[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by polak

His overall point is correct though.

They expect to have the same quality of life as the off-reserve population while living in communities that are unproductive and provide zero economic benefit. I'm not saying all reserves are like that, but ALOT of them are.

I had case study in university on an isolated native community in Northern Manitoba that relied on government provided air transport on a weekly basis as their access to health care. The community had serious problems with kidney disease (which I believe was caused by their diet but I can't remember) and thus many patients were being flown in and out for dialysis. Once the government announced that they would no longer be funding the free rides to Winnipeg there was outrage. They felt they were entitled to live where they live AND 1st class access to healthcare despite the fact that you know... they don't pay taxes, there community doesn't generate any economic value and was located hours away from any real population center.

I'm sorry but I don't think the government should be subsidizing their choice to live in these far flung locations that can't support their population.

I think that is an important point when reading the recommendations. On the one hand, it would be hard to argue against insisting on the same level of medical care for reserve/non-reserve natives as suggested in the report. But in the context of extremely remote locations, it becomes next to impossible. It isn't so much about not paying taxes, but at what cost do we try and sustain something that isn't sustainable? Since we can't turn back the clock, the solutions have to be grounded in today's reality.