First Nations Issues

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by vid

Why would you assume that I wouldn't? They're trying very hard but government policy prevents a lot of it. Allowing them to own their land would open up the floodgates of opportunity to them, and they would finally be able to take responsibility for their future. As it is, government policy makes individual responsibility almost impossible. The structure of the reserves is quite similar to communism.

Do native leaders actually want private land on reserves? Wouldn't that take away a lot of the power they wield within their communities? Are there native groups that are in favour of this? If so, I don't see why the government wouldn't be happy to consider it. It would be a problematic form of ownership in any case, though, since you would have to decide whether the land could be sold to non-natives. If not, it would be a pretty weak form of ownership that might not really produce that much opportunity.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Do native leaders actually want private land on reserves? Wouldn't that take away a lot of the power they wield within their communities? Are there native groups that are in favour of this?

Some do, some don't. The high amount of influence band chiefs have over their communities is a very big part of the problem of poverty on reserves. Many First Nations have situations where people don't get their welfare cheques because the Chief's family doesn't like them and they end up living in squalor. In other cases, the band commits massive welfare fraud. (I've mentioned the case involving Fort William First Nation's previous band council before.) The band is usually close knit, siblings and cousins from one or two families controlling everything. A band governing about 2,000 people will get millions of dollars every month from the government, and when you have as much power as they do, corruption is inevitable. The government is very bad at enforcing and double checking welfare to First Nations, so the corrupt activities are allowed to continue for some time before anything is done about them. Most native people don't know their rights and so they don't fight back.

Originally Posted by Andy6

If so, I don't see why the government wouldn't be happy to consider it.

Because the Government is the group that owns the land! As it is, the government can take a First Nation, remove the people living there and sell the land to a corporation without the band's consent. This has happened in Manitoba and Northern Ontario to construct hydro dams and mines dozens of times. The band council of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug was imprisoned for several months for protesting a mine on its land. This would be the equivalent of a city council going to jail for denying a building proposal. Under current Ontario law, a mine on native land doesn't have to employ any people from that community, and it doesn't have to pay any money to the band council. When you combine that with the destruction of their traditional hunting and fishing territory, it's a catastrophe for the community.

Originally Posted by Andy6

It would be a problematic form of ownership in any case, though, since you would have to decide whether the land could be sold to non-natives. If not, it would be a pretty weak form of ownership that might not really produce that much opportunity.

If would give the opportunity to bands to own land in cities, as well. Fort William First Nation makes hundreds of thousands of dollars with their retail strip south of Thunder Bay. Imagine how much they could make if they owned land in Thunder Bay itself. Communities like KI or Pikangikum, which are located very far away from other settlements, could own land in other communities and collect income from renting it out. Imagine the economic freedom they would have if they could sell parts of their land for development and collect taxes on it. Families would be able to get mortgages and build better homes, their homes would have value. They would have net worth, instead of renting a house from a band that is on land owned by the crown.

[rrskylar]

BlackRod


Friday, January 16, 2009
Phil Fontaine, National Chief and chief comedian

Goodness knows we need something to laugh about during this long and brutal winter.

That's why we have to thank Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, for giving everyone a good chuckle with his comments about the forensic audit of the Winnipeg office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC, for short).

Winnipeg Free Press reporter Mia Rabson, playing the foil, set up the joke by asking Fontaine what he thought about the audit findings of gross mismanagement at INAC.

"People have been too quick to blame First Nations people for mismanagement, and what have you when the opposite appears to be true?" he said with Steven Wright deadpan.

"We've been repeatedly blamed for mismanagement practices, and our leadership is always accused of being corrupt." he riffed before delivering his punchline...

"There is no doubt in my mind we need to ensure there is greater power and authority in our hands, not less. "

Oh, stop. Our sides are hurting. We've got to catch our breaths.

Whatever props Fontaine gets for comic timing he loses for reading comprehension, or lack thereof.

Let us take you through the INAC audit. We try to use terms simple enough for even a Grand Grand Chief to understand.

The audit examined three matters:

· how Manitoba Hydro fudged the books and overcharged the federal government $7.9 million on a project to clean up soil contaminated by diesel power plants on reserves.

