Canada's shame

[fellowtraveller]

First Nations peoples continue to suffer in ways that are near criminal in a developed country. They have health crises in diabetes, alcoholism and several other areas would be considered catastrophic in the general population. Self governance, institutional racism, lousy leadership, paternalistic federal government and so on... the list is long and it is real.

Our nation needs to begin a real dialogue about our treatment of First Nations, and our current relationship needs to be abandoned and then overhauled. We need to get beyond the paternalistic approach of Indian Affairs, we need to find a model that restores quality of life and some measure of dignity to First Nations people. We cannot continue on the present course simply because the people we think we are helping may not survive our 'help'.

I have a suggestion on where to begin the process of bringing hope . The federal government should not have an elected person as Minister of Indian Affairs. Instead, national native groups should select their single best and brightest, to be appointed by the Prime Minister as Minister of Indian Affairs. We need a strong voice at the Cabinet level, a full time advocate for his/her people at a level where a difference can be made. What use is having some Liberal Party hack as Minister? They don't even understand the issues, much less have any clue as to solutions.

[RB]

what about their focus on self-goverment and autonomous development

they need to keep their brighest to negiotiate to keep their self-determination alive, they have a "right" to govern themselves

[Newfie Canadian]

The federal government should not have an elected person as Minister of Indian Affairs. Instead, national native groups should select their single best and brightest, to be appointed by the Prime Minister as Minister of Indian Affairs.

I disagree.

The cabinet is and should be made up of elected representatives.

Could there be better choices, yes.

Could the choices be doing better, sure.

But that's the nature of the cabinet. Ministers are not always experts in those portfolios.

[fellowtraveller]

But that's the nature of the cabinet. Ministers are not always experts in those portfolios.

You've missed my point entirely Newfie. The purpose of having a First Nations rep as the Minister of Indian Affairs is to move the First Nations agenda forward, and to have a dispossessed people represented at the highest level of government.

This fits in with Martins avowed and promised goals of a)promotion of the interests of First Nations peoples and democratic renewal, which he has failed miserably at so far.

Best of all, the appointee would have an excellent knowledge of the First Nations culture, goals and players. They may actually get something accomplished, and the symbolism alone would be of great benefit.

Cabinets are not always elected - there is no rrequirement for a Minister to be elected - I believe Brian Tobin (from Nfld)was the most recent unelected appointee - and that was not on merit but as a political move.

Why wouldn't you want an expert, if one were available?

[ndpnic]

Maybe other white people took my fams. land along time ago.

As a matter of fact, the Brits DID take my fams, land in Ireland.

Maybe I should hold the Brits responsible and sue?

Every race, at one time or another has had land stolen from them. Guess we're all entitled to compensation.

I happen to live 15 min from the richest reserve in Ont., if not Canada, the Six Nations.

That is a reserve with its own gypsom plant and mine, so they all work there, making higher wages with better working conditions than us here in town, and they don't pay ONE CENT in taxes.

I really don't think they have much to complain about!!!!

[fellowtraveller]

ndpic, there are certainly some prosperous bands , reservations and individuals. But the health and cultural crisis of First Nations people overall is undeniable.

Let's try a different tack. Let's pretend they are not native people, let's pretend they are ..... say gay people and that there are no land claim implications. Would you find the fearsome mortality rate, reduced life span, astonishing rate of diabetes, alcoholism, heart disease, child mortality and 3rd world living conditions on both reserves and urban communities - would you find this in any way disturbing if it were applied to a group other than natives?

I used to think as you do - but enough years of observation, first hand observation in First Nations communities - has changed my mind. I think 180 degrees differently than I used to.

We have to start somewhere, or in a generation or two our children will think of us as genocidal.

It seems a small small thing to ensure the First Nations have a voice, a real voice. What do we have to lose? Surely it is far less than what we all have to gain.

[Argus]

First Nations peoples continue to suffer in ways that are near criminal in a developed country.

Granted. Unfortunately, the only way to change that is to eliminate the reservation system.

Our nation needs to begin a real dialogue about our treatment of First Nations, and our current relationship needs to be abandoned and then overhauled.  We need to get beyond the paternalistic approach of Indian Affairs, we need to find a model that restores quality of life and some measure of dignity to First Nations people.

How do you have dignity and eliminate paternalistic government when natives on reserve exist largely as welfare lifers without jobs or hope of jobs, dependant upon the governmetn for their existence?

