Discussions

Tater said "Right ENOUGH? Well I don't know about that, but we can make it a damn sight BETTER! If you are in the wrong in a car accident, and you have no insurance, and you say, break their leg, and say they drive truck for a living, and will lose 2 weeks of income because of the injury, do you think you should be accountable to replace that income while they recuperate, or since you can't turn back time, TOO BAD THEY SHOULD JUST GET OVER IT AND YOU GO ON YOUR MERRY WAY, NO CONSEQUENCES ON YOUR END?     I do not know everything, and since you're speaking on behalf of millions of Canadians, I sure am sorry I can't solve huge problems all by myself, I like that you seem to think it's possible!     If you can't make it RIGHT ENOUGH doesn't mean you shouldn't try, that's one of the pillars of our justice system, like, seriously!     There are already foundations to build on, they are called the Treaties, and the government of this country as well as those who have been benefitting from those treaties have been fighting doing what's right and lawful long enough. "

2017, using your example. Sure you pay the guys missed work. That''s the ethical thing to do. What if the guys leg was broken so bad though that they hadto amputate. How could I make it up to him? Retrain him perhaps in an employment that doesn''t require legs to operate machinery so he could feel good about himself by earning a living and supporting himself. Or do you think that I should have ti go on paying his normal truck driving salary for the rest of his life and every children and childrens, childrens that follows him till eternity. This later scenario is basicly the way that Canadian taxpayers feel towards ondiginous funding unfortunately. Most Canadians see a lost cause in efforts made to right the wrongs of the past. Now the first suggestion I made in re-training the poor fellow that I injured due to my reckless driving was the answer that I prefer and I would call it integration into the workforce. I would love to see more aboriginals integrated into the workforce and less dependant on government handouts as it really creates a vicious cycle of dependency. Unfortunately, as I said before, the leaders of the bands probably want it that way so they can get a nicer slice of he pie at the end of the day.  
 
Edited by 70`s guy, 2017-02-19 15:06:59

There is a fallacy right there. You refer to payments made to First Nations members as a handout. Maybe it would help if you thought of it as rent.  
 
I don't think you need to speak for most Canadians, that's a big responsibility. I'm not speaking for all white single mothers, I couldn't.  
 
And I am also a Canadian taxpayer. I work, I pay taxes, and I DONT feel that way, so you're not speaking for me. Speak for you, and that is fair.  
 
You mention Canadians seeing a lost cause in efforts made to right the wrongs of the past. I maintain this is incorrect. There have been very few efforts to right these wrongs, as the most basic act, adhering to the law in the treaties, has been a struggle right from go.  
 
Back to our example. Say the injured party does have to have their leg amputated. Should you just do NOTHING? and then talk about how disabled people should get over their problems?  
 
Now when you talk about the workforce, what do you think urban reserves are all about???  
 
Your comment that leaders of the bands probably want to keep people dependent etc. is really wrong on so many levels. There is more corruption in every other level of government in this country, so lets not bother with that. You don't have to speculate that First Nations leadership is more corrupt than anyone else, especially when the Urban reserve initiative is actively being promoted by first nations leadership as part of their economic strategy, like WHAT WOULD FIRST NATIONS HAVE TO DO FOR YOU TO THINK THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE AND WORKING HARD TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION OF THEIR MEMBERS AND SOCIETY????  
 
When there's a big problem, it's easy to throw in the towel and say it's too big to fix, but that's not acceptable.

You said (in more than one post) that first nations leadership would probably like to keep communities dependent because it would mean more money.  
 
If you're not referring to self serving decisionmaking, which would be corrupt, to what are you referring?  
 
Self respect DOES come from within eventually, but it actually has to be modelled. You teach children to respect themselves by modelling respect. Just as parents are intended to model respectful relationship behaviour, etc. If families have been broken up and damaged, this is VERY CHALLENGING. Urging others to take ownership of problems that have been created by the "broken leg" we imagined is ludicrous.  
 
Even so, as leaders are trying to promote healthy economic development, YOU are opposed to it, at the same time as saying that for you to think they are working hard to improve things?? THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND YOU ARE OPPOSED TO IT.  
 
Make THAT make sense.  
 
YOU and ME don't get to decide that a whole segment of society "should" integrate with the larger group. You say that "Integration doesn't have to mean that identities are lost!" but in fact that IS what it OFTEN means, just see the recent court ruling on the 60s Scoop.

