BC Natives Win Supreme Court Decision

[Romero]

If it varies then there has to be an average cost. There must be a funding formula the gov. uses for budgeting money for native populations and it propbably breaks down to a per/person basis.  So on average how much do they receive? If you don't know then don't make statements you can't back up.

If it's obvious then it should be easy for you.

Obvious Li isn't talking about funding. He's talking about First Nations getting up to $25K annually for nothing, other than what government funding they might receive.



They don't get free money for nothing. First Nations families simply don't receive up to $100K annually. It's kind of hard to back up against something that doesn't happen.



Have you tried using logic and common sense? I think it's pretty clear that if they were receiving that kind of money they would be doing a heckuva lot better.

[Renee]

If it varies then there has to be an average cost. There must be a funding formula the gov. uses for budgeting money for native populations and it propbably breaks down to a per/person basis.  So on average how much do they receive? If you don't know then don't make statements you can't back up.

If it's obvious then it should be easy for you.

Obvious Li isn't talking about funding. He's talking about First Nations getting up to $25K annually for nothing, other than what government funding they might receive.



They don't get free money for nothing. First Nations families simply don't receive up to $100K annually. It's kind of hard to back up against something that doesn't happen.



Have you tried using logic and common sense? I think it's pretty clear that if they were receiving that kind of money they would be doing a heckuva lot better.

I'm not arguing how well they should or shouldn't be doing nor am I agreeing with OL.



I'm asking you for an answer. As usual you just run in flail around and scream "no they don't" or "you're wrong" or some other ridiculous diversionary proclamation and then never back it up with anything concrete. All you do is express ideological opinion and try to pass it off as fact.  It's typical of you and one of the main reasons no one takes you seriously.



If OL's numbers are so obviously wrong then what are the actual numbers, if any? Maybe you should ask him where he gets his info from and try to refute his claims instead of just being obtuse.

[Romero]

I don't need to ask him for his numbers. They don't exist. There's nothing to refute as he didn't get them from anywhere. It's a ridiculous claim.

[Obvious Li]

currently natives receive between $15K and $25K for every man, woman and child...which means that for a family of 4 they receive between $60K and $100K annually....tax free

No they don't.

lol...uhhh.......yes they do !!!!...in fact it is absolutely common for squaws to cash checks at the local credit union for between $4000 and $6000 every month just for child payments....not counting cash payments from the band......then it's off to the casino and try to double up........good deal........and homy, by the way...don't try and be the RW of native indian issues......you know fuck all about the subject

[Obvious Li]

excerpt from a current national post story by Jesse Kline......if you use the numbers 850,000 natives and last years direct payments of 8.5 billion it works out to 11K  per man woman and child.....that number does not take into account services provided to natives living off reserve (about 50%) who can get welfare, housing, school etc benefits by applying just like any other citizen...total payments are probably double or triple the 8.5 billion number.....



"In 1995, the federal government spent $6.2-billion on programs directed toward aboriginal people, up from $1.65-billion in the early 1980s. The stark rise in spending was, according to a 1997 report in the Canadian Tax Journal, due to "a rapid increase in the number of registered Indians following changes to the Indian Act in 1985 (Bill C-31); the financial dependency on the federal government of many young Aboriginals entering their adult years; and the native agenda of the Mulroney government."



Since 1995, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (the department responsible for the bulk of aboriginal funding) has spent $115-billion. Last year alone, it spent $8.5-billion, with 84% of the money going directly to aboriginals, First Nations governments and programs for natives.



    Depressed economies are exactly what we should expect when we deny private-property rights and encourage dependency



Health Canada also spends $1-billion a year providing health benefits (that are not available under medicare) to approximately 850,000 aboriginal people — benefits other Canadians have to pay for out of pocket. To top it all off, Indians living on reserve do not pay taxes on income generated from government or private sources.



It would be one thing if all this spending were actually improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians. Instead, we hear stories about Third-World living conditions on reserves, such as the housing crisis in Attawapiskat. Last week, Statistics Canada released data showing that aboriginal children are far more likely to be living with a single parent, and that half of Canada's foster children under age 14 are of aboriginal decent.



Throwing money at the problem clearly isn't solving it, and the cost of supporting a growing group of people, including all their descendents, keeps getting higher. There are already some 850,000 Canadians that fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act, and 1.4 million who self-identify as aboriginal. According to StatsCan numbers, the aboriginal population grew by 20% between 2006 and 2011, compared to a 5.2% increase in the non-aboriginal population.



