Categories: Inside the Queensway

Pierre Poilievre shows his empathy for residential school survivors

After an introductory ramble from CFRA host Steve Madley, who muses that “we could…

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:17pm - 0 Comments

After an introductory ramble from CFRA host Steve Madley, who muses that “we could go and argue whether [assimilation] was the right policy or the wrong policy,” Pierre Poilievre offers his thoughts on compensation for survivors, First Nations leadership, and where “all this money” is going:

“That gets to the heart of the problem on these reserves where there is too much power concentrated in the hands of the leadership, and it makes you wonder where all of this money is going. We spend $10 billion dollars – $10 billion dollars – in annual spending this year alone … now, that is an exceptional amount of money, and that is on top of all the resource revenue that goes to reserves that sit on petroleum products or sit on uranium mines or other things where companies have to pay them royalties and that’s on top of all that money that they earn on their own reserves. That is an incredible amount of money. Now along with this apology comes another $4 billion in compensation for those who partook in the residential schools over those years. Now, you know, some of us are starting to ask, ‘Are we really getting value for all of this money, and is more money really going to solve the problem?’ My view is that we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance. That’s the solution in the long run – more money will not solve it.”

Full interview here.

Tags: first nations, pierre poilievre, residential schools, steve madley

More by kadyomalley

K Hodgins

Steve at 1:33 pm, I only wish I was presiding in some incense filled room or on some eastern mountain. Sometimes when I read ignorant and racist crap, I wish I could get stoned. If I come across to those people as condescending, that is good because it is my intent to mock their stupidity. The common feature of their positions is that they have grasp of a little bit of the picture and then they pronounce authoratatively as if they know what they are talking about. They have closed their brains to any input that contradicts their racist conclusions, just like Poilievre. He pronounces that Indians just need to be more like what he views as white and they will be alright. That is ignorant and racist. He only apologized because Harper yanked his chain, not because he has chnged his small mind. His remarks were however humourous in that one could easily imagine the exact same sentiments being used to justify setting up the residential school concentration camps back in 1850. The guy is a dinosaur. As to your remarks, aside from your envisioning me as being on some far eastern mountain, your comments are perfectly fair although you tread into the danger zone at the end with the “why can’t we all just be the same” stuff – which usually means why can’t we all be white on the inside. If you see some taxes and expenditures as being questionable, you should ask the questions. However, you should listen fully to the answers, from many sources and not jump to half-informed conclusions as others on this site have done. Just because speech is free does not mean it is not frequently stupid.

And Brian, you are an idiot.
They’re the same everywhere

K Hodgins you tell it.

Unfortunately, the “eastern mountains” /Himalayas on the Tibet side are occupied and oppressed by the same brand of bigot bully exemplified by Mr. Polliver and his sympathizers here.

“Pull up your socks! Look at all the money we’ve poured into you people and your communities! You ingrates! Stop complaining and assimilate! We are the conquerers! Your culture is stupid! Get over it! Time to move on! What’s passed is past! Whiners! Deal!”

Ugh. Time to go and light some incense and pray for compassion for these people who have hearts the size of a walnut. Truly.
Sophie

“Maybe communities that are suffering from intense poverty with no viable source of income or lack of natural resources should relocate…no ?” Although there are certainly some reserves that are in areas without much but rock, there are others that were once legally viable- but reductions in the industries have hit reserves much higher than average Canadians. The reason is simple: If one takes, for example, logging, which is the economic mainstay of my home, it employs many without a secondary school education. When cuts are (neccesarily) made to the industry, which at one point in its heyday supported just about every family on my reserve, it hits reserves in a much more concentrated way because of the high amount of undereducated people concentrated into a specific area. Many reserves are in similar situations, be their (former) mainstay agriculture, fishing or mining. THe resource-driven economny in Canada employs far more aboriginals than non-aboriginals. I think a big part of helping pull reserves out of poverty is mandatory secondary school education, followed by something to allow teenage parents to live while they get their diplomas and maybe some higher training. Case in point: i know a girl who wanted nothing more than to be a police officer.She was going to go to police college, she was smart. When she was fifteen she got pregnant and was thrown out of her house. She moved to Montreal, hoping to get a job their. SHe is now dead. Reserves are full of stories like this one- and i think one of the first steps, if the government is really interested in helping aboriginals, is preventing it from happening. This would, of course, involve many years of hard work, effort, education, social services and money, and it wouldn’t look nearly as good as one of those pretty band-aid solutions. But it might actually make a difference. And that’s what we should be spending 80 million on.
Sophie

Correction- 4 billion
http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/ koby

I see K Hodgins is still doing a great job of winning people over by calling them racists.

