First Nations Issues

[hexrae]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

Do you ever get the feeling that some people just like to fight for the sake of fighting?

Sometimes, but I also get the feeling that because this occurred in NHCN and not, say Winkler, that prompted this comment.

The current sewage system (aka Lagoon) is already too close to existing residences, so they have every right to be concerned about the placement of the new system.

From what I'm told, it's supposed to be placed 3 km's outside of town, in the "woods" (take with a grain of salt, as I haven't seen the formal plan). I believe what got people riled up was that it's directly behind an apartment complex, and not too far from the "town centre".

[1ajs]

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Is jet a trophy or just bad PR?

TCIG defends business record

By: Martin Cash
18/03/2010 1:00 AM | Comments: 0

• Print
• E–mail
• Share This
• Report Error

TRIBAL Councils Investment Group made the news recently when the Free Press reported it had bought Canwest's corporate jet.
The purchase raised eyebrows in many quarters about why a modest investment fund representing one of the most impoverished communities in the country needed to buy a corporate jet.
Another way of looking at it might be that a trophy of success owned by a once and former champion corporation -- Canwest -- has now been passed into the hands of a First Nations-owned company that has aspirations to become a billion-dollar corporation like the now-bankrupt Canwest used to be.
But TCIG's reality is not all about the corporate jet. (TCIG's management and board were warned about the negative optics surrounding the jet, irrespective of the fact they intend to lease out the plane and make it into a profit centre.)
In addition, Allan McLeod, TCIG's longtime chief executive officer, is well aware of the allegations of secrecy and a lack of transparency.
Because of that, he took the unusual step of "opening the books", as it were, to the Free Press.
As if to underline the fact that TCIG has ISO certified corporate governance practices, auditors from Meyers Norris Penny were hard at work at the TCIG offices on the 21st floor of 360 Main St. preparing its 2009 report the day I was there.
McLeod said he believes concerns about TCIG's relative transparency emanated at least partially from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who, in a resolution in 2007, suggested that TCIG was "managed in a manner that precluded transparent accountability to its members".
McLeod took umbrage at that accusation then, and any time it has been repeated since.
"I have no problem with working with AMC (which has come full circle and now endorses TCIG)," McLeod said. "But the suggestion that our structure precludes transparency is a fallacy. It is incorrect, wrong and misleading."
TCIG started in 1990 with a $175,000 stake from the province's seven tribal councils.
In January, each of them passed resolutions -- signed by all but two of the chiefs from the 55 Manitoba First Nations represented by the tribal councils -- "unequivocally" endorsing TCIG and its management and giving it an additional 15-year mandate.
Its initial purchase of Arctic Beverages, the Flin Flon-based Pepsi bottler and northern distributor, may still be its most profitable.
According to its 2008 consolidated financial statements, its holdings generated $68.3 million in revenue and $3.5 million in profit (more than double 2007's return).
Its 2007 revenues makes it just a little smaller than Winnipeg Airports Authority and larger than Crosstown Civic Credit Union.
"We are on a trajectory this year for an improvement over last year and with no new debt we will hit close to $100 million," he said. "And over the next year or two, based on our business plan, we will continue to grow this thing."
Last year it sold its stake in True North Sports & Entertainment and the year before it sold its 50 per cent interest in the Radisson Hotel, doubling its investment in both cases.
Last fall it bought out its partner in Precambrian Wholesale and now owns it outright along with Arctic Beverages and First Canadian Health, a Toronto-based fulfillment service for First Nations health claims (the latter two generate at least $10 million a year in revenue).
Recently it also became master franchisee for the Wok Box Fresh Asian Kitchen restaurants.
Its 15-person head office is more than 90 per cent aboriginal, including its chief financial officer, Robert Magnusson, one of about a dozen aboriginal chartered accountants in the country.
McLeod bristles at the suggestion TCIG does not do enough on the community level. It pays out $100,000 a year to each of the seven tribal councils in the form of a fee for services rendered.
In association with a couple of other foundations, TCIG funds a breakfast program at Pukatawagan for 600 school kids and will start another next year for 1,000 children at Shamattawa.
One senior First Nation business person who was formerly associated with TCIG said, almost disparagingly about its management, "Those guys are all about the bottom line."
McLeod is unapologetic about that. As far as he is concerned, whatever assets and income TCIG generates is that much more wealth First Nations people in Manitoba control that, were it not for TCIG, would be back in the hands of mainstream Canada.
martin.cash@freepress.mb.ca
Portfolio of firms
Here is TCIG's portfolio of companies (including wholly owned operations and companies in which it holds an equity position):
-- Arctic Beverages
-- First Canadian Health
-- First Canadian Fuels
-- First Canadian Water & Infrastructure
-- Precambrian Wholesale
-- Exchange Industrial Income Fund -- Artis REIT
-- Tribal Marketing Communications
-- Paragon Pharmacies
-- Big Freight Systems
-- All In West! Capital Corp.
-- First Nations Bank of Canada
-- Larters at St. Andrews Golf and Country Club
-- The Meadows at East St Paul
-- TCIG-Hugh Munro Construction Ltd.
-- Wok Box
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition March 18, 2010 B5

