Canada's Got an Inequality Problem

[William_Clarkson]

What do you think of having a basic minimum income for everyone who doesn't make enough money to keep them out of poverty?

You mean minimum wage which every province has?

[William_Clarkson]

No I was referring to the horrible genocide, which created the societal problems they have. Not the meager band-aids, which have only recently taken place.

Band-aids? More qualified students could be rejected from top universities because someone's parents or grandparents were oppressed by the government (among other people, who don't get benefits like the Natives).

Also, a Native person who could be making an above average income would be receiving a tax cut over someone who is just poor who came from a poor family. Granted, I don't believe people should get tax cuts, but if you are going to do it, race is not an acceptable way to do it in my opinion. If you're going to it should go to children who want to go to university or trade school, but have no parental support (which may include a lot of Natives, but will not have every Native, nor exclusively Natives).

No one deserves special treatment, we are all born free and equal (according to the UN), which is one of many reasons the race question should be removed from the Census. This is an inequality problem, Natives get benefits or as you call them "band-aids", that other do not.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Thanks I guess!

I grew up in the north coast - the real North coast not Vancouver - and my school was about 60% native. My post was actually toned back, if I went into things I saw regularly (like where the 15+ grand they recieved upon turning 18 went, or where many of my friends ended up after graduation instead of taking advantage of the opportunities for free schooling) I honestly think you wouldn't beleive it. I have many native friends, but still strongly beleive the majority are being ruined by handouts from our government.

As far as your genocide etc comment - find a society that has no past examples of the same or similar history. However, unlike you, I don't suffer from white man guilt.

I didn't make any genocide comment however I also don't feel guilty for anything. It wasn't me so I have no reason to feel any guilt. That does not erase history and allow you to just say they get all these wonderful things so they should just zip it.

I'm also not in favor of handouts from the government.

[Lockout Casualty]

Fo sho but who specifically then pays for it. Who is going to feel it the most I guess would be a better question? Does the family with 1 person working bringing in an income of 300 000 a year feel that more than my family with both my wife and I working and barely bringing in 90,000 a year for our family feel it more?

On top of that based on my experience doing volunteer work at missions and shelters every week for the past 8 year handing out money is going to be very detrimental to the health of a lot of people.

This giving money to people for doing nothing crap is a lovely idea but would fail in practice. Now take that money and give it to programs like new life missions and shelters and rehab facilities etc etc etc and it might actually do some good. I'd rather not feel the pinch worse than I already do for some pipe dream program that isn't going to do any good for the majority of people it's supposed to "help"

Came across this video again, thought you may like to watch it when you have time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Came across this video again, thought you may like to watch it when you have time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Fantastic video and a lot to digest in it.

1. Well, who feels the taxes right now? I don't see why the same people wouldn't be feeling it the most. I would say that a single person making 300k pays more in taxes than your family, ergo I'd say that person feels it more. Don't really see where this thought should take us though. Elaborate? And by the way, 90k is about 40% higher than the average Canadian family household income, so "barely" making 90k shouldn't be such a downer.

2.This is why anecdotal evidence counts for squat when dealing with issues spanning nations and affecting millions. I don't doubt you're aware of the Mincome project from a few decades ago, which resulted in improvements to people's quality of life, increased education for youth, and more stay-home moms to take care of their young. And more.

3.I'm not sure what detrimental health effects giving the poor money would have. Increased drug use? I'd refer to the Florida "experiment' where the Republican governor (tied to the testing company) tested welfare recipients for drugs, finding few people using (and the program being a tremendous waste of public money). Giving money to people is more likely to result in them buying food/shelter than drugs and alcohol.

4.This giving money to people for doing nothing crap is the future, whether you like it or not. Do you have a plan to employ millions of drivers who will be unemployed within a decade or two? Bus drivers, taxi drivers, truckers, and on and on and on. How about grocery store clerks? My local store has 6 machines that process customers faster than any cashier. We can also look forward to ordering meals from a computer screen at MickeyD's, being greeted by screens at our local banks, and more. The reality of the situation is that human labour will eventually be more and more concentrated in providing entertainment than services and production. And it's not just low skill workers that will be affected. Imagine the value of an AI that can parse legal documents, be able to diagnose diseases. That's coming too, and it may even be closer than self-driving vehicles.

