Renegade

Well that's is like saying that people in the developing world aren't fond of the way we allocate foreign aid because we can unilateraly change it at our whim, without imput from the people who are impacted... the foreign aid recepients. That's true, its our money and we can change who we dole it out to at our fancy. Native groups get the same say as everyone else. One vote each. Of course it is a perfect example of democracy, as the wishes of the minority will always be trounced by the whims of the majority. So if enough people in Canada vote in a government with the fortitutide to make changes to relations with Native groups, then I'm confident changes will happen.

They wouldn't be on the welfare rolls if they wern't entitled to welfare. Yes, Canadians can somach people starving. People have starved all the time in many nations in Africa and other improvished places. Most Canadians didn't seem to lose sleep over it. Like it or not, to a certain extent, Native people are their own nation on their reserve. While there, they are exempt from Canadian taxes and should be exempted from Canadian social programs as well. They can and should use the money they save from Canadian taxes to set up their own social programs. Alternatively they can give up their sovereignty and make a deal with the Canadian government to integrate into Canadian society. They would then be entitled to the same social programs as other Canadians, but also have the same obligations such as paying taxes. They would also lose their special privilidges and reservations. All I'm asking is that it be done one way or the other. The status quo offers native groups all the benefits of Canadian sociiety and then some, without any of the obligations. It's time we as Canadian citizens and taxpayers woke up and put an end of this nonsense.

TS, I can't figure out if you are advocating that Canadian law be followed or not. As both you and I have acknowledged, it is quite legal for the government to change the Acts it passes and revoke any benefits. It may irk you , but it would no doubt be legal. I'm not defending all actions of the government. They many times did stupid things 100 years ago, and many times still do stupid things today. What I'm trying to get clarity on is what our legal obligations are to Native groups we've made agreements with. Everything I've seen and read, shows that the government can unilaterally recind those benefits, save those which are explictly spelled out in the treaties. So I encourage my govenment to recind those benefits while not violating the terms of the treaty. The fact that it may piss you off, will not cause me to lose sleep. We finally agree. I don't need my government doing things on your behalf either. Let's leave it to native groups to run their own welfare, medicare, and housing and whatever social programs they want. I'm fine with the government living up to their treaty obligations, and we'll pay you your four dollars yearly.

TS, as you've already acknowledged, neither the Indian Act and Constitution Act are treaties or agreements between parties. They are both unilateral declarations by the Canadian Government. If your point is that the Indian Act and the Constitution Act have given Native groups certain priviliges, I'm not disputing that. But unilateral acts can be unilaterally changed to revoke those privlliges as long as agreements or treaties are not violated. You have finally acknowledged that there is no provision in the treaty for Natives groups to recieve the perpetual medicare, welfare, and housing benefits they now draw. Yes I agree there are other benefits were agreed to, but the social benefits I mentioned weren't part of them. But I've never disputed that agreements incuded provisions which entitled Native grouips to land, so how is this relevant? TS, not only are they not in one document, the are in no documents which constitute agreements between the Canadian government and natives groups. If what your arguing is that the government made "promises" to native groups, I would say this: 1. The promises were not made in the context of a "land in exchange for benefits" swap. Such commitments can only made in treaties or other such agreement between parties. 2. Promises made by an Act of Parliament are subject to change by Parliament. Don't worry, the government breaks "promises" to us non-native Canadians too. We get used to it. You should too.

Hey TS, this is what, your fourth attempt to provide a link which reinforces your position that Natives are owed perpetual welfare, social, and housing benefits in return for land they gave up? And you point me to an index of ammendments? The ammendments your point to are ammendments to the Indian Act and Constitution Act. There were no amendments to Treaties. Since you claim to be such an authority, how about your point the specific legal document you think definitively grants Natives such benefits as a trade for land. Better still quote the excerpt on this forum for all to see. But you won't will you? Why? Because such a document or excerpt does not exist. Actually you must not be reading my posts. I've been consistent. Go see my post from May 2 2006, 02:32 PM. I said the same thing there. Good golly TS!! We are finally making progress. I'ts only taken you a couple of days to acknowledge it. This has been one of my points. If it isn't a treaty right the Canadian Government has no obligation to provide it. Well it doesn't explicitly exclude a car-a-year for life, or free all-expense paid annual vacations either. I agree it isn't a legal document, but it is the reference you posted to support your argument. If that's the best reference you can come up with and it doesn't even mention the benefits you purport are owed, than I have to conclude, as any reasonable person would, those are not obligations. Using the $9.1 billion yearly figure you posted above, each household is paying on average $900 yearly toward native benefits. You may consider that the "barest minimum" but I, and I think most people, consider that overly generous. Enjoy it my friend, it won't last forever. Actually they did include it. Did you happen to miss the word "annuities"? So again I have no problem if the government lives up to the wording of the treaties and pays you your four dollars per year, and stops all the insane level of benefits it is under no obligation to provide.

Actually if I properly understand the Employment Credit, you get a credit for the first $250 of employment income. No receipts, no proof-of-expenses. So even the lowest rung on the income ladder who earn employment income would qualify.

I'm not complaining because the tax cuts favour people in my income bracket and corporations. If I were a working poor schmo, I might be a little more peeved because, to them, that whopping 90 bucks can mean a lot. Many of them have never had the luxury of blowing a c-note on a night out. Actually as I understand it, even the working schmo is better off under the Tory plan if you look add in the employment credit. From the Globe and Mail: PRIORITY ONE: 28 TAX CUTSSo I was wrong, it's not an extra $90, its an extra $62, and it is more than compensated by the Employment Credit. So, even working poor schmo ought to not to be complaining.

Yes, I too know the answer. and actually no, I think there are a few more benefits beyond hunting and fishing. Your ancestors got a one time payment. Go ask them what they did with it. You are entitled to an annuity as specified in the treaty, and you get reservations. I'll be sure to let the government know come election time. As I said, the CPC is already seeming to catch on. With the non-native population at large, there is still work to do. You're right there and I agree with that. I never assumed or stated you should be stopping these payments. If it were my people getting a wack of benefits which they wern't entitled to, I'd sit back and enjoy it, and wouldn't do anythign about it either. Interesting, here's what it says: Funny, it never said anything about treaty rights having to include perpetual welfare, housing, and medicare as benefits. You would think they would have explicitly mentioned important benefits like that if they were included in the treties wouldn't they? It does say the rights vary by treaty but if you live in the praries, you can trap, hunt , and fish. So happy hunting, my native friend. But preserve your game, because one day your people will be kissing their unearned welfare benefits goodbye.

So TS, is it your hypothesis that just because a reporter prints it in a paper it must be true? Maybe you should take her newspaper to Six Nations and have them use that in their court battles as a legal opinion. When Sue Bailey shows me her credentials as a authority on treaties, I might give her opinion credibility. Until then it is just the opinion of a reporter working for a left-wing paper.

I already told you what the treaty benefits were. Go hunt and fish to your heart's content, and we'll pay you a yearly sum as specified in the treaty. It's not my task to prove as YOU were the one who made the claim of a "land for benefits" deal, not I. Apparently this government is already figuring it out without even my prompting. Tories shunt aside $5B Kelowna deal

If I sign a contract with you Renegade and then turn around and modify the contract to my benefit, would you be pissed off? Yep, I sure would, but then it wouldn't be an agreement would it? It takes two parties to sign an agreement. So how about we live up ot the original wording of the treaty which says we make perodic payments of 500 pounds a year?

I'm glad your not complaining, as 0.5% on $36000 is only $180, and that is for the full year. Since it is only applicable for half of the year, even someone making the maximium is only impacted by a whopping $90 bucks. Hardly enough for a night out.

Unfortunately TS, much to my disappointment you have provided anything. The references you provided do not back any of your claims. And your only answer is to say that I can find proof if I only look hard enough. Not to worry, I know what that means. Equal rights? Where did I say anything about equal rights? What I said if you read it, is I cared about living up to agreements. Your version of "equal rights" is assigning benefits and privlildges based upon race. As abhorent as that is, I could accept it if it was a binding and legal agreement between parties. If you cared about equal rights, you would advocate no special status or benefits for Natives. Your version of "equal rights" is neither equal nor are the rights uniformly assigned. Now, where's my prize?

Again, who signed the Act? No bud, I think it is you who are confused. You've already admitted the the treaties which are "legal, binding agreements", contain no provision to entitle the Natives to medical or welfare benefits. Anything else is a Canadian Government regulations, subject to change by the Canadian Government and still be legal and binding. Actually its not your agreements (treaties) which are subject to change, its the Indian Act which you have already admitted is not an agreement. No doubt you would say that. I say change the Act, drop the benefits and it is all perfectly legal and doesn't violate any agreements and your objections would not have a legal leg to stand on. Probably, but you keep avoiding the fact that there is no agreement between the canadian governmetn and Native peoples which give them the benefits we discussed, so it bears repeating.

I am. I'm actively supporting governments which will cut entitlements. Hmm, it appears my vote is making a differnce. Tories shunt aside $5B Kelowna deal

So you agree none of the treaties specifiy any promise for permanant benefits to Natives. The fact that neither the Indian Act nor the Constitution are agreements between Natives and the government. They are unilateral acts of the government which can be unilaterally changed without any agreement from Natives. link Oh yes, I do believe there is an Indian Act, but it is an act which needs revision and replacement. As I said, the Indian act is not an agreement between two peoples. It can be changed by a simple Act of parilament as many native websites admit.

The thing that goes against rationality is that as a student you likely consume far more services than the tax you contribute, and possibly more than the average taxpayer. As taxes fund services, cutting taxes will likely result in service cuts which in turn would financially impact students (eg higher fees). So it would seem to me counterintutive that people who pay low taxes would support tax cuts, but yet they seem to. BTW, I don't think you can compare a student with a full-time worker. The student is generally cash-strapped because they are investing in their future for the posibility of long term economic gains. The fact that it is an economic struggle for the student should surprise no one, least of all the student.

Canadian tax law is not that complex compared to the US. The major deductions in Canada are: childcare, tuition, medical, RRSP, charities and caregiver credits. No doubt. I certainly don't hold up the US as the model of what a tax structure should look like. The employed incur expenses as well which are required to earn money (food, clothing, housing, transportation). They don't get to deduct that. The basic personal exemption doesn't even begin to cover it. I'd like to be taxed the same way as a resturant too. (ie what I have left over after expenses), but that is not the way tax law is structured.

Personally I think income tax should be a flat tax, with minimal exemptions. It's the complex nature of tax law and the differential treatment of employed vs self-employed vs business which cause a lot of disparities. A flat tax would solve the issue of income-splitting, and the inequity caused between families of one earner vs familiies of two earners. GST should be amended so that there are no exemptions and raised. The additional amounts generated should be used to lower income tax. Debt repayment should be mandatory even if services are cut.

Interesting. So poor people that need the money will no longer reproduce. A great form of eugenics, bravo. Is it any different that paying people baby bonuses to have kids? The poor who need the money the most will reproduce the most. Is that eugenics too? Unless you can somehow show that the poor have a different genetic makup than the population at large, it can't really be considered eugenics.

TS, while I thank you for posting the links, I don't ascribe the laziness or hard-work of one individual to his entire race. I've looked at both the text of the Robinson treaty and the research. There were 3 main things given as part of the arrangement: 1. Payment 2. Hunting, fishing and occupance rights. 3. Reserve lands (reservations) In no case can I find, that medical or other welfare benefits were promised in perpetiuty to the Natives. I'm not trying to be obstinate. I think if a deal was made with the natives and there was an agreement for those benefits, it should be honoured, but I can't find any wording which such such an arrangement was made. I never claimed taht the government had the right to determine Native government or who was or wasn't an Indian. Regarding who is or isn't an Indian, who do you think has that right? The canadian govt, the native govt, or do people self-declare? Thank you. I look forward to a continued dialog.

TS, I also want to thank you for your opinion. I don't agree with your perspective, but you are articulate and intelligent in your debate. BTW, I do agree with you that being lazy, dumb, and myopic knows no racial boundaries. It's certainly not a characteristic I ascribe to you or Natives in general over other races.

I am. I'm actively supporting governments which will cut entitlements. Apparently you're not as you have not provided one shred of evidence. I freely admit I haven't found any, and I suspect I know the reason for your "go find it yourself response". It's becasue the evidence is not there. No problem., you've already answered my question. Maybe you'd like to dig up the quote where I said natives are lazy, as I didn't say that. Or is that another one of your claims without evidence?

Actually I do mean special treatment. Differential treatement which gives preferrential status to an group, especially on the basis of race is "special". Yes, I do know we have the Indian Act, but since the Canadian government passed the Act, the Canadian Government can change the Act at will or pass a new one which supercedes the old one. Governments do it all the time. You seem to want to justify the special status Native have by pointing out the sexual abuse and rape of Native children. They are separate issues. Of course I condemn the abuse that happened. But it is simply wrong to try and link the two issues. You have stated that there has been an exchange of land for benefite, but have yet to provide a cite. I ask for a cite and you point to the general index of the Dept of Indian Affairs. I have looked through and I have yet to find a specific land-for-welfare or land-for-perpetual medical benefits deal. So if you have something more specific to point to, cite it, otherwise I can safely assume it is conjecture. If what you mean is that a doctor occasionally visited a reservation, yes that happened in the 1800s. Medicare as we know it today is relatively new. The only medical benefits Natives are entitled to are to the standard at the time the treaty was signed. No, I'm saying the Natives lost their land once the lost control of it. They lost their land when they did not have the military power to enforce land claims. It is irrelevant when the treaties were signed. My government is not making the claim, you are. If my government make the claim, I'd ask them. If you want credibility to your claim provide a cite or evidence, otherwise it is notthing but that, a claim, and I give it the same credibility as other claims. Actually it's not because they like your colour, it's because they feel guilty and much of the Canadian public does too. Native groups play on that guilt, however actions like the Six Nations are doing will eventually erode that guilt. It's time we get over that guilt.

I don't see that anyone said that problems are restricted to Natives on reserves. The question is, whether Natives should be entitled to special treatment and whether reserves actually excercerbates their problems. The statistics would show that the rates of many problems are higher on reserves than in the community at large. It is an interesting argument you put forward: that the Indians are entitled to benefits because they made a deal to give up their land in exchange. Do you have any evidence of that claim? The fact is, medical, welfare and many other benefits are a relatively recent addition to society. Natives gave up or lost the land long before these benefits ever came on the scene. I have not ever seen evidence that the natives who lost the land hundreds of years ago traded it off for permanant benefits in the form of medical and welfare and funding. I am aware they traded it off so that they got permanant protected areas in which they have exclusive control (reservations) and they got guarantees of hunting and fishing rights. So let's see some evidence of your claim.