[socialisthorde]

[QUOTE=rrskylar;4678434]Same shit different location: Does it ever enter into these peoples minds that just maybe you might have to do something to help yourself.
QUOTE]

Hey, it looks like they have.

[rrskylar]

^ Great a few at the top are helping themselves, sure hope there is a trickle down effect, because life for the majority on reserves (and off for that matter) ain't that great.

[socialisthorde]

Sounds like pretty much the same system we all live under, those at the top help themselves and the crumbs fall for those below - capitalism. Not really just a First Nations issue.

[rrskylar]

^ Something you fail to grasp is that the capital for these first nations ventures came from all of us, the taxpayers in the form of hydro and land claim settlements, something all first nations people should benefit from not just a select few.

[ScrappyPeg]

So does this mean that if TCIG were to earn enough to support those they are meant to support, there will no longer be a need for the Federal Government to continue providing any type of funding? Is there a desire to help those who are most impoverished to be self supporting?

I guess I'm just wondering if it is TCIG's mandate to lessen or remove the need for dependance on money from the Government.

[socialisthorde]

I don't fail to grasp anything. I choose to be open minded and also consider other aspects of the situation.

"Our" governement puts the "bottom line" first as well. As a broader society, we don't allocate a huge proportion of our resources to helping those well off, and if there are cuts to be made, they usually happen at the bottom. The argument put forward is that a rising tide lifts all boats. Make the economy grow, benefitting the wealthiest and the poorest will eventually also benefit. How else do you explain tax cuts->deficit->program cuts cycle we are now in? I am not arguing that this system is right or wrong, just that it is not a whole lot different than what TCIG is doing.

If they take the money the broader culture provides to supply themselves services, they are considered dependent and lacking in iniative. If they take that money and use it like we would, to invest, then we consider them greedy and self serving. I'm not sure what they can do that will not draw criticism.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by ScrappyPeg

So does this mean that if TCIG were to earn enough to support those they are meant to support, there will no longer be a need for the Federal Government to continue providing any type of funding? Is there a desire to help those who are most impoverished to be self supporting?

I guess I'm just wondering if it is TCIG's mandate to lessen or remove the need for dependance on money from the Government.

I would expect that it would become increasingly difficult for them to argue need as they become more and more successful, so that is likely an ongoing discussion.

I can't speak for them, but I suspect like any good corporation, their mandate is to make as much money as possible. It is up to the broader society (I would hope primarily First Nations) as to how to regulate them and how they spend it, just like it is with other corporations. CIBC doesn't pay taxes to help out those in need, they pay taxes because legislation forces them to, and then we decide how to spend it. It is all our interests that they make money, because they pay taxes and provide employment. It doesn't really matter what their level of social concience is, just that they follow the rules set out for them.

Don't forget that some of the federal funding was never based on need, but on agreements signed with the First Nations. There may be arguments for removing that funding based on interpretation of the agreements, but not based on need or lack thereof. If you sign a lease, you can't stop paying rent it just bcause your landlord won the lottery.

[ScrappyPeg]

From the TCIG website: their goal is to be financially independant. I'm assuming that means that they are looking to help the 55 first nations communities that they represent to be self sufficient.

I suppose the debate is if you are self sufficient, why would you continue receiving money from the Government.

Times have certainly changed - what seemed reasonable in an agreement signed 150 years ago may not be reasonable by todays standards. That has to be considered in all of this.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by ScrappyPeg

Times have certainly changed - what seemed reasonable in an agreement signed 150 years ago may not be reasonable by todays standards. That has to be considered in all of this.