The fact is most reserves are not economically viable. Ordinary towns and cities sprang up in locations where they could be supported by mines, by timber operations, by fishing or farming. The reservations were just placed willly-nilly in the middle of nowhere. They are not, by and large, big enough to sustain something like a timber operation, and few are lucky enough to have exploitable resources on their territory. Were it not for the fact the people there are natives there'd be no towns there, no people living there.

We can't expropriate vast amounts of privately owned land and give it to the natives. So the only alternative is to incorporate the natives into modern society. My own suggestion is for large native co-op residences within cities where the natives could retain their culture and yet still have access to the education, health and employment resources and opportunities the rest of us take for granted.

As long as they stay on isolated reserves they are going to continue to live in poverty.

[Newfie Canadian]

You're right fellowtraveller, Tobin is a recent example of what you're saying, but a case like that is usually only until an election and that person is elected themselves. Tobin never had a seat, and his appointment to the cabinet helped him to get elected.

An appointment of a non-MP is usually short term.

My point was if you make an exception for the Dept. of Indian Affairs, why not for Veterans Affairs, or appoint an economist as Finance Minister, or a soldier as Defence Minister.

We could always appoint a PM.

If the government is to make a serious effort to help the First Nations, job one is to listen to and involve the Assembly of First Nations, currently led by Phil Fontaine if I remeber correctly.

Another problem is the reluctance of some, and I stress some, First Nations to sufficiently take care of problems in their community. There was a news story on the CBC website not long ago about how sentencing circles are not used. The offender is given the choice and they don't use it, as it brings their crimes into the public.

Then there is the dilemma of who do you ask. In NL right now, this very night, a bill to ratify the Inuit Land Claims deal in Labrador is going to vote. The Inuit of Labrador get "...control of a large part of Labrador and the right to establish their own government."

BUT the Métis-Inuit of Labrador oppose the deal.

Which brings me back to work with the AFN, not treat give them special status at the cabinet table.

[fellowtraveller]

Newfie and Argus, some good suggestions but they suffer from the same old problem - they are 'more of the same'. They are more of the same paternalistic system that just does not work. It can be argued that our treatment of natives for the past 140+ years is the problem, not the solution.

Why not apply a little imagination? Why not approach the Assembly of Frst Nations and say: We agree, you deserve a seat at the table. Choose your best to sit on Cabinet. You have to start somewhere and the status quo is achieving nothing, achieving less than nothing.

Did you know that the DIAND budget is over $7 billion per year and is not subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General?

[Newfie Canadian]

Did you know that the DIAND budget is over $7 billion per year and is not subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General?

It should be. That's a big budget, and much of it does very little good in some places.

It's a complex problem for sure.

I wouldn't object to appointing a parliamentary secretary for the dept., or maybe a special assistant or advisor to the minister from outside parliament.

Have an advisory panel made up of a variety of First Nations peoples that reports to cabinet on a weekly or monthly or biweekly basis, informing the cabinet of problems in the native community and some possible solutions.

What do you think of the various land claims deals that have been going on now for a while, like the recent Inuit Land Claims deal in NL?

The total settlement area covers 72,520 square kilometres of northern Labrador, with the Inuit controlling 15,800 square kilometres of land. The LIA settlement area covers two per cent of Labrador's land mass.

Inuit will form their own government, to be called Nunatsiavut.

The Inuit also will have special rights along the coast to 44,030 square kilometres of sea.

The agreement includes benefits for the more than 2,000 Inuit living in Labrador, but outside the settlement area.

The Inuit also will gain the right to control health, education and justice in five communities.

[fellowtraveller]

What do I think? I think our policy for decades has been a form of slow genocide. I don't want to be party to it anymore. I think it's way past time to think outside the box, and act outside the box too. We're wasting hundreds of millions if not billions now- why not try something different? Perhaps our First Nations Canadians will rally around a leader seen to be sitting with the adults at the Cabinet table. Maybe it will make a difference.

The Liberal government has an opportunity to show some courage, to show some leadership.

[Slavik44]

This is what happens to the oppressed.

Personally, I think that the reservations should be done away with and all "race" categories abolished, and people help one another. But since this will not be happening, the only method is affirmative action, First Nations in leadership and in media coverage as successful examples to others.

We can't count on good will, because quite frankly my dears... it doesn't exist.