Here is some reading for the interested parties,  
 
http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/food-for-thought--urban-reserves  
 
It seems the taxation issues do indeed give the urban reserves and their businesses an advantage which can hurt competing real estate and businesses. (there is a video about a gas bar etc)  
 
Tater you may also be interested in reading up on the taxation rights not being part of the treaties.  
 
"Proponents for the urban reserves may argue they don't have to pay income taxes and other government duties due to the treaties. But as the aforementioned report notes, it's not the treaties that granted the taxation exemption, it's the Indian Act; legislation that was passed by Ottawa. Further, as this link shows, Canadian courts have ruled repeatedly that the tax-free status is not a treaty right."  
 
 
The way I see it the only reason for an "urban reserve" is legal tax evasion. Everyone is free to purchase land and start a business or develop commercial space, urban reserves just seem to increase the bottom line for a select part of our population.

I noticed you write a lot of "Shouting". No need to "type shout" as my eyesight is just fine! You appear to be well versed in treaties and native issues, so if you say corrupt then maybe you're right, it may well be corruption if you say so. I myself would call it greed, but we can go with corruption if that's what you think. The 60's scoop is for another thread and it appears to me that once again the government was damned if they did and damned if they didn't go with adoption as I highly doubt there were thousands of native families on the "wanting to adopt" list. So they were adopted by white families. What a tragedy that was according to the courts. Start a thread about the scoop and I'll have more to say, but I'm afraid that it probably will clash with your viewpoint. Like I said before we will never be able to right all the wrongs, there are just so many.

Well I think I can type shout if I like, right?  
As for saying "You appear to be well versed in treaties and native issues, so if you say corrupt then maybe you're right, it may well be corruption if you say so" is really being facetious.  
 
As for saying 60's Scoop is for another thread, you brought up how desireable it is to have integration of First Nations into the broader Canadian society, so I brought up a relevant recent judgement that has to do with just that.  
 
I do have a viewpoint as I had foster siblings my parents wanted to adopt but they were returned to their home community as the practice was being phased out due to how harmful it was to communities and children. Heartbreaking for my mother. Painful for everyone. I know many people who spent the rest of their lives trying to reconnect with their original families, and not all those children NEEDED to be adopted, they were often taken with very little reason. According to the courts and to human beings it was tragic, yes. Damaging, confusing, that's not because none of the families loved them, but the practice on the whole was wrong. I loved my brother and sister. My parents loved them. We were never able to contact them again. But I know now why it was like that. To say we can never right all the wrongs is not addressing what CAN be done. So just say you don't care and don't bother.

bean said "Here is some reading for the interested parties,     http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/food-for-thought--urban-reserves     It seems the taxation issues do indeed give the urban reserves and their businesses an advantage which can hurt competing real estate and businesses. (there is a video about a gas bar etc)     Tater you may also be interested in reading up on the taxation rights not being part of the treaties.     "Proponents for the urban reserves may argue they don't have to pay income taxes and other government duties due to the treaties. But as the aforementioned report notes, it's not the treaties that granted the taxation exemption, it's the Indian Act; legislation that was passed by Ottawa. Further, as this link shows, Canadian courts have ruled repeatedly that the tax-free status is not a treaty right."       The way I see it the only reason for an "urban reserve" is legal tax evasion. Everyone is free to purchase land and start a business or develop commercial space, urban reserves just seem to increase the bottom line for a select part of our population. "

Taxes are paid to the crown. First Nations are their own "crown" so to speak, so that is one of the bases for differences in taxation. It's really not as simple as the your article states, and your article doesn't even have original research or interviews, but instead, as you quote, says,"Proponents for the urban reserves may argue they don't have to pay income taxes and other government duties due to the treaties."  
 
MAY argue? Well do they or don't they? or have they even be asked? The website is the official website of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which is an organization that is politically right wing and I have very little trust in their point of view being unbiased, well informed about treaty, or journalistic.  
 
Tax free status is very narrow anyway, I don't know why so many people focus on this. White people have had plenty of advantages in business over the centuries, I think we can all agree on that. So to me it seems absurd that you think it's a thing.

So I guess if Don Brown for example owned a established Welding and Fabricating shop in Brandon with a yearly labour cost of 5 million. It would be fair for an urban reserve to open up shop across the street and potentially pay 12.75% less in labour ($637,500) per year? While keeping the employees take home pay on par with the existing business? This only takes into account the Manitoba tax rate for $31,001 to $67,000. What if we then take into account the lower cost of living from purchasing tax free items from on the urban reserve like Gas/Cigarettes all of a sudden the wages could be even lower while maintaining the same lifestyle.  
 