Yes, if you have signed a contract, a change in circumstances may make it less reasonable and therefore provide reason for you to ask for renegotiation. Such a change however, doesn't make the contract any less binding, nor does it obligate the other party to renogotiate.

As I said, the first nations did not sign the treaties on the basis of poverty, because they weren't poor when they signed. Both sides signed because they thought it was a good deal or the best they would get and both are legally obligated to uphold what they agreed to. If the federal government is providing support beyond what the treaties require, they have some cause for removing that support (to the extent that they have cause to remove support for any group).

[ScrappyPeg]

I'm by no means an expert on the issue - but I do know that Treaties can be ammended. The Indian Act can also be ammended. While this would be a long process I think it would make a certain amount of sense given that times have changed. If many of the Aboriginal communities become financially self supporting I believe it would greatly benefit Canada as a country if billions of tax dollars could go elsewhere.

[grumpy old man]

Originally Posted by ScrappyPeg

...it would greatly benefit Canada as a country if billions of tax dollars could go elsewhere.

Like back into our pockets!

[vid]

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

It is up to the broader society (I would hope primarily First Nations) as to how to regulate them and how they spend it, just like it is with other corporations.

There is no real legal authority over reserves except for federal law. They lack the system to regulate their companies. Many reserves aren't even democratic. Until some sort of higher level, region wide aboriginal government is established, how exactly are they supposed to regulate their companies?

Originally Posted by ScrappyPeg

Times have certainly changed - what seemed reasonable in an agreement signed 150 years ago may not be reasonable by todays standards. That has to be considered in all of this.

Careful! First Nations want to renegotiate the treaties, too.

Originally Posted by ScrappyPeg

I'm by no means an expert on the issue - but I do know that Treaties can be ammended. The Indian Act can also be ammended. While this would be a long process I think it would make a certain amount of sense given that times have changed. If many of the Aboriginal communities become financially self supporting I believe it would greatly benefit Canada as a country if billions of tax dollars could go elsewhere.

The Indian Act is being amended. It is easier to amend, as only one body has decision making power over it. Amending the treaties, however, would be a long and controversial process. It should be done, but it won't be as long the government lacks the political will to do so.

Originally Posted by socialisthorde

If the federal government is providing support beyond what the treaties require, they have some cause for removing that support (to the extent that they have cause to remove support for any group).

Keep in mind that support isn't limited to money. The crown agreed to provide education and housing too and it isn't doing that very well. The Indian Act prevents First Nations from controlling certain aspects of housing and education as well. Nishnawbe Aski Nation had a very difficult time getting an education system set up for its members and they still face a lot of financial hurdles.

[socialisthorde]

Good points vid. I will respond to the two which refer to my posts.

The first point you make is well taken, we are in a real bind in that we have designed a system which is prone to corruption, and now such corruption is clearly rife. We (broader society) do have legal authority to prevent the worst abuses (e.g. fraud) and should use it. Less flagrant abuses may be beyond our control and also beyond the disempowered First Nations people. but the only way to give power back imediately to the general populace of aboriginal people is to strip it from their leaders. For obvious reasons this makes everyone antsy. For one, we all know the near impossiblitiy of dissasembling and reassembling a political power structure in another culture. Secondly, such a move will inevitably be followed by considerable strife the full nature of which, we cannott likely anticipate. If our own experience with First Nations is not enough evidence that this approach doesn't work, or if that example is too long ago, we simply have to look at Afganistan. One option which is frequently applied to other formerly colonised people (and the one the majority of the world seems to follow for better or worse with regard to Africa and South America) is to let them develop economic autonomy and full democracy will follow. I don't think we have much choice but to do this, allow them to develop economically, while doing our best to ensure that the less empowered do not get abused and encouraging those who are less empowered to become moreso, through education. I think we are doing this, albeit not always well. We should perhaps look at doing what we do better and letting it play out, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater (i.e. I don't think we should completely destroy the existing system imediately and let the inevitable chaos play itself out). For every corrupt First Nations Leader, there is an educated and ethical First Nations person willing and able to take them on. We need to support those people rather than imposing our own ideas. For one, there should be more room for First Nations' perspectives in the media. The kind of stories that keep getting posted in this thread are rarely followed by any discussion in the media that print them, and even more rarely by a First Nations perspective. That would be more helpful than printing an endless stream of bad news res stories with no context.

