cannuck

Every one of those citations were very clearly saying just that. Go to a reserve and have a conversation with ANYONE there, and you will hear those words very, very clearly (of course, until the camera shows up).

There are HUGE efforts made at getting aboriginal workers trained and hired in the North and South. Our institutions often do no different from what we do financially: award certification/graduation based upon some special privilege according to race. I could cite dozens of examples going back decades (teacher's programmes one of the worst, but even in things such as colleges of medicine or vetmed, there are seats reserved EXCLUSIVELY for aboriginals, who get that seat not on merit, but on race ). It is no different from just sending a cheque to the band office and hoping for the best. While the population at large has bent over backwards to "include" aboriginals, it is usually an effort by some government entity, thus a special privilege granted without any due regard for merit. That is not inclusion, that is more racist pandering by bureaucrats and hangers-on in the Indian Industry maintaining the status quo (and thus their funding). Not EVERY programme is quite that bad - the story changes with location, band by band, person by person, but the undlying theme is always the same - just grant a special privilege as you would do for any other lobby or special interest group. That is doing nobody any favours. As I feel I should remind people when discussing this: my wife and children are eligible for status - just that doing so in pursuit of academia or career is totally offensive to them - since they understand the difference between merit and special privilege. BTW: "WE" didn't make those promises to anyone living today. The Slimey Limeys did - and check out the population base and actual provisions of WHAT was promised in those treaties.

This is one of the MANY places where economists screw up horribly. Measuring that 70% of activity as consume spending alone doesn't take into consideration that the activity is simply resale and distribution costs of some things, most of which had the serious value added offshore. Economists also measure purely speculative activity and gains and consider it part of the economy...but it really needs to be reported separately as part of the Casino Capitalist Economy. We move logs effectively when the forest is near tidewater. It is a bitch to move pampers cost effectively when you have a HUGE distance between shitty bums to wipe.

You are very right, WE (the royal white and other race, tax paying majority) ARE the problem. By simply giving out literally BILLION$$$$$$ of unaccountable dollars to keep aboriginals out of work especially on reserve, and perpetuating this by building an "Indian Industry" or bureaucrats and consultants who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, we are indeed part of the problem. The solution is very simple: stop paying. THEN (and only then) will the aboriginal population look to its leadership to lead, not just to pander to the "I.I." for their share of the funding that is pouring out of Ottawa daily. (for reference, when I last had a chance to look at this in detail, something like 30% of all of the money going through IAF/INAC etc. ever saw a living, breathing aboriginal, and the vast majority of that ended up in Chief and council's hands, not the general population - and virtually NONE of that in hands of disabled, as that was what we working with). When you have unemployment rates (on reserve) of 90+%, and then the only jobs being make-believe ones with the band council, it should be telling you (and all of the rest of Canada) that there indeed IS a huge problem with the aboriginal population. Instead of having them participate in the economy of Canada, we continue to mraginalize and ghetoize by just throwing more of the same money at the problem.

