Bonam Posted December 25, 2012 Report Posted December 25, 2012 The whole reserve system is a historical relic which should have been dismantled long ago. Agreed... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 25, 2012 Report Posted December 25, 2012 That seems like a serious flaw. Yes, it is a fundamental difference from the notion of private land ownership, torrens property, land title, etc. Some argue that this tribal idea and spiritual relationship to the land will never be compatible with European inherited property frameworks. It was succinctly explained to me by an Ojibwa that land cannot be bought and sold like a used car. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Evening Star Posted December 26, 2012 Report Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) The whole reserve system is a historical relic which should have been dismantled long ago. Is there a fair and constitutional way to do this (honest question)? Edited December 26, 2012 by Evening Star Quote
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Report Posted December 26, 2012 It would probably take a generation, and would involve much anguish, but it would be a lot fairer than the status quo. Quote
WWWTT Posted December 26, 2012 Report Posted December 26, 2012 where are you getting 900k from she gets paid far less than the average federal public service employee "Attawapiskat publishes its salaries, travel expenses and honorariums (again, nothing being hidden here). Chief Theresa Spence was paid $69,575 in salary and honorariums in 2010-2011, and had $1,798 in travel expenses for a total of about $71,000." This quote will scare fletch27 away fro his own thread. He typically does this because he is not the greatest debater,still got a long way to go. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
August1991 Posted December 26, 2012 Report Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) And a lot less than a municipal councillor.Theresa Spence's pay is not the issue here. It is entirely the issue.And if "I'm not idle/CBC/Leftist/Rabble" protesters don't understand this, then they've pushed the envelope a smidgen too far. Just the other day at 5 pm, I walked by a drunk/intoxicated older native Indian woman in the Montreal metro, and she was wearing a Canada Goose jacket. I think that we can agree: More money is not the solution to this problem. Theresa Spence does not need to negotiate again with a federal PM, the Crown, or another Kelowna Accord. She doesn't need more money, or more land. Thinking long term - Canada's aboriginals, the so-called native Indians, must do something else. ----- Nixon referred to this as "benign neglect". Maybe that's Harper's current MO. Edited December 26, 2012 by August1991 Quote
Argus Posted December 26, 2012 Report Posted December 26, 2012 Is there a fair and constitutional way to do this (honest question)? Fair. Sure. Constitutional? Probably not. And you'd never get the chiefs to agree, because, after all, they don't have it so bad, right? The reserve system is based upon the notion that natives can't possibly live amongst the rest of us. Yet if there's anything we've learned over the last century it's that mainstream Canada is made up of people from scores of cultures and backgrounds living together. There is no reason the natives can't be among them. In fact, at least half, and I believe more than half of natives choose to live off-reserve. Bring the natives into the cities. Buy them houses. Maybe even houses in groups where numerous families can live in close proximity to each other. Assign social workers to help them find jobs. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ironstone Posted December 28, 2012 Report Posted December 28, 2012 where are you getting 900k from she gets paid far less than the average federal public service employee "Attawapiskat publishes its salaries, travel expenses and honorariums (again, nothing being hidden here). Chief Theresa Spence was paid $69,575 in salary and honorariums in 2010-2011, and had $1,798 in travel expenses for a total of about $71,000." I'm sure the federal governme t has some high earners tame for instance in ontario http://www.fin.gov.o...1/otherp11.html Ontario Institute for Cancer Research HUDSON THOMAS President & Chief Scientific Officer $529,132.02 $441.45 the pm with percs added in likely costs taxpayers 10's of millions the pmo probably eats up 10 million alone.those are the people that the pm forces taxpayers to pay to do his job that allows the pm to do things that arn;t i their job description like do cameos in cbc tv shows amd skip work to watch hockey and sign undemocratic trade deals. is canada thay dry for talent. they hire a poster boy amd 10 staff to do the job the pm once did. cut the political staff as a a starter and let the om do their own job rather than campaigning and pr so people don't realize how much he sucks I don't think Theresa Spence is struggling financially at all.I did hear that she had a fancy Cadillac Escallade flown up there,likely on our dime.Could you tell us where all the money comes from that flows into this reserve? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
Evening Star Posted December 28, 2012 Report Posted December 28, 2012 Fair. Sure. I mean "fair" in the sense that when two parties have, for better or worse, signed a treaty, it does seem unfair for one party to unilaterally scrap or redefine that treaty. Constitutional? Probably not. And you'd never get the chiefs to agree, because, after all, they don't have it so bad, right? The reserve system is based upon the notion that natives can't possibly live amongst the rest of us. Yet if there's anything we've learned over the last century it's that mainstream Canada is made up of people from scores of cultures and backgrounds living together. There is no reason the natives can't be among them. In fact, at least half, and I believe more than half of natives choose to live off-reserve. Bring the natives into the cities. Buy them houses. Maybe even houses in groups where numerous families can live in close proximity to each other. Assign social workers to help them find jobs. Perhaps a question worth asking is why so many still choose to live on reserves even when conditions are abysmal. Quote
Merlin Posted December 29, 2012 Report Posted December 29, 2012 These treaties are causing too many problems. The government needs to just tear them up and stop all funding of native bands immediately and start treating them as equals and not special. They are not special. Quote
Argus Posted December 29, 2012 Report Posted December 29, 2012 I mean "fair" in the sense that when two parties have, for better or worse, signed a treaty, it does seem unfair for one party to unilaterally scrap or redefine that treaty.] Most of the treaties have already been redefined. Do you think after the treaties were signed we were delivering welfare and health care to the natives on the reserves? Do you think we were paying the Chief's salaries and building homes? Perhaps a question worth asking is why so many still choose to live on reserves even when conditions are abysmal. They grew up on those reserves, and know no other life. They're afraid of the great unknown out there, and don't want to leave their families, their friends, their homes behind and venture out into a possibly hostile and strange world. This is pretty normal, actually. Why do people stay in high poverty areas of Canada rather than moving to places where there are better economies and jobs? It's hard to leave home sometime. Besides, the current system has created a culture of dependance where many don't know how to handle their own problems. They go to the Chief and the band to take care of things. And the notion of going to bed early so you can get up early and go out to work all day is almost a foreign concept for many, never having lived in that environment. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Evening Star Posted January 7, 2013 Report Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Most of the treaties have already been redefined. Do you think after the treaties were signed we were delivering welfare and health care to the natives on the reserves? Do you think we were paying the Chief's salaries and building homes? Those redefinitions were agreed on by both sides, though, right? Ideally, the idea of just having one multicultural country where everyone is an equal citizen sounds good to me but I'd be concerned about the idea of unilaterally doing something when there are treaties that have been signed by two parties. Edited January 7, 2013 by Evening Star Quote
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.