With regard to your final point, I agree completely, and that is what I mean in saying the details of what the treaties should be open for discussion. I was just arguing that we as a broader society do not have the right to arbitrarily decide if the deals we signed no longer apply in any form. (i.e what it means to provide education should be open for discussion, but we have already agreed to provide it and so we should not arbtrarily decide it is no longer necessary to do so.)

[1ajs]

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Ottawa taking control of native band's funds

By: Mary Agnes Welch
19/03/2010 1:00 AM | Comments: 26

• Print
• E–mail
• Share This
• Report Error

Ottawa has handed control of the province's largest native band to a co-manager and cut federal funding following concerns over financial mismanagement.
But Peguis First Nation Chief Glenn Hudson said the moves don't take into account how far the band has come in the three years he's been chief. When he began, the band was $20 million in debt and about to lose as much as $10 million in federal funding, a drastic cut Hudson said he was able to negotiate his way out of.
Peguis First Nation

Is made up of about 7,200 members, located in the Interlake about two hours north of Winnipeg.
Recently won a $118-million settlement from Ottawa for the seizure of the old St. Peter's reserve near Selkirk in 1907. That money is in trust.
Home of some of the most divisive band politics in the province, where allegations of corruption, financial mismanagement and election fraud are common.


"It's not a symptom of band management," he said. "It's a symptom of inheriting a bad debt from a bad manager."
In a letter sent last month, Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl said he was displeased with the debt levels and governance at Peguis First Nation.
"While some progress has been made to meet the conditions I outlined in 2008, the overall progress is insufficient. Meaningful reductions to the debt load have not been made and the current remedial management plan and new governance structures have not fully demonstrated their effectiveness," wrote Strahl. "In addition, your community is in default of its existing funding agreement. Based upon this information, I am not satisfied with the results to date and require significantly more progress."
He said about $1 million Ottawa gives the First Nation for band administration will be cut by 20 per cent. The band gets a total of about $31 million a year from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for community development, education and social programs. An anticipated two-per-cent inflationary hike won't be forthcoming this year, said Strahl.
And, he said a co-manager -- normally an accountant or financial expert -- will be appointed to jointly manage the band's funds.
But Hudson said the band has already been working voluntarily with a co-manager, the big consulting firm of Meyers Norris Penny. The band agreed to get help three years ago in order to forestall losing millions in INAC funding. Since then, the band has met all but two of INAC's 27 funding conditions, the biggest outstanding one being debt reduction.
Hudson said he has written to Ottawa disputing some of Strahl's demands.
Late last year, questions were raised about the hefty salaries, travel expenses and honoraria paid to Hudson and his council, and it was revealed that INAC is in the midst of auditing the band's books.
The salaries sparked a new round of political infighting on the reserve that have long pitted Chief Glenn Hudson and his supporters against former chief Louis Stevenson, who ruled the community for years amid controversy.
In his letter, Strahl said some band members have called for control of band's finances to be taken completely out of the hands of the chief and council and placed with a third party. Strahl declined to take that drastic step.
maryagnes.welch@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition March 19, 2010 A3

[hexrae]

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Urban natives content: study

Survey shows happiness in white society, lingering stereotype fears

By: Mia Rabson

7/04/2010 1:00 AM

OTTAWA -- Aboriginal people living in Canada's cities are generally happy, proud of their heritage and have the same desires to go to school, get good jobs, own a home and raise happy, healthy kids as anyone else.

But they still fear non-aboriginals see them as lazy, stupid and addicted to drugs and alcohol.

The findings are part of the Urban Aboriginal Peoples Survey, released Tuesday by the Environics Institute. It looked at how urban First Nations, Métis and Inuit people view themselves and how they are viewed by non-aboriginals. Environics conducted the survey between March and October 2009 using in-person interviews with 2,614 aboriginal Canadians in 11 cities, including Winnipeg. It also conducted a phone survey of non-aboriginals living in 10 cities, including Winnipeg.

"Much of what we found won't be particularly surprising to urban aboriginal communities, but there are a lot of surprises for the rest of us," said Keith Neuman, vice-president of public affairs with the Environics Research Group.

