First Nations Greed and Corruption
Rent-seeking in action
“There is no more important relationship to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples” - Justin Trudeau
On January 3rd the CBC reported on the federal government’s “agreement-in-principle to settle a class-action lawsuit over the operation of boarding homes for Indigenous students attending public schools between 1951 and 1992”. This class-action “presents Ottawa with an opportunity to deliver justice to survivors of Canada's assimilationist residential school-era policies who were left out of prior settlements.”
Reginald Percival, who was placed in a boarding home when he was 13, informs the CBC that he “had to deal with a lot of systemic racism.” Not that a CBC journalist would point this out, but Percival’s use of “systemic racism” is not only meaningless, it is a clear indication he has been coached in the language of grievance activism. Regardless of the situation Percival faced, and it is possible he was mistreated, CBC’s statement that he was “forcibly removed from his home and community” is typical - does the CBC cover any stories that include an honest assessment of conditions of the homes and communities of those who were placed in boarding homes, or residential schools, or any other type of publicly funded situation?
To be honest in the way that the CBC and the majority of legacy media never are, would be to admit the human fallibility of indigenous people, and to see them as more than hapless victims, forever exempt from the responsibility of their actions. But more seriously, it would be to admit that in far too many cases, indigenous children are (and were in the past) removed from their homes because of substandard conditions, abuse and neglect. This includes, most commonly, environments made that way through alcohol and substance abuse.
Instead, the CBC is sure to refer to all indigenous youth who were in non-indigenous boarding homes as “survivors,” the presumption being that all non-indigenous boarding home providers were terrible racist people who were only doing it for the money and were complicit in cultural genocide. It is astonishing that such a simplistic perspective goes unchallenged.
Because these ideas are not rejected, and until they are, Canadian tax-payers will continue to be robbed by the grievance hustlers of the Aboriginal Industry (as they have been for the last several decades). This could not be made more clear than with the government's stated position on the boarding homes settlement “to deliver justice to survivors of Canada's assimilationist residential school-era policies,” which leaves the door wide open for sneaky Aboriginal Industry lawyers to invent new actionable grievances from virtually any effort the federal government made to help indigenous people during the time of Indian Residential Schools.
The estimated total value of the boarding homes settlement is $2.2 billion. Notably, and unlike the fixed compensation amount related to the Sixties Scoop settlement, this agreement will be uncapped.
The CBC wrote that “Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller called the agreement-in-principle ‘a milestone’ for thousands of Indigenous people who suffered abuse while living in a boarding home placement overseen by the federal government.” The range of years involved (1951 to 1992) implies that if serious wrongs (like physical and sexual abuse) were committed, than perpetrators could be held accountable. But instead, the approach is to cry “systemic racism” and collectivize the compensation sought. I’m sure the aboriginal Industry could not be more pleased with this outcome, I’m also sure they are far from satisfied, so expect to see increasing levels of grievance based activism as their greedy scams continue to succeed.
I asked, Canadian political scientist, Tom Flanagan, the following: if there are people alive today who abused these kids, are they going to be charged? Is that type of justice even being pursued?
“Criminal Charges have not been a part of previous class action settlements. Criminal charges might be a possibility, but they would have to be pursued by the RCMP or other local police forces, based on individual complaints.” - TF
And what about the estimate for compensation? Since this settlement is to be uncapped, what are the chances of the final amount exceeding the estimated $2.2 billion?
“Exceeding the cap is certainly a possibility. New claimants will appear as time goes on. Nobody knows how many claimants will make allegations of severe physical or sexual harm that might merit high payments.” - TF
Without criminal charges, similar to how former student testimony was dealt with by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, there will be no requirement to produce evidence, or be cross-examined once claims are made. And again, similar to the TRC, the so-called “survivors” are incentivized to lie in order to increase the compensation amount they are eligible to receive. The most horrendous and implausible stories will not be challenged, simply because our governments long standing policy is to believe “survivors.”
In an email exchange with Canadian lawyer and author, Peter Best, he had the following to say:
“Part of the government settlement, part of the sham, part of the disgraceful abandonment of legal principles, is that there will be no inquiry into individual cases. All attendees will be deemed to have been harmed. This was a part of the sixties scoop deal, the day schools deal, and the child welfare deal. There will be no investigation, on a case by case basis, of individual circumstances. This is so that no consideration of the damages factor of betterment can be considered. Most people who will get this free money will be people whose lives were better because of their education. Betterment, in a sane world, in civil suits for damages, reduces and often even eliminates compensable damages.”
In an email exchange with Canadian historian Ian Gentles, when asked about the possibility of charges brought forward against perpetrators of physical and sexual abuse related to the boarding homes settlement, even though the likelihood of criminal charges are slim, Ian made the following astute observation:
“I don’t see why not, on the same principle that the German court recently convicted the woman who had been a secretary in Auschwitz, for war crimes, even though she was well into her nineties.”
The boarding homes settlement pales in comparison to last year's, December 2021, child welfare settlement of $40 billion - the largest of all the settlements so far. But the latest exercise in Canadian rent-seeking seems to have scored another big win for the Aboriginal Industry. A class action suit brought last September by more than 300 First Nations against the Federal government was subsequently adjourned as all parties agreed to negotiate the band reparations class action, which “seeks collective compensation for the communal harms First Nations suffered due to residential schools.”
Here is the statement of claim for the Band Reparations Class Action, 22-02-11-Second-Re-Amended-Statement-of-Claim-Filed.pdf (justicefordayscholars.com),
In an email exchange, Tom Flanagan offered the following brief analysis:
“This document contains many factual errors, e.g., that all Indian children after 1920 were required to attend IRS. It also cleverly mobilizes statements by Canadian government officials, such as Prime Minister Harper, about the harm caused by the IRS system.