Finally, it's not about giving people money for doing nothing. Rather, it's about giving people a means to survive in a society dominated by lobbying money, stagnating wages, increasing prices for everything people need to pay on a repeating basis (yes, TVs have gotten cheaper. Bread? That's a different story).

5. What are the costs of our bureaucracy to provide welfare, EI, sickness benefits, and so on? It's huge. Pour that into the program. Need to find more money? Implement a national prescription program to lower the cost of drugs by buying in larger quantities. Implement dental into health coverage and save once the benefits of preventative care kick in in a decade. Jeeze, you can even increase taxes! There was no purpose in cutting 2% off the GST and losing billions per year in government revenue (well, there was a reason - populism).

Will it be easy? No. Will it be cheap? No. Will it provide a higher quality of life for the populace? Absolutely. Will it improve our society? No doubt. We shouldn't strive to maintain status quo because change is expensive or scary, we should see the trends over the last decades and think how we can prepare for the inevitable surge in self-operating technologies that will wipe out entire industries.

Edit: I neglected to mention how financial security will permit people to take risks with their business ideas, not having to worry about living on the street. This one I know first hand, I made 400 dollars a month for well over a year to build a business, that eventually failed anyway. How about increased creative and artistic output from society? People having more time to pursue their life's ambitions instead of working in a cubicle for half their time on the planet. We're not robots, and if we can give ourselves more time to enjoy life instead of spending that time on trying to afford life, are we really that much worse? Will you really be upset if there is never another billionaire after Bill Gates? I sure won't, and I'm part of the business folks who strive to make millions (emphasis on strive, heh).

1. If my taxes go up I feel it more than my neighbor who makes 300K a year. Even if it's the same percentage I feel it more. He doesn't pay more for gas or groceries because he makes more. 5 grand is a lot of money for my family where as for him it's what he put's towards charity to save money on his taxes.

2. I often find people who don't like anecdotal evidence are either the people who disagree with what it says or don't have their own. I am not saying that I don't believe in helping people and that things don't need to change. I'm saying my anecdotal evidence shows that just giving money to people and feeling good about "helping" isn't enough. Giving a minimum salary won't work. However I agree that teaching people would work. I believe I did say that I was all for social programs being funded to help. In terms of mothers being able to take care of their kids I am 100% behind that. In Canada a parent gets 1 year and 55% of their wages. That's a joke in my opinion.I personally like Swedens model but then again I would rather adopt their entire system so I'm bias. I'm all for increasing that percentage as well as increasing the child benefits families receive. That whole system is a mess though.

3. You assume I mean drugs and alcohol. Many of the people I know wouldn't know what to do with a handout. You go to any mission and ask the cook what they're numbers are at different times of the month. (Most of the ones I've worked with count, helps them know how much to cook.) You're going to see big number the week before the welfare checks are issued and really low number the week after. I'm all for raising welfare benefits but not just by throwing money at it. That's not solving the actual problem. The actual problem is many people have no clue what to do with money; not responsibly at least. A welfare program needs to be and should be more than just a place that gives out money. It needs to be a program that actually helps people.The money needs to be there as well but just increasing welfare check sizes would be like increasing the number of guards in a prison and expecting people to re-offend less.

4.It's not the future at all no matter how much you want it to be. Real social change will not come from paper and coins.(or plastic cards) Other than that I agree that everything you are saying is a problem. It just doesn't have the simple answer of handing out cash to people to fix it. Do you think giving money to a homeless guy on the street is really going to help him? If you had/have a kid would you just give him an allowance for nothing and expect him to grow up to be successful? I hope not. I hope your kids or future kids grow up to be wonderful people with wonderful lives because you as a loving parent and person gave them opportunities to learn and be educated.That's social change; I know it's cliche but we need to teach people to fish before we give them a boat and a rod. (I know, I modified the cliche.)

5. Completely agree. Those tax increases can go to the businesses that are laying off workers in favor of automated devices. The world is moving in a certain direction and we do need to find a different way of dealing with that. So we've been throwing money at that so perhaps the solution isn't more money in terms of minimum salaries (which is where this all started) but in education and programs. The solution isn't easy and it is scary because the solution is and has to be so much more than just giving people bigger checks. At what point is there going to be so few jobs because of automation that the economy crumbles because those with jobs can't pay for those without and nobody knows what to do. We'll be watering crops with gatorade alongside President Camacho. We need to be smarter than that.

