It took 60 years

Finally, the Siksika people agreed to accept....wait for it.....$1.3 billion in a land settlement that they held out on for 60 years!  That's for 3,500 souls who are going to share the bounty.  Frankly, I can't even do the math on how much that is per person, but it's a hell of a lot!

So, what does the chief say?  "This settlement is not reconciliation," said Ouray Crowfoot.  "We will never be restored to the same as before these breaches took place, but it will offer financial opportunities, open many doors and help us move to financial sovereignty and a better standard of life for our people."  Does "financial sovereignty" mean they will no longer accept the annual grants given by Canadians?  Ya, right.  And does his claim that it is not reconciliation mean the door's still open to going for more cash?  That was a rhetorical question because it leaves it wide open.    

What everyone fails to grasp is that all reserves are located on Crown Land, given for a tribe's exclusive use.  But it is still Crown Land, so what I fail to grasp is why they are given more than a billion dollars for land they don't even own?!  Help me, someone, please!

_______________________________

On another greedy note, Calgary's newly-elected mayor Gondek was one of those voting against a salary freeze for councillors.  She would not even table the motion, claiming it had not been studied enough.  Really?  Does she mean that more than $200,000 -- her annual salary -- isn't enough and that it needs to be further studied to see just how much she can up it?  At the same time, she's pushing for Calgary to donate $100,000 to help cover the legal fees for those fighting Quebec's Bill 21.  Hey, your worship, dig into your own bank account if you want to fork over that kind of money in a fight that has nothing to do with your dilapidated jurisdiction of Calgary.

As I keep bleating, Bill 21 is not discriminatory.  It simply upholds the principle of the "Separation of Church and State" that ensures the neutrality of public officials when dispensing a public service.  The public must not know the religion of a public servant when accessing such a service, hence no hijabs, yarmulkes, kirpans, crucifixes or any other religious symbol.

But the nasty spoke in the wheel of public service neutrality is the funding of separate schools.  If I were the lawyer representing those opposed to Bill 21, that's the card I'd play.  Boy, what an ugly Pandora's Box that would open!  Yikes! 

Getting sick of it.