"3rd Party" booted out of Attawapiskat


Retired_Can_Soldier
+3
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

A third party is already dealing with this.

They're called: RED CROSS.

The Red Cross is there because the people of this community are being ripped off. The third party audit is to determine who is ripping them off. God forbid we might find out that the Feds were actually providing enough funding, but that it was being stolen from the people it was intended for.

Give your head a shake man.
 
mentalfloss
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You ought to really study the doc (www.attawapiskat.org/wp-conte...f-Programs.pdf (external - login to view))

.. And let's not get hung up on the $90MM figure. That is the amount of funding since 2006. This figure does not include the historical funding prior to that time frame.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

The Red Cross is there because the people of this community are being ripped off. The third party audit is to determine who is ripping them off. God forbid we might find out that the Feds were actually providing enough funding, but that it was being stolen from the people it was intended for.

Give your head a shake man.

Give your head a shake man and stop reading sun spin.


Many people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that First Nations have self-governance and run themselves freely. This is far from the truth, but given that most Canadians are familiar with the municipal model, the confusion is actually understandable. It isn’t as though Canada does a very good job of teaching people about the Indian Act.

Section 61(1)(a-k) of the Indian Act (external - login to view) declares that: “With the consent of the council of a band, the Minister may authorize and direct the expenditure of capital moneys of the band” for various purposes.

What this means is that Ministerial approval is actually a requirement before any capital expenditures can occur on reserve. In practice, a Band will generally pass a Band Council Resolution (BCR) authorising a certain expenditure (say on housing), and that BCR must be forwarded to INAC for approval.

That’s right. Most First Nations have to get permission before they can spend money. That is the opposite of ‘doing whatever they want’ with the money. Bands are micromanaged to an extent unseen in nearly any other context that does not involve a minor or someone who lacks capacity due to mental disability.

Any claims that INAC has no control over what Bands spend their money on is false.

I would hope by now you’d ask the following question:

If INAC has to approve spending, why is Harper so confused?

There is a tendency to believe that our government officials do things in a way that makes sense. This, despite the fact that most of us don’t actually believe this to be true. We want to believe. I know I do.

So upon learning that the federal government is the one in charge of providing services to First Nations that are provided to non-natives by the province, we might assume that the provision of these services are administered in a comparable manner.


Not so. And it actually makes sense why not, when you think about it for a moment. Have you ever seen a federal hospital, for example? No, because hospitals are built, maintained, and staffed by the provinces. Thus, when a First Nations person needs to access health-care, they cannot access federal infrastructure. They must access provincial infrastructure and have the feds rather than the province pick up the tab.

How Ottawa spent $90 million at Attawapiskat | Full Comment | National Post
 
TenPenny
+1
#33
Under 'housing', 400,000 was spent on 'administration', and 1.3 million on wages and benefits.

They don't seem to be getting much for their money.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+5
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Give your head a shake man and stop reading sun spin.
Many people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that First Nations have self-governance and run themselves freely. This is far from the truth, but given that most Canadians are familiar with the municipal model, the confusion is actually understandable. It isn’t as though Canada does a very good job of teaching people about the Indian Act.
Section 61(1)(a-k) of the Indian Act declares that: “With the consent of the council of a band, the Minister may authorize and direct the expenditure of capital moneys of the band” for various purposes.
What this means is that Ministerial approval is actually a requirement before any capital expenditures can occur on reserve. In practice, a Band will generally pass a Band Council Resolution (BCR) authorising a certain expenditure (say on housing), and that BCR must be forwarded to INAC for approval.
That’s right. Most First Nations have to get permission before they can spend money. That is the opposite of ‘doing whatever they want’ with the money. Bands are micromanaged to an extent unseen in nearly any other context that does not involve a minor or someone who lacks capacity due to mental disability.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Again, if the government and the bureaucrats are at fault it will come out in a third party audit. Not in opinion editorial. Not on a web forum. A third party audit is required. It seems that some are more frightened of the truth than others.
 
mentalfloss
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Again, if the government and the bureaucrats are at fault it will come out in a third party audit. Not in opinion editorial. Not on a web forum. A third party audit is required. It seems that some are more frightened of the truth than others.

How does a third party audit supercede the friggin Indian Act?
 
TenPenny
+2
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Section 61(1)(a-k) of the Indian Act (external - login to view) declares that: “With the consent of the council of a band, the Minister may authorize and direct the expenditure of capital moneys of the band” for various purposes.

What this means is that Ministerial approval is actually a requirement before any capital expenditures can occur on reserve. In practice, a Band will generally pass a Band Council Resolution (BCR) authorising a certain expenditure (say on housing), and that BCR must be forwarded to INAC for approval.

That’s right. Most First Nations have to get permission before they can spend money.

Read what you've written again, until you understand it.

That refers to capital moneys and expenditures. Yes, that would apply to new housing. But it doesn't apply to maintenance or the like.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

How does a third party audit supercede the friggin Indian Act?

I don't think you understand the concept of an audit.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

How does a third party audit supercede the friggin Indian Act?

If I give you money for housing and you buy a snowmobile... Ahh forget it! It's like talking to Petros when he doesn't want to listen, but just wants to argue..
 
mentalfloss
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Read what you've written again, until you understand it.

That refers to capital moneys and expenditures. Yes, that would apply to new housing. But it doesn't apply to maintenance or the like.

Of course.