[Lockout Casualty]

Fantastic video and a lot to digest in it.

1. If my taxes go up I feel it more than my neighbor who makes 300K a year. Even if it's the same percentage I feel it more. He doesn't pay more for gas or groceries because he makes more. 5 grand is a lot of money for my family where as for him it's what he put's towards charity to save money on his taxes.

2. I often find people who don't like anecdotal evidence are either the people who disagree with what it says or don't have their own. I am not saying that I don't believe in helping people and that things don't need to change. I'm saying my anecdotal evidence shows that just giving money to people and feeling good about "helping" isn't enough. Giving a minimum salary won't work. However I agree that teaching people would work. I believe I did say that I was all for social programs being funded to help. In terms of mothers being able to take care of their kids I am 100% behind that. In Canada a parent gets 1 year and 55% of their wages. That's a joke in my opinion.I personally like Swedens model but then again I would rather adopt their entire system so I'm bias. I'm all for increasing that percentage as well as increasing the child benefits families receive. That whole system is a mess though.

3. You assume I mean drugs and alcohol. Many of the people I know wouldn't know what to do with a handout. You go to any mission and ask the cook what they're numbers are at different times of the month. (Most of the ones I've worked with count, helps them know how much to cook.) You're going to see big number the week before the welfare checks are issued and really low number the week after. I'm all for raising welfare benefits but not just by throwing money at it. That's not solving the actual problem. The actual problem is many people have no clue what to do with money; not responsibly at least. A welfare program needs to be and should be more than just a place that gives out money. It needs to be a program that actually helps people.The money needs to be there as well but just increasing welfare check sizes would be like increasing the number of guards in a prison and expecting people to re-offend less.

4.It's not the future at all no matter how much you want it to be. Real social change will not come from paper and coins.(or plastic cards) Other than that I agree that everything you are saying is a problem. It just doesn't have the simple answer of handing out cash to people to fix it. Do you think giving money to a homeless guy on the street is really going to help him? If you had/have a kid would you just give him an allowance for nothing and expect him to grow up to be successful? I hope not. I hope your kids or future kids grow up to be wonderful people with wonderful lives because you as a loving parent and person gave them opportunities to learn and be educated.That's social change; I know it's cliche but we need to teach people to fish before we give them a boat and a rod. (I know, I modified the cliche.)

5. Completely agree. Those tax increases can go to the businesses that are laying off workers in favor of automated devices. The world is moving in a certain direction and we do need to find a different way of dealing with that. So we've been throwing money at that so perhaps the solution isn't more money in terms of minimum salaries (which is where this all started) but in education and programs. The solution isn't easy and it is scary because the solution is and has to be so much more than just giving people bigger checks. At what point is there going to be so few jobs because of automation that the economy crumbles because those with jobs can't pay for those without and nobody knows what to do. We'll be watering crops with gatorade alongside President Camacho. We need to be smarter than that.

Depends on your lifestyle I guess. Expenses tend to grow along with one's income, at least to a point, so I wouldn't put it past some of the 300k folk to live to the full 300k. That's neither here nor there I guess.

While there are uses for anecdotal evidence, I don't think this is one of them. A guaranteed income would affect more than just the homeless, so I would be hesitant to base my opinion on such a limited experience. Single mothers, young adults, people with disabilities, people who lose their jobs, all would benefit. I do agree that throwing money at people who don't have any money skills is a losing proposition, and would fully support providing education to those who need it, poor or not (heavens know more people should learn money management). I was strictly talking about the financial aspect, not the social development one. Looks like we're on the same page here.

I also completely agree that change won't come from money, though I think it will facilitate the transition over the short term (short term from when the change starts, I don't think we're there yet, though Mincome is a much more common theme over the last year than I ever recall it being). What I see right now is a hodge podge system, placing politically safe bandaids on issues, kicking the can down the road to the next generation, and avoiding addressing the true, onsetting threats to our way of life. All in the name of votes, and that goes for LPC, CPC, and NDP. I have opinions on great many things, but I don't have the first clue how to conclusively fix the political system. Just thinking about my impotence to effect change makes me want to bury my head in the sand. As a result, I see things getting much worse before we are able to deal with the automation properly. Sadly, I'm convinced most of those who are in power recognize the threat, there's just no political will or immediate benefit for them to do anything about it.