· how the Fairford reserve got a $1.2 million overpayment without anyone noticing, and

· how INAC managers bent, bent and bent the rules to channel more than $400,000 to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs for their pet project, a Legislature Building of their own.

Let's look at the last one first. We're sure Phil Fontaine found it a knee-slapper.

The AMC wants to build something they call a Governance House. It's literally a mini-Legislature to feed the gigantic egos of the local chiefs and let them feel important. The building is to be a "gathering place" as well as a "visual 'brand' for First Nations." (If the deal falls through, we could sell them Spirited Energy. Slightly used.)

First, the AMC needed an urban reserve to put it on.

In 2006 Manitoba Hydro (them again) sold a parcel of land at 480 Madison Ave. near Polo Park to the Long Plain Reserve for a proposed urban reserve. Long Plain paid $1.1 million, (using a portion of a $16 million land claims settlement they got in 1994). The AMC had found their urban reserve.

The auditors said that the AMC's May 2007 Business Plan " projected the total cost of construction and tenant fit-out at $91.8 million." But in early 2006 they were just looking for seed money.

And Indian Affairs came through for their buds.

First they gave AMC $143,440 for, as the auditors put it, negotiations "leading to the creation of the Governance House Project." They don't say what happened to a separate request for $56,560 for the Grand Chief's office.

The initial payment was slipped into the annual budget under the heading Contributions for the purpose of consultation and policy development.

But, concluded the auditors, "the investigation team found no wording in the authority that would justify its use to support negotiations for the acquisition of property or for adding lands to a reserve. Further, the team found no evidence on INAC's files to suggest that AMC had, within the context of this project, investigated, developed, proposed, reviewed, informed or consulted on any policy matters."

The initial payment didn't go far. By April the AMC was back with a "preliminary draft application" for $1.3 million in Governance House Phase 2 funding, including

- $205,000 for lawyers,

- $50,000 for media relations,

- $40,000 for travel,

- $450,000 for project management, coordination and R&D.

Oh, and $35,000 for land purchase costs.

INAC managers decided to start small. They knew that any funding over $400,000 had to go to Ottawa for approval. So they got creative.

The manager in charge approved $300,000 in Phase 2 funding under the guise of three separate items, a hundred grand each for architectural services, legal services and project management.

This time the funding came from the Community Economic Opportunities Program (CEOP) - a sub program of Economic Development Program.

The AMC Legislature had now become aboriginal economic development.

Not so fast, said the auditors. "Notwithstanding the merits of the Governance House Project, it is difficult to see how the costs involved in acquiring and developing a physical site can be considered as anything other than capital costs. Under both TB accounting rules and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the cost of a capital project includes the costs of architects, lawyers and project management."

In other words, this was something other than economic development.

The INAC managers may have sensed as much. They kept Ottawa in the dark about the $300,000 in Phase 2 funding for five months. But when it finally became known, the wheels fell off the bus. And it's not like there weren't any red flags in the interim.

April 11, 2006
AMC project managers meet with MRO economic officer to discuss Phase 2 support, present plan for $1.3m, are told proposal is too rich, and represents more than 30% of total EcDev budget for Manitoba.

May 18, 2006
Grand Chief signs three $100k proposals (Proposals 1-3) for INAC support for architectural, legal, & project management 'phases' of the Governance House project.

Sept. 7, 2006
Third party assessor reports on the 4th (Phase 2) proposal identifying concerns about eligibility of certain costs reflected, recommending that further information be obtained & rating as high-risk.

January, 2007
HQ e-mails region re concerns about eligibility of expenditures for establishment of a physical site, land purchase, and questioning job creation claims.

May 2, 2007
Ministers Office instructs EcDev not to approve the proposal.

There was a pile of mismanagement on the Governance House file, but it was mismanagement on behalf of Manitoba's Chiefs. It put money into their hands which they weren't entitled to.

And it's hard to believe they didn't know and approve the "creativity" of INAC managers in hiding the funding from Ottawa.

