Liberals drop sanctions against First Nations that didn’t comply w/ transp Law

[Kavvy]

Kent Hehr will be getting a note from me over this:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ansparency-law

Transparency is a good thing, which is why I voted against Harper in the last election. Bill Maher might be an arrogant person whom I disagree with a great deal of the time, but he is right about one thing, Liberals sometimes are too afraid of offending someone to let them do the right thing.

Why shouldn't taxpayers (as in non-first nation taxpayers) get a transparency law when our tax dollars are being spent after years of allegations of corruption in different first nations leadership? I feel like this is black and white - what am I missing?

[Canehdianman]

Very untransparent act from a government that campaigned on transparency.

Didn't even bother to repeal the law and allow discussion in parliament.

I hope some clarification comes forward on this. Otherwise it will just allow corrupt chiefs to continue to bleed their reserves dry and hurt their own people.

[Joborule]

Unless they're intending to just tweak it around and then reimplement the financial transparency, this move doesn't make much sense and makes things worse for the First Nation communities since it enables corruption, which is why it was brought in the first place.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Good, we need more chiefs like Ron Giesbrecht's making secret millions while the rest of the band has no idea.

[GGG]

Would this law have held up to a court challenge?

You need to get the First Nations groups to do this themselves. Dictating what they have to doesn't appear to work

[Mike F]

If I'm reading the story correctly, this is an opening, good faith gesture by the Gov't to bring First Nations to the table so the parties can arrive at a negotiated transparency law, rather than one dictated on First Nations by Ottawa.

If that's the case, it's not an egregious act, and in line with campaign promises.

Bennett said she’s hopeful that lifting sanctions will open the door to talks with indigenous communities and help both levels of government to work together.

“These initial steps will enable us to engage in discussions on transparency and accountability that are based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership and that build towards a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples.”

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Kent Hehr will be getting a note from me over this:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ansparency-law

Transparency is a good thing, which is why I voted against Harper in the last election. Bill Maher might be an arrogant person whom I disagree with a great deal of the time, but he is right about one thing, Liberals sometimes are too afraid of offending someone to let them do the right thing.

Why shouldn't taxpayers (as in non-first nation taxpayers) get a transparency law when our tax dollars are being spent after years of allegations of corruption in different first nations leadership? I feel like this is black and white - what am I missing?

Pretty sure there was a court challenge by the First Nations in Sask, which was successful.

[Kavvy]

I am so ignorant on this that I think the people of the first nations are being lied to by their leadership, and that this needs to be in place, to prevent corruption?

This and unions, tell me again why they shouldn't have open books - potentially audited by a 3rd party.

That sounded sarcastic, but honestly- why?

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If I'm reading the story correctly, this is an opening, good faith gesture by the Gov't to bring First Nations to the table so the parties can arrive at a negotiated transparency law, rather than one dictated on First Nations by Ottawa.

If that's the case, it's not an egregious act, and in line with campaign promises.

I hope so.

[Smartcar]

They're just dropping the sanctions imposed on those that didn't comply by the deadline, not eliminating the requirement for transparency. I think the intent is to get better cooperation from the affected groups to set up a framework for financial disclosure. I don't think anyone thinks it's OK for the leaders to be personally pocketing the bulk of money paid to a group to improve conditions for the population, indigenous or otherwise.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If I'm reading the story correctly, this is an opening, good faith gesture by the Gov't to bring First Nations to the table so the parties can arrive at a negotiated transparency law, rather than one dictated on First Nations by Ottawa.

If that's the case, it's not an egregious act, and in line with campaign promises.

Also remember, the law/act put in by the Harper government, while it makes sense to a lot of us, was a huge shift and almost punitive. The treaties are dealt on a whole other set of laws like it or not. If this was challenged, it makes sense.

This has nothing to do with 'transparency'. It's a cute little working of words this author has done. Yes, taxpayers want greater transparency with First Nations spending in light of recent scandals. But that wasn't ever the deal. They don't have to if they don't want to.

A government that understands this, and works with First Nations to make legislation that will serve both sides, will do better than one who imposes will. Rightly or wrongly.

[CaptainCrunch]

There were a lot of natives living on the reservations that wanted this law put into place. They're tired of getting screwed by their ruling families basically.

A sign of good faith to get them back to the table. How's this for a sign of good faith, stop stealing from your own people.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There were a lot of natives living on the reservations that wanted this law put into place. They're tired of getting screwed by their ruling families basically.

A sign of good faith to get them back to the table. How's this for a sign of good faith, stop stealing from your own people.

The Indian world has its 1%'ers as well and the left loves them. They pretend to be champions of their people but really are the oppressors.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

I am so ignorant on this that I think the people of the first nations are being lied to by their leadership, and that this needs to be in place, to prevent corruption?

This and unions, tell me again why they shouldn't have open books - potentially audited by a 3rd party.

That sounded sarcastic, but honestly- why?

One reason I heard was that some bands are concerned about legitimate open bid contracts. Like if everyone could see how much they have to spend the contracts would come in higher than normal. Like if you show up with a blank check to a car dealership. Seems a bit of a stretch. There might be other reasons but I got bored listening.

[Jacks]

^^
That doesn't really make sense though. Open bidding drives prices down not up.

You invite a Chev, Ford and Dodge dealer to bid on the same spec vehicle and sit there with a blank cheque ready to sign the best deal you are going to get a good price. If you walk into a single dealership (owned by the chiefs cousin) with that same blank cheque you may not do so well.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mike F

If I'm reading the story correctly, this is an opening, good faith gesture by the Gov't to bring First Nations to the table so the parties can arrive at a negotiated transparency law, rather than one dictated on First Nations by Ottawa.

If that's the case, it's not an egregious act, and in line with campaign promises.

Yeah, based on the Liberals campaign, I don't think this move should be surprising.

For the record, I didn't mind when the Conservatives initiated this act and didn't disagree with it then, but the end result wasn't all positive and finding a better alternative is probably necessary to improve relations.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Would this law have held up to a court challenge?

You need to get the First Nations groups to do this themselves. Dictating what they have to doesn't appear to work

It probably wouldn't have been upheld but Native affairs has huge sticks to beat each band with, the treaties are just part of the money and benefits paid.
You want us to pay your legal fees or for an access road or a water treatment plant etc etc.

If the Goverment wants to it can force transparency, what you have to remember though is through most of Canada's history we have encouraged corrupt band leadership who will happily sign over mineral rights or sell off half the bands land no questions asked for a huge backhander.
This is a system 'we' developed to create an amenable native leadership who will keep their people quiet while 'we' rob them blind.