It concerns me a great deal that you may be right about watering our crops with Brawndo. Even with increasing education, it seems like the quality is decreasing. At least that's what my experience dictates. Maybe it's because I'm in the 25-34 group, and we have the highest rates of literacy. Everyone behind us seems to be getting dumber. Damn kids.

That video is great, and the top comment below is too. Over the long term (I'm talking centuries), once we have robots and AI doing most of the "chores" for us, what will humans be left to do? Will we really become unemployable? What will a day in a post-scarcity society look? Could the billionaires hold onto their positions over generations? What will a billionaire look like when money isn't an aspect of life? What will motivate innovation? Will we leave governance to AI? I think I'm getting carried away here.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, and ticklin' the ole noodle. +1

[freebuddy]

Who pays for that?

Feds and Provinces. It was done for several years in Manitoba in the 1970s.

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6335682

[freebuddy]

Fantastic video and a lot to digest in it.

1. If my taxes go up I feel it more than my neighbor who makes 300K a year. Even if it's the same percentage I feel it more. He doesn't pay more for gas or groceries because he makes more. 5 grand is a lot of money for my family where as for him it's what he put's towards charity to save money on his taxes.

2. I often find people who don't like anecdotal evidence are either the people who disagree with what it says or don't have their own. I am not saying that I don't believe in helping people and that things don't need to change. I'm saying my anecdotal evidence shows that just giving money to people and feeling good about "helping" isn't enough. Giving a minimum salary won't work. However I agree that teaching people would work. I believe I did say that I was all for social programs being funded to help. In terms of mothers being able to take care of their kids I am 100% behind that. In Canada a parent gets 1 year and 55% of their wages. That's a joke in my opinion.I personally like Swedens model but then again I would rather adopt their entire system so I'm bias. I'm all for increasing that percentage as well as increasing the child benefits families receive. That whole system is a mess though.

3. You assume I mean drugs and alcohol. Many of the people I know wouldn't know what to do with a handout. You go to any mission and ask the cook what they're numbers are at different times of the month. (Most of the ones I've worked with count, helps them know how much to cook.) You're going to see big number the week before the welfare checks are issued and really low number the week after. I'm all for raising welfare benefits but not just by throwing money at it. That's not solving the actual problem. The actual problem is many people have no clue what to do with money; not responsibly at least. A welfare program needs to be and should be more than just a place that gives out money. It needs to be a program that actually helps people.The money needs to be there as well but just increasing welfare check sizes would be like increasing the number of guards in a prison and expecting people to re-offend less.

4.It's not the future at all no matter how much you want it to be. Real social change will not come from paper and coins.(or plastic cards) Other than that I agree that everything you are saying is a problem. It just doesn't have the simple answer of handing out cash to people to fix it. Do you think giving money to a homeless guy on the street is really going to help him? If you had/have a kid would you just give him an allowance for nothing and expect him to grow up to be successful? I hope not. I hope your kids or future kids grow up to be wonderful people with wonderful lives because you as a loving parent and person gave them opportunities to learn and be educated.That's social change; I know it's cliche but we need to teach people to fish before we give them a boat and a rod. (I know, I modified the cliche.)

5. Completely agree. Those tax increases can go to the businesses that are laying off workers in favor of automated devices. The world is moving in a certain direction and we do need to find a different way of dealing with that. So we've been throwing money at that so perhaps the solution isn't more money in terms of minimum salaries (which is where this all started) but in education and programs. The solution isn't easy and it is scary because the solution is and has to be so much more than just giving people bigger checks. At what point is there going to be so few jobs because of automation that the economy crumbles because those with jobs can't pay for those without and nobody knows what to do. We'll be watering crops with gatorade alongside President Camacho. We need to be smarter than that.

Vancouver Homeless Man Shares Sweater With Stranger In Selfless Act

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6374406

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Vancouver Homeless Man Shares Sweater With Stranger In Selfless Act

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6374406

You really are just an empty shell aren't you?

I mean it's like you're one of the automated machines Lockout is talking about taking over for people.

It's a lovely story and a moderately well written article I'll give you that but how about you use your programming to actual come up with an argument. C'mon, if Watson can do it you can do it.

You should check out those videos where they give the homeless guy a pizza only to have someone else come buy and ask for a slice. Homeless guy shares his pizza and we all feel good about how generous people can be. It's really quite nice each time I see it; completely useless here but very nice.