What's that Phil said? "We've been repeatedly blamed for mismanagement practices, and our leadership is always accused of being corrupt."

Ya gotta laugh.

But the jokes keep coming.

There's the Fairford file.

In 1993, the Fairford Reserve, which now calls itself the Pinaymootang First Nation, sued the federal government over something or other. They lost. They appealed. The government cross appealed. So far, business as usual.

Then in 2001, the government made an offer -- look, we'll give you $1.2 million up front if you agree to take this out of the courts and settle it through negotiations. Fairford said yes, and the money was handed over, with two conditions. One, it was to be spent on housing. Two, it was an advance to be deducted from the final agreement.

Guess what? They finally settled in 2004 for $2 million. And, you guessed it, INAC "forgot" to deduct the $1.2 million from the final agreement.

From the Forensic Audit:
"For further insight into this transaction, the investigative team contacted the Minister's Executive Assistant for Manitoba at the time, who had attended the meeting with the First Nation. She stated her understanding as follows:

· The First Nation had understood and agreed to accept the $1.2 million as a repayable advance to be repaid when an agreement was reached.
· It was the negotiating team that suggested that the Minister make the advance to get the First Nation to the bargaining table.
· There was no "quid pro quo" negotiating leverage lost and there was no mistake as the advance was made at the request of the negotiating team.
· To her knowledge, the department had not increased the settlement mandate to $3.2 million.

So the Fairford Chief and council "had understood and agreed to accept the $1.2 million as a repayable advance to be repaid when an agreement was reached."

What did they think when they got a cheque for $2 million? It was a gift from the tooth fairy?

They knew they had been overpaid, regardless of what INAC did or did not do. But Fairford DID NOT abide by the agreement. They took the money they weren't entitled to and ran.

"There is no doubt in my mind we need to ensure there is greater power and authority in our hands, not less. " said Fontaine.

Phil, you kidder, you.

And there's still the worst example of INAC mismanagement, at least from the Canadian taxpayers' point of view.

It seems that Manitoba Hydro (yes, them again) used some creative accounting to hang onto $7.9 million they were supposed to return to the federal government.

The two were partners in a couple of projects started in the Nineties. In one, northern reserves were hooked up to the Manitoba electricity grid and their diesel power plants were decommissioned. In the other, the soil contaminated by years of spilled diesel had to be cleaned up. The federal government paid 75 percent of Project 1 to a maximum and 50 percent of project two to a maximum.

When the soil cleanup came in under budget and the power switch ran way over, Manitoba Hydro looked for ways to pass the costs to the federal government.

From the audit:

"The evidence available to the investigation team indicates that a recovery was certain as early as 2002, at which time officials from both Hydro and INAC were looking for ways in which to use the projected surplus."

When the INAC accounting manager for Manitoba was advised about a problem with the way spending was attributed, his attitude was "What's a million?"

Noted the auditors:
"The accounting manager, whose position description makes him responsible for certifying - under Section 33 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA) - the appropriateness and legality of almost all financial transactions in the Manitoba Region, responded:
"… what does [that] authority really mean....in any case it's [a] fait accompli it really doesn't matter at this point. Someone had agreed to [this] and it will [be] left to the forensic auditors to unravel it all…"

Ya gotta laugh to keep from crying.

Postscript
In all the stories done on the INAC audit, why hasn't anyone asked the NDP government why it hasn't announced an investigation of Manitoba Hydro's role in stiffing the federal government out of $7.9 million? Who at Hydro deserves to be fired?

And, we understand, Fairford expects to sign a Municipal Development and Services Agreeement with the City of Winnipeg this month or next. That's the agreement to what an urban reserve consents to pay in lieu of taxes for city services.

Will this be another back-room deal dropped in the laps of city councillors an hour before a council meeting, leaving them no time to read it or understand the fine print?

The MDSA is the last step before Fairford can apply for an urban reserve.

[Only The Lonely..]

Low voter turnout insufficient to secure $127,000,000 Peguis land settlement

1/25/2009 | CJOB 680 AM


The Chief of the Peguis First Nation north of Winnipeg is disappointed in last night's voter turnout on a land settlement referendum that could be the largest in Canadian history.

