NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Because there has been more than one push to remove it - both times by Jean Chretien. lmao@ Chretien!!! oh goodness. I'm starting to lose hope here guys. You dont really want an insiders view here, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 A good start would be appointing a Native person, by the Native people into Duncans position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 A good start would be appointing a Native person, by the Native people into Duncans position. All ministers of government departments must be elected representatives and have a duty to all Canadians. Harper could have appointed Leona Aglukkaq but I suspect her duties as minister of the crown would force her to annoy the chiefs as much as Duncan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 All ministers of government departments must be elected representatives and have a duty to all Canadians. Harper could have appointed Leona Aglukkaq but I suspect her duties as minister of the crown would force her to annoy the chiefs as much as Duncan. Why can't we have our "Aboriginal Affairs" minister elected by the Aboriginal peoples? Why is this not an option? Its been presented to harper, several times. He continually changes laws to suit his own and his friends, surely allowing this elected official to be elected by native peoples is easily doable. I dont see an issue with that, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 All ministers of government departments must be elected representatives That isn't actually the case. Anyone can be a minister. Still, having them from the House is the custom (although there is always a minister from the Senate, and for a while a senator was the Minister of Public Works). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Ya but what difference is it. Patrick Brazen is in there and Idlers hate Him. Edited January 4, 2013 by Rocky Road Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Why can't we have our "Aboriginal Affairs" minister elected by the Aboriginal peoples? Why is this not an option? Because that is narrow minded and rather backwards. The minister isn't just there for the benefit of aboriginal Canadians, but all Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Ya but what difference is it. Patrick Brazen is in there and Idlers hate Him. Yeah, apparently he and Aglukkaq are simply Harper pawns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 That isn't actually the case. Anyone can be a minister. Still, having them from the House is the custom (although there is always a minister from the Senate, and for a while a senator was the Minister of Public Works).Fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Because that is narrow minded and rather backwards. The minister isn't just there for the benefit of aboriginal Canadians, but all Canadians. Narrow minded? Really? please tell me, how does the minister of aboriginal affairs benefit all Canadians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Why can't we have our "Aboriginal Affairs" minister elected by the Aboriginal peoples?Because there are two parties to these 'treaties' that you hold so dear - the natives bands and the 'crown'. The minister of the crown represents the interests of the crown and it would be a conflict of interest to have such a person appointed by representatives of native groups. What you ask is like saying trade unions should pick the CEO of corporation - an equally absurd proposition (unless the trade union is also the largest shareholder). Edited January 4, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Narrow minded? Really? please tell me, how does the minister of aboriginal affairs benefit all Canadians? Well, we all live here on land that under the current system has some legitimate aboriginal claim. We all pay taxes which go towards the department. We all live and work together in our daily lives. We have mixed heritage and families. There are many more reasons. Personally, I don't see a purpose for ethnically based policy speaking from a moral point of view, but despite what I may want, we have to deal with Constitutional reality...all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Narrow minded? Really? please tell me, how does the minister of aboriginal affairs benefit all Canadians? What I'm saying is, really, the ethnicity of the person doing the job should be irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Because there are two parties to these 'treaties' that you hold so dear - the natives bands and the 'crown'. The minister of the crown represents the interests of the crown and it would be a conflict of interest to have such a person appointed by representatives of native groups. What you ask is like saying trade unions should pick the CEO of corporation - an equally absurd proposition. So, basically you are saying... it is unjust for the Natives to have any say on who represents them and zero say on how that person allocates funding or makes any decision on their overall well being. Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) What I'm saying is, really, the ethnicity of the person doing the job should be irrelevant. I could almost agree with you except very few ( if any) elected leaders actually have a legitimate viewpoint from Native peoples. There is a difference between an urban Native, a rural/suburban Native and those living traditional (or trying) ways of life in remote communities. Certainly, you can agree that that person would have to have a very strong and unique perspective in order to effectively do their job, in the best interests of those they represent. Edited January 4, 2013 by NativeCharm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) So, basically you are saying... it is unjust for the Natives to have any say on who represents them and zero say on how that person allocates funding or makes any decision on their overall well being. Is that correct? If that's what you read there, it's got to be what you wanted to read, because it wasn't what Tim said. I could almost agree with you except very few actually take the viewpoint from Native peoples. I don't care. There is a differenve between an urban Native, a urural/suburban Native and those living traditional ( or trying) ways of life in remote communities. Certainly, you can agree that that person would have to have a very strong and unique perspective in order to effectively do their job. There are people of