comment: >
  
  Fuck the Ontario government ( I live in Ontario )
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Ontario has claimed that it does not need to pay billions of dollars owed to First Nations over broken treaty obligations, arguing that it has already spent the sum on the historical costs of resource extraction and the infrastructure of "Colonization".
  The First Nations appearing in court have rejected the government lawyers' arguments, suggesting that roads and railways were part of a broader nation-building effort and shouldn't count against revenues owed to them.
  Schachter believes the First Nations are owed an 84% share of net Crown revenues from five sectors, including mining and forestry.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Nations^#1 First^#2 court^#3 owe^#4 Crown^#5 >
  
  Native American Cree here from Manitoba originally. This shit is a hot mess. Long story short. Brits signed treaties with Indigenous people due to a lack of resources to fight the "Indian Wars" against them. Indigenous people signed up due to starvation.  
  Treaties agreed that both sides would have access and benefit to the lands and that Britain would help Indigenous people in times of hardship.
  Treaties among Indigenous people are a spiritual and evolving concept. In other words "Honor the spirit of the treat."  
  European treaties are signed documents that are legally binding.
  Due to these reasons, I receive 5 dollars every year for my people giving up control and ownership of our territory \^_\^
  When Canada became an independent country it took on the responsibilities of the treaties. We got Indian Residential schools instead which almost wiped out my people. *Grand Mother is permanently screwed up mentally from it*
  Canadians argue that they've "Paid" enough.   Natives don't want a payout. We want equal opportunity to land usage and to make a living. 
  Indigenous people are the poorest demographics in the entire country and have been deliberately kept that way in Canada. Why?  
  Provinces are scared of losing access to resources such as minerals, forestry, and water access if it falls under Indigenous control and authorization. 
  ​
  Therefore.... "Native people have been giving enough! How much money do we have to pay them?!"    "This happened over 100 years ago?! Why am I paying for their stupid mistakes?"   "We beat them in a war. They lost we took over, end of story"
  ​
  Long story short, provincial governments and federal gov's, be it liberal or cons don't want to go near these issues with a 10foot pole. So they throw enough money at it till the natives shut up for a little while and leave it for the next gov to handle and so the cycle continues. >
  
  
  We want equal opportunity to land usage and to make a living. 
  
  You don't have this?  That's going to be news to a lot of people.
  How is your opportunity to use land or make a living any different than mine? >
  
  Doug Ford is a POS, to quote Dewey Cox “the wrong kid died” >
  
  
  to quote Dewey Cox “the wrong kid died”
  
  That's a tough call.  They're both POS.  The only difference is that Rob was never in a position to fuck up more than just Toronto. >
  
  I colonized the store so I don't have to pay. >
  
  "Um, it actually cost a whole lot to wage a cultural genocide, so we've already spent all the money we think you deserve." - White Politicians Probably >
  
  I pity you poor Canadians that you keep voting in Trudeau. He's got all Canada twisted into knots over climate change and being all PC. AndI'm sure he'll give in to the tribes. >
  
  Imagine being this big of a POS...and then doubling down. >
  
  You don't even have free speech in Canada. Trudeau limits how you can address people. I bet wishing openly for your own weapons would get you tossed into jail. Nobody has any personal fire arms. Of course an American battalion could take over your country in a month, though it could bring your main army top battle and destroy them in a day.
  With more than 100 million Americans armed and no Canadians, maybe we'll form a club to all charge across the border at once, ten different routes, and get us a new colony. That's not a bad idea.
  You have no military to defend you country (a pitiful army), unarmed citizenry. We could hold an auction for China, Russia U.S, pointing out the conquered territory comes with its own, though lazy, slaves. White ones, no less. Won't be good for basketball teams, but not too smart so you can whip them into working. Best point is they're too weak to fight for independence. >
  
  Thanks for assuming I'm Canadian, I'm not...but don't let that stop your bigotry.
  In fact, I'm an American... difference between us is I lack the ignorance you're putting on full display here. >
  
  Fool. I know I got it right this time. >
  
  As unethical as this sounds, at least they are not as bad as the American way. lol
  They wanna restart with a clean slate without paying, because its hard to calculate the cost, but this can only be acceptable if they actually HELP the native community to prosper for the future and indefinitely, which Canada is doing but not doing enough, lots of rooms for improvement.
  America however.........lol.
  "Lets forgeddabout it and pretend it never happened ok? hehe"
  "oh btw, we gonna keep doing shady things that will harm you and your land in the future, since we already forget about what happened before, ok? hehehe" 
  Assholes, truly assholes. >
  
  
  As unethical as this sounds, at least they are not as bad as the American way. lol
  
  This is bad but there's worse things is not the defense you think it is. Pointing at the US and saying they're worse gets nobody anywhere, it's just good old fashioned whataboutism... Besides, I think you have a very narrow view of the US-Native relations, especially recently haha >
  
  We European descendants in North America stole land.  Truth.  Pay the billions.  Also, compensate indigenous peoples when treaties are broken. >
  
  Nope >
  
  Give the land back if you cannot honor your end of deal. >
  
  Or just, you know, don't do anything?