If Trudeau becomes PM, should he scrap the First Nations Financial Transparency Act?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What makes it different is 'we' signed treaties with 'them' agreeing to pay or provide services to them as payment for their land.
First Nations are just that, legal entities that pre date Canada, as such, like when we pay a company for a service, I used the example of Ford and GM, we don't get to know or direct what Ford does with that money.

I say all of this while still thinking that the disclosure is a good thing and in fact the winding down of the band system would be the best for individual natives

Of course we don't get to direct (and neither is the case here), but those companies are publicly traded and financial statements are released every year..so ya you have an idea what it does with it's money.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Of course we don't get to direct (and neither is the case here), but those companies are publicly traded and financial statements are released every year..so ya you have an idea what it does with it's money.

The fact that some companies we do business with are publicly traded is just random chance, we also do business with private companies as well that don't tell anyone what they do with their money.

Publicly traded companies are required to release their books in order to safeguard their shareholders, if you apply that example to bands then only band members should get to see any of this, which in theory (but not in practise) is what's happening now.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The fact that some companies we do business with are publicly traded is just random chance, we also do business with private companies as well that don't tell anyone what they do with their money.

Publicly traded companies are required to release their books in order to safeguard their shareholders, if you apply that example to bands then only band members should get to see any of this, which in theory (but not in practise) is what's happening now.

actually i doesn't really matter if your public or not - if someone is giving you cash - you aren't getting it unless the books open up.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

actually i doesn't really matter if your public or not - if someone is giving you cash - you aren't getting it unless the books open up.

I don't see how that is legally true, if I sell my house to the Feds they don't get to demand I send them an accounting of what I do with the money.

[Kavvy]

I love this story.

It highlights the importance of a law like this and Harper's potentially overpaid staffers. Two things the public will be talking about again.

Win/Win.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes they do, the Government of Canada and it's taxpayers provide them with billions every year, damn straight they need to be accountable. It's bad bad bad business to suggest otherwise.

No, the government of Canada provides payments to an independant nation based on a contract signed 100 years ago.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

No, the government of Canada provides payments to an independant nation based on a contract signed 100 years ago.

Nonsense, those contracts only have legal status because the government of Canada says they do. They are not an independent nation.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Nonsense, those contracts only have legal status because the government of Canada says they do. They are not an independent nation.

Actually they are independent legally kind of, the reality is the courts have sided with First Nations pretty consistently in confirming their prior legal status, so the government has been carefully not to push back at this to far as they would lose.

In truth canada could refuse to honour its treaties and ignore the courts, in that sense First Nation independence is a bit of a fallacy but we arnt going to do that.

[Mike F]

Are the salaries of all crown corporation executives publicly reported in the same way?

A quick google search didn't yield a clear answer.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What makes it different is 'we' signed treaties with 'them' agreeing to pay or provide services to them as payment for their land.
First Nations are just that, legal entities that pre date Canada, as such, like when we pay a company for a service, I used the example of Ford and GM, we don't get to know or direct what Ford does with that money.

I say all of this while still thinking that the disclosure is a good thing and in fact the winding down of the band system would be the best for individual natives

Nm

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Nonsense, those contracts only have legal status because the government of Canada says they do. They are not an independent nation.

The courts recognize them as independant nations so without really undermining our supremecy of the courts it becomes very difficult to say they arent nations who have contracts with the crown.

Beyond that even if you dont recognize them as a nation the crown still signed a contract with a group of people and should abide by the terms of that contract

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

The courts recognize them as independant nations so without really undermining our supremecy of the courts it becomes very difficult to say they arent nations who have contracts with the crown.

Beyond that even if you dont recognize them as a nation the crown still signed a contract with a group of people and should abide by the terms of that contract

I don't need to get into this again, but the government's allegiance should be to its citizens, not to old pieces of paper.

[afc wimbledon]

Laws protect all citizens, not just natives and personally I don't want to think my country welsh's on its debts, I don't tolerate that in my friends, why should it be acceptable for my country?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Laws protect all citizens, not just natives and personally I don't want to think my country welsh's on its debts, I don't tolerate that in my friends, why should it be acceptable for my country?

Not these laws. And when my country signs a bad deal, I expect it to use its power to renegotiate, whenever possible.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Laws protect all citizens, not just natives and personally I don't want to think my country welsh's on its debts, I don't tolerate that in my friends, why should it be acceptable for my country?

Because this debt is actually hurting the people it's owed to.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not these laws. And when my country signs a bad deal, I expect it to use its power to renegotiate, whenever possible.

Yeah, the Indians have really had the rest of us over a barrel for centuries. It's time to renegotiate the bad deals.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not these laws. And when my country signs a bad deal, I expect it to use its power to renegotiate, whenever possible.

When you say use power to renegotiate you mean tell them to go eff themselves I assume, as there are no legal powers to renegotiate unless both parties agree in any contract.

And when you say bad deal you mean where we got this whole frigging country and everything in it for next to nothing, yes we got screwed there didn't we!!



Seriously you think we got screwed over by the natives? That the minimal few hundred million we pay them for taking everything they had, destroying their culture and heritage and making an absolute fortune out of their rivers, oceans and prairies is way to much?

Tell you what what say you we give it all back, seeing as we're getting screwed and all.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Because this debt is actually hurting the people it's owed to.

They are adults, that's their call to make, and I say that not disagreeing with you but a debts a debt where I come from.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't need to get into this again, but the government's allegiance should be to its citizens, not to old pieces of paper.

A truly laughable attempt to simplify and politically galvanize a complex problem.

"Don't you think governments should govern for the interests of their citizens instead of pieces of paper??"

Ridiculous.

[Azure]

Am I the only one who thinks every single one of you misread what SebC wrote? I understood it as him saying the bad deal was turning Native Americans into 2nd class citizens by restricting them(at the time) to reserves and treating them like garbage(residential schools), resulting in a system that after 100 years is broken and needs fixed. Bad deal for Canada because we have thousands of people that we have basically wrecked, and a bad deal for the Native Americans because they are often a victim of being born into that bad deal.

Has nothing to do with thinking the Natives screwed us over, but with believing every citizen of Canada should be treated fairly and equally. Not given a piece of land and some money every year and told to make do. The whole act needs to be abolished and we need to find a way to help these people ALL be first class citizens. Not just the chiefs.