Native Indian Corruption

[Craig Read]

One of my favorite topics, since the entire concept of creating a parallel national unit for aboriginals is so heartily illogical. More Post Modern diversiphile racism. From the Post:

"Instead of improving the lives of First Nations people, decades worth of federal government spending has created an 'Indian Industry' that benefits corrupt chiefs at the expense of fellow band members, a leading researcher said yesterday.[she is from the CTF]

......Every year Ottawa allocates $7.5-billion toward services for Canada's 700,000 status Indians, with 80 % of that money being funnelled directly to the people who lead Canada's approximately 600 reserves. Exactly what happens to the money is unknown."

Ms. Fiss [CTF} states that "If Canada were governed in the same way, we would have 295.000 politicians in Ottawa and it would cost us over $10-billion a year in salaries."

Any reforms Jean ??

[Cameron]

This waste and ingnorance is getting out of hand. A billion here and billion there. I don't know when Canadians will wake up and realize the truth about the Liberals....

[Lost in Manitoba]

Living on the prairies, I'm awfully sensitive to this issue. Just one point I'd like to bring up though. That's the idiocy of this program. Treaty funding is not limited by anything: It has no time frame, no stated goal to meet, and no requirement to get it except race. The Native population is the fastest growing in MB + SK, this will mean that more and more money will have to be spent on this program because of this. How long will this program last? Will it be 100yrs? When, say, the native population is about 6times what it is now? So would that be $7.5billion times 6, to see the amount of money we would spend on treaties that were made before I was born. Sure, if they want to spend a whack of money on social programs (like health and housing) good on them, but don't spend our money on racial programs that accomplish very little except promote racism.

[Craig Read]

Sure, if you want reforms Lost you are a racist white bigot, who denies the white inflicted holocaust on the native civilisations. Revisionist history taught in schools inflict upon their children many myths, legends and white washing of the Indian stone age civilisations - they were neither noble, nor pure, nor in harmony oftentimes with their environment [large mammals hunted to extinction; atrocities in war; human sacrifices; huge land fires to replenish the soil and so on].

Diversity and reverse racism are inherently illogical and self defeating. The Indian affairs program is only the first step. Huge mineral and land claims exist all over Canada - and in Nunavut billion dollar mineral deposits are being handed over to Indian only or Indian managed consortiums or at the least firms will need to pay the natives a large royalty on any sale of any resource.

Creating a multi-tiered society is wasteful and against the Constitution of Canada.

[Hugo]

Between 1870 and 1921, 11 treaties were signed with the native Canadians. These treaties all have a common theme: the aboriginals signed away their land and most of their rights in exchange for annual cash payment, tools and so forth. The original sums were, for example, $2, or $5, or a quantity of tools or agricultural implements.

Obviously, this is hardly valid today, so the annual sums, grants of land and so forth have been replaced by scholarship grants, tax exemptions and so on. The treaties have no sunset clauses.

The original treaties were pretty much signed at gunpoint. The aboriginals were pretty desperate by the period of 1870-1921, and not only that, were told that if they did not sign, their lands would be colonised anyway and they would get nothing.

I think it is highly immoral to not only force a lousy deal on the aboriginals, but then to decide that you are going to renege on that deal at a later date. This is tantamount to a breach of contract. Like it or not, our immigrant ancestors signed these deals with the intention that we, our descendants, and the descendants of the aboriginals follow them.

I think it would be acceptable to attempt to re-open negotiations with representatives of the First Nations, however, those representatives should reserve the right to reject any new proposition in favour of the status quo. To just tear up the Treaties is disgusting and smacks of exactly the sort of conduct that white settlers exhibited centuries ago.

[Craig Read]

I heartily disagree. This is such a wilful waste of money, that I believe it cries out for criminal punishment - on both sides.

The treaty system and the payments to the Indian bands need to be torn up and reformed. Billions are wasted with no accountability or audits in place, slums exist on the reservations while the Chiefs pay themselves on average $300.000 per year and jet set to Las Vegas for 'meetings', separate jurisdictions are set up that not only create a 2 tier judicial and education system but militate against assimilation and the appropriation of Canadian wealth and Canadian resources by one group is against the Constitution of the country.