This is the same situation we see with businesses trying to compete with places like Mexico and China.

Tater said "Well I think I can type shout if I like, right?   As for saying "You appear to be well versed in treaties and native issues, so if you say corrupt then maybe you're right, it may well be corruption if you say so" is really being facetious.     As for saying 60's Scoop is for another thread, you brought up how desireable it is to have integration of First Nations into the broader Canadian society, so I brought up a relevant recent judgement that has to do with just that.     I do have a viewpoint as I had foster siblings my parents wanted to adopt but they were returned to their home community as the practice was being phased out due to how harmful it was to communities and children. Heartbreaking for my mother. Painful for everyone. I know many people who spent the rest of their lives trying to reconnect with their original families, and not all those children NEEDED to be adopted, they were often taken with very little reason. According to the courts and to human beings it was tragic, yes. Damaging, confusing, that's not because none of the families loved them, but the practice on the whole was wrong. I loved my brother and sister. My parents loved them. We were never able to contact them again. But I know now why it was like that. To say we can never right all the wrongs is not addressing what CAN be done. So just say you don't care and don't bother. "

Your family went through that adoption issue. I don't necessarily agreewith your viewpoint as I think that a stable, loving upbringing trumps culture. Especially where the child will experience hardship. Just can't see the positives. We'll have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

honestly the discussion got to far for me to jump back in and address every point that has come up  
 
tbh taxation IS the very issue most people I know have an issue with, If every person benefits from the taxes collected then everyone should pay into the pot of course if i am not paying now i would have a hard time with that agreement but the honest truth is I cant see anyone thinking one should not pay while the other pays both shares, if you aren't looking at my plate to see what i have then how do you think you should take from it?  
 
anyway, fazing out the segragation would actually open up some funding for natives because as it stands now Natives are in limbo, their own Nation(which is why they couldnt vote) yet Canadain too but because they are run separately the funding for health care ect is underfunded(or allocated badly) and cant get the extra funding like Canadian governments do by taxing its people, if we fazed out the laws that divide us, natives would not have these issues  
 
as well when i say fazed out, i dont mean take everything away, i mean integrate natives into Canadians, in the legal sense, not necessarily way of life as individuality is a Canadian right that we all should have, that may be giving cash or land that natives were due to "equal" the playing field but imo, to the individual status Indians, not the Native government that takes from its people just like every government does, agreeing to something like that would both right the wrongs yet not further the divide, and then there would be no privilege in the legal sense BUT everyone would have to open their mind to moving forward.  
 
the one thing i will say about the current popular phrase "checking your privilege" is it is not a real argument, everyone has a view point and it does come from our whole life experiences but no one knows what privileges anyone has or havent had so in reality checking your privilege goes to say checking your viewpoint which HONESTLY everyone should do

I told the family I was not going to comment anymore on this tonight, but there is one thing I feel I must say.  
There are three things that I hope we can all agree on, and those three things are. The residential school idea was a horrific idea and it did damage that I believe that we can never measure or understand. The second would be taking children from their homes and adopting them out, what sort of policy is that. The final one would be a point that Tater brought up about missing and murdered women, the reason I didn't say aboriginal women is that this is something that is larger that just a race issue.

Bean. Bean bean bean. You mention that a FN employer on an urban reserve would potentially have a reduced labour cost. Let's use your example. The potential reduced labour cost being based on the idea that employees could be paid less and have the same take home pay. That would only apply to status Indians. And if it is for welder a engaged in apprenticeship or journeymen, there are pay rates established for a lot of trades, so there are other influences on pay rates.  
 
So maybe more aboriginal people would be hired there. Is that the issue? Because if a band owned business was paying members LESS than the going rate, I think you'd hear about it pretty quick! The advantage should be to employees.  
 
How about we add some details to the scenario. The existing business in your story may be a family business, started by the current owners grandfather. The grandfather mentored subsequent generations. He had equipment they could learn welding with and opportunities to work in the summer etc. Isn't that a benefit? And it's a benefit not everyone will have. So does that bother you? Does that seem right, that while aboriginal children were taken from their families and sexually abused far from loved ones, other children were learning how to make a nice even bead on a seam?

