3 ms·

Yeah, I feared it was a politicized term. I guess my real thought here is, what is the end goal? So you call it a genocide and give a lump sum of money to the

• sonnyblarney 7y ago
  There is no 'end goal' because nobody is in charge. It's a various group of political entities. Many people of the current political regime probably would not agree with the term 'genocide' but they're not going to speak out against it for fear of retribution. My wild guess is that whoever's in charge wants to use the word to make a point. I'll bet there was pushback from certain quarters, but they got their way. Certainly there would have been many pushing for the use of the term. The outcome will be totally ambiguous - it will provide political cover for more spending on reserves, but it doesn't have to mean anything specific. As a Canadian, I'll bet that the vast majority of Canadians are perfectly fine with big investment on reserves, so long as it's fruitful. The hockey programs seem to be working well in Quebec for example, with some hiccups. But sending very expensive gear up to Iqaluit in perpetuity may not bode very well. That's a tricky one. There are remote aboriginal communities a zillion miles from anywhere - no roads - nothing. There is no economic activity. That's a tough problem to solve. But there are low hanging fruit we could work on.