Thought experiment:
Imagine if the government happened to, oh, legally define what it means Chinese, create a department of Chinese affairs, create Chinese rights, reserve land for Chinese so defined and exempt Chinese living on reserve land from paying taxes.

Needless to say, this would be a recipe for disastrous social relations and the very things that K Hodgins rails against. So, why would anyone doubt the same about Native Affairs, native rights and native reserves? Abolish the reserve system and native rights and comments about “drunken Indians”, for example, will become as rare and archaic sounding as “drunken” whatever, Russian.

>>>> “why can’t we all just be the same” stuff – which usually means why can’t we all be white on the inside.

Yes and an “apple” is just someone who is metaphysically mismatched and we can not have that. Who one is has to be consistent what one is —Essentialist tripe. So called white values are only the byproduct of the modern Western capitalism and Canada’s legal framework. By contrast, native cultural identity is a byproduct of vile hair brained attempts at forced assimilation, which is an oxymoron by the way, and which has been kept very much alive by the Indian act and reserve system.
NoMore

I think we should start a petition.

Pierre poilievre is a disgrace. he should be removed as parliamentary secretary immediately.

He should be directly appointed to the truth and reconciliation comission and made to sit there and listen to every story about how kids were beaten, raped, murdered and put into electric chairs for torture and so much worse.

he would learn then.
Sophie

Whoa. Where’d you get he murdered and electric chair thing? Even I have never heard that one, and I get the generic “white man screwed us” story at least twice a day.
Mike

In order for Prime Minister Harper’s apology to have any meaning, he must fire Pierre Poilievre as Parliamentary Secretary. Poilievre’s comments relfected the same paternalism and racism that were behind the assimilation policies of the 19th and 20th centuries, attidudes that the Prime Minister rightfully denounced as having “no place in our country.” If this is the case, that Poilievre should have no place in our government!

Join the call to have Poilievre removed at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19933651970
Steve

I do have to point out that I did not say “Why can’t we all just be the same” I said ‘why can’t we all just be Canadians’ Quite a difference. How boring would it be if we were all the same ? It should not be ‘the rest of you’ or ‘us and them’ or ‘the rest of Canada’. It gets depressing listening to people wanting separation in our own country…a minority of peoples in PQ wanting autonomy…a minority of aboriginals wanting autonomy…muslims wanting Sharia law for themselves which pretty much leads to autonomy…You see where I’m going. This is an amazing country culturally but all should accept that they are Canadians….cue the anthem and ‘give me a break’ comments… Come to think of it…attention has temporarily been taken off the coming copyright legislation…forget lynching PP and lynch the dorks tabling that one…that’s just leading to Canada INC subsidiary of USA Global Inc. down the road…I’m moving to Nunavut…
K Hodgins

Steve, think about it. Muslims, French, others should perhaps salute the flag as you suggest because they either came to it or created it. Indians did neither. They were here. Granted they need to adapt as we all do but they do not need to assimilate nor do they need to cue the anthem, at least not until they are Canadians on terms acceptable to them. You migrated (or your ancestors did). You made a choice. You show up in their house and they should salute your anthem? Many if not most have arrived at arrangements known as treaties. You do not do a treaty, an instrument of international affairs, with a body of people lacking definition as a nation. Sadly, there remains many “First Nations” that continue to be colonial victims, their lands illegally occupied. Worse, those who came to terms through treaties in much of the country find that the maxim about white men speaking with forked tongues is too true. Their treaties are signed and then ignored. We commit to respecting that they will continue to thrive as harvesting peoples and then destroy the environment. We struck deals and it is we who betray them. You are jumping to the oppressor side by stating they need to just forget that stuff and blend in. I read you as thinking about these things so reflect on how you would feel if you strike an arrangement based on mutual respect and it ends up being one more betrayal. Our obligation is one of respect and accomodation. They met their obligation, those who have treaties, when they agreed to let you and I reside on their land.