Residents were voting on a settlement of nearly $127,000,000.

Under the proposed settlement, every member of the band would receive $1,000.

The band would also receive $118,000,000 in tightly-controlled community trusts for education, business loans, and community infrastructure projects.

But Chief Glen Hudson tells CJOB that although residents voted in favor of the settlement, not enough of them turned out...

A double majority was required for Saturday's vote to pass, but only one-third of just over 4,000 eligible voters turned out, with the 'yes' side receiving a little over 1,300 votes.

To be considered valid, at least 2,118 voters were needed to cast their ballots.

The settlement was offered to resolve a land dispute that started over a century ago, when band members were forced to leave their original settlement - in an area north of Selkirk - to its current Interlake location.

[Only The Lonely..]

Not enough ballots cast in land-claim settlement vote

By: Lindsey Wiebe and Alexandra Paul | Winnipeg Free Press

A vote on the largest aboriginal land-claim settlement in Canada’s history ended in disappointment Saturday after Peguis First Nation received too few votes to accept or reject the claim.

Chief Glenn Hudson said 2,118 members of the Interlake band needed to cast their ballots for the vote to count. In the end, they received only 1,479 votes.

“I am disappointed, you know,” he said. “It’s the largest surrender deal in the history of Canada that we had before our people, and it was there to benefit all, including our youth, who will benefit the most.”

Hudson said he was happy the vast majority of voters - 1,368 - were in favour of accepting the $126-million settlement.
But he said whether or not the reserve now needs a second vote on the settlement is out of his control. “It’s in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs,” he said.

More than 4,000 voters were eligible to cast ballots Friday and Saturday on the deal to abandon claim to 50,000 acres in the Selkirk area where the band’s traditional home, the St. Peters’ Reserve, was lost a century ago in an illegal land surrender.

Hudson said he estimated about 1,000 people cast ballots on the First Nation during the day Saturday.

Ottawa offered the deal last spring in the form of a community trust after 10 years of negotiation with First Nation leaders.

The community held town-hall meetings this winter and circulated a thick package of material to voters. It included the proposed trust agreement and a video detailing the history of the land and its loss.

Many of the voters live off the reserve in the Winnipeg and the Selkirk area.

The surrender of St. Peters Reserve in 1907 was the subject of two royal commissions. They concluded the land transfer was illegal.

The relocation of the band to its current home in Peguis, 220 kilometres north of Winnipeg, has been called Canada’s Trail of Tears, after the forced relocation of the Cherokee nation in the U.S. in the 1830s.

Opposition to the proposed settlement surfaced with protests in Peguis in the final few days before the vote. Former First Nation chief Louis Stevenson said he was urging voters to reject the offer in hopes of going back to Ottawa and winning a richer settlement.

alexandra.paul@freepress.mb.ca
lindsey.wiebe@freepress.mb.ca

[1ajs]

thats a shame

[rrskylar]

What's a shame, that another $127 million in tax dollars goes into the abyss or that no enough people on Peguis First Nation could even bother to get out and vote?

[1ajs]

tha not one could care to vote on it... just shows that most people could care less?

[thegreattait]

There is also the possiblity that those who did not want this to pass knew that there were enough votes for a win and that by not voting they infact shut down the process, which gives them they result they want in the end.

So in a situation where you know you might loose, by not voting you can get your result due to the minimum required amount of votes.

Strategic voting at its finest.

In such a situation mandatory voting might make more sense.

[vid]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

that no enough people on Peguis First Nation could even bother to get out and vote?

The chief told them not to vote, it keeps the claim open for further negotiation which he thinks is a good thing.

Windfall money for First Nations can be very bad for them though. There is an example in Saskatchewan where a relatively safe and prosperous community met social ruin after a windfall from oil profits. This money would have to be properly managed and I doubt their current council can do that.

[rrskylar]

From letter's to the editor in the Freep:



Peguis turnout puzzling

Re: Clear-cut result in Peguis vote, but it won't count, Jan. 26.

