Irrelevant.

“I really thought Prentice had more to him. ”

He had a very good reputation at the claims commission - tough, but fair minded and honest. But of course, it’s becoming rapidly and depressingly obvious that in this cabinet you toe the party line, period, full stop.

“Conservative MP Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert) referred to Canada’s aboriginal policies as that of a “Marxist paradise.””

Can you say Shangri La any other way? Thank goodness for the laughes along the way. I’ve never doubted for a moment that their Reform colours would show. It is only a matter of time before the cracks become wider and deeper. With the media openly hostile to the Harper government I think we will see more and more quotes like these appear.

I’ve noticed too that even some photo-ops of late show Harper in less that Prime Ministerial poses. Maybe its me but he’s tends to look pudgier and more petulant these days. He’s got that pursed-lip thing going on. Maybe it’s the lighting or just my imagination but he’s looking more like the spoiled brat in the schoolyard than a Prime Minister

“It’s going to be necessary for this government moving forward to find the money, to find the resources to be able to deal with the relocation of the community,” Mr. Prentice said.

So not only do they not have the money, they don’t even have the money to find the money…..what does that tell you? The people are already scattered in towns and cities across Northern Ontario.

No money to move Kashechewan

I found the interview with Prentice on Mike Duffy Live (the first clip) to be interesting, and IMHO (which is, I know, not as educated on these issues as those on this blog) rather enlightening.

Thanks for the link, Denis. Unfortunately “We’re Not As Bad As The Liberals Yet” is starting to wear very, very thin as a defense of Conservative inaction…in all kinds of areas.

Well, no. That’s your underlying theme. Stageleft begins with the assumption that the Government should do what it commits to doing.

>Stageleft begins with the assumption that the Government should do what it commits to doing.

That’s a poor assumption to make. Governments have a habit of overreaching themselves in their efforts to remain in power.

balb: “Candace, what were the points you found interesting and enlightening?”

Well, that 4 out of 6 “relocation” spots suggested by the previous gov’t for (for lack of a better word I’ll use the township of) Kashechewan reserve (I’m assuming that the total land is larger than that required for housing) flooded. So wtf was the point there? How many times do we as either Canadians or Aboriginals (not intending those terms be non-inclusive) want to see relocation be required? Maybe that’s why $ in the budget (what, 90 days into governing?) only covered off-reserve Aboriginals, as all the info isn’t in yet? Furthermore, I continue to be confused about your concerns re off- vs on- reserve Aboriginals and funding. Can you explain the difference (not the obvious one, please, but why funding pointed to one vs the other is such a big deal. Because if all the $ is directed to ON- reserve vs off-, is it not equally a problem?)

Assimilation: I understand the cultural need for that not to happen (I think). However, can you explain the difference between Aboriginal youth leaving say, Fort Chip in northern AB and those leaving Swan Hills? In both cases, you have a shrinking population (and tax base, in the case of Swan Hills, so likely some sort of equivalent treaty $ in the case of Fort Chip), and a youth drawn by the big city. My question, I guess, boils down to why do you think the federal gov’t should do something about one & not the other? I can only speak to Edmonton & Calgary on this, but there ARE public schools that are Aboriginal-based (similar to French immersion) that parents can choose to send their children to, so that covers (only to a degree, I admit) the cultural piece. If there truly is no commercial viability to a town maintaining its existence, then why should either the federal or provincial gov’ts push to keep them alive? There are many towns (on and off reserve) that have managed to create a commercial viability, and people continue to move to/from those small towns. So why with the big push to maintain a town of *pulling number out of the air* 200 people? I just don’t get your issues here.

Please note that I don’t think we should pull all medical or police or judicial support. That’s not the case. But I also don’t see why a gov’t should plunk a 500-bed hospital in northwest AB, for example. What would be the point?

Kelowna Accord: You may be okay with a one-page agmt that doesn’t designate who is paying for what and call it an agreement, but I call that a promise. In my view, there is a difference. Personally, I think it’s early days to write the whole thing off.

Accountability: I have no choice whether the feds fork $ over to Aboriginals or not. We have signed treaties (as you rightly point out) that represent long-term commitments that I personally have no control over. I DO, however, have the right to take issue with some of the crap that seems to go on, un-investigated (for jurisdictional confusion if not other reasons), on reserves. I ALSO have the right to take issue with crap like Kashechewan, which seems to have fallen through the cracks because provinces are, in principle, responsible for water quality but the feds are responsible for reserves so NOBODY wants to take ownership and fix the damn problem.

I just think it’s too early to cry “foul” when it appears (to my rose-coloured vision at least) that honest attempts are being made to deal with the issues.

I’m also surprised at the new Prentice.
I have from time to time sent letters (ok, harangues) to MPs across Canada about various issues. Prentice and Layton are the only ones who have replied with reasoned arguments, as opposed to a “Thanks for your letter” form letter.

>Now, this new Conservative Minister says the Federal Government will not honour that commitment.

>Yes IrC, like so many others, it was originally a forced location.

So the question becomes, what sort of commitment should the government honour: rebuild a rat hole nearby, or move the village entirely to somewhere that the local climate and terrain are not conducive to villages becoming rat holes.

Did you actually know it was a forced relocation, lrC, or do you just keep fishing for arguments until you think you’ve found an exploitable weakness?

I didn’t know. Generally I expect people to look after their own housing needs and to decide where they wish to live. I suppose that after a forced resettlement, whatever amounted to their previous village has long since vanished and it’s fair to resettle them once to a location of their choice. Once they’ve made that choice, the apron strings should be cut.