In a way some of us may have gotten off topic when it comes to the idea of an Urban Reserve, but maybe not. The idea has been brought up about advantages for groups of people, and looking at an economic situation that can be a good thing or a bad thing. I will not argue the fact that I''d does happen, but if it does not affect competing business or if a competing business is not present in the area, then the effects are sort of nonexistent for business but usually are felt by taxpayer.  
Tater, you ask people to educate themselves, and I agree with that fully. So I have decided to give people the chance to make up their own mind on your idea that the settlers have had privilege, and that privilege carries through to today. You stated that land gave privilege, and yet when asked about the land being in family names on a reserve you defected by saying that different reserves handled things differently, that doesn''t really address the idea that land was still given to people.  
So to help people out in the area of fairness when it comes to land I will post links to  
Treaties one and two as well as the homesteaders act, so that they are able to read them and make up their own minds.  
 
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028664/1100100028665  
 
http://www.familyhistoryalive.com/Prairie-Land-Grants-and-Homesteading-Manitoba-Saskatchewan-and-Alberta.html  
 
The first link is to the treaties, with not only the treaties, but articles added after the treaties were signed, because the chiefs who signed them said things that were talked about, were excluded from the original treaty.  
 
The second is the homesteader act or Dominion land act.  
People can compare the amount of land given to both, as well as conditions attached to each deal.  
 
People educate yourselves.  
Thank you  
 
Edited by don brown, 2017-02-20 06:59:30

don brown said "In a way some of us may have gotten off topic when it comes to the idea of an Urban Reserve, but maybe not. The idea has been brought up about advantages for groups of people, and looking at an economic situation that can be a good thing or a bad thing. I will not argue the fact that I''d does happen, but if it does not affect competing business or if a competing business is not present in the area, then the effects are sort of nonexistent for business but usually are felt by taxpayer.   Tater, you ask people to educate themselves, and I agree with that fully. So I have decided to give people the chance to make up their own mind on your idea that the settlers have had privilege, and that privilege carries through to today. You stated that land gave privilege, and yet when asked about the land being in family names on a reserve you defected by saying that different reserves handled things differently, that doesn''t really address the idea that land was still given to people.   So to help people out in the area of fairness when it comes to land I will post links to   Treaties one and two as well as the homesteaders act, so that they are able to read them and make up their own minds.     http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028664/1100100028665     http://www.familyhistoryalive.com/Prairie-Land-Grants-and-Homesteading-Manitoba-Saskatchewan-and-Alberta.html     The first link is to the treaties, with not only the treaties, but articles added after the treaties were signed, because the chiefs who signed them said things that were talked about, were excluded from the original treaty.     The second is the homesteader act or Dominion land act.   People can compare the amount of land given to both, as well as conditions attached to each deal.     People educate yourselves.   Thank you     Edited by don brown, 2017-02-20 06:59:30"

Who is the taxpayer in your first paragraph? what are the effects they're feeling? I'm really not sure what you're saying there.  
 
As for your second paragraph, I was not deflecting. You didn't mention what reserve the land in question was on, and different reserves DO have different systems of allocation of land, so what do you want me to say?? The person can't sell the land or take out a mortgage anyway, under existing rules that I'm aware of, so in any case it's not a fully private ownership structure. If you'd like to tell me where the land in question is located maybe I'd have something more meaningful to say about it, but I'm not deflecting anything.  
 
Also, while you're at it maybe post a link with the agricultural soil quality maps overlaid on the areas where land was given to settlers and where it was part of a reserve. Let's compare the quality as well as the quantity of land.  
 
And while you're looking that up, let's also imagine what the difference is when you are free and clear on your land in five years and can sell it or you can go visit your relatives back home or travel to conduct business, compare that with being confined to your land, and having to get permission from an Indian Agent to leave your land for any purpose. And then let's imagine the difference when instead of keeping your children at home, going to school during the day and learning farming and other skills at home the rest of the time, they are taken away from you to have their language beaten out of them and taught to hate themselves and their culture, and sometime other, worse things happening while they are away from your loving embrace.  
 
It is impossible to draw the simpler comparison that you might like, Don, because of the real circumstances that existed. That is not even counting the intense racism that existed and still exists to some extent. I'm not making a judgement against settlers AT ALL. I'm just saying that trying to compare on ONLY the des:criptions of land allotments and farm implements is NOT possible. It's like, those documents don't say we will steal your children and rape them and tell them your people are backwards savages who will burn in hell for eternity.