What sort of example do you set if you don't earn it? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if I said poor people in Canada just need to perservere to succeed and then pointed out a recent winner of the Lotto 6/49 to proove it. There is a problem and it needs fixing, however the i would rather see the answer lie in long term improvements than short term hush money, and alot of what I see suggested in here is just that, take some money and shut up. I know a friend of mine who was native got money for going to school, they don't pay taxes...so on ad so forth. I am not going to complain about that, but certianly you left wing folks know the power of sharing the burden expenses. Instead of just paying people, we should fix up reserves and create a better environment for people to live. That is the travesty the crappy environment that people live in and I woudl argue is the major contributor to the problems natives expirence. Why not fix that? I would rather see tax money going to fixing what creates the problem, rather then have money thrown around like opium, because it really doesn't solve the problem.

Secondly why do you say there is no Good will, are you just sick of the television commercials that have come on at this time of year? Because I am looking at the definition of Good will right now, and well it goes somethgin like this....

good·will also good will    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (gdwl)

n.

An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence.

Cheerful acquiescence or willingness.

A good relationship, as of a business enterprise with its customers or a nation with other nations.

Tell me, you have never seen kindness or friendliness before? Tell me what do charities need to run, if you look under the surface it is goodwill, they need acts of kindness to operate, they depend, somewhere along the line, on acts of kindness, acts of goodwill. Clearly goodwill does exist, maybe it doesn;t abound but hey stop stifling your own good will and it is an improvement.

[kimmy]

(comments removed by me. -kimmy)

Edited December 22, 2004 by kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Charity is rich man's code for low taxes and screw the less privileged.

If there was goodwill these land claim issues would be on the front burner not the back burner.

Education is the key for a successful future but the question is how can education be provided if the poverty is too much, and kids can't focus on their studies because they have not had a nutritional breakfast in the morning, etc. .

[Slavik44]

Charity is rich man's code for low taxes and screw the less privileged.

If there was goodwill these land claim issues would be on the front burner not the back burner.

Education is the key for a successful future but the question is how can education be provided if the poverty is too much, and kids can't focus on their studies because they have not had a nutritional breakfast in the morning, etc. .

Maplesyrup, could you please go back and read my post again, I think you missed everything from the first word down, and don't attack one sentence with out reading all sentences, because you responded to a post that really doesn't exist.

1. I never said we shoudl rely on charity to fix the worlds problems just stated Goodwill exists, if you can't disprove what I said move on and shut up, don;t go sprouting some "mumbo-Jumbo" that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

2.There is goodwill, I have already explained why, and you ahve failed to refute this so don;t make any bogus claims.

3. Environment, look it up in a dictionary and tell me if that would include living conditions, if you don't think it does my appoligizes, it should and was ment to.

4. Just read what I say as many times you selectively find phrases to piece together that misrepresent what I say, and I am getting sick of you completely ignoring what I have said, if I say poverty creates the many problems, would putting moeny into fixing such problems not go perfectly in line with what you said, no need for you to argue agaisnt my post with what I ahve already said. If I say Goodwill exists and explain why it exists, don't respond and say it doesn't exists, with out not only providing decent proof but also with out even takign into consideration what I said. Note I did say that maybe not enough of it exists, which could lead to such problems, as you outlined. But that clearly doesn't lead tot he conclusions you have drawn.

[caesar]

Maple would only be happy if we working people paid even higher taxes until we were poor and gave the bulk of our earnings to those who choose not to work. He/she wants too much for too many. The only way most people who are unemployed due to substance abuse, alcoholism is when they decide to pull up their own bootstraps. We should be there with available counselling and treatment centers. Those who think they are too good to start off at minimum wage; need a kick in the seat. Low income workers should be assisted with child care, health care and bus passes to enable them to start work without going further in the hole. We should only support those whose physical or mental health makes employment a non viable option. We need to give them more so that they can have a decent existence. People with mental problems need more structured halp and alittle less freedom to chose their own paths. Civil rights need not apply to those unable to make a informed decision; relatives should be allowed to ensure that they get the required medical and living help they need to survive and stop allowing them to wander the streets harassing and threatening others.

[daniel]

...We should be there with available counselling and treatment centers. ...Low income workers should be assisted with child care, health care and bus passes to enable them to start work without going further in the hole. We should only support those whose physical or mental health makes employment a non viable option. We need to give them more so that they can have a decent existence. People with mental problems need more structured halp and alittle less freedom to chose their own paths. Civil rights need not apply to those unable to make a informed decision; relatives should be allowed to ensure that they get the required medical and living help they need to survive and stop allowing them to wander the streets harassing and threatening others.

I agree but when guess who's first in line to criticize the kind of expenditures you list? The result is the budget cuts and elimination of programs that were supposed to do that just those things.

