Accountability Now

Having a reserve system in general is a screwed up idea and something that needs to go. I can understand that the Residential Schools worsened the effect but the reality is that any isolation technique such as reserves are meant to gradually wean that group into the mainstream. Many natives have resisted the joining of mainstream and want to keep the reserves as their way of staying separate as an indigenous community. However any suggestion of eliminating reserves is often met with severe objection.

Their goal was to make them like any other immigrant in Canada...to assimilate into what everyone else was doing. I don't think it meant they had to give up all aspects of their culture but I do think the Government was consciously trying remove the image/reality of natives being these separate groups existing within the singular unit they were trying to build. Unfortunately it backfired as reserves still exist today as natives don't want to be part of Canada, rather they would prefer to exist as their own groups which we deal with on a nation to nation basis. But you are right, it hasn't lead to a pretty situation.

Yes they were part of the plan but again I think if it were possible to have the children attend existing schools then the government would have done that. I have to wonder if natives would have fully assimilated by now if this were the case. The Residential School program was actually counter productive in the overall assimilation as it created a larger divide and more mistrust. I am Catholic and I couldn't agree with you more. Its troubling to know that the the Catholic church was as powerful as it was when this all happened. I know the government was condoning it but I still place the large amount of blame on the church. The sooner we can separate religion from state, the better off we will be.

Let's be clear....we are talking about residential schools. If 'residential schools' were their way of getting rid of treaty promises then they would have make all students go to Residential schools. But they didn't. The other 2/3 were already being assimilated in regular schools and there was no need for the Residential Schools in those cases. I don't disagree that their goal was to assimilate the native people but I don't think they intentionally made residential schools into horror shows with the idea of assimilation.

No...they were doing it for Canada. In 1867 the Brits passed the BNA which was the start of a new country. After the war of 1812 where the Brits, French and Native fought together to protect our land it was decided that it was best to move forward as one. As such, doing it for Canada was doing it for Natives as they were part of Canada and the future of Canada. For them to survive in this new country they needed to be assimilated and become part of the new being. By no means do I think the ends justify the means but the reality is that the intent was to transition these people into the new world. Having them exist as their own entities was not the unifying approach required in light of a new United States that was still a threat. Just to be clear....I am not in favor nor am proud of the methods used to do this but I am able to see the objectivity involved. If this was their way to absolve themselves of treaty obligations then why did only 1/3 of the students attend. Why did the other 2/3 remain on reserve or attend European schools for their education. You would think they would have forced all natives to attend...no? The fact is that these residential schools were made out of necessity for remote areas in order to provide the white man education that was promised. In no way would I state that the conditions of these schools were acceptable but I do think their intent was to assimilate the 'Indian" which by 2017 standards is seen as crude but not in 1880 when these started.

So was XL but we were talking about pipelines actually built.

Potentially...but he will be on record as the guy who approved it which has given him enemies for life regardless of it ever being built. I have always said, when you spend 10 years in politics you will eventually piss off too many people to keep you in office. Trudeau is getting is first taste of this now. There needs to be a final approval or rejection which is what he did. I agree....this thing was dead a long time ago but he thought he would slide it in to make a shit sandwich....two approvals with a rejection filler.

Well actually he's at 2 since he squashed a previously approved pipeline which gives him a -1. Lol Like you said....assuming they get built. Trudeau certainly opened up a can of worms on this one. He managed to piss off the people of BC and the environmentalists (namely E May) who were always waving his flag. I wonder if May will actually stick to her word and get arrested during the protests.

Actually four...Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Anchor Loop and Line 9 reversal.

What's more interesting is that according to the list of signatories, no First Nations from Alberta or Saskatchewan have signed this. Don't you think the ones who are closely situated would want to sign? Or is this another case of have and have nots with the have nots whining about nasty oil? Kind of reminds me of Idle No More....which seems to be idle once again. http://www.treatyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Treaty-Alliance-List-of-Signatory-Nations-Preliminary.pdf

So what is your preferred method? Train? Or just no oil at all?

The point is that you could take every Liberal seat in BC, Alberta, Sask, Manitoba, NWT, Yukon and Nunavet and then give those seats to the Liberals and Justin Trudeau would have still been PM. Sure, any PM wants a majority but their first mandate is to get the job. So if BC is going to vote one way based on an issue and the rest of Canada, especially Ontario is going to vote the other way....which way due you think they go with it? The reality again is that in this particular case the NGP itself does not appear to be the issue but rather Harper.