This country is also on the cusp of seeing a dramatic rise in the number of status Indians. In January, a federal court ruled that Métis and other non-treaty Indians should be given status under the law. If the ruling is upheld on appeal, it would make more than 600,000 Canadians eligible for health, education and other benefits afforded to status Indians.



In 2008, the federal government signed a deal with the Federation of Newfoundland Indians that allows descendents of the province's Mi'kmaq First Nation to claim Indian status. To be eligible, people merely have to prove they are of "Canadian Indian ancestry" and that they, or their ancestors, were members of the Mi'kmaq tribe before 1949. How much their bloodline has been diluted since then is of no consequence.



The Mi'kmaq band estimated there would be a maximum of 12,000 members claiming status under the agreement. So far, 100,000 people have signed up — including many who no longer reside in Newfoundland.



It is commonly said that the benefits bestowed upon native Canadians are a form of reparations for past injustices. But this continuing stream of reparations isn't doing either side any good. On the government side, it is a ballooning funding obligation. On the aboriginal side, it is a welfare trap.

[Obvious Li]

anecdotally i must add.....i was told at one heated meeting about 30 years ago by a well known chief that they would breed us into bankruptcy.....that every indian woman of child bearing age would be pregnant every year until they out numbered us.......if a woman didn't like it she would simply be fucked by the braves until she was pregnant...this in fact is what has happened....every indian woman you see walking down the street has several kids about a year apart...over 50% of the native population is under age 15...at some point they will in fact bankrupt us if the supreme court continues on with this insanity

[Romero]

That's not free money. That's funding.

in fact it is absolutely common for squaws to cash checks at the local credit union for between $4000 and $6000 every month just for child payments

No they don't.

[Obvious Li]

That's not free money. That's funding.

in fact it is absolutely common for squaws to cash checks at the local credit union for between $4000 and $6000 every month just for child payments

No they don't.

yes they do

[Romero]

i was told at one heated meeting about 30 years ago by a well known chief that they would breed us into bankruptcy.....that every indian woman of child bearing age would be pregnant every year until they out numbered us.......if a woman didn't like it she would simply be fucked by the braves until she was pregnant

Gary Oak Syndrome!

over 50% of the native population is under age 15

Aboriginal children aged 14 and under made up 28.0% of the total Aboriginal population



http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/99-011-x2011001-eng.cfm">//http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/99-011-x2011001-eng.cfm

[Anonymous]

Lorne Gunter has some good ideas here, but they do not go anywhere near far enough. Follow through the recommendations of the 1969 White Paper. No more Indian Act, no more subsidies based on race, no more corrupt unaccountable chiefs like Spence in Attawapiskat, allow the same private property rights everywhere including reserves and most importantly one class of citizenship with equal rights and responsibilities for all.

Here's a proposal for dealing with First Nations' objections to resource development (and projects such as pipelines) on land they claim is theirs by tradition: Let's have the federal government cut off annual subsidies to reserve governments.



That way, First Nations would have to decide whether or not to allow development based on the same criterion the rest of Canadians use to decide their financial priorities. Can we afford to? Can we afford not to?



Without the billions in tax dollars annually showered on First Nations, chiefs and councillors would have to choose with their heads rather than their sentimental hearts.



This is similar to my argument that Quebec should lose much of its annual equalization subsidy.



The Quebec government makes foolish fiscal choices all the time because it can. It doesn't have to own up to its own poor judgment because it can count on Ottawa's billions year after year.



Quebec provides such lavish social benefits as half-price university and college tuition for in-province residents. It also offers cheap, cheap daycare, while at the same time running up huge annual deficits.



The Quebec government has also refused to develop resources such as shale gas and oil out of "green" concerns. If developed, shale alone could bring Quebec's treasury nearly $2 billion a year.



So the only reason Quebec can offer such rich benefits to its citizens is that the provincial government receives $8 to $10 billion in annual equalization payments.



But why should taxpayers in the rest of the country subsidize Quebecers' social fantasies? That province should have to maximize all its own-source revenue potential before receiving a single dime from the rest of Canada.



Indeed, this logic should apply to every province, just as it should also apply to First Nations. After all, First Nations are the most heavily subsidized of all Canadians.



On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that First Nations can apply for title to huge tracts of land way beyond the boundaries of their reserves. And if successful at winning title, they can have an effective veto over most development on these broad, traditional hunting grounds.



The court's ruling was a little more nuanced than some reports would indicate, but not much more.



"Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote. This will not always be an easy standard to satisfy.



