Nowadays, Canadian mainstream Medias strive to encourage citizens to think of Canada’s model of Liberalism (neo-Liberalism), which is being primarily concerned with “multiculturalism” as a metaphysical foundation for designing socio-political policies in this country, as such that makes perfect sense, despite the fact that deep conceptual inconsistencies of this form of political governing are visible to just about anyone capable of utilizing its sense of rationale. In his article “Debacle of Neo-Liberalism”, Frederic F. Clairmont states: “Neo-liberalism, its propagandists informed us, had overcome the ups and downs, the booms and busts of American and Canadian capitalism. Today the reality is different; the tunes have changed and replaced by declarations – official and non-official – of morbid despair and fatalism” (Clairmont 2002, p. 384). The issue of Native territorial claims in Canada and how the Federal government addresses this issue illustrates the validity of the earlier thesis better than anything else does. It has now been estimated that if all of these claims were added together, in the territorial sense of this word, the sheer size Native land in this country would over exceed the size of Canada by two. Nevertheless, while continuing to stress out the importance of eliminating what they refer to as “historical injustices”, Liberal politicians try their best to conceal the fact that their proposed policies, as to the elimination of such “injustices”, do not simply correspond to the notion of common sense, but even to their own Liberal worldview. In her article “Liberalism’s Identity Problem”, Katherine Smits points out to the fact that, even though Liberalism prompts citizens to “celebrate” their ethnic uniqueness, it simultaneously denies them a right to fully associate their existential mode with such their “uniqueness”, simply because Liberalism implies the irrelevance of biological factors, within a context of an individual attaining its social or political identity: “Feminists and scholars of race and ethnicity have argued that Liberalism is at best irrelevant, and at worst inimical to the demands of minority social groups for recognition, status and rights, because it both assumes and legitimizes a version of the person or subject which is universal-grounded in no particular social identity, and thus representative of all” (Smits 2003, p. 247). No matter how “progressive” White neo-Liberal politicians might appear to a naked eye, most of them continue to profess euro-centric values, which is why their public stance on the issue of Native Canadians striving to legitimize its land claims is best described as utterly hypocritical – while recognizing Natives’ natural right to be masters on their own territory, they nevertheless actively oppose the process of such right being integrated into Canadian law. Moreover, while being pressed hard to actually do something about “elimination of historical injustice”, in regards to Native Canadians, as opposed to simply talking about, Liberal politicians act as their spiritual ancestors (White colonists) – they ask Native Chiefs to sign legal agreements with representatives of Federal and Provincial governments, which usual