By way of example of a bias toward feelings of racial superiority, consider the wisdom of Koby. Koby cites the Canadian legal framework as a driving force in being the genesis of our supposed values. Clearly, he is very selective in doing so. Our Canadian legal framework is very clear. Indians are the only race mentioned in the BNA Act of 1867. Indians are mentioned because the legal framework, the constitution, the highest law of the land, recognizes their distinct and respected place in the effort to create a confederation. The creation of treaties and their primacy in the Canadian legal framework is then explicitly recognized in the Constitution of 1982. The Indian Act, as bad as it is, constitutes part of the Canadian legal framework. In addition, Canada had committed to numerous international treaties and declarations which, by adoption, constitute part of the Canadian legal framework. Dense people like Koby like to pretend they are law and order types but they think we should all abide by laws they wish or imagine to be the case. The Canadian legal framework is very clear. In most cases, we struck a bargain with Indians. I happen to think that Indians ended up with the short end of the stick but be that as it may, they have honoured the bargain. We have not in many cases and we have not even settled on a bargain with many of them, particularly in British Columbia. For those we do have treaties with, if we do not like the deal, I know of many Indians who would be happy to re-open negotiation.

And Koby, you are a Brian.
Brian

K Hodgins: Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good opportunity to revise history and/or pretend that you are smarter than you actually are.

If you must know, Canada enacted legislation to grant the federal government control of the lands and property of the Indians in Canada shortly after confederation. This legislation followed the requirements set down by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and BANNED the disposition of Indian reserves without a SURRENDER by the band to the Crown.

The Indian Act was introduced in 1876. The Act’s focus is to maintain protection of Indian reserves but it also creates several rights that weren’t set out in the constitution or imagined by anyone until much after the BNA Act. For instance, tax immunity for natives living on reserve is not a constitutional right or negotiated treated settlement – its provided for by an amendment to the Indian Act in the 1950s. Neither the Indian Act nor the reserve system are part of the constitution and so both can be amended and/or abolished at any time through an act of Parliament.
Brian

And if Koby and I are branded racists by you for demanding accountability and seeking some systematic changes to the current system – then you must also brand Justice Francis Muldoon of the federal court a racist who happens to share our view.

Justice Muldoon declared the Indian Act a “racist” document that favours aboriginal people over the rest of society. He went further and said, “It makes financial dependents of those who pay no taxes as an eternal charge on those who are taxed to meet the expense of such dependency.” On treaties, he maintained that the Indian Act fosters the establishment of apartheid in Canada.
K Hodgins

Brian, good for you. You are now starting to deal in some facts. By and large, your research is correct. You are wrong in implying that I suggested provisions regardng income tax are constitutionally entrenched, although they are, at least in the more recent treaties such as the Nisga’a and in Yukon. However, as I am sure will be a surprise to you and most, these treaties provide for full payment of all taxes including income tax, GST and property taxes.

Similarly, I never argued reserves as being treaty provisions. However, lands reserved for Indians are certainly covered by the constitution, specifically s. 92 of the BNA Act. It would be very interesting to see a federal government try to abolish reserves. Without Indian agreement, I expect it would be next to impossible. The Indian Act nor an act of parliament can trump the constitution.

The Indian Act is not part of the Constitution but the existence of legislation addressing responsibility for Indians is provided for in the Constitution. Only the federal government may enact such legislation although provinces have a history of harassing legislation trying to undermine Indian rights protected by the Royal Proclamation, rights to game and the fruits of the land.

You are right to say the Indian Act can be abolished unilaterally by Parliament. However, that would not alter the fact that the federal government is constitutionally responsible for Indians and that responsibility would still need to be articulated in some form of legislation. The Indian Act is a disgrace. I think every Indian Affairs Minister going back to Chretien in the sixties set out to get rid of it. You say the 1951 amendments included provision for exemption from income taxes. That was simply enshrining what had been practice. It was based on the premise that one nation does not tax the citizens of another nation. In practical terms. few Indians would have had taxable income anyway since they could not borrow money, become a “professional,” register a business or in other ways enter the economy without forfeighting their status as Indians. Tax exemption was hardly a concession. The same amendments in 1951 eliminated provisions prohibiting an Indian from engaging a lawyer on land claims issues, eliminated provisions for jailing Indians daring to practice religious and cultural exercises such as Potlatch and the Sundance, relaxed provisions for confining Indians to their reserves unless authorized to leave by the Indian agent, etc. One thing the 1951 amendments did not do is recognize Indians as being Canadian citizens nor provide for Indians to vote in Canadian elections.

