Yes, but were the acts of that church run school system, the same as the acts exhibited in the 1600s? The 1800s? NO. In fact, there was a realization that the schools had issues, that there was wrongness in the schools, as far back in the 1950s, when legislation was passed to allow natives to attend in the standard school system. The federal government stepped in, and in the 60s took direct control of the school system, seeking to rectify things. Schools were closed in the 70s, lots of them, and many were given to control of native groups.

The point is, context is important. Were the schools you cite in the 90s treating natives as they were treated 100, 200 years before. NO.

No one is saying that the school system was a good idea by modern ideals. This is, in fact, why it was shut down. However, trying to equate how the school system performed in the 90s, to how it performed 100 years prior, is absurd.

There have been issues with water all over Canada in rural communities, not just native communities. My own town had issues with local well water for decades, until we finally built a water treatment plant. Successive federal governments have dealt with these issues on reservation, and I 100% agree that this is an issue. Yet at the same time, we have some chiefs redirecting, or just personally stealing funds marked for local communities. Natives are human beings after all, and so corruption exists here too, and the systems of checks and balances to force some accountability in governmental operations in Canada, don't apply to Native communities. And of course, if the federal government attempts to step in, simply to force accountability, people howl at the "power grab".

I have little care of 'unceded' land, unless there is a historical treaty stating otherwise. You may wonder why I say that? Well as I stated in my initial reply, this is how the world is. Every single piece of land on the planet has people on unceded land. The very use of the term is absurd. Natives, before a single white man arrived, were on unceded land, for they took their land from people here before them. Natives were not the first North Americans.

I can look at any piece of land on Europe, and it is unceded. Taken.

Back to the main point, and back to Canada, it is absolutely not beholden to corporate interests and elites. Claiming so, ignores what each government has done in detail, perhaps focusing only on the mistakes made, and not on the good each government has done.

So I am not defending your incorrect view of Canada and of history, and of modern Canada, but instead I am defending my view of Canada. An imperfect nation, as all are, but as I said in a prior comment, better than most, if not all.

One of the largest issues I see is, everyone has a weird view of the world, in which the culture and beliefs, and traditions of natives would remain unchanged for half a millennium. Yet, let's enact a little thought experiment.

What would have happened if, for example, Europeans arrived in the new world, but instead did not settle here? But at the same time, enacted in open trade with native communities, and open contact.

Well an entirely European free North America would have had its culture evolve. Technological progress would have seeped in, that is unless there is an assertion that natives have no mind for science, technology, the capacity to build things?

And what of trade? Various native tribes and nations warred with one another, Europeans were not required to cause this. Obviously, some would seek to trade furs for guns, yes? And with the right tools, building settlements could aid in defense. We don't really need to look too hard here, for every culture across the entire planet, including many cultures in the Americas build settlements.

And speaking of culture, none of the traditions cited and spoken of today by natives would be unchanged, unvarnished the the steps of time, should natives have controlled North America. Wars would cause the elimination of some tribes and cultures. Cultural ideas would have spread between communities. As technological advances occurred, culture would have changed.

My point in all of this is, it is of great disservice to presume that natives would not change the world around them, ever. That they would not change over time. That no native group, or community would expand and its culture supplant others. This happened all through the Americas, just take a look at the Mayans.

Yet the modern dialog is ... what? That natives would be living today, precisely as they did in the 1500s? Absolutely untrue.