No...I am stating that however Ontario and Quebec feel is how the election will go. It doesn't really matter what BC or Alberta think. This is not hindsight...its reality of elections past and future. Every seat in BC could have gone to the CPC or the Liberals or any other party and it wouldn't have mattered...even if it all was because of the NGP. However, you are correct. People don't all vote on the same issue so its next to impossible to relate the number of votes to certain issues. Having said that, the trending data I have shown indicates that the issue with the NGP was not the pipeline but Harper himself. As such you might be seeing this pipeline push through after all. Objectively speaking, you have 42 voices out of a total of 338. Yes...you have a voice but clout....no. You have slightly more clout than Alberta and about half as much as Quebec. Sure...perhaps your voices may convince those outside of BC but it doesn't look like that is happening. I've never once talked about 'our side'. I can understand how you would like to take sides but in the end, all sides are thrown on the board and the decision is either a net positive or net negative for Canada. You get your 42 voices to make your pitch and we get our 34. Unfortunately not all of our voices are going to be unified no matter what province they originate from. BC can't play the ransom game on this. The decision is decided at the Federal level for a reason. Much like we can't stop BC trucks coming into Alberta other provinces can't block other federal mandates. You may think you have the power but you don't. The Feds have the power to either push this through or not and with the increasing support seen nationally I think it will be more difficult for Trudeau to ignore it.

It's not a bias....its numbers (and here I thought you were an accountant). Everything east of Manitoba has 68% of the seats. This election is pretty much decided by the time that those votes are cast. Its not a bias or a complaint...its just reality. The big population areas are the deciding factors. And that is your right....to vote for the party that best represents you. It is also everyone else's right to vote for a party that represents them. So when the majority vote for a government that brings in pipelines...guess what's going to happen? And is that because they have oil buddies in Alberta? No...its because they are doing what they think is in Canada's best interests and doing what the majority of Canadians want. As a side note....I always get a chuckle when guys like you comment on 'oil buddies' in Alberta. 44% of the Conservatives were in Ontario versus 16% in Alberta in the 2011 election. I know its hard for you to get your head around it but the CPC is actually a national party.

Here is the link to the actual poll conducted by Forum on this matter http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/30204f87-26b5-4dbe-9e26-1c89d3fd589fFederal%20Pipelines%20News%20Release%20(2016%2003%2016)%20Forum%20Research.pdf I think the most interesting thing is the trending data shown on Page 3. Again...it shows that people weren't against pipelines, they were against Harper.

Please provide proof of your opinions. The article discusses the variance across different provinces including BC where it shows support dips to 41% for NGP. Two points on this: 1. 41% support may not be majority but its still strong support 2. National support largely outweighs the slim opposition you see in BC

There are a number views on it with the Fraser Institute claiming pipeline is safer according to their study. However I am aware of bias on that end. Global News did an analysis and came up with this report: http://globalnews.ca/news/1069624/how-do-crude-spills-compare-by-rail-truck-pipeline-you-may-be-surprised/ I think it has some of the numbers you're looking for.

A couple points on this: 1. The election is already decided once the polls enter Manitoba so it hardly matters what BC or Alberta really want 2. People in BC wanted Harper gone much like the East wanted him gone. I don't think it came down to a pipeline. As per the article I posted above: There are two issues at hand: pipelines and Harper. Its starting to show that people used to equate the two as one issue but are shifting from that.

Lol...I'm glad you understand the Feds are involved now. And yes...their would be political implications however local opposition can easily be outweighed by national support. Look a fairly recent poll of all three pipelines:

Sure....when it comes to provincial responsibilities. However, pipelines are a federal responsibility. So as I said, if they want to control that part then they need to separate and become their own country. Please take some time to learn the division of power among the various levels of government.

Fantastic argument jacee. Right on par with all your previous ones. But perhaps you'd like to take a stab at addressing how BC would want to tackle this issue if Canada views it's in the nations best interest to proceed. All your NIMBY BS means nothing then.

You mean Southwest BC has population....the rest of BC is readily searching for other resource based revenue including LNG. The only thing stopping NGP for BC is First Nations.

Then it shouldn't go ahead.

If you want to be self determining then separate. Until then you are part of Canada and if it is determined that pipelines are in Canada's best interests then so be it.