Those surprises likely include the fact most urban aboriginals consider the city they live in their home, have no desire to move back to their hometown or reserve, and are not all that worried about losing their cultural identity. They retain strong ties to their hometowns and their culture, but are almost equally proud to be Canadian.

They also reported similar aspirations to all Canadians for a good life, including getting an education, landing a good job, buying a home and starting or raising a family.

Urban aboriginals are generally more tolerant of other cultures and languages than non-aboriginals, but more than seven in 10 aboriginal people in cities feel they are viewed negatively by non-aboriginals. Almost three in four say other Canadians associate aboriginal people with drug and alcohol abuse, 30 per cent think they are perceived as lazy and 20 per cent believe they are seen as stupid or uneducated.

Andrew Bighetty, an outreach worker for homeless people at the Circle of Life Thunderbird House, said he is proud of his Cree heritage because it keeps him away from alcohol and a destructive lifestyle.

"It gives me life," he said. "Every morning, I take sage and purify my mind, my body, my spirit and my emotions and then I can speak to the Creator."

He said he doesn't worry about stereotypes and does his best to treat everybody he meets as an equal.

"I greet just about everybody I see on the street. I shake their hands, I hug them. I ask for a minute of their time and if they need help. A homeless person will always be polite to you and greet you with a hello. If they ask for assistance and I don't have it, they'll thank me just for greeting them," he said.

Non-aboriginals are also likely to see aboriginal Canadians as targets for discrimination, with 12 per cent of non-aboriginals saying discrimination is the leading issue affecting the quality of life for aboriginal Canadians. More than eight in 10 non-aboriginals surveyed felt aboriginal people experience discrimination.

However, more than half of non-aboriginals feel aboriginal people are discriminated against to the same degree or less than other cultural or ethnic groups in Canada, including Jews, Chinese, blacks, Pakistani/East Indians and Muslims.

Most non-aboriginal people in cities seem to know no or very few aboriginal people, with 87 per cent reporting no or few aboriginal friends and 84 per cent reporting no or few aboriginal co-workers.

Nearly half of non-aboriginals have never been to a reserve, and seven in 10 have never attended an aboriginal cultural ceremony. The most common exposure to aboriginal culture comes from television and the movies (83 per cent).

More than six in 10 urban aboriginals said they learned almost nothing about aboriginal culture in elementary school and almost half said that trend continued in high school.

Despite the increased attention given residential schools since Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the tragic policy in June 2008, almost half of non-aboriginals living in cities have neither heard nor read about Indian residential schools. Out of those that have, less than one-third think the schools are responsible for many of the problems and challenges currently faced by aboriginals in Canada.

That is a drastic difference from how urban aboriginals feel. More than two-thirds have been personally affected by residential schools, either attending themselves or having a family member or friend who did. Of those, half said the schools had a significant impact and 23 per cent said it had some impact.

Neuman said non-aboriginals who have heard of residential schools are generally "horrified." More schools are adding elements of aboriginal culture to the curriculum, but most Canadian adults were not exposed to much about residential schools or aboriginal culture in school.

Neuman said he hopes the survey will be seen as a positive story, and it will be used by both aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike to reframe how they think about each other.

"Aboriginals are living in cities because they want to," he said. "They are thriving."

mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca

[socialisthorde]

Finally some good news here. THx Hexrae. THis part is a little alarming though:

Originally Posted by hexrae

Despite the increased attention given residential schools since Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the tragic policy in June 2008, almost half of non-aboriginals living in cities have neither heard nor read about Indian residential schools. Out of those that have, less than one-third think the schools are responsible for many of the problems and challenges currently faced by aboriginals in Canada.

Where have these people been? I find it hard to imagine that people have never heard of the residential schools. Oh well, I suppose most of those same people couldn't name the Prime Minister. Unfortunatley they get to vote.

[vid]

My great grandmother didn't really talk about her experiences in residential school until she was dying. Many aboriginals who went to them blocked the memories out. It's the main source of much of their suffering.

[socialisthorde]

just to clarify, vid, my quote refers to non-aboriginal people who haven't heard of the residential schools.
I can fully understand people who experienced it not talking about it or not wanting to remember it, as this is true of wars as well, but given all the media attention lately, I can't beleive there are people in the general population who have not heard of the issue (whatever their opinion might be).