Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

It's not that it is about money, so much as people who live in chronic poverty cannot refuse money because of principles. Like ted Debeassi said, everyone has a price. Unfortunately for First Nations in Northern Canada that price is tough (impossible) to refuse.

Before 1930 and the collapse of the global fur market Northern Indigenous Peoples didn't need to balance their cultural, societal priorities against chronic economic needs.

Indigenous peoples in general don't want to give up and inch, and truly want to limit development and the risks that it poses. But in the end, a hungry belly is a hungry belly, and money can afford your children a better life.

It is easy for us to scoff and say what the greater good is, but it's not cutting through your yard and the homeland of your ancestors. It may seem like a baron hinter land to you, but it is all about perspective.

I get your point, the greater good could more easily be achieved if the people throwing money at the problem had better aim.
I am fourth or fifth generation Canadian and the place I call home now has a power line and a highway running through it so I don’t have much sympathy for ancestral heritage confabulations.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

I am fourth or fifth generation Canadian and the place I call home now has a power line and a highway running through it so I don’t have much sympathy for ancestral heritage confabulations.

Do you seriously think those two things are comparable, especially given the historical context of what's happened and continues to happen to indigenous peoples.

#### me, a lot of people on this board have an empathy deficit that makes the federal deficit look like a slight overdraft.

[TorqueDog]

C-5 passes the HoC. Internal trade passes 335-1, major projects of national importance passed 306-31. Pretty damned decisive.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you seriously think those two things are comparable, especially given the historical context of what's happened and continues to happen to indigenous peoples.

#### me, a lot of people on this board have an empathy deficit that makes the federal deficit look like a slight overdraft.

You have a "valid argument" deficit given two other people have responded to you with replies of actual substance and this is the sort of time-wasting nonsense you focus on.

Quick, make another Trump / Soros reference, it was such an effective argument last time, Mr. Coffee didn't even have a reply!

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you seriously think those two things are comparable, especially given the historical context of what's happened and continues to happen to indigenous peoples.

#### me, a lot of people on this board have an empathy deficit that makes the federal deficit look like a slight overdraft.

Yes, I do. That’s my perspective. Show me some empathy, eh.
My perspective has developed over 6 decades of working with and interacting with every nationality, indigenous or otherwise, found in Canada. The greater majority were willing to put the rough spots behind them and get on with living their lives as well as possible. A vocal few were just whiney bitches.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

Yes, I do. That’s my perspective. Show me some empathy, eh.
My perspective has developed over 6 decades of working with and interacting with every nationality, indigenous or otherwise, found in Canada. The greater majority were willing to put the rough spots behind them and get on with living their lives as well as possible. A vocal few were just whiney bitches.

A greater majority weren’t rounded up and segregated and denied economic self determination.

[CliffFletcher]

For several generations now the segregation has been self-imposed. Indigenous leaders get their powerbase from band members living in indigenous communities where there is little or no economic activity. So they're incentivized to keep people in those communities.

Just as we'd expect people who still live in outport towns in Newfoundland to have worse economic outcomes today than those who had move away for education and jobs, it shouldn't surprise us that indigenous Canadians who live on First Nations reserves have worse outcomes than those who move away.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by GGG

A greater majority weren’t rounded up and segregated and denied economic self determination.

The greater majority that I met weren’t either. You can’t change the past; remember it and learn from it but don’t let it hold you back.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

The greater majority that I met weren’t either. You can’t change the past; remember it and learn from it but don’t let it hold you back.

Ummmm. The current reserve system still exists and incents on reserve living and reserves have no land ownership or ability to independently economically develop. The system of economic segregation still exists. This is an active and on going problem.

[Fuzz]

The idea we can move on from our past wrongs by taking what's left of the little we let them keep sure is an idea.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

Ummmm. The current reserve system still exists and incents on reserve living and reserves have no land ownership or ability to independently economically develop. The system of economic segregation still exists. This is an active and on going problem.

Do you think FN in this country would want reservations and the reservation system to end?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Do you think FN in this country would want reservations and the reservation system to end?

Who knows? Once again, 'First Nations' are not a singular cohesive group.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Locke

Who knows? Once again, 'First Nations' are not a singular cohesive group.

