If today's SP (Oct. 8/10) article on First Nations challenge on the provincial tobacco tax restriction is really about governing authority or treaty rights, I think they picked the wrong battlefield.
The government claims it instituted the restriction to curb the black market sales.
At four cartons a week, that being 800 cigarettes, roughly 114 darts a day, for all treaty card holders to purchase, its hard to believe all of that would be for personal consumption. Considering the bulk of the cost of a pack of smokes is sin tax, which helps in funding health care and education, there will not be much public sympathy for the First Nations on this issue.
The courts may uphold some treaty right, but the public empathy for First Nations issues will go up in smoke.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Even more ridiculous is that (and this is assuming no sleep) the number translates into a smoke every 12 minutes. Considering it take 5 minutes to have one, you would have to chain smoking your entire life to go over the maximum allocated amount.
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke of a challenge this is.
First Nations are the responsibility of her Majesty the Queen. This is federal jurisdiction the province is treading in. Why bother picking on First Nations for a few bucks. One might make $5 a carton or $20 bucks a week. The province should be fighting the feds for the financial treaty responsibilities which haven't been honoured and their responsibility for health, education, etc.... "As long as the sun shines...and the rivers flow"....
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:16 Are you that clueless to think that someone might make an extra $5-$20 bucks on their selling tobacco. The numbers I have from friends indicate millions of dollars in illegal tobacco sales every year and that is only in Saskatchewan. As for "as long as the sun shines and rivers flow"".... The treaties say nothing about taxation how could they, there wasn't any when they were signed. I have nothing about giving them what they want but I hate it when they come back and pull the Race card for only their benefit. The Indian people are the number one user of our health system when it comes to preventable disease. Check out the stats.
ReplyDeleteJust like the "smoking in casinos" debate. They have no inherent right to operating casinos it was given to them by a previous government No Treaty! No Privileged!. So why doesn't our government do the right thing and take back those agreements if they keep snubbing their noses at the laws of the land. Isn't that why treaties were signed in the first place?? Treaty rights or no treaty rights in today's society of equality there is no room for preferential treatment.
As for this lawsuit I see a class action free for all if it gets anywhere pass the snuff test.
I have a question?? If the Government (some day soon i believe) outlaws the sale/ importation and/or production in this country of tobacco products what will the "first Nations" do? It appears they are more interested in being able to damage their youth then they are in their health. If a tradition becomes a health hazard shouldn't their elders and chiefs want to eliminate it or at least be at the same quality of enforcement as the rest of the country. This is why self government of "first Nations" will never work. Those at the top are to interested in filling their own pockets and not making decisions that work within today's society and the world we live in.
ReplyDeletePlease read factual history on First Nations.
ReplyDeleteTHe land we are presently living on was signed over in treaty...Indian Chiefs were not that stupid to give their land and livelihood away for nothing...The treaties state education, health and social well-being must be paid for as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow.
This debate is a joke.
ReplyDeleteCivicmistress, how can you allow such unfair comments to be written about the "first Nations" (courtesy of RoadSlob)but cry out anytime anybody remotely challenges YOU? Seems pretty self-interested when you state how much you despise mean-spirited slander.
Anon 12:11 I assume you are referring to me with your comments. I am not sure how my comments are unfair. I am only commenting on what the general public sees every day. Special treatment for on sec in our society and Leaders that claim to be looking after their people but do nothing about it. All I see is the rest of our Country moving away from smoking and First Nations people wanting to hold on to it for money making purposes. And I'm not sure whom I slandered with my comments when the facts are the facts. Chief and council's around the province are being investigated and charged with numerous offenses of fraud and illegal acts. Not all are corrupt but if you visit reserves you can see the manipulation on most. I feel sorry for the average reserve resident. Not a "Nation" I would want to live in.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is often some validity to most any criticism, RoadWarrior would be well-served to reexamine his glib summation of Treaty as "special treatment": Completely incorrect when understood in light of facts.
ReplyDeletehttp://docs.plea.org/pdf/TreatiesPLEA.pdf
In defense of the RoadWarrior, I agree that when one uses the indian act and other things not in treaty to continue to be segregated from the rest of the laws of the land, I would consider that special treatment. The very liberal interpretation of treaties has often lead to the First Nations looking for handouts instead of working towards self reliance. The most recent is the idea they are entitled to royalties for Potash and other minerals extracted from the land. One must always remember the First Nations people did not "own" the land they were nomads for the most part and although most don't want to admit it were not the first people to live in North America. The treaties were set up to "keep the peace" during settlement of the West. Not to provide "special" status. As I see it the only "royalty" they are entitled to is the $25 per head cash payment. What is interesting is the $25 amount has never changed yet almost all other aspects of the treaties have evolved into today's value. ie. a "medicine chest" - somehow now means a Health Clinic complete with nurses/doctors free health care, etc.
ReplyDelete"The very liberal interpretation of treaties has often lead to the First Nations looking for handouts instead of working towards self reliance."
ReplyDeleteCan you substantiate this statement? Settlement of Treaty Land Entitlement, for example, has resulted in self-reliance, not "handouts"
"One must always remember the First Nations people did not "own" the land they were nomads for the most part and although most don't want to admit it were not the first people to live in North America. The treaties were set up to "keep the peace" during settlement of the West"
Completely false. International law would dictate that by entering into Treaties, the Crown acknowledged the First Nations' nationhood and ownership of the land.
"As I see it the only "royalty" they are entitled to is the $25 per head cash payment."
It's actually $5, not $25.
"What is interesting is the $25 amount has never changed yet almost all other aspects of the treaties have evolved into today's value. ie. a "medicine chest" - somehow now means a Health Clinic complete with nurses/doctors free health care, etc."
The Supreme Court has long ruled that the Treaties were meant to be living documents that changed with changing circumstances. The Court has also acknowledged that some rights no longer exist as the circumstances have changed. Quite frankly, I'll take the wisdom of our Supreme Court Justices over "anonymous @ 12:36" any day.
Your post evidences the need for mandatory Treaty education in the province.