A present-day First Nation will have to show that its ancestors routinely hunted, fished or harvested over land it is claiming as its own. Moreover, it will have to show that competing First Nations didn't also make "regular" use of the same tracts.



But once such title is established (and during the whole process to establish whether or not title exists), the justices decided governments have a Charter obligation to seek approval in advance from any First Nation making a claim against the land where development is proposed.



This will likely turn out to be a huge can of worms.



Many First Nations have fallen under the thrall of radical environmental groups backed by billionaire American lefties. If nothing else, Thursday's ruling gives the aboriginal-environmentalist alliance a powerful new club to hold up Canada's economic advancement for years.



However, the biggest reason First Nations feel comfortable stalling or even halting resource projects is the fact they can survive on their current taxpayer subsidies of $17,000 to $25,000 for every man, woman or child who lives on reserves.



Such lavish subsidies permit First Nations to indulge in fanciful thinking because they do not have to factor in the cost to themselves and their families of rejecting development.



So end the subsidies and encourage more rational land-claims negotiations.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/28/lavish-first-nations-subsidies-promote-fanciful-thinking">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/28/la ... l-thinking">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/28/lavish-first-nations-subsidies-promote-fanciful-thinking

[Anonymous]

Anthony Furey puts a little reality on last week's victory for Aboriginal "sovereignty".

What matters most in legal decisions concerning Aboriginal disputes is that they're decisive. Canada is currently preparing for the 150th anniversary of Confederation. What's missed in most conversations on Aboriginal concerns is the simple fact that to be squabbling over land issues this late in the game isn't good for anyone.



"Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals are 'all here to stay' and must of necessity move forward in a process of reconciliation." That's from the Supreme Court decision released Thursday in the unanimous decision granting the Tsilhqot'in First Nation title to 1,700 km in the British Columbia interior.



It's polite-speak for "let's just get all this over with and get on with our lives."



The whole reason this was before the courts is because after 1923, "treaties were never concluded with First Nations in some parts of Canada, including most of B.C.," as the government's Aboriginal Affairs website explains.



In 1983 B.C. granted a company logging rights to land the Tsilhqot'in claimed. So spurred the legal process that finally ended this week. This is the first time the court has granted Aboriginal title. While reserves are First Nations domain, it's still Crown land.



All corners are asking: What are the long-standing ramifications of this decision?



The Tsilhqot'in website describes itself as a "National Government" standing in opposition to "Foreign Governments" – presumably the feds and provinces. Well, that doesn't bode well for neighbourly relations. So has the court now acknowledged a separate country, completely landlocked within Canada? Not at all.



The SCOC reminds us of a prior court statement that more radical Aboriginal groups would rather ignore: "distinctive Aboriginal societies exist within, and are a part of, a broader social, political, and economic community."



So "provincial laws of general application apply to lands held under Aboriginal title."



Not only that, but "general regulatory legislation, such as legislation aimed at managing the forests in a way that deals with pest invasions or prevents forest fires, will often pass this test and no infringement will result."



Therefore, the province can go to put out fires but can't sell off logging rights on land that isn't theirs. Any property rights advocate should appreciate this line of reasoning.



But the bigger worry for some is the chain of events this could trigger. There are more than 100 First Nations bands currently in the process of negotiating treaties with the B.C. Treaty Commission. It's been a tough slog, but has recently yielded conclusive results. Yet it's fair to wonder if instead of continuing down this conciliatory route, bands will now opt to sue for title.



Sure, they can try. However the court has set a high burden on granting further title. The decision tells us that "what makes Aboriginal title unique is that it arises from possession before the assertion of British sovereignty." Doesn't that open a whole can of worms? After all, the extreme activists argue coast-to-coast is Turtle Island and we're all illegal occupants so everybody scram.



Earlier this week Vancouver council unnecessarily declared their territory "unceded" Aboriginal land. A Toronto Star story leading up to the decision quoted one law professor claiming the site of the Supreme Court and Parliament could be up for grabs. The decisions shows this is all nonsense.



Not only would the court never rule that way but they might not even hear such a case. That's because the court has affirmed the threshold that goes into granting title. "Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land. To ground Aboriginal title 'occupation' must be sufficient, continuous (where present occupation is relied on) and exclusive."



So a group will need to live on the land in some significant way more or less consistently with how they did hundreds of years before. (And good luck getting a case heard where there is no present occupation.)



This is clearly a matter of a bird in the hand vs. two in the bush. Radical activists might feel emboldened by the Tsilhqot'in decision. But it's a harder route than concluding a treaty. They may even get better results via the latter.