You say the Royal Proclamation banned disposition of Indian reserves without surrender to the Crown. This is not quite right. The Royal Proclamation was written a century before the existence of any reserves. It was not reserves that it was dealing with, nor was it Bands as the term Band did not exist with this meaning and it emerged as a bureaucratically invented subset of the actual tribe or nation. The land in question was the full territory, the entire lands that were used and occupied by an aboriginal nation. The principle was that only the Crown could acquire title and that this could only be done through agreement, hence treaty. Indians understood that they were agreeing to respectful sharing of territory with the exclusion of portions which came to be called reserves, these portions not being shared but being reserved exclusively to the Indians. We distorted this over time by imprisoning them on the reserves and denying them a sharing in the use and benefit, the economy of the lands comprising their territory.

So I commend you Brian, you are now at least advancing a discussion that is based on some facts and some misinformation that is easily corrected if your mind is open to knowing the real story.
K Hodgins

Brian, my response of moments ago missed your second message – at 1:55. Fair point. I have not read the learned justice’s decisions but if they are as you describe, I am fine with saying the good judge is a racist. He or she would join a long line of judges who have made ill-informed and racist decisions about Indians. However, I am going on your representation of the decisions. Happily, we have come a long way because many decisions have been made by judges that have been correct.

I will repeat my comment that I commend your effort to now be dealing in facts rather than reckless and shallow opinions that come across as racist.
Brian

At least we can agree that the Indian Act is a terrible piece of legislation, although I suspect we agree for different reasons.

Natives weren’t the only people discriminated against when our country was founded (and the Indian Act written). Women, Jews and Catholics were not considered “persons”
under the law and other visible minorities (blacks, Chinese, and Indians) were considered inferior. But rather than treat all Canadians as equal – women, Jews, Catholics and visible minorities now receive all the rights and responsibilities as any other Canadian citizen but natives are still segregated from the rest of society based entirely on their ethnicity.

For the record, I’ve never once pretended that atrocities weren’t committed — nor have I tried to deal in misinformation. For instance, some people thought I said “natives get more money than the military” (which is inaccurate) when I actually said “natives get more money than the army”

You also mischaracterized my suggestion that INAC pay natives directly rather than the band and council. The idea is that the government issue a cheque to each resident and have the band collect taxes to pay for services. This wouldn’t give residents the option to pick and choose services but at least it would provide them some transparency and ability to influence how the money is spent though elections — not unlike my ability to do the same. Who knows if its workable – but it’s certainly an idea.

My point wasn’t that government shouldn’t provide services or compensation or apologies for past wrongs. I question the progress that we’ve made in the past 200 years and the value for money spent. Its interesting that a handful of cheifs are almost the only people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo (or whose only solution is more money).
http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/ koby

>>>> Our Canadian legal framework is very clear. Indians are the only race mentioned in the BNA Act of 1867. Indians are mentioned because the legal framework, the constitution, the highest law of the land, recognizes their distinct and respected place in the effort to create a confederation. The creation of treaties and their primacy in the Canadian legal framework is then explicitly recognized in the Constitution of 1982. The Indian Act, as bad as it is, constitutes part of the Canadian legal framework. In addition, Canada had committed to numerous international treaties and declarations which, by adoption, constitute part of the Canadian legal framework.

No kidding. Thanks for the history lesson. There are significant challenges that will likely render it near impossible to undo all what was done during the last 141 years of idiocy. Does that mean that we should attempt to mitigate the effects of such idiocy? No.

>>>> Dense people like Koby like to pretend they are law and order types but they think we should all abide by laws they wish or imagine to be the case.

Having just accused me of wanting to run roughshod over the law, you now accuse me of being a “law and order type” or wanting to be a law and order type — as if that latter makes any sense at all.