It has been said thousands of times, but not well covered by media with no balls to deal with the real issues. If you listen to Alvin Baptiste at the 0.54 time of this link, you will hear it once: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313 First nations are treated just as anyone else is when a jury is selected. There are no special "white juries", there are only juries who have passed the selection process set out in the law for EVERYONE. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/colten-boushie-shooting-case-jury-selection-gerald-stanley-1.4506931 Once, more, the guarded words in front of the camera is NOT what you will hear them saying in real life, but comes close enough. This also points out the jury selection process that was and is used. As you might be able to gather from such a large pool there WAS a problem with jury bias - thus why many of the potential jurors could be challenged and rejected by the defense attorny. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/enough-colten-boushie-s-mom-speaks-out-at-rally-1.3798132 Here you can once again hear the carefully coached words of Debbie Baptiste and Bobby Cameron. It is NOT how carefully they avoid this in person without the cameras. I agree that aboriginal culture is distinct and very different from the ROC, but the trial of Gerald Stanley was about a crime - actually just one of several crimes on that day in that location, not a culture. I have mentioned before, and will repeat for empahsis: if you want to see how the criminal justice system in Saskatchewan treats aboriginal offenders vs. non-aboriginals, have a good read about two people here who killed 5 others at about the same time in the same manner. One, an aborigianl woman killed an entire family, and is now enjoying a country club atmospher at a healing lodge. The other, a young white make killed one man is languishing in a Federal penitentiary. https://regina.ctvnews.ca/colby-heid-sentenced-to-3-years-in-impaired-driving-death-of-tanner-kaufmann-1.3468453 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/van-de-vorst-family-outraged-after-drunk-driver-catherine-mckay-sent-to-healing-lodge-1.3997984 I understand that your zealot status within the politcially correct community means you can not deal with facts or reality, but do yourself a favour, pull your head out of your ass and look around. some guarded words by others on the subject: The report called Manitoba's jury system a "glaring example of systemic discrimination" and called for peremptory challenges to be eliminated. Murray Sinclair, Manitoba's first Indigenous judge and now a senator, co-chaired the inquiry. He tweeted about the Stanley trial last week. "Without Indigenous people on the jury, how will they understand?" he wrote. His son Niigaan Sinclair, a professor of native studies at the University of Manitoba, said Indigenous jurors bring history and experience into a room. He suggests all jurors undergo some sort of educational training before a trial starts. "The situation in Saskatchewan demands competency in understanding the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, and I would say that, on the whole, Canadians are not adequately prepared for the complexities of the past 150 years," he said. "Understanding the Indian Act, understanding how Canada has been built off the exploitation of Indigenous peoples and resources ... all of that goes into the (killing) of Colten Boushie." Toronto lawyer Jessica Orkin said problems with Canada's jury system can't be solved with one fix. She represented an Aboriginal man, Clifford Kokopenace, in his battle over jury fairness before the Supreme Court in 2015. Kokopenace was convicted of manslaughter but argued the verdict wasn't by a jury of his peers. The Appeal Court ordered a retrial but the Supreme Court ruled the province had done an adequate job of trying to get Indigenous people on the list of potential jurors. Each province is responsible for sending notices for jury duty. In Ontario, Orkin said, it's done using names on municipal and property rolls. Other provinces use driver's licences and health records.

Every aboriginal leader or follower that has appeared on the media or that I meet on the street.

Which is exactly why I posted this on the Federal forum.

For once, some common sense may prevail in SK http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/colten-boushie-shooting-crown-will-not-appeal-in-gerald-stanley-case While we can muse over the racial, cultural, political issues, what is at stake is the judicial system working WITHOUT political influence. Claiming that the jury would not possibly be unbiased because they were white was preposterous.

True, but it is what they chose to do with that situation that deserves credit. Most governments would have hiked up spending instead of keeping it under control. I am no fan the Chretien, but he did do a few things right.

Simple: once PET finished his brilliant socialist inspired brand of social engineering and Marxist economic planning, all that would be left of Canada would be just society.