The SCOC has just given a road map to expedite the whole process. So, yes, the Tsilhqot'in outcome could be replicated. But it also means courts have stronger footing to toss out sketchy claims.



Radicals who insist on stoking tensions between Aboriginals and the broader Canadian public will try to use this decision to goad First Nations groups into more adversarial action.



Wrong path. For starters, many of the well-known groups most open to conflict – like Elsipogtog in New Brunswick, Attawapiskat in Ontario and Barriere Lake in Quebec – already have treaties.



But more importantly, this approach fixates on the negative rather than finding a path forward. Whatever solves these disputes the quickest and allows First Nations groups to put their existential questions behind them and redirect their energies to economic prosperity is the optimal route.



The Tsilhqot'in government website has an education program with a clear mandate to "increase Tsilhqot'in peoples participation in the labour market."



That may seem like a no-brainer to many Canadians. But you'd never hear language like that on some reserves.



So the SCOC decision: Long-term good deal for them? For the rest of Canada? Only time will tell. But with a clear decision delivered, onward and upward must be the focus.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/27/getting-beyond-land-claims-treaties">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/27/ge ... s-treaties">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/27/getting-beyond-land-claims-treaties

[Romero]

squabbling over land issues this late in the game isn't good for anyone.

This late? More like since the 1700s when we first started taking their land away.  



They aren't squabbling. They're the ones losing their territory, tradition and culture. We're the ones squabbling to take as much as we can. First Nations have been waiting hundreds of years for land claims to be dealt with.  

It's polite-speak for "let's just get all this over with and get on with our lives."

No, it was a Supreme Court ruling. As if the Supreme Court has ever made a decision just to "get over with it".

[Gary Oak]

squabbling over land issues this late in the game isn't good for anyone.

This late? More like since the 1700s when we first started taking their land away.  



They aren't squabbling. They're the ones losing their territory, tradition and culture. We're the ones squabbling to take as much as we can. First Nations have been waiting hundreds of years for land claims to be dealt with.  

It's polite-speak for "let's just get all this over with and get on with our lives."

No, it was a Supreme Court ruling. As if the Supreme Court has ever made a decision just to "get over with it".

This isn't the 1700's, slavery is illegal, Asians are allowed to immigrate here and giving land to Native bands to be controlled by corrupt chiefs is stupid. It's not anyone's interests other than the chiefs and their friends.

[Renee]

That's not free money. That's funding.

in fact it is absolutely common for squaws to cash checks at the local credit union for between $4000 and $6000 every month just for child payments

No they don't.

Here we go, Pee-Wee Herman strikes again.    



You do know that even if they are getting 25-50k a year, which isn't all that much for a family, all you need is one family member with a drug, alcohol or gambling problem and that 50k is gone in no time. So it is very conceivable that they can receive a decent amount of gov. assistance money and still live in poverty and squalor.  So your whole argument that they can't be getting that kind of money because they are still poor is bullshit, as per usual.



This is just another example of how you can't be reasoned with because you are blind to anything beyond your ideological agenda.

[Anonymous]

Here we go, Pee-Wee Herman strikes again.    



You do know that even if they are getting 25-50k a year, which isn't all that much for a family, all you need is one family member with a drug, alcohol or gambling problem and that 50k is gone in no time. So it is very conceivable that they can receive a decent amount of gov. assistance money and still live in poverty and squalor.  So your whole argument that they can't be getting that kind of money because they are still poor is bullshit, as per usual.



This is just another example of how you can't be reasoned with because you are blind to anything beyond your ideological agenda.

That's nothing, on some resource rich reserves in Western Canada members receive a helluva lot more than that. They can receive payments of more than 6 figures. Here's one example from the Hobbema reserve just South of Edmonton.

When youths turn 18, they continue to receive a one-time payment, often more than $100,000. Most follow the example of their parents and, like Candice Saddleback, admit to "spending it foolishly." At the top of everyone's list is a new SUV, and dealerships sprouted in nearby Wataskiwin to feed the habit. Street gangs feed a different habit.

"Drug dealers would come into the community and start giving free drugs to 16 year-olds," Soosay says. "And when they reached the age of majority they came to collect."

In 1999, at the age of 19, Napoose had finished partying away the $127,000 he had received



http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/crime/2008/07/20/prisons_poisoning_natives.html">http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/crime ... tives.html">http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/crime/2008/07/20/prisons_poisoning_natives.html