>>>>> Our obligation is one of respect and accomodation. They met their obligation, those who have treaties, when they agreed to let you and I reside on their land

Your bleeding all of the place. As should be clear by now, I feel that honoring these agreements is not in the public interest. So, we should seek to limit our obligations wherever possible. Parliament is one avenue. Keeping closer tab on the judiciary another. I do not generally favor Harper’s longing to politicize the judiciary, but this issue could bring me around to his way of thinking.
K Hodgins

Koby – try being coherent. First you stand on law and order, the Canadian legal framework as you put it, then when I review it for your benefit, you go all fascist and declare that your forked tongue gives you the unilateral right to breach agreements because you have decided they are not in the public interest. Fortunately, there is an underlying principle of the honour of the Crown in Canada which simply means, in this case, Canada will stand by its word, evidently the concept of honesty being foreign to you. Then you say you wish for courts that will thwart the public interest and our democracy so as to provide legal cover for you being a theiving, lying supremacist. You madam, came to this little battle unarmed and need to just crawl away.
K Hodgins

Koby – try being coherent. First you stand on law and order, the Canadian legal framework as you put it, then when I review it for your benefit, you go all fascist and declare that your forked tongue gives you the unilateral right to breach agreements because you have decided they are not in the public interest. Fortunately, there is an underlying principle of the honour of the Crown in Canada which simply means, in this case, Canada will stand by its word, evidently the concept of honesty being foreign to you. Then you say you wish for courts that will thwart the public interest and our democracy so as to provide legal cover for you being a theiving, lying supremacist. You madam, came to this little battle unarmed and need to just crawl back into the hole before you dig it any deeper.
Sophie

OKay, the anger here could cook meat, so let’s see what everyone can agree on.
1) The Indian Act is an outdated piece of legislation
2) aboriginals need help
3)the best way to get this help is not to argue over history
4)throughout Canada’s history, a variety of ethinc groups have been seriously screwed. Aboriginals were one of them.
5) THe Indian Act could be abolished, but the Band Leaders will never agree to that. THus we come to number 6.
What the hell do we do now?
Suggestions are welcome.
K Hodgins

Sophie, I respect your intent but you base your position on false premises.

You state we should not argue over history. Neither should we ignore it. The relationship is based on history. You will not pursuade Indians to just put that all behind them.

You refer to Aboriginals as an ethnic group and relate their experience to other ethnic groups. You are right that some ethnic groups were treated very badly, the Japanes, Chines, Sikhs, etc. However, why do you refer to Aboriginals as ethnic? Are the Japanes ethnic in Japan? Are Irish ethnic in Ireland. By definition, ethnic groups are those identified with one nation but living in another. Indians are indigenous, this is their land, they are not ethnic. There is similarity in their treatment and the treatment of some ethnic groups but that does not make them ethnic. The treatment of Aboriginals overall has been very different. Treatment of ethnic groups was based on hate and xenophobia. Treatment of Indians was based in law on respect as expressed by the Royal Proclamation (that darn history again) which sadly has been betrayed in implementation. It is not the same. It may seem a small point, but it is offensive to Aboriginal people to be characterized in their own land as just another ethnic group.

Lastly, you have evidently bought into the Conservative spin about the “Band Leaders.” Think about it. A century ago, we decided there was nothing wrong with the Indian children but we had to seperate them from their parents, so we stole the kids and put them in little concentration camps we pretended were schools.

That didn’t go so well, just cost $4 billion as part of the reparations.

Now the Conservatives are peddling crap about there being nothing too wrong with Indian communities, it is just that they have backward and corrupt leaders. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Indian leadership is strangely like white leadership. They are leaders because – now wait for this – the people put them there. In other words, they represent the people and if they don’t, they get replaced.

For the most part, Indian leaders are selected by the rules of the 1951 Indian Act, by elections held every two or three years. You will note this means they come up for approval about twice as often as the leaders we select in provincial and federal elections. Seems pretty democratic, pretty accountable.

There are some First Nations that have alternative election processes, sometimes called traditional. These too are democratic in nature although perhaps not familiar to us. The existence of these different systems are the product of the people choosing to operate this way. Again, pretty democratic.

Most though operate by the 1951 Indian Act approach, one imposed on them that was meant to force them to mimic municipal style government. This approach replaced a system for many where the most capable person was selected to be the leader, the second most capable assisted in leading, and so on – with a system where the Chief is elected in a winner take all election, not necessarily the most capable because the vote can split accross a dozen candidates and one candidate with 10% of the vote can win while the other eleven are losers and out of the picture. The system pits people against each other in small communities and it creates outcomes where there are now winners and losers. This is one of our gifts to their culture.

Be that as it may, their leaders are more accountable than ours are by our definition of democracy. These leaders at the community level then usually select their tribal, provincial and national leaders. This is similar to the system we use for selection of party leaders. Canadians do not have a voice in selecting the Prime Minister directly, so the First Nation approach is not very different.