Earlier settlements have compensated individuals who attended the various kinds of schools. This one demands compensation to bands for loss of language and culture, if they had even one student who attended IRS.
This is a claim for reparations based on the alleged effects of IRS and related policies. It is innovative in two major ways: it demands compensation for collectivities (bands) rather than individuals, and it demands ‘reparations’ rather than ‘compensation.’ The term ‘reparations’ is much more heavily freighted with international law connotations.
It is not yet a demand for reparations for colonialism as such, though that is bound to come now that the R-word has been unleashed. Many, perhaps most people with a degree of Indigenous ancestry will not profit from this settlement—non-status Indians, Metis, Inuit. They will feel aggrieved and will undoubtedly launch class actions of their own to catch up.” - TF
It is hard to imagine the impact on federal spending that the unleashing of “reparations” will have. Even without the deployment of that loaded term, indigenous spending has historically seen many alarming increases.
In a 2018 paper published by the Fraser Institute - The Costs of the Canadian Government’s Reconciliation Framework for First Nations - Tom Flanagan makes a distinction between first-level and second-level costs related to federal spending on First Nations. First-level costs refer to items already in the federal budget that relate to indigenous programs. Second-level are the costs that “arise from compensation for historical injustices.”
While first-level expenditures are forward-looking and designed to improve present conditions, second-level items are firmly focused on the past. Tom offers an insightful explanation of the dynamics involved with constant reappraisals of history:
“Judgments about the past are inevitably affected by “presentism” (Hunt, 2002), reliance on current moral conceptions that were not shared by past actors, and perhaps had not yet occurred to anyone at the time. Presentism turns the past into a fertile field for discovering injustice because it makes judgements without considering what practical alternatives could have arisen in the minds of past actors at the time in which they lived.”
Because second-level spending is not designed to address problems, and offers compensation but does not empower individuals or communities, it alone cannot improve present circumstances.
In pointing out the dangers of a strategy involving this type of spending, which lacks the vital component of incentivizing agency, personal responsibility, and self-sufficiency, Tom draws an illuminating comparison to the plight of African Americans during the years of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” with the present day policy of the Canadian government regarding First Nations:
“The economic and social condition of African Americans, which had been improving prior to the passage of Great Society legislation, actually worsened in the 1970s when that legislation was implemented. As much current research shows, minorities cannot achieve a higher standard of living and greater well-being solely through government spending; they must pursue strategies of economic self-improvement, both individually and collectively.”
The last federal budget of the Harper government was the year 2015/2016. As Tom noted, “subsequent Liberal budgets have reinforced the message of greater spending, though with each new announcement the budget documents have become more opaque.” Perry Bellegarde, the former Assembly of First Nations Chief, un-controversially estimated increases in federal spending to be $16.5 billion spread over seven years (2015 to 2022 - an increase in spending of $2.4 billion per year).
That estimate was 40% larger than what was called for in the 2006 Kelowna Accord (which was rejected by the Harper government). What is becoming increasingly obvious, is that along with the insufferable virtue signaling of Justin Trudeau, comes massive increases in spending, while budgetary transparency simultaneously decreases.
In fact all federal spending has drastically increased under the Trudeau Liberals. An increase of $26 billion over the two years previous to the pandemic, from 2016/2017 (years the Harper government is responsible for) to 2018/2019 once Trudeau’s spending decisions become apparent. During this period, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) spending saw even greater increases —from about $7.5 to $12.4 billion.1
In 2022, Tom Flanagan published a bulletin paper for the Fraser Institute analyzing the 2022 federal budget. Although total spending increases were much less than in previous years (especially the pandemic years), “Indigenous spending…continues to grow, both in absolute terms and in relation to the budget as a whole.”2
“After the Liberals led by Justin Trudeau regained power in 2015, Indigenous spending resumed growth in a way that can only be termed explosive.”3 - TF
“(Indigenous) Spending rose from about $11.5 billion in fiscal 2015-16, the last Harper budget, to about $25 billion in 2021-22, the fiscal year we have just completed…. That is an increase of $13.5 billion, or 117 percent, in nominal dollars”4 - TF
In spite of the more moderate approach and curb on spending in the post-pandemic budget, indigenous spending has more than doubled in the last six years, while projected increases remain at unsustainable rates.
“Budget 2022 contains a five-year plan, covering 2022-23 through 2026-27…At the end of this five-year period, Indigenous spending is projected to be about $35.5 billion per fiscal year, an increase of $10.5 billion over 2021-22, or 42 percent in nominal dollars.” 5- TF
This financial burden on Canadian taxpayers is immense. It is incredibly maddening when one considers what portion of these costs can be attributed to false virtue and the acceptance of implausible victim-centric narratives, and further considers the immeasurable devastation associated with the subversive dismantling of liberalism. Even so, one can only begin to catch a glimmer of the true toll these vastly corrupt rent-seeking processes are taking on the great liberal democracies of the West. If something isn’t done to curb the spending, and the senseless cultural obliteration of all that is good and principled, we will be forever changed, and not for the better. That much is obvious.
___
Thanks for reading, for more from this author on this subject, read Grievance and Victimhood - by James Pew
 | A guest post by
|
Nice to know that we the TAX PAYERS are on the hook for a couple of billion more tax $ but I have a simple solution why not just hand over everything to them & have done with it.
Once they have everything they can pay us.