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

[Halifax Tar]

The money is in treatment not the cure.

That's the conspiracy theory for a lot of things...

 

[dimsum]

The money is in treatment not the cure.

There's a gigantic industry built around treating first nations for this that and the other thing. Becoming a functional part of society would put a lot of people out of work, and cut off the money tap from a lot of organizations.

Thought experiment time:

How would that be implemented? Does the Crown just say “our contract is done - you’re on your own”?

What about the bands who don’t want to change the status? Especially ones in remote areas where realistically, all of them would have to relocate to have a viable future?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thought experiment time:

How would that be implemented? Does the Crown just say “our contract is done - you’re on your own”?

What about the bands who don’t want to change the status? Especially ones in remote areas where realistically, all of them would have to relocate to have a viable future?

As the Nisga found out, getting a treaty is a bit like a teenager moving out. Once the initial money dries up, they had to start making deals with industry to keep the lights on. Quite a few FN's decided then that treaties might not be a good of deal as they first thought.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thought experiment time:

How would that be implemented? Does the Crown just say “our contract is done - you’re on your own”?

What about the bands who don’t want to change the status? Especially ones in remote areas where realistically, all of them would have to relocate to have a viable future?

Good questions, I'm not sure. Some of these pacts are over 300 years old. Should we honour contracts from a time when we knew we would fall off the world if we sailed too far? What if the pacts are contributing to the epidemic of substance abuse and generational trauma? At this point are we back to enabling genocide?

The supreme court decided the authority of hereditary chiefs supersede any elected indigenous officials, that's a nepotism super button. How can reserves lift themselves into the 21st century with that barrier?

 

[dimsum]

Good questions, I'm not sure. Some of these pacts are over 300 years old. Should we honour contracts from a time when we knew we would fall off the world if we sailed too far? What if the pacts are contributing to the epidemic of substance abuse and generational trauma? At this point are we back to enabling genocide?

The supreme court decided the authority of hereditary chiefs supersede any elected indigenous officials, that's a nepotism super button. How can reserves lift themselves into the 21st century with that barrier?

I mean, common law is literally about precedent. It doesn’t matter when the precedent was set - just that there is precedent.

If we had a “statute of limitations” on common law, that would be a complete other can of worms. Maybe Napoleon was on to something about this “civil code” business…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Thought experiment time:

How would that be implemented? Does the Crown just say “our contract is done - you’re on your own”?

What about the bands who don’t want to change the status? Especially ones in remote areas where realistically, all of them would have to relocate to have a viable future?

The 'contract', or fiduciary relationship, places an enduring onus upon the Crown to care for indigenous peoples...

In broad legal terms, a “fiduciary” is “one who holds anything in trust,” or “who holds a position of trust or confidence with respect to someone else.” Hence, a “fiduciary relationship” is one in which someone in a position of trust has “rights and powers which he is bound to exercise for the benefit” of another. Such relationships include those between trustees and their beneficiaries, solicitors and their clients, and so forth.(2)

The Supreme Court of Canada has adapted these largely private law concepts to the context of Crown-Aboriginal relations. In the 1950s, the Court observed that the Indian Act “embodie[d] the accepted view that these aborigines are … wards of the state, whose care and welfare are a political trust of the highest obligation.”(3) The Court’s landmark 1984 decision Guerin v. R. (1984)(4) portrayed this relationship more fully, and established that it could or did entail legal consequences.

​

The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples (PRB 00-09E)

 

[Fabius]

In April 2000, then National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Phil Fontaine observed that “DIAND, like the Government of Canada itself, suffers from a schizophrenic personality. It holds and administers fiduciary obligations to our peoples at the same time as it must observe its political obligations to the rest of Canada. … It advocates one moment on our behalf and in the next moment, through the Justice Department, against us.” As the Supreme Court of Canada’s Wewaykum ruling commented, the Crown is not an ordinary fiduciary and may be required to consider multiple interests in some contexts.​

The above is pulled from the final commentary para in this document.

​

The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples (PRB 00-09E)

It’s an interesting admission that the GoC and Canada is being pulled in two opposing directions. In the long view of history the First Nations treaties and special rights will inevitably vanish, the same as innumerable other treaties and assigned rights have.

 

[lenaitch]

The 'contract', or fiduciary relationship, places an enduring onus upon the Crown to care for indigenous peoples...

In broad legal terms, a “fiduciary” is “one who holds anything in trust,” or “who holds a position of trust or confidence with respect to someone else.” Hence, a “fiduciary relationship” is one in which someone in a position of trust has “rights and powers which he is bound to exercise for the benefit” of another. Such relationships include those between trustees and their beneficiaries, solicitors and their clients, and so forth.(2)

The Supreme Court of Canada has adapted these largely private law concepts to the context of Crown-Aboriginal relations. In the 1950s, the Court observed that the Indian Act “embodie[d] the accepted view that these aborigines are … wards of the state, whose care and welfare are a political trust of the highest obligation.”(3) The Court’s landmark 1984 decision Guerin v. R. (1984)(4) portrayed this relationship more fully, and established that it could or did entail legal consequences.

​

The Crown's Fiduciary Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples (PRB 00-09E)

So does the Constitution, Sections 25 and 35 specifically.

Good questions, I'm not sure. Some of these pacts are over 300 years old. Should we honour contracts from a time when we knew we would fall off the world if we sailed too far? What if the pacts are contributing to the epidemic of substance abuse and generational trauma? At this point are we back to enabling genocide?

The supreme court decided the authority of hereditary chiefs supersede any elected indigenous officials, that's a nepotism super button. How can reserves lift themselves into the 21st century with that barrier?

There have been many calls from time-to-time to completely overhaul the Indian Act. I don't think I have ever heard a FN position to abolish it. Power positioning and politicking is not the exclusive domain of Ottawa or the provinces.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The supreme court decided the authority of hereditary chiefs supersede any elected indigenous officials, that's a nepotism super button. How can reserves lift themselves into the 21st century with that barrier?

"Hereditary Chiefs" generally means "Slave Owner" as owning the most slaves was a status thing that only the Chiefs could afford.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"Hereditary Chiefs" generally means "Slave Owner" as owning the most slaves was a status thing that only the Chiefs could afford.

I like to point that out to 'honkies' who get indigenous styled tattoos..

e.g., So you know that means the boss can shag you, and anyone in your extended family, anytime he wants to right?

 

[Furniture]

I like to point that out to 'honkies' who get indigenous styled tattoos..

e.g., So you know that means the boss can shag you, and anyone in your extended family, anytime he wants to right?

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

Nobody misinterprets a hula girl or "HOLD FAST".

 

[dimsum]

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

Nobody misinterprets a hula girl or "HOLD FAST".

So do the folks who have hula girls want one, or to be one?

 

[Weinie]

So do the folks who have hula girls want one, or to be one?

Both.

 

[brihard]

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

Nobody misinterprets a hula girl or "HOLD FAST".

That reminds me my kid let me get halfway through Master and Commander yesterday evening and I need to try to watch the rest today…

 

[Jarnhamar]

I mean, common law is literally about precedent. It doesn’t matter when the precedent was set - just that there is precedent.

If we had a “statute of limitations” on common law, that would be a complete other can of worms. Maybe Napoleon was on to something about this “civil code” business…

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.

 

[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.