Could be a very good idea in the long run if implemented correctly and not with special tax status. For example: an "Urban Reserve" could add to the diversity of a city if it were to become something like a "Little Italy" or "Chinatown" for example. The "Chinatowns" inhabitants/businesses for example across Canada own lands, pay taxes and are policed by the city/provincial authority. Build an "Urban Reserve" where the inhabitants will own land/businesses and pay taxes like every day (privileged) Canadians citizens. Then, the cloud of us and them will eventually disappear. This would not eliminate the treaty rights or financial benefits that first nations people have today, but it would eliminate the council and chiefs. Let the "Urban Reserve" be represented by a councilor like any other ward of the city. An "Urban Reserve" as described allows the inhabitants access to all the services that other Canadians take for granted such as hospitals, schools and universities. This is my idea of an "Urban Reserve" and I would support that in a heartbeat.

An urban First Nations commercial area would not neccessarily have ANY overt cultural activity, food, signage etc. You might not be able to tell it's an urban reserve. It could be a strip mall with various tenants just like any other strip mall.  
As for "inhabitants" owning land/ businesses and paying taxes, what is the issue? There is a fee for service very much like property taxes, nothing is coming out of anyone else's pocket to pay for the services provided by the urban municipality.  
 
Lots of businesses have special tax status, have a look at the deal Brandon made with Maple Leaf!!!! To require a group that HAS their own legal status to GIVE UP that status, while giving OTHER businesses special advantages is unreasonable. That is in fact putting an OBSTACLE in front of first nations business interests.  
 
The cloud of us and them is in your own mind.

My comment on the cost coming back on the taxpayer, has to do with exemptions given to business. If a municipality was to try to bring a business in it might have to give tax breaks to that business, if the exemption is given over a period of ten years, the business that is given the exemption would be protected from costs of developing infrastructure for that business, as well as not paying the ever increasing taxes in the municipality, which means the other taxpayers in the municipality are on the hook for taxes. Those are the taxpayers I''m talking of. But like mentioned above there usually is a net gain because increased employement, and exemptions are not usually for perpetuity..  
Now back to the land part of it, your statement said land gives privilege, then you say that people have been able to move forward because they had land, so when it comes to the land it really doesn''t matter if it is individual peoples names or the band, they own land so the ownership of land gives the band privilege.  
Not every year have I driven through Sioux Valley, but just about every year, when I drove through there in years past there was a piece of land on the North side of the hiway that was usually kept summefallow or sometimes cropped and it was what I would consider very productive land. Have you taken a look at the land on the southwest side of that reserve, pretty good land.  
As I said in an earlier post it is not the land that is important, but what you do with it, you asked would you wish to have five acres of bush land or five acres of prime real estate, a question like that indicates no intention to protect culture and lifestyle., but shows that for some people it all comes down to money. Myself and many others likely would have chosen the five acres of trees.  
This next comment could be subjective or o:bjective. You asked for an overlay of the quality of land surrounding the reserves, and I''m not sure how to go about that, so all I can say or do is ask, is is the land that is adjacent to reserves farmed or vacant, if it is farmed then it shows that some people have decided what the land is good for. Every year we sort cows out to send to a co-op pasture, the pasture consists of trees, rocks and swamps, and we pay the pasture rent, once again, not the land is important, but what you do with the land.  
 
One question, if you were given five acres of prime real estates that was not developed what would you do with it, sell it or develope it.  
 
Edited by don brown, 2017-02-20 12:36:45

Don Brown, I think you know what I'm getting at, quality land or what was deemed quality land was taken from the first Nations and given to settlers. And the land vase was reduced in other ways against the treaties.  
YOU are "deflecting" from what I said.

As this discussion pushes away from the original intended topic of the potential for an Urban Reserve in Brandon and into a more general direction, I'm going to close it at this time. Historically the general topic is one that has been done many many times in this environment and I feel there has been ample opportunity for the originally intended topic in this thread. While the odd post and poster did have to be addressed, it is encouraging that the vast majority did take part in the debate in good faith and in the spirit of basing opinion on verifiable fact rather than broad brushstrokes assumptions. As our country moves in a direction of healing divisions its my hope that higher level discussions involve folks on all "sides" who show compassion for the position other "sides" are coming from and come from a place where position and aspiration are similarly heavy on empathy and fact and light on assumption.  
 
Edited by Adam, 2017-02-20 13:34:57

I went back to the opening post where the question was asked about what do you think about an Urban Reserve. Asking people what they think about means that people have to have an opinion, opinions are based on information, and if you do not look at all information then how can you come to a logical conclusion.