In the past ten years, people had considered that tax cuts were more important than to maintain these programs. We repeatedly heard that the money spent were just good money thrown into a bottomless pit.

Now ten years later, we find that the extra cash received from tax cuts isn't as much as we expected and these social problems have grown worse.

[Argus]

People with mental problems need more structured halp and alittle less freedom to chose their own paths. Civil rights need not apply to those unable to make a informed decision; relatives should be allowed to ensure that they get the required medical and living help they need to survive and stop allowing them to wander the streets harassing and threatening others.

Well, this has nothing to do with aboriigines especially, but I agree completely that the way we're treating our mentally disabled is ludicrous and cruel. The mentally ill are unfortunately caught within two ideologies. Arch conservatives want to save money by pushing them out on their own wherever possible. Liberals think it's cruel to keep them in institutions, and they also want to push them out on their own wherever possible.

If those with mental impairments don't have someone willing to look after them and it can't be proven that they are a direct and immediate danger to themselves or others they're basically screwed. How many delusional people wind up on the streets? The psychiatrists tell us they can live on their own if they take their meds, but they don't take their meds in a lot of cases and wind up hurting themselves or others. If they're not shivering under a bridge they're pushing people in front of subway trains.

The fact is most of those with strong mental disabilities and problems would be far better off in a structured setting with proper medical attention. And it is shameful that this society can't overlook its pet ideological theories and ensure they get proper treatment.

But no, it's cheaper to just let them die quietly on the street. And the activists would scream bloody murder if we tried to put them into institutions anyway.

[Argus]

I agree but when guess who's first in line to criticize the kind of expenditures you list? The result is the budget cuts and elimination of programs that were supposed to do that just those things.

In the past ten years, people had considered that tax cuts were more important than to maintain these programs. We repeatedly heard that the money spent were just good money thrown into a bottomless pit.

It wasn't nearly that simple or that bald. If you listed priorities that people wanted taken care of you would quickly find that medical services, including those to the disabled, police, fire, and basic services to the poor were among those most supported by Canadians. Nobody especially wanted them cut.

The perception exists, however, and it's very hard to deny, that there is widesperad waste in government, and that politicians have their priorities screwed up rather badly. Do we need to be spending tens of millions to ship flags to people, as Sheila Copps did? Did we need to spend hundreds of millions putting the word "canada" on various hockey walls in Quebec? Do we need to canoe museums, and subsidise joke books? Chretien shipped jobs to his riding at enormous cost. He had a former steel mill turned into an art gallery at enormous cost, and the National Gallery, which has little money these days, was ordered to ship art works out to Shawinigan for a permanent gallery there! That's not to mention the fountains and other projects he made us pay for at great cost. And let's not even talk about subsidies for golf courses and bankrupt hotels run by his friends. During her leadership attempt Copps announced half a billion for the arts. Nice. But wouldn't it be better to have spent most of that on the poor and disabled? Do you think Canadians, given a choice, wouldn't have?

What about the gun registry? Over one billion so far and counting. According to Radio Canada it's over two billion and counting. What could we have done with that money if we targeted poverty, illiteracy and support for those with physical and mental disabilities?

These weren't decisions made by Canadians, and I flatter them enough to suggest none of them would have been approved if Canadians had been able to vote on them. A small tax cut in the midst of such profligate waste is not something which can be used to blame a cutback in services.

[daniel]

At the time people wanted tax cuts, mainly because it was driven by the right wing who criticized the high rate of taxes Canadians were contributing. Repeating the mantra eventually becomes accepted and so the people selected governments that put tax cuts as the top of their priorities.

People didn't realize that with tax cuts comes budget cuts from somewhere and were oblivious as long as budget and program cuts did not affect them personally. It took a long while and alot of culture and class struggles for people to realize that their true Canadian values were in jeopardy.

~

The spending on flags and other things are a tricky one. Firstly, on the flag flap and sponsorship scandal, we were in the midst of another Quebec referendum and who's to know how close the result would be? It's easy to say that we overspent on both accounts or even that we totally wasted money on them. Is there any indication that this kind of spending perhaps was the factor that the "No" side prevailed? Who's to know? And who can deny it? If it were any other place and time, Quebec separation could have meant civil war. In Canada we did it our way. Scandalous and wasteful? Maybe, but we had a war to fight.