varying backgrounds, both native and non native, living all throughout this country. Welcome to 2012. Edited January 4, 2013 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) So, basically you are saying... it is unjust for the Natives to have any say on who represents them and zero say on how that person allocates funding or makes any decision on their overall well being. Is that correct?They have a say. They elect representatives to parliament like everyone else. I have no issue with an elected native representative filling that role as long as that person understands that they represent the interests of the crown while they are in that job.As I said, the trade union does not get to choose the CEO of the company yet the CEO makes many decisions which affects the livelihood of the union members. It is a mystery why you think that the process for appointing ministers of the crown should be done any different. Edited January 4, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I don't care. There are people of varying backgrounds, both native and non native, living all throughout this country. Welcome to 2012. Thats a pitiful attitude and partly why we are looking at such intense relations and critical situations in the future. I figured your true nature would show itself eventually. Its 2013 btw, and the natives have taken enough bullying from corporations and ignorant citizens. They have right to claim whats theirs, whether you like it or not .They have more legal rights than you do and i am more than confident that they will be asserting those rights very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is the Crown's representative overseeing the agreements between FNs and the Crown. If anything, it would be a conflict of interest for that person to also be an FN member. You can't sit on both sides of the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Thats a pitiful attitude and partly why we are looking at such intense relations and critical situations in the future. You don't seem to understand my attitude or my position. I figured your true nature would show itself eventually. Oh please, tell me what it is. Its 2013 btw, and the natives have taken enough bullying from corporations and ignorant citizens. Yes, to an extent that's true, but that's not what I'm saying. They have right to claim whats theirs, whether you like it or not. They have more legal rights than you do and i am more than confident that they will be asserting those rights very soon. They have legal rights only so far as they are allowed by Canada. That allowance will not go on to infinity. My point, as it has always been, is that they shouldn't want those rights. They shouldn't want to be different. Canada is a place where so many cultures live together in relative piece and harmony. It's time for aboriginal people to join the rest of us in this cultural mosaic. Protests and blockades demanding the status quo + are not and will not ever be a solution to a problem that is shared by all people of this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 We've had our culture taken away, yet commodditized, our children murdered, stolen and sold, our language forbidden, our customs practically relinquished, and our spirituality outlawed...and you really think trying assmilating us is going to allow us to live in peace and harmony in a cultural mosaic? Do you know what year we were allowed to vote? Do you know what year we were allowed to have a bank account? We are just now gaining and barely allowed to have any opportunities for economical prosperity, yet reluctantlly watch our lands and water get stripped away into a blackness of nothing. Our roots and identity are connected to the land and its history. The sooner more people accept and respect that, the closer we get to harmony. Read this article and then talk to me. http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/20/parsing-the-comments-on-idlenomore/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 You see, your problem is that you're living too much in the problems of the past. Moving forward involves joining freely and fully one of the most diverse and tolerant societies on the planet. Cultural diversity exists all over this country in our cities and towns. I was born here too, you know? My identity is just as rooted in the land and its history. Your view is far too narrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 You see, your problem is that you're living too much in the problems of the past. Moving forward involves joining freely and fully one of the most diverse and tolerant societies on the planet. Cultural diversity exists all over this country in our cities and towns. I was born here too, you know? My identity is just as rooted in the land and its history. Your view is far too narrow. I completely disagree with you.Those problems are not in the past, they are festering in our statistics today.I sense you will not budge in your narrow view to seek any form of understanding and I feel there is zero point in discussing this matter with you any further. We are and remain an indispensable part of the Canadian identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 You see, your problem is that you're living too much in the problems of the past. Moving forward involves joining freely and fully one of the most diverse and tolerant societies on the planet. Cultural diversity exists all over this country in our cities and towns. I was born here too, you know? My identity is just as rooted in the land and its history. Your view is far too narrow. I believe chief Darcy bear would agree with you. Here's an example of a properly run reserve that doesn't have the benefit of a diamond mine. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/01/24/sk-whitecap-dakota-120124.html Good management gets good results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) We are and remain an indispensable part of the Canadian identity. The fact that you think I'm disputing that shows just how far off you are. I don't want to deny you, I don't to suppress you, and I don't want to control you. I want you to be just like me (well, I'm metis, so I want me to be like everyone). I want a society that lives up to the song Imagine. I want a society where people really are judged not by the colour of their skin, but the content of their character. You don't want that, and I'm not sure why. Edited January 4, 2013 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.