- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Excellent article on the whole Kesheshewan story. It hits rez life square on the nose!
Mod edit to add to thread title
Mod edit to add to thread title
Last edited by a moderator:
It was $30 to fix the part not 3000.00GO!!! said:One thing about the whole Kashechewan thing still makes me wonder.
Why, during the whole period during which the community was under a boil water advisory, did the Band not act to fix the water treatment plant? I understand it is INA responsibility, but when people are getting sick and dying, where are the local leaders?
The guy who eventually fixed the plant stated that it could be done for 3000$ - where was the Chief? Why did he not use his discretion (and budget) to remedy the situation a long time ago?
UberCree said:It was $30 to fix the part not 3000.00
UberCree said:These guys regularly donate money from band coffers to the liberal party so you would think that they may have some influence... we'll see at the first ministers conference comming up I suppose. My guess is it is no coincidence that the Aboriginal leaders are invited to this one, but that their long term payments to the liberal party are finally paying off.
aesop081 said:Anyone else see a problem with those statements or is it just me ? Didnt we just go trough a "small situation" about money going to the liberal party ?
Which is also the reason that the Feds must themselves, be overhauled.teufel said:The answer, unfortunately, is that governments do this all the time. They say yes, they support the program and the money will flow. But the final agreement always seems to take more time, become more complicated and â “ in many cases â “ deliver less than was promised. "
----
The Feds still won't pay up.
armyvern said:Which is also the reason that the Feds must themselves, be overhauled.
Third World rules will gauge success of native summit
By JOHN IBBITSON
Thursday, November 24, 2005 Posted at 9:27 AM EST
KELOWNA, B.C. -- The optimists hope for reforms that will reverse generations of stagnation and decline; the pessimists fear deadlock or empty promises that perpetuate the status quo. How are you going to know who is right?
Federal, provincial and native leaders have congregated in Kelowna, B.C., hoping to craft an agreement to improve the wealth and wellbeing of Canada's native population. Many of the measures have already been decided, but internal divisions among native leaders and the lame-duck status of a Prime Minister facing an imminent election have cast a pall over the gathering. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, never grouchier than when dragged to a first ministers meeting, has already predicted failure.
So how will we know whether tomorrow's communiqué is the harbinger of true reform or simply a collection of empty promises backed by taxpayer money that is doomed, once again, to be wasted? Here is one way: Think of aboriginal Canada as a Third World country.
As native leaders love to point out, comparative indexes of national wealth invariably find that aboriginal Canadians, especially Inuit and Indians on reserves, live in poverty comparable to that found in developing nations. But many once-poor countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, are approaching First World status. Common sense suggests that what worked for them will work for native Canadians. So what works and what doesn't?
Obsessing over sovereignty emphatically does not work at all. Breaking free of colonial masters did not bring peace and wealth to most Third World nations. Yes, colonization was largely a curse for indigenous societies. But in Africa, especially, independence led to a depressing slide in wealth and personal security. Hong Kong and Taiwan, on the other hand, prospered by focusing on creating wealth. The obsession with self-governance is as misguided among first nations here as it is in sub-Saharan Africa.
Failing Third World nations also suffer from corrupt governing elites. Too often, we see the same thing here. Whether it's the bloated bureaucracy of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the warring factions within the Assembly of First Nations or petty corruption among some band chiefs, native Canadians are too often cursed with leaders who waste or pocket wealth intended for individual aboriginal citizens.
Successful developing nations have managed to curb the avarice of governing elites by promoting the rule of law. They have moved to limit the power of the state to abscond with or excessively tax individual wealth. Societies based on communal ownership of wealth always fail. They benefit only the leaders who exploit the people in the people's name.
Workers on marginal, unproductive land in Third World societies are increasingly migrating to cities. Yes, those cities are overcrowded and polluted. But there are schools there, and hospitals, and economic opportunities not available in remote hinterlands. The 70 per cent of aboriginal Canadians living outside reserves or aboriginal communities have reached the same conclusion.
Most of all, successful governments in developing societies ignore abstractions and focus on the basics: providing high-quality education, reliable health care, physical infrastructure, security. Within that framework, they leave each individual free to make their own way. You'll find the results in Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Chile and a score of other successes. Think China, India, Thailand and elsewhere.
Native Canada is Egypt, Mexico, Vietnam: blessed with considerable human and natural resources, but challenged by a colonial legacy and inner demons.
When you read about the agreements reached here, ask yourself: Would these measures help lift a promising but struggling Third World nation out of poverty, or would they perpetuate the status quo, or even make things worse?
If we can answer that question honestly, we'll know whether this aboriginal summit was a failure or a success.
jibbitson@globeandmail.ca
© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.