They do have a unified administrative body though I thought and you’d need to work with that body to try and end the reservation system. I really don’t know enough about First Nations’ preference on the matter so I was legitimately asking. I’m not sure they would want the reservation system to end though. If they did I would imagine it would be done already.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

They do have a unified administrative body though I thought and you’d need to work with that body to try and end the reservation system. I really don’t know enough about First Nations’ preference on the matter so I was legitimately asking. I’m not sure they would want the reservation system to end though. If they did I would imagine it would be done already.

I have a family friend that is a First Nations Lawyer, the thing is, when I say that the First Nations are not a singular cohesive group, it means that there are multiple bands, with multiple Chiefs, with multiple breakaways and levels of jurisdiction etc.

First Nations politics are a lot more complicated than people understand.

For instance, maybe there are some First Nations people who want the Reserve system demolished....

But I'd bet the guys in the big fancy hats cashing the cheques dont, and the people who do? They likely dont get a vote.

And I'm not saying that there are people who want the Reserve system changed, I dont know that, but that system has barely changed with the times. Surely it can at least be improved?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Do you think FN in this country would want reservations and the reservation system to end?

I don’t think it matters when we are talking about individuals and their outcomes

The biggest bottleneck to renegotiating treaties is I think the federal government would be unwilling to pay the NPV of the treaties out.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t think it matters when we are talking about individuals and their outcomes

The biggest bottleneck to renegotiating treaties is I think the federal government would be unwilling to pay the NPV of the treaties out.

I think paying the NPV of the treaties now would be a bad deal, because I think it's relatively unlikely that would end the demands for payments.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The problem is that the pendulum has swung too far in Canada for project approvals, ultimately making us less competitive as a jurisdiction for capital investment.

There needs to be a common sense approach that facilitates a stable capital investment regime with a reasoned approvals process. It is a challenging balance to strike, but our current state actively chases investment out of the country, so it clearly needs re-working.

Capital is like water. It follows the path of least resistance. I'm not advocating for no oversight, but I am advocating for streamlined approvals processes, especially for projects of national importance.

Not everyone is going to be happy with every project, every time.

I'm curious what you (or any of the people thanking) think of Calgary's rezoning bylaw?

Maybe the Glenmore Landing proposal would have been more successful if it was for a big ass pipeline instead of homes for people. For the greater good of course

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have a family friend that is a First Nations Lawyer, the thing is, when I say that the First Nations are not a singular cohesive group, it means that there are multiple bands, with multiple Chiefs, with multiple breakaways and levels of jurisdiction etc.

First Nations politics are a lot more complicated than people understand.

For instance, maybe there are some First Nations people who want the Reserve system demolished....

But I'd bet the guys in the big fancy hats cashing the cheques dont, and the people who do? They likely dont get a vote.

And I'm not saying that there are people who want the Reserve system changed, I dont know that, but that system has barely changed with the times. Surely it can at least be improved?

I am struggling with all of this. "They" referring to treaty signatories, want the original treaty honored no matter what. But then comments like above come along and say no, we want the treaty to change with the times, to reflect modern requirements. This feels disingenuous. You can't just take the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't like. I would like to know what I am missing.

On another note, Treaty 8 is 890,000 square kilometres and basically includes all of northern Alberta. https://empoweringthespirit.ca/wp-co...ties-678-1.pdf

I am not going to do the math but how wide is a pipeline? The province is 640 km at it's widest point. Assuming a right of way is .5 kilometers(?) wide that is 320 square km. That is a very small percentage of the total area. It does seem unreasonable that this is a valid objection.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm curious what you (or any of the people thanking) think of Calgary's rezoning bylaw?

Maybe the Glenmore Landing proposal would have been more successful if it was for a big ass pipeline instead of homes for people. For the greater good of course

Right, because it’s all of nothing.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Assuming a right of way is .5 kilometers(?) wide that is 320 square km. That is a very small percentage of the total area. It does seem unreasonable that this is a valid objection.

500m would be the worlds biggest pipeline ROW. That's more than 10x bigger than what they use for large/long distance pipelines (eg TMX was 45m)

[BigThief]

Huge turnout for the the former Prime Minister candidate

https://twitter.com/user/status/1936819538852807147