[kimmy]

The spending on flags and other things are a tricky one. Firstly, on the flag flap and sponsorship scandal, we were in the midst of another Quebec referendum and who's to know how close the result would be? It's easy to say that we overspent on both accounts or even that we totally wasted money on them. Is there any indication that this kind of spending perhaps was the factor that the "No" side prevailed? Who's to know? And who can deny it? If it were any other place and time, Quebec separation could have meant civil war. In Canada we did it our way. Scandalous and wasteful? Maybe, but we had a war to fight.

I certainly don't want to take a good thread off-topic, but this is ridiculous. The referendum was in 1995; how can money scammed in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, etc , be justified by the need to win a referendum that had already been voted on?

If you want to discuss further, let's start a different thread or dredge up one of the dozens of existing ones devoted to the sponsorship scandal; let's not sidetrack this thread with it.

-kimmy

[daniel]

You just won a referendum with the slimest of margins. Are you going to play George Bush and trounce on all your opponents as if you had a majority and thereby risking alienating the swing votes against you for the next time around or are you going to be flexible and give in to the powers that be?

I'm sure I already know your answer, but Canada's heritage from James Wolfe's victory had been conciliatory.

[kimmy]

I don't see how plastering the Canada logo on any stationary object at events in Quebec is "conciliatory" to the Quebec nationalists. Reaction from Quebec in fact seems to indicate it was something of an irritant. I don't really see much conciliatory value in reminding the sovereigntists that they lost every time they went to a hockeygame or maplesyrup festival.

At the very least, it was somewhat insulting to Quebecers for the fedz to assume they could buy Quebec's loyalty by sponsoring events and slapping the Canada logo on Jacques Villeneuve's racing suit. To me, that doesn't seem conciliatory at all. To me, being conciliatory would be something like, say, trying to find some ways for the Quebecois to control their own province without leaving Canada.

And reaction to the sponsorship scandal was particularly harsh in Quebec. Many Quebecers felt that the federal government's scandalous actions unfairly perpetuated a nation-wide stereotype of Quebec as a hotbed of corruption. That wasn't exactly conciliatory either.

In fact, I submit that the sponsorship program had nothing to do with reconciliation. Reconciliation with the sovereigntists would have been anathema to Chretien's philosophy of dominating the provinces at every opportunity. It was about winning the favor of Quebecers ... like a separated father trying to make his kids appreciate him by giving expensive gifts.

-kimmy

[brianw]

It is amazing that when governments want to scare people into giving more they threaten to cut needed services instead of other areas (like the govenor general's budget). I won't repeat the list that has already been presented but I believe that we could come up with an extremely long list if we really tried.

And about those flags in Quebec: it was lost during the sponsorship scandal but, businesses came forward and admitted that they were asked to submit fake invoices for flags that did not exist (so that it could be said that 1,000,000 flags were handed out even if they weren't). They were paid for the flags that they didn't deliver but the business owners that came forward did not like what they were asked to do.

[Argus]

At the time people wanted tax cuts, mainly because it was driven by the right wing who criticized the high rate of taxes Canadians were contributing.  Repeating the mantra eventually becomes accepted and so the people selected governments that put tax cuts as the top of their priorities.

They did? When? Not recently. The only government I can recall which made tax cuts any kind of priority was the Harris government in Ontario.

People didn't realize that with tax cuts comes budget cuts from somewhere and were oblivious as long as budget and program cuts did not affect them personally.  It took a long while and alot of culture and class struggles for people to realize that their true Canadian values were in jeopardy.

Give me a break. The only threat to national programs came from cuts from the federal government, which has NEVER made tax cuts any kind of priority. They were cutting money for education, health and welfare while spending hundreds of millions on flags and sponsorship and gun registries. Not because of tax cuts.

The spending on flags and other things are a tricky one.  Firstly, on the flag flap and sponsorship scandal, we were in the midst of another Quebec referendum and who's to know how close the result would be?  It's easy to say that we overspent on both accounts or even that we totally wasted money on them.  Is there any indication that this kind of spending perhaps was the factor that the "No" side prevailed?

Well since it all came about AFTER the referendum - no. There is no indication it achieved anything of substance other than to make some companies rich, and to get money into the Liberal Party's coffers.

Who's to know?  And who can deny it?  If it were any other place and time, Quebec separation could have meant civil war.  In Canada we did it our way.  Scandalous and wasteful?  Maybe, but we had a war to fight.

As I said, this money was spent after the referendum. And nobody asked me if I wanted to fight a war. If they had I'd have said no, not one cent to Quebec to convince them to stay. Let them go and good riddance.