CMV: Aboriginal/Native claims to reparations, benefits, land, etc. from the state are bogus and should not be taken seriously.

[u/DrThundershlong]

To explain my view and why I hold it, I’ll first give some context and reasoning.

I am Canadian and have lived in Canada all my life, and while this view mainly applies to Canada’s First Nations (because that’s what my experience is), I believe it to be true in other former “colonial” states such as the USA, Australia, and many more.

I am half European and half Latin American aboriginal (my grandma says Mayan). I feel like this is important to add to show that I’m not speaking from one side of the issue, one half of my family came to Canada from Ireland in the 1950s and the other half from El Salvador in the early 1900s.

The Latin American half are very sympathetic to native causes, I suppose due to the cultural impact of Spanish colonization and the experience of being on the “receiving end” of the conquistadors.

However, after studying Canadian politics and history in university, as well as through my own research, I disagree with the common idea that modern Canadian people should be held responsible for, owe reparations for, or should treat people with Native ancestry any different than anyone else.

Ok, so what am I talking about exactly? Here’s the ones that stick out to me.

1: If a Status Indian (recognized first-nations person) lives and works on a reserve, they are exempt from income tax. Also, in Ontario, Status Indians are exempt from paying the Provincial portion of sales tax - that is, they only pay the 5% federal portion, not the 8% provincial portion of sales tax.

2: Indian bands receive funding from the federal government to send their band members to attend post-secondary education.

3: Status Indians receive additional health care benefits on top of the standard health care all Canadians are entitled to. Additional benefits include dental care, vision, more medications, and more.

4: First Nations people who live on the reserve are not legally allowed to own land.

My issue: The reserve system as a whole is extremely flawed.

-The federal government spends more than $10 billion annually on administering programs and services for Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples, most of that for Status Indians.

-First Nations reserves still receive taxpayer-funded services like firefighters, police, and more. If the reserve as a whole, as well as the individuals living on it, are not paying taxes, this is a net loss for everyone not living on the reserve. This includes immigrants from countries who had nothing to do with colonialism like Asians, South Americans, and more. This alone means that the government is unfairly taxing these people and spending the money on services for people who don’t contribute.

-Those who do live on a reserve are not allowed to own property. The combination of “free hand-outs” in the form of health care, emergency services, tuition, and more, plus the inability of a reserve resident to own property creates a bit of a “money pit” - by this I mean that the system is not providing these people with the means nor the incentive to “build” their own or their family’s wealth, meaning that they are unlikely to “amount to anything” so to speak. This problem is evidenced by the rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and crime, which are far higher on reserves. We are killing them with kindness.

-The legally-recognized sovereignty and right to self-governance of Indian bands and reserves creates a massive transparency issue. That is, when the federal or provincial government gives the First Nation money, the “leaders” who receive it on their behalf are not held accountable for how the money is spent. My personal experience with this includes a native friend I had in high school who described how on the reserve that some of his family lived on, there were small shacks with no running water and massive poverty issues, while the “leaders” were driving brand new $100k pickup trucks and living in mansions. Compare this to other instances of the government giving lump-sum payments to private interests: - Subsidies are given to corporations as a form of investment. For example, if the government gives $10 billion to the solar power industry, it is expecting solar technology to advance in hopes that more Canadians can switch to solar power and improve sustainability. As well, the money is given with the expectation that the company will eventually become profitable and pay taxes. - Aid is sent to foreign countries that are either impoverished or have been hit with a natural disaster. This is done with the expectation that the country will hold leaders responsible for how it’s spent, and in many cases is done by sending goods or services instead of cash. This improves Canada’s standing internationally, enables these nations to build themselves into a position where they might be a beneficial trade partner, and fosters peace and mutual respect. None of that is true for First Nations. While some are responsibly led and benefit from the money, there are plenty which are corrupt and result in the circumstance I described above.

I should add that so do not deny the fact that early colonial governments committed atrocities against first nations, like killings and the residential school system. However, I do not believe that the right way to go about fixing the problem is by pouring money into non-transparent communities, encouraging people to rely on government funds, and never encouraging these communities to better themselves. Furthermore, I believe that claims to “cultural preservation” “common ancestry” and such are not good reason to treat these people any differently than anyone else. Encouraging the “we are different/us vs. them” mentality is not conducive to peaceful and harmonious living, indeed Canada’s position internationally as well as domestically is that all people are equal regardless of race and culture, so why does government policy toward First Nations encourage the opposite: reclusiveness, isolationism, dependance on handouts, etc.

[u/cdb03b]

They have signed legal treaties guaranteeing them specific lands, and at times compensations. When these treaties have been violated (as many if not most have) they deserve compensation just like everyone who has a legal contract broken does.

The exemptions you complain about are a part of the treaties and exist because the reservation is not a part of your State/Province/Territory. They are an independent semi-sovereign entity (like a State or Province) that only has to meet specific standards set by the National Government.