If you're going to reply try having something to say for yourself. Put some substance in your argument.

[Standing_Tall#37]

There is a huge difference in actually making 100k and the potential to make a 100k as a tradesman.

Tell us where a tradesman can make a 100k and tell us how many tradesman there are

Tell us how many consecutive years a tradesman can make a 100k and tell us how long the window is open for a tradesman to make a 100k

And finally how much does a self employed tradesman earning 100k actually take home? An employed tradesman will never make a 100k fyi.

Then, after the window is closed, how much does a worn out tradesman make and how much is his pension paying him/her

Sorry,

Tradesperson.

lol are you serious?

[Mike Vanderhoek]

"Government assistance" making people more lazy.

Quite an ignorant statement, there are a lot of people in this country that need help from our Government. There is always going to be people working the system for sure, but i'd argue that percentage is quite low.

What are people going to do about inequality, I mean most people on the lower end of the pay scale don't have the push to make their voices heard, don't have the dollars the wealthier do to manipulate taxing, loopholes and so on.

I appreciate what I have, not a material person here at all, so I don't bother myself with this subject too much. Nothing one can do right ? some people work ten times harder but not smarter and will always be a general labourer. Is what it is.

[taxi]

Band-aids? More qualified students could be rejected from top universities because someone's parents or grandparents were oppressed by the government (among other people, who don't get benefits like the Natives).

Also, a Native person who could be making an above average income would be receiving a tax cut over someone who is just poor who came from a poor family. Granted, I don't believe people should get tax cuts, but if you are going to do it, race is not an acceptable way to do it in my opinion. If you're going to it should go to children who want to go to university or trade school, but have no parental support (which may include a lot of Natives, but will not have every Native, nor exclusively Natives).

No one deserves special treatment, we are all born free and equal (according to the UN), which is one of many reasons the race question should be removed from the Census. This is an inequality problem, Natives get benefits or as you call them "band-aids", that other do not.

No one gets rejected from school due to the special spots reserved for Aboriginal students. Those spots are created especially for aboriginal people and exist on top of the regular spots. They do not get them due to their race, but involvement in a disadvantaged community. Also aboriginal people only get tax cuts for money actually made on a reserve. The native bands tax the citizens instead.

So the alternatives in this situation are to abolish reserves or help the communities. I hope you can see the advantage of having more educated people living on reserves.

[taxi]

It's funny, because I keep hearing that. However, my own personal experience says otherwise.

As a bit of background, let me start out by saying that I'm in my 50s. About 6 years ago, I decided that I wanted to make a shift in my career arc. Up until that time, I had worked primarily is sales, the hospitality industry and middle management. Being "burned out" I decided to take an entry-level job in construction.

Not only did I find that I enjoyed the work, I found myself in the best shape I had ever been since my junior hockey days.

After two years, the company I worked for folded. Not wanting to re-enter the sales workforce, I applied for and was granted funding to enter the Electrical apprenticeship program. The problem with this is, anyone can take year one of schooling, but after year one, you have to find a company that will "sponsor" you through the final three years of the apprenticeship. Obviously, at close to 50 years old, this wasn't going to be easy for me.

However, at the time, (2010) there was a government program in place that would allow students to take both first and second year training, before finding a sponsor. This was a huge distinction, since many companies (especially in the Oil patch) were hiring 2nd year apprentices straight out of school.

There were four of us in my class who planned on doing this. We had all registered and put down deposits for year two, which would have begun classes a week after we passed our year one exam.

After 6 months of going to school and fully expecting to go right back for another 10 weeks, we were informed that the program we were counting on had been cancelled. (They told us this on the final day of classes, right after we finished our final exam)The story went that the program had been too successful and the market was now flooded with Electrical apprentices. Obviously, we were the only students in our class of 15 who had not been circulating resumes at that point, so we were left with relatively few options.

I still haven't completely given up on the idea of becoming an electrician, but almost 5 years later, it's not looking good.

Honestly, I know many people from the UK and Ireland who've come over to do trades work in the last five years. Also, I don't mean to be a dick, but I have a hard time believing you couldn't find a job anywhere in the last 5 years. You either weren't looking very hard or there is another complicating factor to your story you are not telling us.