Exactly. You have to declare country of origin for ANYTHING you bring into the US, and just transshipping does not change that. If you used the material in manufacturing a product, then shipped THAT into the US, IIRC, it depends on the outside of NAFTA content whether or not is become a declared portion of the entry. BTW: some relavent personal experience I had to source some forged aluminum parts a while ago. Now, Canada is a HUGE player in supplying the material, but I could not find an operation here with the right equipment to form the parts. So, I went to the big name players in the US, who I KNOW have exactly the right equipment. Well, as this was for a new product with a completely unkown market potential, I had to honestly tell them that I need a relatively small run, but I would ber happy to comit to their minimum order. NOT ONE of them could be bothered to return a quote. That left me the choice of Europe and China, and since I have a friend who was working in Beijing at the time, I had him take my proposal to the largest operations in China, ALL of whom have the exact equipment that is in their US competitors`shops. EVERY ONE of them came back with a minimum order size and budget price, offering to do the engineering to produce a final design and firm quote either for a very reasonable price, or included in the cost at the minimum order level. A great deal of the problems the US has is not because they are being abused by China, it is because industry is no longer in the hands of entrepreneurs, but global conglomerates owned and run by the financial community. The arrogance that I have encountered, I know many others have as well. On top of that, American consumers were delighted to buy Chinese garbage by the boatload from Wally World and pretty much ever big box store in the country - in deference to what WAS far better quality products made domesticly. All those American (and Canadian) jobs were not taken by China, they were given to China. I understand what Trump is doing, and I fully agree. He is the first President in a very long time to realize that the financial world`s globalization whims have cost the US dearly. He is the first probably EVER to step up to the plate and fight for American jobs and industry. I just wish he had the sense to look down the street from his Manhattan office at where one of the biggest sources of the problems originated. I believe that the foreign policy objective of giving China a chance to break away from Maoist/Marxist communism and join the world as a trade ally has been accomplished, and I think it was good for EVERYONE that this was done, but now is the time to fix the problems that came with it. Just don't confuse Canada with China when doing so.

While you are right that it was INCREASED (not created) in WWII, it was relatively small and constant level - until PET and everyone else until Chretien got it very much under control, continued on with Martin. Before the partisan Tories chime in on how responsible their party was, you will notice that when they got their hands on the reins, the deficit spending went right back to the idiotic rate that Chretien inherited. Now, this is in absolute dollars, not corrected for inflation, but you get the point by looking at the graph of $$ vs. time: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/a-really-quick-history-of-canada-s-federal-debt Here is debt per capita - showing that the real problem started in the '20s (bit of a surprise, thought it would have been in the great depression): http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170329/cg-h001-eng.htm Here it goes on per capita at later dates, and you can see clearly where it started to rise BEFORE PET, but took a sharp upturn when he was in power....and continued at the same rate from Mulroney on: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170329/cg-h002-eng.htm As you can see, there is now way the drama queen is going to tackle this problem as did Chretien and Martin. The solution clearly does not rest in any partisan option, but in changing the attitude of the whole country.

That is for the working people in town. Then you have things such as realtors, insurance brokers, bankers, lawyers, accountants, and more to the point government employees. Also, going back to what I wrote, each one of those productive people you mention are surrounded by dependents, which is where a bunch of the 6:1 comes from.

That is a good answer, but not the right one (although part of it). I have a very simple but firm definition of when and how wealth is being created. When you add value to a resource or deliver a service NEEDED to support that activity. EVERYTHING else we do in our economy is merely redistributing wealth thusly created. I will try not to get too detailed, but some generalization needed for brevity. The person who starts and runs a business doing these things, yes, but this also applies to every employee. There are some clean lines in the sand, but a lot of very gray areas. Let's start with the typical family. If we assume 2 kids, and looking only at that 20 year window when they are raising that family. For this example, let's consider two parents, two dependent children and two surviving granparents who have retired. In this case, Mom is at home. There is only one person actually working in this example, and then, we have to consider what he or she is actually doing. If the breadwinner is mining iron ore, pretty simple to decide wealth is being created. If making it into steel, ditto. If fabricating something from that steel (a car, a bringe, etc.) same. We can probably agree that everyone who puts a hand on a piece of steel is productive. What if that person works for a bank? Well, if they are doing some of the things that genuinely are needed to run our economy (keeping accounts, loans, mortgages, etc.) then that is a necessary service. If they are working in finance, let's say derivatives, then any money they "make" is simply paying off a bet that someone made (either win or lose), but no value was added. They are no different from the welfare Mom with a half dozen dependent kids or the criminal incarcerated for his activities - they merely redisitribute wealth. I even have to question the entire real estate business - in most cases, even building a structure if that structure is not needed for the creation of wealth, then no wealth is being created - in fact it is being redistributed from the productive part of the economy to the dependent part. As I hope you can see, not very many people in our society create any wealth. The size of your pay packet or the percieved importance of your position does not necessarily corealte with how productive and contributory you are to the economy, or society in general. What we have right now is a very lopsided economy with far too many people being given the privilege (dispensed mostly by government) to take a dissporportinately large part of the resources for activities that do not contribute to either bettering the economy or society. Just growth for the sake of growth is actually a very negative thing, since we start measuring the value of speculative gain and confusing it with increased overall wealth. The only reason we can keep on doing this, so far, is that we have a very large natural resource base to exploit to support a very small population. Also, because we blindly have mortgaged our children's future to pay for some of this largess (a trillion dollars of debt is not sustainable - unless we learn to manage what we do with the rest of our economy to create wealth instead of merely redistribute it and inflate the numbers speculatively). Later.