Out of curiosity, why is it that only 35 per cent of the eligible voters turned out to vote on the recent St. Peter's reserve (Selkirk) issue to cast their ballot? We know that it wasn't due to the voters and residents of the Peguis First Nation not being informed, as there were town hall meetings held and "thick" packages sent to all eligible voters, even to those living off-reserve. Was $126 million not motivation enough? How about settling an important land claim that seemed so important not really being all that important to the average resident of Peguis? Was 10 years of expensive negotiations on the backs of Canadian taxpayers not enough motivation? Or was the $1,000 that every adult member of Peguis would receive upon acceptance too paltry?

Perhaps having the cost of this waste of time and money deducted from future land settlement claims would be the tap on the shoulder that is needed, along with the Canadian people not allowing a "do-over" vote.

This all costs money. Don't ever forget, the people are the government, and ultimately it is the people who must bear the burden of the cost.

[drew]

Originally Posted by vid

Windfall money for First Nations can be very bad for them though. There is an example in Saskatchewan where a relatively safe and prosperous community met social ruin after a windfall from oil profits. This money would have to be properly managed and I doubt their current council can do that.

Which is why the payments from the residential school settlement were pretty much a waste.

From the time I have spent recently on Northern reserves, a great deal of that payout money was spent on new trucks, snow mobiles and ATVs. It really didn't help most people in the long run, except maybe for dealerships in Thompson.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

From letter's to the editor in the Freep:



Peguis turnout puzzling

Re: Clear-cut result in Peguis vote, but it won't count, Jan. 26.

Out of curiosity, why is it that only 35 per cent of the eligible voters turned out to vote on the recent St. Peter's reserve (Selkirk) issue to cast their ballot? We know that it wasn't due to the voters and residents of the Peguis First Nation not being informed, as there were town hall meetings held and "thick" packages sent to all eligible voters, even to those living off-reserve. Was $126 million not motivation enough? How about settling an important land claim that seemed so important not really being all that important to the average resident of Peguis? Was 10 years of expensive negotiations on the backs of Canadian taxpayers not enough motivation? Or was the $1,000 that every adult member of Peguis would receive upon acceptance too paltry?

Perhaps having the cost of this waste of time and money deducted from future land settlement claims would be the tap on the shoulder that is needed, along with the Canadian people not allowing a "do-over" vote.

This all costs money. Don't ever forget, the people are the government, and ultimately it is the people who must bear the burden of the cost.

Agreed.

[Only The Lonely..]

Peguis still waiting

Winnipeg Free Press Editorial

LOUIS Stevenson is vowing to scuttle a land compensation agreement between Peguis First Nation and the federal government because he believes he can negotiate a better deal. Mr. Stevenson, a former Peguis chief who is running for the office again, says he's convinced the band can get a lot more money from Ottawa, but he's failed to say how much more, and, more important, precisely why he believes the negotiated deal is flawed.

There is no doubt that the people of Peguis were swindled out of their ancestral homeland near the present-day city of Selkirk in 1907, when they were relocated to an area about 200 kilometres north of Winnipeg with significantly fewer economic and social opportunities. The Government of Canada acknowledged its responsibility more than 10 years ago, when negotiations began to reach a financial settlement, since it was obviously not feasible to return some 25,000 hectares of land around Selkirk.

The band and Ottawa eventually agreed to a cash figure of $126 million, which did not include the transfer of 250 hectares of land near the original reserve, plus additional lands that might be available. The process was complicated and thoughtful, and it took into consideration the losses caused by Peguis's inability to use the original land since 1907. Those losses were offset by the actual economic activity that took place at their existing reserve. The settlement, therefore, is a net value and the best estimate that both sides were able to negotiate over 10 years. Settlement, however, is not reached because too few people turned out to vote recently under rules that require participation of at least half of eligible voters.

The low turnout is considered more a reflection of traditional voter apathy and the fact that many eligible voters live off the reserve, rather than opposition to the settlement. Another vote will have to be held, although the proposal will only require a simple majority to pass or fail this time. The new vote will not be held until the spring or summer, or well after the March 19 election of a chief.

