people.

This is a more complex issue than just building a water treatment plant. Unless the government holds their hand the whole way by building the plants, paying operators to go to these remote communities to operate it (which would cost a fortune to attract them, on top of the indigenous complaints that they aren’t being employed), and forcing it to happen it isn’t happening.

As well as instances of willful damage by bored/angry/drug addled kids. There is a pervasive attitude on some FNTs that things like this, schools, etc. are 'white man's stuff'.

The point is liability. Annual testing wouldn't absolve a landlord of responsibility.

A root of many ills is that indigenous governments are overwhelmingly structurally socialist. In close to all cases, the people are either tenants of the GoC or tenants of a local government. That works well when they're colocated with (or reasonably close to) modern towns and cities, and fails miserably when they're isolated.

If every territorial holding were divided among extant members, over time that structural problem would disappear. The other, usual benefits and ills available to every other citizen of Canada would replace the prior problems. Lack of individual property ownership weighs them down. Collective ownership works because it is propped up by the technology and money of others.

I've often thought about the same thing. Pride of ownership can help a lot. There would be lots of issues, the biggest of which would be re-writing the Indian Act to grant them title. Once they had title, many, particularly those in remote communities, probably couldn't afford to keep them up. Municipalities exist largely on property taxes and I can't see that happening on a FNT.

 

[YZT580]

As well as instances of willful damage by bored/angry/drug addled kids. There is a pervasive attitude on some FNTs that things like this, schools, etc. are 'white man's stuff'.



I've often thought about the same thing. Pride of ownership can help a lot. There would be lots of issues, the biggest of which would be re-writing the Indian Act to grant them title. Once they had title, many, particularly those in remote communities, probably couldn't afford to keep them up. Municipalities exist largely on property taxes and I can't see that happening on a FNT.

Too true. The Big Chief in London concept needs to be scrapped and the FN cut loose from the Indian Act and totally integrated into the national structure in a meaningful way. Our present system puts too much power into the hands of a few who can block any changes that they do not deem acceptable to their notions, totally control their own village finances, and who totally control (in many cases) territory far larger than their numbers would deem necessary. Many are no more than large village groups ruled by a monarch with far greater power than Charles has.

 

[Lumber]

Too true. The Big Chief in London concept needs to be scrapped and the FN cut loose from the Indian Act and totally integrated into the national structure in a meaningful way. Our present system puts too much power into the hands of a few who can block any changes that they do not deem acceptable to their notions, totally control their own village finances, and who totally control (in many cases) territory far larger than their numbers would deem necessary. Many are no more than large village groups ruled by a monarch with far greater power than Charles has.

I recall a story of a very very small band, can't remember if it's in Ontario or Alberta, where they were going through a conundrum and were requesting the Fed's help. Basically, when the band formed as an independent self-governing body a few decades ago, they decided that they would have a Chief who is appointed by a council of elders to serve something like 23 year terms. The Chief has a lot of power, and there was no mechanism for "impeachment". In fact, I think the Chief even had the power to appoint the members of the council of elders; not clear on that part. Anyways, it started off well, but then the Chief slowly started appointing all his friends and family to all the key power positions and they are basically running it like an autocracy. The people wanted him out, but they literally control everything. From what I recall, the Feds basically washed their hands and said "hey, this is the system of government you wanted." Not sure what ever happened in the end, but I don't recall any stories about a Chief's head on a pike, so hopefully they came to an amicable solution.

 

[lenaitch]

Too true. The Big Chief in London concept needs to be scrapped and the FN cut loose from the Indian Act and totally integrated into the national structure in a meaningful way. Our present system puts too much power into the hands of a few who can block any changes that they do not deem acceptable to their notions, totally control their own village finances, and who totally control (in many cases) territory far larger than their numbers would deem necessary. Many are no more than large village groups ruled by a monarch with far greater power than Charles has.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about First Nations, but to do that, so much would have to change, including the Constitution (which we do soooo well). I suspect treaties would have to be re-negotiated. You can't be that same as everybody else yet have a different/special status enshrined in the Constitution. First Nations leaders are the first to bash the Indian Act but will fight to preserve it because of the status it provides.

In order to treat a FNT 'like a town', it would have to have an income base, like property taxes. Most of the remote FNs have no economic foundation so people would have to leave. Other nations force people off their land and we call that a bad thing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In order to treat a FNT 'like a town', it would have to have an income base, like property taxes. Most of the remote FNs have no economic foundation so people would have to leave. Other nations force people off their land and we call that a bad thing.

What do remote dwellers more or less by themselves do?

What do communities that don't even have "village" status do?

What do company towns do when there is no company?

These problems have all been solved before. No-one has to be forced off "their land". Everyone has the responsibility to make a go of it where he wants to live, or to move to where he can.

 

[lenaitch]

What do remote dwellers more or less by themselves do?

What do communities that don't even have "village" status do?

What do company towns do when there is no company?

These problems have all been solved before. No-one has to be forced off "their land". Everyone has the responsibility to make a go of it where he wants to live, or to move to where he can.

If we managed to remove any 'special' status or treaty rights, then you are correct. The concept of "their land", or traditional territories, flow from the treaties.

 

[The Bread Guy]

What do remote dwellers more or less by themselves do?

What do communities that don't even have "village" status do?

How many of said communities have a contract of sorts signed by the Crown saying, "hey, don't sweat - let us use the land and we'll take care of you?"

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't want to turn this into a thread about First Nations ...

You don't have to - since a lot of the discussion is more about FNs and less about how FNs might affect the current gov't, I've moved the "how FN do things" stuff here

Army.ca Staff

 

[Kirkhill]

What do remote dwellers more or less by themselves do?

What do communities that don't even have "village" status do?

What do company towns do when there is no company?

These problems have all been solved before. No-one has to be forced off "their land". Everyone has the responsibility to make a go of it where he wants to live, or to move to where he can.

What do the retired do?

Make hay while the sun shines.

 

[Lumber]

I recall a story of a very very small band, can't remember if it's in Ontario or Alberta, where they were going through a conundrum and were requesting the Fed's help. Basically, when the band formed as an independent self-governing body a few decades ago, they decided that they would have a Chief who is appointed by a council of elders to serve something like 23 year terms. The Chief has a lot of power, and there was no mechanism for "impeachment". In fact, I think the Chief even had the power to appoint the members of the council of elders; not clear on that part. Anyways, it started off well, but then the Chief slowly started appointing all his friends and family to all the key power positions and they are basically running it like an autocracy. The people wanted him out, but they literally control everything. From what I recall, the Feds basically washed their hands and said "hey, this is the system of government you wanted." Not sure what ever happened in the end, but I don't recall any stories about a Chief's head on a pike, so hopefully they came to an amicable solution.

Found an update! The Chief was removed and that decision was upheld by a federal court.

It was actually appointment "for life" with just a "review" after 21 years.

Federal Court Affirms Removal of First Nations Chief and Councillors Appointed for Life

www.mccarthy.ca