Dialamah: Not being fecetious, but exactly to whom do you think I am refering as to wealth creators?

Put yourself in the shoes of the small minority of the population that acutally creates wealth (by my estimation, one in six) vs. the balance who merely re-distribute it. Those people deserve a greater say in how the other 5 get to spend their money. It would never amount to having defacto control, only a tiny bit of consolation for paying the bills. I am under no illusion that those who risk life and limb are "more informed", but what they do is certainly a valuable contribution to our lives. It costs us nothing to give them the feeling that their contribution deserves recognition. I also agree that it is not likely to happen - especially under the Kardashians. Yet we are all just fine with them bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants, granting them the privilege to vote and paying a stunning amount of money that our grandchildren will have to repay. You can't see the irony in that?

I would love to go down that avenue, but no time and far too much thread drift. Essentially, the reason you have this frame of reference is that we give a free ride to speculative gain within the tax system, resulting in the need for excessive debt to acquire shelter. Would not be an issue if we had good government (that obviously is not only a Canadian problem). But, you see, any such contemplation would be far beyond the level of any Kardashian, thus it does no belong in a thread about our fellow traveller who now leads the government.

Looking after its citizens means looking after its citizens - not just the ones who you can dupe into voting for you by spending a pile of dough that you have no intention to repay, but looking after those citizens who are not borne yet. Running Canada a TRILLION dollars into debt (work of both parties, if you can really see any difference between them) is totally irresponsible and sure as hell not looking after the citizens. And, no, a budget is not an economy. Nor is a government. It's role should be to regulate and enforce, in a balance manner, and to provide social services - not to dispense privilege, rack up debt, meddle in business (including picking winners and losers) and pander to every special interest group that happens along. The economy is what business can do within the regulatory framework provided, and no Canadian government has yet figured out how to do a good job of that.

for the first part: my wife earned a professional income from the time we were married until we had kids. She usually earned more than I did, but mostly because I seldom worked for anyone else and was learning how to run a business, or doing startups (that usually have a long payout period). She took on the largest repsonsibility we have by staying with our kids for the next 25 years. We always had one bank account (personal), and when in companies without other partners, we have always been equal shareholders, signing officers and usually withdraw the same amount from operating companies. She does have a mad money account where her pension goes and extra cash. There has seldom been any "mine" and "yours", just ours. There is no reason running a country need be any different at all from running a business. If we the people weren't so complacent and ignorant of what the country and its government is and how it works, we could easily run it properly. Yes, wartime or natural disaster could well break the need to pay as you go, but running debt by government at the current trillion dollar rate has not been to cover any of that - just for political porkbarreling and completely non-existant concern for the future nor respect for those who will have to pay those bills. Also, if you don't think businesses have similarly catastrophic disasters, you have obviously never been in business. Partisanship might be a natural urge, but there are so many better ways to run a democracy than simply giving the party hacks who probably do NOT represent any kind of majority carte blanche to piss away the future with no direct democracy options, no recall, etc. I believe that candidates should be elected from their own campaign, not any relationship that is with others. Once they are elected, then and ONLY then should cabinets and leaders be elected. ALL subject to recall at any time. NONE allowed to run up any debt that would run past end of term unless some of the two former exceptions. I could go on about what should be taxed (specualtive gain) and what should not (dividends, basic exemption level, etc.) but that is for another time and thread subject.