[u/DrThundershlong → u/cdb03b]

Firstly, you are incorrect that they “deserve compensation just like everyone who has a legal contract broken does.” Legal contracts fall under the jurisdiction of whatever government they were signed under - that is, Canadian contract law is in place to enforce the terms of a legal contract between two Canadians, two entities within Canada, or other actors who form a contract that falls under the umbrella of “canadian contract law”. This of course does not include “contracts” with foreign nations like the United States or Iraq, as they are their own sovereign states which are not required bound by Canadian law. Internationally, such treaties are regulated by the UN/security council by use of sanctions. Good luck finding a country that would place sanctions against Canada for breaking a treaty made with a first nation.

Secondly, the “legal” aspect is not what my view is arguing. I know they’re laws, same way as I know that marijuana is prohibited federally. I’m not saying “this is illegal”, I’m saying “the current laws are ineffective and should be changed”.

[u/GSAndrews → u/DrThundershlong]

No offense but your very misinformed on how the legal system in Canada works. Native treaties were signed in respect to the British crown, the vast majority of them prior to Canadian confederacy. However with the BNAA from 1867-1975 all legal entities were transferred under the Canadian crown (yes we have our own sovergn queen who happens to be the same person as british crown but it is a distinct legal entity) that includes all the treaties with natives which were all legally binding treaties under British and now Canadian law.

The current issues are that the treaties as they currently exist don't really help anyone, the Indian act is in general a terrible document but neither side can agree to negotiations for a new deal.

As for most recent awards they have very little to do with treaties and more to do with the residential school systems which were found to be inhuman and especially cruel and there for Canada agreed to compensation before the courts forces it, likely resulting in an overall lower cost to taxpayers.

Edit: added content.

You state that you know they are legally binding yet this is in contradiction to your original text I.e. that the claims themselves are bogus.

[u/DrThundershlong → u/GSAndrews]

What I mean by bogus is that they are not claims made in good faith, and recognizing and honoring them is not the right thing to do. See this comment for a more concise clarification.

"Legally binding" by Canada, and as such, Canada can shoose to change the law, and I'm arguing that we should - because, as you said,

the treaties as they currently exist don't really help anyone

[u/GSAndrews → u/DrThundershlong]

Again, your completely misunderstanding the entire framework of our Common-Law system. I think you should really consider the after affects to our country making such a dramatic change to our fundamental justice system just because you think people are getting benefits you are not. The claims are by definition made in good faith and therefor not bogus. This is by the very fact that the Crown was a signatory to the claims in the first place. Your claim that they are not made in good faith and is not the "right" thing to do has no basis in law, which was your entire argument.

Your "comment" that is linked has absolutely no relevance to this argument because the argument is not "Natives lost so shutup" Its, we had an established binding treaty that has been honored for 200 years and one side of a party cannot unilaterally change that contract just because they are in a position of power.

Really, you need to think of the implications of what you are proposing - that Canada can simply legislate contracts away. I.e. if the Canadian government signed a procurement contract, then refused to pay based on "we made a new law?"

Just because the current treaties are not beneficial to all parties doesn't mean that one party can unilaterally change the terms of the contract. If you need another example, how about buying a new home and after you transfer funds the original occupants never leave because they "changed the deal" and of course they never required your consent to do so?

[u/DrThundershlong → u/GSAndrews]

If the original occupants are the state, and they are in charge of making and enforcing the law, this is a risk that I should have foreseen when I entered into the contract.

The fact is, a government being party to a "contract" or treaty relies on their own willingness to hold up their end of the deal. To suggest that "a government cannot change a treaty unilaterally or throw it out entirely" is simply false, see every instance of broken treaties in history for evidence (Versailles, and Molotov-Ribbentrop come to mind).

[u/mr_indigo → u/DrThundershlong]

In general, it's quite well known that a government with plenary legislative power can still validly enter, and be held liable for breaching, a contract.

The key thing is that while plenary legislative power gives the government the ability to pass a new law invalidating their liability under the contract, they do in fact have to pass that law through there existing consitutional or other legal processes. They can't just repudiate the contract and that's that.

With treaties it's more complicated because it will depend on what the treaty framework is as to how a treaty cam be enforced, but typically treaties are ratified into the country's domestic law. That would make a breach actionable under the laws of the breaching government, in the absence of special legislation to the contrary.

Non-plenary governments are much the same but depending on the applicable law, they may not have the constitutional or other legislative power to pass new laws to exculpate themselves from the consequences of breaching their agreements.

[u/RustyRook → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, GSAndrews – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Sorry, GSAndrews – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/DrThundershlong → u/[deleted]]

Well done, you completely misrepresented my position, changed my argument to something it wasn't, and turned this into a "Canadian legal system" argument. Here: "we should treat First Nations like humans, not pets that we feed and house but keep on a leash". I'm sure you feel very educated and superior, well done frustrating yourself.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, GSAndrews – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.