You then say the Indian leaders will never agree to abolishing the Indian Act. Why would you say this? I expect it is because you are buying into the Conservative garbage about Indian leaders being corrupt and working against the interests of their own people. Think about it.

The fact is, we had a Royal Commission recently that laid out the path forward and included wholesale change or abolishment of the Indian Act. Indian leadership largely endorsed these findings. Parliament received the report, made nice speeches and put it firmly on the shelf where the Conservatives are keeping it today. Indian leaders want change, they participated in multilateral discussions to arrive at key elements of that change, Canada has refused to adopt or implement the changes and you blame the Indians.

As to what we do about it – we need to seek to elect people who are progressive and respectful and who will live up to our obligations. We tell others that use code words to disguise their racism that we see through it, that we are capable of seeing past their spin and that we will replace them if they persist in persecuting others in our name. Lastly, we continue to educate ourselves by talking it through as is happening here.
http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/ koby

>>>>> First you stand on law and order,

What are you talking about? You were blathering on about “white values” and how not everyone should be forced to adopt them and I said that these so called “white values” were byproduct of Canada’s economic and legal make up — a historical materialist account. Oreos, bananas, apples, and any other kind of food you can think of are a natural consequence. Where no such bounty exists, so does massive economic and legal inequality.

>>>>> Fortunately, there is an underlying principle of the honour of the Crown in Canada which simply means, in this case, Canada will stand by its word, evidently the concept of honesty being foreign to you.

What rose coloured scout’s honor crap. The only thing holding a country to a manifestly bad accord is the consequences of extricating oneself from that agreement.

>>>> you have decided they are not in the public interest.

Name me what societal good has been produced by such agreements of the last 141 years. I see nothing but misery and idiocy. Indeed, whereas every other minority grouping has made significant progress over the course of the last 50 years, I see such agreements helping to produce levels of poverty that could only be described as third world, substance abuse levels that rival countries undergoing serve economic dislocation, and suicide rates as high as gay males and American soldiers serving in Iraq. Abandon ship.
Sophie

K Hodgins- I’m native. I’ve been hearing this since I was five. I’m not basing any of my opinions on ‘spin’ but rather on what I know and can see with my own eyes. Amazingly enough, this means I am well aware of the process through which band leaders are elected. So, thanks for the civics lesson, give it to Stephen Harper instead. I want us to stop arguing over history for one reason and one reason only: we can’t change history. we can stop it from repeating itself. Like I’ve said before, I understand the need to absolve yourselves, but the fact is that the people who still hold grudges for the Indian Act and various treaties are going to remain mad thier entire lives, but the rest of us hsould be looking to the future. I wonder where you are basing your opinions on, sir. Tell me, have you ever been on a reserve? If you have, than you would know that history is the least of our problems.
Brian

Excellent points Koby and Sophie. My guess is that K Hodgins either works at INAC or is a “consultant” which would place him in the extreme minority of people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If I’ve cast unfair aspersions on you K Hodgins, please accept my sincere non-apology given the many disparaging remarks you’ve made about me and others.
granny

There is nothing that Indigenous Nations need from Canada except that which is legally owed to them, that which is still illegally withheld by our governments.
Cooper

I see that our government is spending more money on something that “we” had nothing to do with. I am sorry but I dont feel like paying anymore money let alone emotional burdons for the mistakes of past governments. To put it simply, I don’t know my ancesters nor do I know any natives. So, why am I paying rediculous amounts of tax dollars towards something that doesn’t pertain to me.

I think an apology would have sufficed for past government decisions. What does money have to do with it and why am I paying for it?

Anyway, maybe what I think is racist I don’t really know. I’m sure all the bleeding hearts would like to attend my residence with torches and burn me at a cross. After all, I just want what’s best for the entire country not just a select few. I can only imagine what a BILLION DOLLARS would do for a few rural communities in Canada.

If this country had an endless supply of money I would say go ahead and give the natives whatever they need, but guess what? we don’t. If you want to donate your own money then go ahead I’m not stopping you.

As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned…wow…a politician with balls and a desire to spend tax dollars efficiently. Who would of thought anyone from parliment had the courage, be it right or wrong, to speak so honestly about his concerns.

Shame on all of you for attacking a man with courage and integrity.