It seems clear Mr. Stevenson intends to use the proposed settlement to attack his rival, Glenn Hudson, who has only been on the job for two years. Mr. Stevenson, on the other hand, had been chief for 26 years before he was defeated, so he is hardly in a position to accuse anyone of botching negotiations over a land settlement.

The people of Peguis should be wary of Mr. Stevenson, unless they want to wait another 10 years for a settlement that is already long overdue.

[vid]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

From letter's to the editor in the Freep:
Peguis turnout puzzling

Re: Clear-cut result in Peguis vote, but it won't count, Jan. 26.

Out of curiosity, why is it that only 35 per cent of the eligible voters turned out to vote on the recent St. Peter's reserve (Selkirk) issue to cast their ballot? We know that it wasn't due to the voters and residents of the Peguis First Nation not being informed, as there were town hall meetings held and "thick" packages sent to all eligible voters, even to those living off-reserve. Was $126 million not motivation enough? How about settling an important land claim that seemed so important not really being all that important to the average resident of Peguis? Was 10 years of expensive negotiations on the backs of Canadian taxpayers not enough motivation? Or was the $1,000 that every adult member of Peguis would receive upon acceptance too paltry?

Perhaps having the cost of this waste of time and money deducted from future land settlement claims would be the tap on the shoulder that is needed, along with the Canadian people not allowing a "do-over" vote.

This all costs money. Don't ever forget, the people are the government, and ultimately it is the people who must bear the burden of the cost.

He's making it sound like the whole community is greedy. They have simply fallen victim to despotic leadership. Stevenson is to blame, not the Peguis members as a whole. They were misled. This typifies the bad leadership that plagues First Nations, something aboriginal leaders purposely ignore and everyone else is too afraid to confront.

Originally Posted by drew

Which is why the payments from the residential school settlement were pretty much a waste.

From the time I have spent recently on Northern reserves, a great deal of that payout money was spent on new trucks, snow mobiles and ATVs. It really didn't help most people in the long run, except maybe for dealerships in Thompson.

Being in a northern reserve is like being in a small sandbox. I'm not sure how useful the trucks are. For moving things it's probably good, but you can't actually go anywhere with it. It's too big to just drive through the bush. ATVs and snowmachines are a different story, they are to northern reserves what cars and trucks are to us as they're much more versatile. They still hunt for a lot of their food and that allows them to get around through the bush in ways a large truck wouldn't. I don't know how many reserves in Manitoba are connected by road, up here very few are, so ATVs and snowmobiles are primary transportation and airports (or canoes if you're adventurous) are the only link to the outside world.

Another aspect is that the money brought back thoughts of the residential school for those who may have blocked the memory, that brought about depression and when you have a lot of money, there are many things you can use to drown your sorrows. CBC had a report about a man who drank himself to death in Yukon shortly after the money was given out, and it turned much of his community against the whole thing.

On the other hand it excluded the children of dead residential school victims who don't have substance abuse issues (like my grandmother, who at 73 years old is raising my uncle's autistic daughter). So while she feels the effects of her mother's trauma of the residential school passed down to her through bad parenting or her own substance abuse problems or whatever (I never knew my great-grandmother), she gets no relief from the settlement, and depends on social assistance. She is still a victim, though indirect, and this will help the daughter and great-granddaughter of a residential school victim.

The governments, both federal and First Nations, have to understand that money doesn't solve everything. I can help make things better, but it can also help make things a lot worse. These people need support, not hand outs. (There is a difference.)

[Only The Lonely..]

Kids get ballots to vote

Winnipeg Free Press - Feb. 23, 2009


BRANDON -- Indian Affairs is asking some members of Manitoba's Peguis band to destroy ballots it accidentally sent their children.
At least 26 children who live off-reserve were sent ballots in the mail for a coming election of chief and council.

George Robinson, who lives in Brandon, says he was shocked when he received two ballots for his children, six and 11.

He says Indian Affairs should update their election system to include ballots with serial numbers.

Peguis Chief Glenn Hudson says Indian and Northern Affairs accidentally mailed out the ballots.

The department has since sent a letter to the parents addressing the mistake.

The election is set for March 19.

