comment: >
  
  It sounds like they're gunning for 100 billion total, a bit over a tenth of Ontario's yearly gdp, for about 150 years worth of shortchanging treaty obligations on a huge chunk of land. It's a lot, but it doesn't sound insane.
context: I know reading the article isn’t cool around these parts but Ontario is stating that the First Nations should be going after the Canadian federal government, not them. 
  If you’re in the states, this would be like Texas telling someone that’s suing the state to sue the country instead. >
  
  Agree! Treaties were negotiated with the federal government/ crown. The royal proclamation of 1763 states that this must be the case quite clearly.  It’s also in the nature of the meaning of “treaty;” treaties are nation to nation contracts.  I’m not sure why they are trying to sue Ontario… anyone? >
  
  The answer is in the first few paragraphs of the article. Essentially, the FN groups involved want the courts to determine who is legally responsible for breaking the treaties. >
  
  We will never move on unfortunately. Our future is the past resurfacing and never moving on. >
  
  Not responsible, because it was expensive to steal the land from the indigenous people?  Bullshit. >
  
  Thief attempts to deduct cost of lockpicking tools from fine. >
  
  I know that sounds more amusing, but it's more complicated than that.
  The treaty set up the first nations as more equal partners in a relationship and they're alleging the government has not lived up to that. The government is saying that the cost to deliver all the resources which the first nations are owed a cut of, was itself expensive, which would be reflected in the balance of profitability of the extraction. The government's position does sound awfully weasely, but the situation certainly isn't as simple as things being stolen if there was a treaty. >
  
  I agree that it's a complicated situation, but I'd say setting the resource sharing at $4 per person and not increasing the amount since 1874 is more than "weaselly"... >
  
  And from my understanding that's generally also been the position the courts have followed in the past where the government did not substantively live up to their end on treaty obligations.
  What will be interesting is how the court responds to the idea that the costs of extraction were that high and should be reflected in the balance of payments. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea how they'll respond. I can sort of see where the government is coming from, but I also don't know the terms of the treaty and whether the first nations were expected to share in bearing the cost of infrastructure. If the treaty's terms were in line with the government's argument,the burden would be on the government to demonstrate the net negative to the balance sheet, which I would guess would be hard to do.
  But again, I'm not a lawyer so who knows. It is a complicated mess. >
  
  Yea...the federal government in Canada is responsible.  Not Ontario directly.
  This is a nothingburger.  The claim should be directed at the federal government. >
  
  It cost us so much to steal from you, you should be paying us!
  The monstrous callousness that created the residential schools is still alive and well, just better hidden. >
  
  That is true for every culture on the planet, and not an argument for conquest and discrimination. >
  
  Just when you think we couldn’t sink lower… >
  
  
  Schachter believes the First Nations are owed an 84% share of net Crown revenues from five sectors, including mining and forestry. On Friday Joseph Stiglitz, a two-time Nobel economics laureate, is due to give evidence in support of the First Nations’ arguments. Under that model of compensation, the communities could be owed more than C$100bn.
  
  Tbf I don’t know if the government of Ontario is in a position to give indigenous ontarians more than 50% of the entire provincial budget. It’s a really tough ask that was always going to be litigated by both sides. >
  
  Set up a payment plan.  If you owe the state money, do you get away with saying, “Sorry, that’s expensive, so I can’t pay”? >
  
  Man they’re basically claiming the majority of Ontarian GDP. That’s an absurd claim.