Diversophile systems are illogical and counterproductive. The entire Indian grants, transfers and land claims process needs massive reform. Without audits and accountability the budget should go from $7.5 billion to 0 overnight.

[Hugo]

I see your point regarding the corruption, and I think reform is necessary to end it. Corruption is never a good thing, especially given the situation on the reservations. It would be more reasonable, say, to give aboriginals income tax exemption up to a certain point, and then to just raise the level of the strata. This gives a break to working, employed aboriginals.

However, as I've said, to actually cut out all aboriginal benefits is a breach of contract.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Hugo,

Neither me, my father, or my grandfather were born when those treaties were signed. To think that a contract (with no sunset clause, as you put it) may never be altered or even completely reneged, is at best naive. Times change. There was no universal healthcare or social net back then. Nor student loans or EI grants for college. What do natives need that the government doesn't offer to every citizen. Also, if terms of payment can be changed (as you said, $2 or a quanity of tools) then why can't the entire contract?

As for corruption; I heard on radio one the other day, a MB chief complaining that the province is paying a third-party auditing company $1mill/yr to look after the finances of 4 or 5 reserves(can't remember which). The complaint was answered with the response that these reserves couldn't account for several times this amount, every year, for the last decade.

[Hugo]

Permit me to make an analogy. Regardless of notions of cultural superiority, it is illegal for one man to seize possession of another man's dwelling. However, he may offer to rent that dwelling.

If the two men agree to this, they may draw up a contract in which it states that their descendents will be subject to the same clauses. However, if in the future, one descendent is unhappy and wishes to renegotiate, that is fine, but the new proposal can be rejected in favour of the old. Also, if one descendent wishes to terminate the agreement, cease to pay rent and leave, that is also fine. If the other wishes to cease receiving rent and ask the tenant to leave, that, too, is fine.

However, to cut off Indian benefits is basically akin to the descendent of the tenant announcing that he will pay no more rent, will keep the house, and the descendent of the landlord can whistle for it. Basically, a crime.

I see nothing wrong with re-negotiation of the treaties, but you cannot renege on them such that you keep all of the benefits while defaulting on the obligations.

As I said, I don't agree with the corruption, bearing in mind the standard of living for natives. I think that the system should be overhauled in that regard.

[Lost in Manitoba]

All Right, I'll agree with your analogy. That doesn't really cover everything though. Like I said, health, education, EI, Policing, Welfare, Pension, Child Tax benifits, Public Housing, and on and on are things that weren't existing at the turn of the 20th century. They exist now though, and every person in Canada is entitled to them. Was the treaties based on money or on a gaurantee of preservation of culture and quality of life?

Or let's suppose, for an argument, that we are permenantly leasing this land from the native tribes. And being such a wonderful and strong country we will still be around in 100 or so years. The native population, if the trends continue, will have grown to 20% (large figure, I know, but for arguments sake) of the total population. Will it be at all possible to give tax breaks, free college education, unlimited hunting privelages, and so on, to such a large % of the population, without undermining the economy of Canada and without axing the social programs we cherish? Using whatever time frame you wish, this is the reality. It is unsustainable. Just as welfare is, if it is treated as a hand-out, not a hand-up.

Why not use that $7.5billion to increase social programs that will help everyone, including the native people. Or subsidise college tuition for everyone. Or create better housing, or medicare, or national defense, or a million other things, that will increase the prosperity of our country. (for everyone)

[Hugo]

Will it be at all possible to give tax breaks, free college education, unlimited hunting privelages, and so on, to such a large % of the population, without undermining the economy of Canada and without axing the social programs we cherish? ...It is unsustainable.

Then an alternative has to be negotiated, but it must be done fairly, with the agreement of both parties. To continue with the analogy, the tenant could approach the landlord and explain that he can no longer afford the rent and ask to compromise. But the fact that he cannot afford it does not give him the right to boycott the rent and keep the house!