I can agree to some extent. I also spend a lot of time with large animal vets, and can tell you that none I know are going to risk treating a dangerous animal without mitigating the risks with restraint or sedation. One of my daughters has stared down Mountain Gorillas in Uganda, and palpated wild lions on the Serengeti, so I am very aware of the risks she has taken there, but in domestic practice, she will never put herself at such a high level of danger. We also have children who are soldier, firefighter and law enforcement officer. In those jobs, there is also a strong shift in thinking as to how to carry out their duties with less risk, but the difference is that the veterinarian does NOT have to assume that level of risk but when the real crap hits the fan, the others do not have much choice. Even a truck driver has seat belts, protective cab, hours of service limits, etc. that will keep him alive if he or she uses them as intended.

Gee, I am one of those farmers and I have yet to have anyone take a shot at me (although if you were to come into my yard to steal something...). You think being a cop is "far less dangerous"????? Any farmer has the choice to make his job as safe or as dangerous as he chooses, a cop, soldier or firefighter does not have that luxury when they are doing what their job can entail.

Your view is different from mine. As our so-called "democracy" operates right now, the balance of power rests very strongly in the hands of the extremely wealthy and extremely effective lobbyists and communicators. The power SHOULD be with "the people", but not just in general, but in some respect reflecting what they contribute to the country, not what they take from it. In my own view of how representation should be, I would make partisanship in any form completely illegal, same for lobbying. Same for running up any debt. If you spend the money, it should be repaid during your term of office so that the tax bill directly reflects what YOU did during office, not passing the bill to my/our grandchildren for you to buy votes today.

It is not a question of one person's value, but one person's actual sacrifice, be it financial or risk. Since the business of government is not only to govern, but to spend the money collected from those who have to earn it, that IMHO should give those who do so a proportionate level of influence on who gets to represent them and spend their money. The precedent is simple: under 18 children do not get to vote, so no great stretch to grant that others who depend on the state should have a vote, but not necessarily THE vote. I was dashing out a quick post in between other tasks, and should have included firefighters and law enforcement officers (in the field, not in the office) along with military. Getting your brains blown out by a criminal, enemy or collapsing building is simply a level of service to the public that NOBODY else has to make. You see military as dedicated to taking lives, most of the rest of us can see that they are tasked with doing some very dangerous things to protect us from having our lives (or those of our allies) taken.

Computers can be wonderful things. My solution: each person with a SIN and citizenship (easily identified) gets one vote. Then, for certain things, you get a vote voucher for an extra vote. Military service, for instance, an extra vote for each 5 years or so. Paying income tax: an extra vote for each $20k or so of Fed for fed elections and similar number for provincial tax paid for provincial elections.

You are very correct, but none of this will happen until we (both sides of the border) realize that you can't run an economy on speculation. Someone has to actually go to work and create wealth by adding value to a commodity or delivering a NECESSARY service in support. Main street in the US has a ready domestic market (albeit one that must now service $20 TRILLION in debt) whereas Canada has 10% of that market, but spread over a very long distance. To do value added processing, our habit is to imitate or branch subsidiary out to the US. Problem is: costs up here make it impossible to do the same-same except in very limited circumstances (auto industry being prime example). We simply don't have protection against restrictive interstate business that is written into US law and business culture. As a result, input costs for materials, equipment, support and transportation are much, much higher. We must learn to concentrate in things we do best that are unique to our situation - but business here is just not that sophisticated in strategic planning or thinking. Worse yet: a significant part of the business community and pretty much 100% of academia believes that government should have some role in financing, managing, planning and even executing business ventures!!! We tend to be technically highly competent but lack any real depth in management, finance and entrepreneurial culture.