A quick search on a job site shows me there are plenty of jobs for first year apprentice electricians popping up all the time. I could understand not being able to find one right away but five years is a long time to go without finding one.

Canada is also changing the rules to allow "express entry" to skilled immigrants:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/skilled-immigrants-to-be-offered-express-entry-to-canada-in-2015-1.2617961

They wouldn't be doing that if we didn't still have a shortage. Obviously things may be changing quickly if the price of oil stays so low. Expect a lot more industries than just the trades to feel that pain.

[RUPERTKBD]

Honestly, I know many people from the UK and Ireland who've come over to do trades work in the last five years. Also, I don't mean to be a dick, but I have a hard time believing you couldn't find a job anywhere in the last 5 years. You either weren't looking very hard or there is another complicating factor to your story you are not telling us.

Oh I have a job. I have had for quite a while actually.

However, I wasn't able to find one as an electrical apprentice, mainly because I'm close to 54 now and not many companies are interested in taking on an apprentice that old. It might have been different four years ago, had I been able to complete year 2 of school...

[Standing_Tall#37]

Oh I have a job. I have had for quite a while actually.

However, I wasn't able to find one as an electrical apprentice, mainly because I'm close to 54 now and not many companies are interested in taking on an apprentice that old. It might have been different four years ago, had I been able to complete year 2 of school...

did you try ft St. John, ft Nelson, Dease Lake or that new power project in kitimat?

[Buddhas Hand]

Reread what I wrote. Those were two separate statements:

1) Canada measures unemployment differently; and

2) You cannot compare Canadian statistics to European ones, which do not include a large and disadvantaged aboriginal population.

I did not say one led to the other.

The way different countries measure unemployment has to do with how they count their working force. Most countries only include people actively looking for a job. Differences then come when you decide how long you have to look before being taken off the list. In Canada, you have to have looked within the last 4 weeks. Other wrinkles come with part-time workers, students, etc...

So you cannot say X country has a 7% unemployment rate so things must be better than Y country, which has a 7.5% unemployment rate. The analysis is far more complicated than that.

I did read what you wrote and i asked you to describe the different way canada measures its unemployed which you have finally done.

I am aware of the facts you have presented , i thought you might have been able to elaborate more.

Bottom line canada does not lead the world in " upward mobility" , and it is not the land of endless opportunity as another member claimed, and which you decided to comment on.

[RUPERTKBD]

did you try ft St. John, ft Nelson, Dease Lake or that new power project in kitimat?

Pretty much all such projects are union operations. I did make contact with IBEW when I finished year one, but my conversations with them weren't very encouraging.

[Standing_Tall#37]

Pretty much all such projects are union operations. I did make contact with IBEW when I finished year one, but my conversations with them weren't very encouraging.

Keep at it...try to find out where to apply for the site C project...I have the feeling they'll need as many hands as possible. It'll suck to spend an apprenticeship building tray and pulling cable, but hours are hours.

[Standing_Tall#37]

Pretty much all such projects are union operations. I did make contact with IBEW when I finished year one, but my conversations with them weren't very encouraging.

Oh and be relentless, don't take no for an answer. Call them everyday if that's what it takes. Show that even if you're not the best candidate, you want it the most. That's how I got my apprenticeship and I've never taken my trade for granted. Keeping workin at it man, things will eventually work out if you want it bad enough.

[William_Clarkson]

No one gets rejected from school due to the special spots reserved for Aboriginal students. Those spots are created especially for aboriginal people and exist on top of the regular spots. They do not get them due to their race, but involvement in a disadvantaged community. Also aboriginal people only get tax cuts for money actually made on a reserve. The native bands tax the citizens instead.

So the alternatives in this situation are to abolish reserves or help the communities. I hope you can see the advantage of having more educated people living on reserves.

Regardless, they're accepting students that may not normally make it while what would be a more qualified student is rejected. Also, there are a lot of disadvantaged communities throughout the country, they're not all reserves. Some reserves aren't nearly as bad (e.g. ones near oil sands in Alberta) and they don't really need extra assistance.

Fair enough regarding the tax point, but still I'd rather have people not get tax cuts.

I'd rather not have reserves. Simple as that. If anything should be fixed, I'd probably say the schools on or near the reserves so more people on reserves could go to university on their own merits (can take out a student loan for financial assistance, lots of poor people go to university).