If you can cut out corruption, you'll probably find that the $7.5bn sum is greatly reduced anyway. Unlike boondoggles like state-funded bilingualism and multiculturalism or welfare programmes, the native deal is something that every non-native resident of Canada benefits from, because it buys their right to live in Canada. It's their rent.

Why not use that $7.5billion to increase social programs that will help everyone, including the native people.

Because the native people gave special benefits to what we now call Canada in exchange for privilege. What you are proposing is to take the benefits offered, but instead of paying the party who offered them, you will divide that sum amongst all people, regardless of whether or not they offered anything.

This is akin to your employer dividing your paycheck between everyone in Canada and calling it fair. It might be equitable, but it does not reflect the fact that you worked for that money, and nobody else did.

And besides, as I said, the native deal does benefit everyone. It's the price of living in Canada, with all its land, fertile soil, natural resources, etc.

[RT_1984]

Hugo, this is the same kind of nonsense that I hear spread around by the politically correct everyday. Those past treaties that you talked about do not stipulate billions of unmarked dollars in federal transfers each year. I also disagree with the notion that we should treat them as nations. For one, that don't meet even close the traditional requirments of a nation (population size, financial autonomy, etc.) and neither does the fact that they were here before us. As you will recall the French Canadians in Quebec and settled in quite nicely long before any permanent British settlement. But do we refer to Quebec as a nation or give it nation status of any kind? Not a chance. We destroyed that hope in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. The is despite that fact that historically Canada was founded by French and English in Quebec and Ontario. But what we have deemed as a collective through our elections, and accords, is that this arrangement in a constitutional manner is unfeasible and unsustainable and undemocratic. And if we're going to rank immigration waves in Canada according to their date of arrival, then we should also be ranking the first "nations" against eachother as well, since they didn't exactly arrive from Asia at the same time. The came in disbursed waves through thousands of years, and over time stole land from eachother, murdered entire tribes to extinction through headhunting, right up until after confederation. Most of the tribes were nomadic and migrated seasonally across vast stretches of territory so it has been exceedinly difficult to determine which land they "own." You're economical contract analogy is relevant, but so is the need to "default" on that contract and bring aboriginals into the 21st century. Self-governance is a myth and a politically correct failure which harms the aboriginals most of all. As we speak the Innue of Labrador in the newly established community from Davis Inlet are in peril. The majority of children are sniffing gasoline again, destroying their internal organs, and the family, clanish appointed band council is bootlegging alcohol into a community where the rate of suicide and alcoholism is astronomical. You may recall several house fires in Northern Labrador where these children were brunt to death. However, the government can't do anything by interfering in the band council operations because they protected by self-government legislation despite the Innu in the community and some from within the band, pleading the government to step in and save what's left of "self government." In conclusion I think we need to take a realistic, rational approach which sees the aboriginal culture maintained just as other cultures in Canada are maintained. It's the only way to really save their culture before our pathetic 19th century policy ruins it. I don't agree with your uncompromising adherance to an outdated treaty that hardly addresses modern day conern (those treaties are quite vague when it comes to what type of compensation is required). I don't agree with your philosophy (it's been a fatal failure) and I don't like what it stands for.

[Craig Read]

RT good post and well stated.

I don't buy the myth that the past treaties were frauds, performed at gunpoint or foisted on indians drunk with rum. Even if true i would say so what. This great liberal myth to atone for past deeds leads to a circle of endless blame and financial claims.

I am English by blood. I should sue the Italians, the Danes, the Germans, the Normans, the Scots, and those nasty Dutch for 'crimes' against my people in my homeland. After all England was invaded by these tribes and some horrific scenes took place.

The greatest deal of all time was for Manhattan. The British bought it for about $6 K in today's money from the Dutch. Should Holland now sue the US claiming that undue force, trickery and alcohol were at work and claim that 'they were there first.'?

Nonsense.

France could sue the US over the Louisiana Purchase since the total value of that treaty was abymysally low and the US negotiators 'forced' France with the use of military conquest to accede to some sort of deal or else the US would just unleash its citizens on said territory. Napoleon busy raping Europe for his family's benefit and faced with a broke Treasury made a deal.

