One of the biggest themes in politics right now is transparency, letting the taxpayers, the people who foot the bill, know where their money is being spent. Most politicians have accepted it but others continue to fight.Here in BC the Legislative Assembly makes the law on financial accountability/transparency applicable to all municipalities, towns and cities in the province. They are required to publicly account for every penny of taxpayers' money spent. Also by law, they are required to publicly reveal the salaries of every public servant earning $75,000 or more (by name, alphabetically). I'm sure this is also the case for every other municipality, town and city across the country.
This week a group of Native leaders announced they would take the federal government to court to challenge the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. ...
As the provinces are for their municipalities, etc, the federal government is responsible for setting the rules for financial accounting on Indian Reserves. Chief Fox and others objecting to this (as "racist", no less) is absolutely asinine. Their objections to financial transparency are beyond bizarre! (the only possible reason is that they have some very interesting things to hide). What is also bizarre is that such laws haven't always been in place.
I doubt they have legal leg to stand on, but should their attempt to avoid accountability make it into court let's hope they don't draw some bone-head of a liberal judge who sympathizes with them.
No doubt that some if not most Indian "Chiefs" have a lot to hide... screaming "racism" is an old sleazy tactic employed to silence critics. It really doesn't matter which tribal industry the Government operates, whether Indian Affairs or "Bilingualism" or Multi-cult, they're all ripe for corruption and questionable spending because they all operate in the dark... Canadian taxpayers have no idea where the billions of dollars used in these social engineering schemes go and whether its worth the massive never ending costs. Tribal industry advocates and beneficiaries always scream "racism" or bigot whenever the question of accountability comes up because they know the scheme that feeds them is inherently corrupt and bigoted. The isolation and the behind the scenes operations of tribal industries creates a sense of entitlement amongst its recipients so its no surprise that they feel its nobody's business how they spend other peoples money, they're "entitled" to it.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be ironically delicious if the trial coincided with the next federal election?
ReplyDeleteLeisuresuit Larry has already committed to abolishing this act, and its likely the experts in the judicial system will not rule in the chiefs favour.
And tell me again why we are giving them money?So they can buy booze,cigarettes and fancy boats.Maybe it is time they worked for this money.Lets see maybe crossing guards would be a good job for most of them,as we have seen them stop traffic in many ares.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand, PET's sham of a constitution aside, why there are not rumblings throughout the land for an end to Indian status. I have urged Conservatives, including PM Harper, to put a sensible plan into their next election platform and then expect to enjoy a tidal wave of support. I don't know ... faint hearts?
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of Fox's loopy accusation of "racism", he's got it back-assward. What would be "racist" is making an exception just for Indian reservations, when every other local jurisdiction in the country is subject to accountability and transparency laws.
ReplyDeleteSome of these Chief's should be ashamed, while they squander billions their people , who literally dependent on them, live in squallor.
ReplyDeleteThese uppity Indians think they are the Harper government and can get away with hiding facts and misleading their constituency. Well, they are wrong. Only the Harper government can do that.
ReplyDeleteDollops, take your liberal trash somewhere else. If it was wise to get rid of Indian status Harper would have done it at some point in the last 8 years of his administration.
ReplyDelete@Dollops, I have no idea how old you are, so you may not be aware that even Trudeau Sr. ended up backing away from terminating the India Act. Chretien was minister of Indian Affairs at the time and the Trudeau brought out what was called the "White Paper". It would have been a start to terminating the Indian Act and integrating the Indians and Inuit into Canadian society as normal citizens. The natives and what I call their marxist non-native organisers made such a fuss that even Trudeau backed down. Yes, it is hard to believe there were those even more marxist than Trudeau, but whatever you call them they worked to get the natives outraged with all kind of misinformation and out right lies. So I would not be so quick to cast the stone at PM Harper and his government on this one. I do agree that in the 21st century the Indian Act cannot be justified and would like to see it gone. It breeds dependency on the government generation after generation which is not healthy especially for the natives.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder (probably) if there is a rebuttal for what I am about to say, but your title confused me.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was about India.
As in, "transparency is overrated. We don't need our national security left exposed & vulnerable."
Thats what came to my mind. Was going to comment in agreement as to why. "Open and transparent" secret services is self defeating.
So I was disappointed that wasn't the topic.
Though I'm very surprised people are still calling first nations "Indians". Is there something incorrect about saying natives?
I thought it was pretty clear that was a geographical error on the part of the guy that came here to this continent expecting a very different place.
I understand there is "East Indians" but they don't refer to themselves as such accept in instances were people need the distinction.
Not trying to be politically correct, just thought it was lazy of folks to not put the effort in to simply say "natives".
Do correct me if I have been misinformed cuz I am fairly convinced I'm correct.
Anyway, I think the plan of exposing the corrupt chiefs has been working and the rest the bands seem to be supporting the Feds.
"No doubt that some if not most Indian "Chiefs" have a lot to hide"
I wouldn't call 84(ish) out of nearly 600 bands "most".
This exposure is working out better than I expected. Relations seem to be normalizing for majority of them. The policy has been a success and will continue to bare fruit.
The left can no longer use natives as political pawns... well, accept those 84 or so chiefs.
Very interesting responses to my sensible post above. I have been politically active for conservative causes since the early sixties, most of my life in an area where Indians (tao, that is the official designation for Canada's indigenous peoples) were and still are in the majority, and nony-fraidy-cat I am proudly a classical liberal and Christian. Indians have been coddled and infantalized since the monarchy started the condescension toward them over two centuries ago, and for us to continue treating them as an ethnicity less capable than all the other ethnicities in Canada is a national disgrace. As to the politics, Alain, don't you think that enough voters have had a bellyfull of the posturing, obstructions and mismanagement that they would support of a well-crafted policy to free band members from the control of their chiefs and other exploiters? The Indian people whom I knew very well feared being made responsible for their own affairs but wanted to be free of the controlling and the stigma that are the downside of being "status." The final argument in favour of eliminating Indian status is that our country cannot be governed by both democracy and a form of feudalism at the same time. The courts must be brought to heel; the constitution has to be largely re-written. If we continue to go along with the chaotic situation that exists, and deteriorates by the day, what kind of country will result?
ReplyDelete@Dollops,
ReplyDeleteThank you, I stand corrected.
Those are excellent comments & questions. Well said.
I think we will rewrite our Constitution within the next 8 or 12 years.
I don't see it happening now, given that Ontario just reelected the most corrupt government in Canada's history.
At least 4+2 years from now if the province survives an economically lead jurisdiction breakup.
We don't know what sort of mess it will be in even 2 years from now.
The Americans are at least on their way to reclaiming their own:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA