prairiechickin

See, here's where things go off the rails when Native peoples talk to the rest of Canada, and why we can't agree. Natives do believe what you are saying here, and you've done a good job summarizing what some of my friends in Treaty Four keep telling me. Problem is, its simply not true. Go read Treaty Four -- its pretty specific in its language that this was a one-time deal and the government had no intention of renegotiating or upgrading, or modernizing any of its terms. Which doesn't mean the feds haven't put a lot more money into health and education, but that's only because it had to be done. But its not a treaty right. Here in Regina we proudly boast the only Native built university in North America -- First Nations University -- and it was built with a lot of extra money and effort from Treaty Four bands and all three levels of government. But when the feds and the province threatened to curtail funding because the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians were using it like a casino to provide jobs and expense accounts for families and friends, a great cry went up from Natives across the land that the government had no business sticking its nose into Indian affairs since the university was a treaty right. Now, can you see why this sticks in whitey's craw? What was a generous commitment far and above treaty obligations quickly became a 'right'. Somehow a single line in Treaty Four promising a school and a teacher on each reserve now had been redefined (in the Native mind) as whitey owes Natives a university, and all Natives a university education even when the Natives themselves ran the place into a sea of red ink, and chased away many of the real Native scholars (recruited from bands all over North America) in favor of their in-laws and cousins who may or may not have ever been to university. Getting back to my original request. Can you supply any cases where Canada is not fulfilling its treaty obligations? And by that I mean the real literal treaty, not the imaginary ones Natives are so fond of dreaming about. And can you supply a link to where the Supreme Court has over-ridden a single clause in Treaty Four? Don't just tell me these things have happened, I've heard this a hundred times from my Native friends. Prove it, and prove to yourself that this has indeed really happened. As long as Indians keep spinning these fantasies about trust funds and broken treaties they are setting themselves up for a world of desappointment.

I hear this refrain constantly from Native people, that is Canada is no fulfilling its treaty obligations. Which treaties exactly? And what is this I keep hearing about enormous trust funds that the government is not giving to Indians. What trust funds? I'm a little tired of these broad accustions with not a shred of evidence to back them. Do you have any specific examples of Canadian treaties being violated, or names and amounts of these trust funds, or are these just Indian Talking Points designed to shame the rest of Canada into sending more money?

I've been a hunter and gun owner since my teens, and I never had a problem with a certain level of gun control. Just like I don't like the idea of drunken crazies on the road, I don't like the idea of just anbody having any number of kind of gun they desire. Prior to the long-gun registry, we had a perfectly fine system (Firearm Acquisition Certificate) whereby handguns were strictly limited to those willing to suffer the red tape involved in owning them, automatic weapons and stuff like bazookas were off limits since nobody outside of the army has a legitimate use for those things anyway, and the hunters and target shooters had to pass a criminal background check to buy guns and ammo. This was a reasonable compromise that kept guns out of the hands of crazies and impulse shooters, while allowing for the lawful and legitimate use of firearms. Just because the long-gun registry is ending doesn't mean I want no rules at all. I have no problem being a licensed gun owner, I do have a problem with ignorant urbanites making up an endless litany or rules and regulations designed to make gun ownership so onerous that I feel like a criminal on an ongoing basis because I'm not sure of the latest insane rules regarding where and how I store my guns and ammo. And stop lumping me in with the the Marc Lapines of the world -- that guy was crazy, plain and simple, and you can't legislate crazy away.

Happy Festivus. For the rest of us. Let us begin with the Feats of Strength.

Well I'd like to put a GPS chip behind your left ear so I could stay a safe distance from you, but in civilized society we don't do that, do we? I don't belong to any shooting clubs ect., but I make a point of filling my freezer every fall with tasty local animals, and I don't think you have any knowledge or authority to decide how I will manage the guns I use to do this. This is where the whole gun registry went sideways. It was promoted by an evangelical politician (Alan Rock)looking to score big in his bid for Liberal Leadership. All that legislation was written with no consultation with gun owners or their organized counterparts. You lost the trust and sympathy of gun owners with this clumsy attempt at control. Now we are on edge and suspicious. Once Harper ends this registry, good luck ever getting us to co-operate again.

My vote for the wort prime minister, I'd have to go with Sir Charles Tupper, he was only in power for such a short time, but he had the best worts of all.

Living up to the letter of the Treaties is cheap beyond belief. Where I am is Treaty Four country, southern Saskatchewan, and the Cree, Sauteaux and other assorted left-over bands from the late 19th century signed a deal whereby they agreed to cease and desist any hostility toward Canada, in exchange for a piece of land based on roughtly the same conditions available to new settlers, that is, a 160 acres per family of five. They were not forced into any particular location, but they were not allowed reserves within a hundred or so miles from the American border, on account of the Indian wars underway down there. They were ultimately forced onto reserves with the promise of rations. Decimated by disease over the previous decades, and beggered by the end of the buffalo, the Plains Indains were starving and destitute in the 1870s when they signed Treaty Four. Its only two pages long, but its pretty precise in its language. The Indians gave up any claim on the land around them for reserves, some tools to start farming, and cash payouts of $20 for chiefs down to $5 for your average Indian. The other two big ticket items were a school with a teacher, and a 'Medecine Chest', which in 19th C language meant a first aid kit. That's it. It wasn't fair, but it is what it is. If you don't believe me, go read Treaty Four. Its only two pages long.

Not necessarily, if the kid and his Dad hunted together the kid would have known where the key to the gun cabinet was. Handgun owners are subject to pretty strict regulations and subject to periodic unannouced visits from law enforcement. All the hangun owners I know are pretty careful about safe storage. As for your armoury idea, that's not going to happen. Are you suggesting I have to take my guns to some central warehouse somewhere? Where's that going to be, and whose going to be there when I wast to take off at four in the morning to go deer hunting? And how do I know some idiot didn't bang the scope on my rifle putting it away thus rendering it useless? That's an even dumber idea than the registry itself.

If I recall, a news report from Alberta claimed a 9mm handgun and two rifles, all registered to his father.

I ran out of room before I ran out of story. I think we can all agree that every community in Canada should have the basics provided, but we can also agree this should be fairly standard even allowing for ice roads and air fare. And that's the standard we use to finance those people at at a reasonable standard of living for two reasons. First, that's where they're from and they obviously like it there. Second, in order to maintain any claim on Canadian soil, we have to have Canadians there. Until we can find a way to integrate Native people into Canada, we have to pay them to maintain our frontiers.

What we have here, is a golden moment in Canadian history, and a real opportunity to air our grievances both Native and newbies, and decide how do we want to work this out. This tiny outpost has become a focal point for our beliefs and attitudes and its good that we talk about this. But rather than just engaging in another round of accusations and the same tired name calling, maybe we should take a good look at this particular case. If I was the King Of Canada, here's what I'd do. First, I'd move the Army if I had to, but I'd make sure nobody was suffering. Once they were were all well fed and tucked into warm beds at night, I'd start looking for a third party accounting firm agreeable to both Band and Government, and let's have a good look at the last five years. Let's take a good look at what is spent where on what and whether its enough. Let's do the math on what it costs to maintain a reserve on the cold windy shores of James Bay, then we have a starting point for discussions. I personally would like to know what it costs to run a town of 2000 in southern Alberta, versus a town of 2000 in northern Ontario, versus a town of 2000 in outport Newfoundland. Then we'd have a starting point of discussion rather than cackling like magpies. Once we have some sort of price fix on keeping people out in the woods, then we can decide whether its worth it. We can whine all we want about paying people to sit out there and do nothing, but what is the alternative? It would be easy if this was North Korea, we'd just load 'em on to trucks and trains and move them where we needed the labor, but this is Canada and we are way past that. The last time we tried that stunt was in outport Newfoundland in the '60s, and while you can argue either way whether that was worth the grief, I think we can all agree that the wholesale movement of Canadian citizens for any reason beyond natural catastrophe is probably a bad idea.

Ahh, its a giant conspiracy then known only to you and a select few of your friends? Why don't you tighten down your tinfoil hat and go find a forum dedicated to Canadian fiction, some people are trying to have a serious discussion here.

Of course they did, as did the French. Alcohol and tobacco were as prized in the 17th century as much as they are today. They were low volume, high value trade items ideally suited for the long distances invloved in the fur trade.

This is pure unadulterated bullshit. I want a source, that is a real source, a link to prove any of this. You can engage in all the flights of fancy you want, but don't waste this board's time trying to sustain your arguments with fiction and wishful thinking. And don't tell other posters to go anywhere to verify your argument -- you're the one arguing the point, its up to you to prove it. Oh, one more thing before I put you on ignore. The Six Nations didn't even reside in what is now Canada in 1684 unless some of the Iroquios who came up here to wipe out the Huron in 1648 hung around after the slaughter. They are from what is now New York state, and came north after the American Revolution as they had sided with the British during hostilities. So they are essentially refugees and have no claim on Canadian soil beyond what was agreed to accomodate wartime allies. They were given reserves at the pleasure of the Crown, all the rest of your so-called history is pure fiction.

You've got the cart before the horse here. Indian Agents were functionaries of the federal Territorial government, and didn't exist before the 1870s, a century after the Proclamation of 1763.

Could we get a source, or a link, to this supposed $2 trillion trust fund? I've never heard of this before.

Thanks for providing the UN's definition of genocide, but its a little broad and fuzzy for my liking. Look at (B)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of this group. By this definition simply detaining a half dozen Mexican illegal immigrants, beating the hell out of them and not letting them sleep constitutes genocide. In my books, that's not genocide, that's just beating the hell out of a half dozen Mexicans. So the UN is entitled to their definition, I prefer mine because its more precise and is reserved for cases where one group specifically tries to wipe another off the face of the earth. Hitler set out to kill every Jew in Europe -- that's genocide. Trying to equate the adoption of Native children in Canada to non-Native families to this horror involves a leap in moral relativism that, for me, simply does not equate. I prefer to see the term only used in its original context, to water it down to fit all oppressed peoples on earth simply weakens the term into irrelevance.

I've been reading this thread and a number of posters have raised my hackles with the careless and casual use of the term 'genocide'. This term refers to the deliberate and systematic attempt by one group of people to destroy another, usually through sustained warfare or outright mass murder. This practice has too many examples from time immemorial, but the two most recent examples that come to mind are the Armenians in World War One, and the Jews in World War Two. That was genocide. I challenge any posters using this term to supply even a single example in what is now Canada of Europeans practicing genocide on any group of Native peoples. I can think of three examples off the top of my head where genocide did take place. The Iroquois tried to wipe out the Huron in the winter of 1648-49 in an attempt to gain a foothold in the fur trade. They didn't manage to kill them all, but they effectively destroyed them as a nation. The Dorset people of the high Arctic were wiped out by the descendents of todays Inuit by 1500, although a few souls escaped the carnage. Finally, the Cree ascended the rivers from Huson's Bay in the early 18th century and wiped out the Gros Ventre that lived in what is now central Saskatchewan. I'm sure there are many more examples, but I trust I've made my point. The only genocide in what is now Canada occured between Native peoples. I know it is fashionable in some circles to use this term for shock effect and to score political points, but I find its use reprehensible. Its an insult to co-opt the term from those peoples who have been subjected to real genocide, and its an insult to Canada as a nation. And before someone pipes back with the term 'cultural genocide', the residential school system was a long drawn out tragedy, but that was forced assimillation, not genocide. There's a big difference, and if you can't see it you need to head down to your local library and start doing some reading.

Well these Phoenix Escort girls seem interesting, but what do they know about high and low altitude effects of ozone?

Getting back to 'This Is That', the only thing funnier than the skits they do is the angry responses from listeners who haven't figured out its a joke.

If Quebec wants a gun registry, let them finance one in their own jurisdiction. This has long been a sore spot with me, the entire registry was an ill-conceived reaction to several high profile shootings in Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto. The Liberals saw an opportunity to appease a large segment of urbanites and women, especially after reneging on thier Red Book promise for universal daycare in Canada. Alan Rock saw a chance for political advancement with this registry -- in his mind the gun owners themselves would pay for this, and since they were mostly rednecks living outside the population centers in Ontario and Quebec and unlikely to vote Liberal, he could care less how they felt. His master plan hit a snag, however, when the vast majority of gun owners simply refused to pay whatever it was to register their weapons. As the deadline for registration loomed with very little compliance, the Liberals had to backpeddle in a hurry and wave the registration fees. That's why cost spiraled out of control, Rock miscalculated his ability to bully gun owners into paying for the system. And the Liberals vastly underestimated the backlash among not only gun owners, but many of those outside eastern population centers who resented such an intrusion into their lives to solve what was essentially a big city problem. The Conservatives tapped into that resentment and that's why they've kept this smouldering ember alive, its been pure electoral gold for them for fifteen years. So, if Quebec really feels the need to monitor guns that closely, let them set up their own registry at their own expense. That's how it should have been in the first place.

Man there is a lot of misinformation on this topic. Gun stores do not issue licenses. Some basic facts about gun control in Canada. Handguns are strictly regulated and have been since the 1930s. You can own one (or more), but there is a mountain of red tape involved. Automatic weapons and certain kinds of assault rifles are prohibited. Starting in the late '70s the Firearms Aquisition Certificate was introduced and you needed a criminal background check to get one. You had to have one of these to buy ammo or new guns, but it didn't effect any guns you owned when the FAC was introduced. The system was acceptable to most gun owners and most complied with little or no fuss. Then in the mid-90s Cretien introduced the long gun registry after the Montreal Massacre. This was different insofar as now all guns had to be individually registered. What made this different, and what makes it different from registering your dog or your car, is the act gave police sweeping powers to enter your home and check out your guns. Many gun owners saw this a precursor to the eventual confiscation of their guns, hence the backlash. Instead of the FAC we now have the Possession and Acquisition License administered by the RCMP. The Conservatives are getting rid of the Long Gun Registry, not eliminating gun control. All the rules about licensing gun owners are still in place. So if the cops come to my house, they'll still know I have guns, they just don't have a list of how many or what kind.

I guess this poll rides on how one defines 'greatest'. Ya gotta love the old boozehound Macdonald for sheer tenacity in forging a nation, but that Pacific Scandal kind of tarnishes his image. I'm tempted to vote for Laurier -- he was a true statesman and did a pretty fine job keeping a lid on French-English tensions as a new country found its legs. We could use more like him. If it comes down to who left his greatest mark on the country though, its a toss up between King and Trudeau in my books. King just seemed to go on forever and was a master politician. For my money, its not just how you govern, but what shape you leave your party in when you retire from politics. He was in power for a long time, but the Liberals transitioned to St. Laurent seamlessly when he left. But to finally get off the fence, Trudeau gets my nod as the greatest. He had vision, was never afraid to make the tough, unpopular decisions, and he reset the Canadian compass away from the British-oriented first century, and toward the multicultural nation we are today.