Ditto for Russia over Alaska. They paid a paltry sum compared to its true value. But the Romanovs busy with centralisation and the Turks had other things on their mind.

Ditto for Indian tribes who were given trinkets and guns in exchange for land.

The massive transfer of billions which are largely wasted and which attempts to create a separate society that does not assimilate itself into the modern world, is a tragedy of massive proportions.

To quote from above

Every year Ottawa allocates $7.5-billion toward services for Canada's 700,000 status Indians, with 80 % of that money being funnelled directly to the people who lead Canada's approximately 600 reserves. Exactly what happens to the money is unknown."

Dismantle it.

[Lost in Manitoba]

that does not assimilate itself into the modern world, is a tragedy of massive proportions

The thing about this is that the younger generation of natives, reservation or urban, has no desire to return to the past. You just try to take away their tv, dvd, cars, designer jeans, and so forth, and see what type of response you'd get.

The idea of this segregation to return to their roots is BS as well. Chinese, Jews, Irish, Itallians, you name it, all have many peoples who are capable and willing to live in this society without giving up their traditions. What is the difference?

It is total revisionist thinking to think they were better off before indoor heating, medicine, or even hunting rifles. Don't want that? See how you like the -40C Manitoba winter, or how it feels to have close to a 50% infant mortallity rate.

It's about time that the spoiled child lost his allowance, and took on some responsibillity.

[Hugo]

I don't care about cultural assimilation, corruption or any of that. I think you guys raise valid points, but they are irrelevant to my argument here.

What bothers me is to believe that it would be acceptable to renege on a contract or treaty, retaining all benefits but defaulting on all obligations. That is both illegal and immoral, and might has never ethically made right. That's why we are supposed to have equality before the law, so that the strong may not exploit the weak. It's the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality, and of our legal system. And when I say "exploit", I'm not talking about bullying the natives 200 years ago, I'm talking about defaulting on a deal just because you can and you know the other party can't realistically prevent you from so doing.

That is my objection. I could not care less were it a treaty with the aboriginals or the martians, but to break this treaty just because we feel like it undermines our whole moral, ethical and legal foundations. Hitler broke treaties. Stalin broke treaties. I don't think any good has ever come of a breach of treaty, and if it has, I think it's fairly safe to say that that is a rare occurrence.

[KrustyKidd]

I don't care about cultural assimilation, corruption or any of that. I think you guys raise valid points, but they are irrelevant to my argument here.

What bothers me is to believe that it would be acceptable to renege on a contract or treaty, retaining all benefits but defaulting on all obligations. That is both illegal and immoral, and might has never ethically made right. That's why we are supposed to have equality before the law, so that the strong may not exploit the weak. It's the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality, and of our legal system. And when I say "exploit", I'm not talking about bullying the natives 200 years ago, I'm talking about defaulting on a deal just because you can and you know the other party can't realistically prevent you from so doing.

That is my objection. I could not care less were it a treaty with the aboriginals or the martians, but to break this treaty just because we feel like it undermines our whole moral, ethical and legal foundations. Hitler broke treaties. Stalin broke treaties. I don't think any good has ever come of a breach of treaty, and if it has, I think it's fairly safe to say that that is a rare occurrence.

Hugo, I always believed that what happened hundreds of years ago with treaties and deals had no bearing on what an immigrant or a child born today should deal with. You have changed my mind in a minute with good points. Your reasoning is sound and yes we have to honor the deals made by our ansestors.

As well the analogy of "rent" is correct in my mind as well. What I do not agree with however, is the present amounts. These deals were made to supplement the aborigional income and not to exclusively support them. For example, a token amount paid each year whille the native hunted and trapped to feed himself made sense. What does not make sense is building whole communities and rebuilding them when they fail because of apathy or mismanagement. Also, keeping in mind the origional purpose it is a travesty and not in keeping with the deal when the money is not used to provide for ALL the Aborigionals such as in many cases now.

[Debo]

I know I am intruding on this as I am an American,but..

I am an American Indian and although it sounds like you may have some excessive wasting of funds there it also sounds like a fair and legit type of system. Contracts made are by rights unbreakable bonds. Unless you are in US that is.

Here ,if you live on a res you are casino rich on some (not mine) or patheticly broke on others. there is middle ground but not much. The US gov doesnt honor thier American Indian contracts now no more than they ever did.

Inflation should apply telling you the price goes up and there it is.

Tell me people, what do you think is fair? No matter your answer you can be countered with a thousand more arguements.Only one counts though, the treaty made should be the treaty kept.

[RT_1984]

I think the problem isn't the way the reserves are being run. I think the problem is the reserves. Aboriginals do not have property rights for housing or the rights to obtain housing through mortgage, and cannot resale. This creates a lack of incentive to invest, and maintain the house for resale which has resulted the housing problem on reserves and communities across Canada. It's amazing the media proclaims aboriginals are without adequate housing and the property is in tatters and runned down without mentioning that the average age for these houses is ten years old. This system is structurally wrong and won't be fixed by mere changes in accountability and corruption and Hugo suggested. However this would mean perhaps changing the Indian Act itself, which according to Hugo, we can't do because it would be breaking a contract (which is clearly faulty and unsustainable as demonstrated over the last 100 years). However according to Hugo we must honor this contract and maintain as a matter of broad, sweeping, uncompromising, unpractical, and unrelenting moral principle. What Hugo doesn't seem to have moral difficulty with however is that this Indian Act (which is clearly in need of modernization to deal with the realities of a Market Economy which have only been discovered and universally accepted since the Indian Act was signed) should be maintained to ensure that Aboriginals remain excluded from the benefits of property rights, like the rest of Canada has, participation in the mainstream economy, prejudice attitudes caused in part by special treatment based on group affiliation, and outright exlusion from the mainstream Canadian economy which has provided increasing prosperity for Canadians over the past century. But all is irrevelent to Hugo because it may breech the outdated Indian Act and treaties which ensure aboriginal funding go to a select few in the band councils (who are appointed through family affiliation and used to punish political opponents) and pay for Matthew Coon Come's expensive suites and his colleague's mansions. But all that doesn't matter because altering this would be a "breech of contract." I think someone needs to replace this broken record. It's getting pretty scratchy.

[Hugo]

But all is irrevelent to Hugo because it may breech the outdated Indian Act and treaties

No, you're putting words into my mouth. I am not against re-negotiation or updating the accords of aboriginal rights and entitlements, what I am against is deciding, as Trudeau wished to, that henceforth aboriginals are entitled to nothing, all contracts are void, we will keep what the Indians have given and return absolutely nothing.

What I specifically said was that it's not immoral to negotiate or alter a contract where both parties agree. It's also not immoral to default on it if you will give up the obligations and the benefits.

So, what I said was that it would be alright to update the system of aboriginal rights, bringing in reforms to encourage more native wealth and prosperity, for instance, but it would not be alright to just tear up the treaties and leave nothing in their place.

Is that clear enough for you? I'm quite shocked at the terrible misquotations and outright lies in your post - it's no surprise that you haven't directly cited me saying anything that you allege I did.

[RT_1984]

I assumed that yourself and others on this panel would have the inclination to scroll and read themselves, but if you would like me to eliminate the daunting tasking of scrolling your mouse than that's fine with me:

Hugo

"What bothers me is to believe that it would be acceptable to renege on a contract or treaty, retaining all benefits but defaulting on all obligations. That is both illegal and immoral, and might has never ethically made right."

- This is what I mean by narrow, uncompromising and unrealistic interpretation of aboriginal affairs. What I am suggesting is that it is not sustainable or democratic (I have no interest in you personal morality which would rather honor the surface agreement between elites than address the heart of the issue - giving "all" aboriginals the opportunity for a better life, by giving them the same right as other Canadians) to continue basing governance on the outdated Indian Act. Your attempting to view this through a narrow and politically correct viewpoint which has been a source for self-serving aboriginal elites to litigate through the courts, provisions which only they will be able to distribute at their discretion. You basically suggesting we go down with the ship and take everyone with us to serve a very particular, and narrow sense of morality. I also disagree with your premesis that it has been previously suggested by myself that we renege on a contract without giving up any of the benefits. I don't think giving property rights to aboriginals is taking away from them. I think it is empowering them.

I am also unsure of where you get the idea that Trudeau thought aboriginals should have no rights. Before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, treaties could be extinguished by Canadian Governments, but the Charter (created by Trudeau) entrenched a provision which guarentees the recognition of all past treaties. Trudeau despite his liberal individualistic stance towards Quebec, generally revamped our constitution which made it increasingly activist, by empowering the supreme sourt to delegate citizen power with the govt. where before, the supreme court was mainly confined to delegating power between the provincial and federal governments.

[Hugo]

I am also unsure of where you get the idea that Trudeau thought aboriginals should have no rights.

"In our policy, the way we propose it, we say we won't recognise aboriginal rights."

"Aboriginal rights... really means saying, 'We want you to preserve our aboriginal rights and to restore them to us.' And our answer... is no."

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, August 8th, 1969, Vancouver

I also disagree with your premesis that it has been previously suggested by myself that we renege on a contract without giving up any of the benefits. I don't think giving property rights to aboriginals is taking away from them. I think it is empowering them.

Well, Lost said: "It's about time that the spoiled child lost his allowance, and took on some responsibillity."

Read said "Dismantle it. " without any proposal for a replacement.

And you yourself said: "You're economical contract analogy is relevant, but so is the need to "default" on that contract and bring aboriginals into the 21st century."

What I hear is a bunch of people arguing that existing treaties with the Indians be scrapped without replacing them with other provisions. I disagree with that. If you want to replace the treaties with new agreements that will be of greater benefit to the Indians in Canada, I have absolutely no objection. That's just re-negotiation of the deal to bring it into the 21st Century. But I don't think it can be torn up without replacement. That's what I object to, morally. It's a breach of contract and what it amounts to is robbery.

[RT_1984]

Trudeau made those comments but his actions when drawing up the constitution speak louder than words. It wouldn't be the first time a politician said one thing and did another. And I wasn't referring to what others suggest about reneging on a deal. I was referring to what I said, as I clearly indicated by saying "Myself." "Myself" as you hopefully know refers to the the 1st person. The rest of what you wrote regarding a breach of contract has already been dealt with in our previous discussions. I have presented continious and additional, new arguments in each post, while you have mostly repeated previous statements of oversimplifying Aboriginal relations down to honoring inapplicable agreements made in the 19th century and prior. I think that we can all agree that if Aboriginals were consulted as they were in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (mostly comprised of Aboriginal group leaders) then you will get similar suggestions to what these group leaders proposed at that time: more fiscal transfers from Ottawa in unmarked dollars to ensure that aboriginal governments can self-govern. That's what we have now, and I see no need to reiterate that. In order to bring Aboriginals into the market economy, I suspect it will require going over the heads of elites like the AFN executive who have no motivation, incentive and therefore intention of relinquishing that executive spending power in a decentralized manner.

[Lost in Manitoba]

OK Hugo. You say it is unfair to scrap the treaty and leave nothing in it's place. What about the social net thats been in place along side the treaties? This wasn't around when the treaties were signed. This has a large monetary value. This looks after and promotes the well-being of the Native people. When you said I propose to leave nothing in the place of the treaties, you're wrong, there already is something in place that fulfills our obligation to the Natives.

[Craig Read]

RT you are right bang on on the Indian act, changes in governance, auditing and transparency.

Stating that we can't 'Break' land claim titles and contracts is absolutely preposterous.

The land, the title deeds, the monies and the programs are CANADIAN not Native Indian and owned collectively by the people of Canada. The Indian act is flawed, deeply flawed and makes a hideous mess of 'aiding' by enforcing a system of welfare, dependency and racism [flowing both ways].

Assimilation, respect for CANADIAN laws and money and the ability to engage in meaningful economic and education opportunities is the nexus of the matter.

I have little patience for the argument that we can't break treaties. But the Indians can of course. They can hunt and fish wherever they please. They can cause civil disruptions. They can flout Canadian laws and fight with Canadian police with no ill effects. They can sentence their young to poverty and ignorance and hatred of the whites. They can claim diversity status to extract preference and monies. And most importantly they can claim vast areas of land [in fact $200 Billion worth] that they 'own' and even have 2 new provinces that rely on transfer payments from Ont and Alta created in which 90 % of the revenue is in the form of 'diversity' transfers.

This is insanity. RT is right and his analysis is supported by De Soto who claims that the poor of the world are sitting on $9 Trillion worth of value as they squat and live on non title deed private property.

If you want to understand proper solutions to poverty for Natives read De Soto's unparallelled analysis. He in effect blames bad government for the plight of many of the native poor.

If you want to solve the Indian question.

-Revoke the Land claims - no one group as a right to claim $200 billion worth of land. Sorry the war is over. The land is Canadian. Period.

-Stop transferring money until their is governance and accountability changes

-Give the right to private property and private financial securitisation and derivatives to allow investment capital to be formed. This creation of economic incentives and opportunities would within a matter of years turn much of the reservations into respectable communities.

-Assimiliate the populations through education and economic opportunity do not segregate them

As RT said and this is the core of the issue:

Aboriginals do not have property rights for housing or the rights to obtain housing through mortgage, and cannot resale. This creates a lack of incentive to invest, and maintain the house for resale which has resulted the housing problem on reserves and communities across Canada. It's amazing the media proclaims aboriginals are without adequate housing and the property is in tatters and runned down without mentioning that the average age for these houses is ten years old. This system is structurally wrong and won't be fixed by mere changes in accountability and corruption and Hugo suggested. However this would mean perhaps changing the Indian Act itself,

The above MANDATES the revocation of the Indian Act and a more suitable plan to help these people and assimilate them over time into Canada.

Creating a third world nation inside Canada is not only immoral, it is the apogee of politically correct hypocrisy.

[Hugo]

Trudeau made those comments but his actions when drawing up the constitution speak louder than words.

What I actually said was what Trudeau thought, not what he did. You disputed me, I proved you wrong.

I'm sure Trudeau was also pretty upset that he couldn't establish a true Marxist state in Canada, like his friends Castro and Brezhnev. But sometimes events and real life interfere in your plans.

In order to bring Aboriginals into the market economy, I suspect it will require going over the heads of elites like the AFN executive who have no motivation, incentive and therefore intention of relinquishing that executive spending power in a decentralized manner.

This I agree with. If reforms are made they should be done with the democratic approval of the Indians themselves and not their tribal leaders.

I think, RT, that we are essentially in agreement. I don't think that the treaties are valid or relevant anymore, especially as they were pretty much all broken within a few years of their ratification anyway. What I do think is that we need a new deal with the Indians, otherwise we become basically thieves.

What about the social net thats been in place along side the treaties?

Then to continue my analogy: let's imagine that since the signing of the agreement between the tenant and the landlord, the government decided to give everyone an annual tax rebate. Does this mean that the tenant is now able to stop paying rent while keeping the house?

They can hunt and fish wherever they please.

No, they can't. The 11 treaties promise unrestricted fishing and hunting rights, and a few years after they were ratified, the government imposed closed seasons on the natives, because white trappers and hunters were driving some species to extinction. In some cases, the natives appealed and were able to gain their rights back. However, Craig, what you are basically saying is that it's somehow immoral for the Indians to do what they were promised, in writing, that they could do. Correct?

I have little patience for the argument that we can't break treaties.

So did Hitler and Stalin, as I said. You can re-negotiate a treaty or a deal, but you can't just renege on it, keep the benefits and default on the obligations. Bell can't cut your phone off and demand that you still pay a monthly bill. Neither can you stop paying your bill and demand that Bell continue to provide you with telephone service.

The land, the title deeds, the monies and the programs are CANADIAN not Native Indian and owned collectively by the people of Canada.

The actual spirit of the original treaties is that the Indians are the rightful owners of the land (and as the latest wave of Indian immigrants have been here 27 times as long as white men, they have a lot more claim to it than we do) and that we are tenants on it. If that is no longer to be the case, perhaps we should put in an offer to purchase, and have done with it?