"I don't want a chief to be put in or council to be put in because of the misuse of the ballots," Robinson said. "I just want to have a fair electoral system."

The election is expected to be a contentious one on the reserve, where Hudson is vying against former chief Louis Stevenson -- something the two men have done for the last decade.

The reserve was in the news recently over a $126-million land-claim offer from Ottawa, which Hudson supported and Stevenson opposed.

However, not enough band members turned out for a vote on the matter, meaning another vote will be held.


-- Canadian Press

[Only The Lonely..]

Why tolerate corruption?

By: Staff Writer | Winnipeg Free Press - Feb. 23, 2009

The resiliency of First Nations politicians found to have been involved in corrupt election prac­tices is explained in part by spineless decisions of officials tasked with keeping elections honest. That weak oversight is tainted further by the Indian Act, which gives the minister of Indian Affairs arbitrary power to decide the fates of politicians who cheat to win.

Two recent examples illustrate the problem. In 2007, then Peguis chief Louis Stevenson was found by a federal court judge to have engaged in practices that smelled of corruption. As voting day approached in 2005, he would sit in his vehicle at the community hall and take requests from voters for new appliances and furniture. When Mr. Stevenson's unsuccessful opponent complained, an investigation ordered by Indian Affairs found "special-needs assistance" to members was promised, although distribution of 14 semi-trailers worth of household goods stopped when the chief discovered a complaint was lodged. Oddly, the investigator advised the department not to order a new election because the allegation of corruption could not be proven. An appeal to the federal court, however, found the evidence implied at least the appearance of corruption.

Had a finding of corruption derailed Mr. Stevenson's reign, the Indian Affairs minister could have asked his cabinet colleagues to set aside the election. If Mr. Stevenson's conduct had resulted in a criminal conviction, the minister could have disqualified the former chief from running again for six years. As it is, neither of those arbitrary decisions was made and Mr. Stevenson is running again for chief -- his 26 years of office cut short in 2007 when Glenn Hudson, the complainant, won.

A similar story is playing out on the Little Saskatchewan First Nation, where the chief and council were ousted from office late last year after Indian Affairs found that individuals did engage in corruption and tainted the election in 2007. The department refused to disclose what was the conduct, but allegations included vote-buying. Without a criminal conviction and with no edict from the minister, Chief Hector Shorting has returned to fight another day.

It is understandable that investigations of such serious allegations take time to work through to appeal and final decision. The short duration of a band government's term nullifies the obvious recourse -- a new election -- one among many good reasons why two-year terms should be at least twice as long. It is bewildering that evidence of corruption at Peguis and Little Saskatchewan was not immediately referred to RCMP for investigation.

First Nations in Canada have been captive to anachronistic, inefficient and arbitrary rule through the Indian Act for too long, but attempts at legislative reforms have been opposed. First Nations would be better served by an independent elections authority, similar to provincial agents, to conduct elections and investigate complaints. In the meantime, Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl should tell regional directors investigating allegations of wrongdoing that where evidence points to corruption, it must be referred to police.


------------------------------------------------------------
Comments

We are forced to tolerate corruption by elected First Nation leaders when appeals fall upon deaf ears or because of political posturing and no action is taken. As a Peguis First Nation band member I am well aware that there have been corrupt practices by past leadership to buy their way back into office, this was common practice for 26 years. With all the evidence presented at the Judicial Review against former chief louis stevenson and corrupt practices I could not believe he was not barred from running in any further elections for six years. What is even more alarming is that many of our church leaders support this corruption and when one looks at who benefited from the trailer loads of furniture and other pay offs the church leaders were in line with their hands out for their pay off.

I believe a large part of the blame for the continuation of corrupt practices in First Nations elections has to rest with the different levels of Government. How can we overcome corruption when the Government is presented with overwhelming evidence of corrupt practices and have a duty to take action and they chose to ignore the evidence and do nothing.

It is time we take control of our own election process and get rid of government involvement especially when they continue to support corrupt practices by corrupt leaders as was evident in peguis First Nation during the past Judicial Review. Today we are being overrun by Drugs and Gangs in Peguis First Nation [edited]. Thankfully Chief Glenn Hudson is one leader who does not support the drug or gang issue in Peguis First Nation or resort to vote buying to gain office. Nor does Chief Glenn Hudson dangle the carrot of greed in front of people to gain office, I am refering to the Illegal Surrender funds. Megweetch Garry Sinclair Peguis First Nation

[rrskylar]

The perils of living in the core area: WARNING GRAPHIC




Only 12 years old and already a killer
Girl one of four who ruthlessly attacked woman

By: Mike McIntyre

It's a case that has shocked even hardened police investigators -- a young woman randomly targeted for death, beaten until she was unrecognizable, stripped and then urinated on by a group of laughing teens who tossed loose change on her body as they fled the scene.

"That's all she's worth," one of them later told police.

The facts of Audrey Cooper's October 2006 killing became public only after one of her attackers -- a girl who was only 12 years old at the time -- pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The girl, who is now 15 and can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, is one of the youngest killers in Winnipeg history.

"Audrey Cooper was someone who just happened to be standing in her yard when the accused walked by. It could have literally been anyone. This is obviously very chilling," Crown attorney Ami Kotler told court Tuesday.

He said Cooper's relatives were too heartbroken to attend court.

"The indelible image of their daughter's last moments continue to bring them unspeakable pain," said Kotler, who described Cooper as a loving daughter and sister.

"She was a cheerful, creative and caring young woman," he said.

Cooper, 34, suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain which caused fatal head trauma.

"She was the victim of a thorough, prolonged and vicious beating, practically from one end of her body to the other," Kotler said.

"She was struck so many times and so hard that one of her ears was literally partially detached from her head."

Police arrested four suspects -- the 12-year-old girl, two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy.

The group had been roaming the core area, apparently bored and looking for people to beat up and rob, court was told. They focused on Cooper, who was standing alone outside her Spence Street home after picking up groceries at a nearby convenience store.

The group asked her for a cigarette, then jumped her when she said she didn't have one. Cooper tried to flee but was quickly caught and knocked to the ground. Her killers took turns jumping on her stomach and head while delivering a flurry of kicks and punches, court was told.

Cooper was then stripped naked as her attackers went through her pockets looking for money. They found some loose change and tossed it on the unconscious woman while laughing and calling her degrading names, court was told.

Several residents who heard the fight called police at 2:42 a.m. Police didn't arrive on scene until 2:57 a.m. Kotler said the beating lasted about 10 minutes.

Police initially thought they might be dealing with a sexual assault because Cooper was naked, save for one sock. She was rushed to hospital but attempts to revive her were unsuccessful.

All four accused were charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown decided to reduce the charge to manslaughter and cut a deal with the youngest girl after she agreed to testify against her co-accused, who are set to go on trial in May. The Crown will seek an adult sentence if they are convicted.

However, the 12-year-old girl can only be sentenced as a youth because federal law stipulates only those older than 14 can be raised to adult court.

The Crown is seeking the maximum sentence of three years in custody and supervision. The girl's lawyer requested an adjournment until March 20 to provide the judge with more information about plans for his client once she is released from the Manitoba Youth Centre, where she has been since her arrest. A pre-sentencing report shows the girl was abused, abandoned and neglected. She was taught how to snort cocaine by her mother, court was told. She also has strong ties to gangs.

"She was raised in an environment without rules, structure of consequences. Her street cred is all that matters. She feels like she must react to any disrespect, real or imagined," Kotler said.

"It's appropriate for the court to ask to what degree is it fair to expect someone to know how to behave when no one has taught them. Where was this accused to learn pro-social behaviour? Where were her roles models?"

www.mikeoncrime.com

[vid]

Doesn't explain how that is a First Nations issue. It's more of a "we don't offer sufficient diversions for youth"/"we lack the social services to get people off of drugs"/"we lack an adequately functioning agency to assist children when they are in environments that harm them" issue to me.

[rrskylar]

^ The women killed was First Nations, a women standing in her own yard, minding her own business, it show's that Winnipeg's inner city is a very violent place where anything can happen to anyone at any time regardless of race or gender.