The capital expenditures are the biggest expense and they barely received enough to cover those. You don't need an audit to figure that out.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

If I give you money for housing and you buy a snowmobile... Ahh forget it! It's like talking to Petros when he doesn't want to listen, but just wants to argue..

Your metaphor doesn't work.

If the government gave First Nations money to go toward a house, they know it's going toward a house. They are obligated to be the ones accountable for that capital expenditure as per the Indian Act.
 
TenPenny
+2
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course.

The capital expenditures are the biggest expense and they barely received enough to cover those. You don't need an audit to figure that out.

No, you don't need an audit to figure that out. You need an audit to figure out what they're doing with the money they do get, like 1.3 million in wages and benefits under 'housing', if they don't build any fuking houses.
 
mentalfloss
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

No, you don't need an audit to figure that out. You need an audit to figure out what they're doing with the money they do get, like 1.3 million in wages and benefits under 'housing', if they don't build any fuking houses.

Everyone knows that no one is purely innocent in this mess, but let's put it into context. The priority money was accounted for and approved by the feds. It just wasn't enough sustain this community.

An important fact that many commentators forget (or are unaware of) is that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 (external - login to view) gives the Federal Crown exclusive powers over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.”


You see, for non-natives, the provinces are in charge of funding things like education, health-care, social services and so on. For example, the Province of Ontario allocated $10,730 in education funding per non-native pupil in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. For most First Nations, particularly those on reserve, the federal government through INAC is responsible for providing funds for native education.

How is this relevant?

It helps explain why the entire $90 million was not allocated to the construction of new houses. That $90 million includes funding for things like:
  • education per pupil
  • education infrastructure (maintenan*ce, repair, teacher salaries, etc)
  • health-care per patient
  • health-care, infrastruc*ture (clinics, staff, access to services outside the community in the absence of facilities on reserve)
  • social services (facilitie*s, staff, etc)
  • infrastruc*ture (maintenan*ce and constructi*on)
  • a myriad of other services
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Everyone knows that no one is purely innocent in this mess, but let's put it into context. The priority money was accounted for and went towards its designated purpose. It just wasn't enough sustain this community.

THis is an NDP attitude and a testament why they should never run the Country
 
mentalfloss
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

THis is an NDP attitude and a testament why they should never run the Country

This is a legal attitude, not an NDP attitude.

In any claim for damages, priority is placed on the greatest tortfeasor. Obviously there can be contributory negligence, but it's weighed up against the damages.

We don't put the focus on the party that is 10% negligent.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

This is a random insult that has nothing to do with this thread.

It has everything to do with this thread. More than a handful of people have tried to explain why an audit is needed. You, seem obessessed with tossing blame without actually waiting for an independent audit that will show accountability on all parts. This reminds me very much of the Chiefs who went to the Parliament buildings in Winnipeg and threw a bunch of body bags down and said, "This is what Ottawa thinks of us. We need money and they send us body bags." Later after all the hoopla and grandstanding it turned out that they had ordered the body bags.

If the Feds are not providing enough money a 3rd party audit will show that. If the leadership in this community was ripping off the people and living like slumlords then a 3rd party audit will show that. It seems too me that this is more about the NDP and its supporters scoring political points rather than finding out the truth. Which is the very reason that the NDP is not ready to run the country.
 
mentalfloss
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

It has everything to do with this thread. More than a handful of people have tried to explain why an audit is needed. You, seem obessessed with tossing blame without actually waiting for an independent audit that will show accountability on all parts.

I'm just following the Indian Act. In that agreement, the government is supposed to be dealing with this mess, not an independent party.

I'm not against an audit, but it's clearly a second priority. They can provide the right resources now and then sue the First Nations later if they really want.
 
captain morgan
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

This is a legal attitude, not an NDP attitude.

In any claim for damages, priority is placed on the greatest tortfeasor. Obviously there can be contributory negligence, but it's weighed up against the damages.

We don't put the focus on the party that is 10% negligent.


Who says that it is only the gvt that will be considered in the tortfeaser analysis.... Kinda a self-fulfilling prophecy, non?
 
mentalfloss
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Who says that it is only the gvt that will be considered in the tortfeaser analysis.... Kinda a self-fulfilling prophecy, non?

If you actually did an analysis, you would find that the Feds are largely responsible for this mess.
 
captain morgan
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

If you actually did an analysis, you would find that the Feds are largely responsible for this mess.


The analysis is not limited to the last 5 years, nor is it exempt from critical analysis to determine where the wheels fell off.

As RCS has pointed out on a number of occasions, an independent audit will the starting-point in determining if the Federal funding was sufficient and if the expenditures were done so in a manner that was in the best interests of the people.

I am guessing that this group has been receiving funding for a long time prior to 2006 (which the NP article focuses on). You seem to ignore the reality that the real capital expenditures would have occurred at the onset of the funding program (whenever that was) during which time the capital costs would have been much higher than the present (annual) capital injections to accommodate the cost of things like initial housing construction, etc..

You have selectively focused on one or two variables and ignored the entire context in which those components interact.
 
mentalfloss
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The analysis is not limited to the last 5 years, nor is it exempt from critical analysis to determine where the wheels fell off.

Of course not. But for the chrissake, do the audit after you supply humanitarian aid.

Our primary concern should be getting these people back on their feet, not "where did the money go?"
 
TenPenny
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course not. But for the chrissake, do the audit after you supply humanitarian aid.

Our primary concern should be getting these people back on their feet, not "where did the money go?"

So, what do they need to get on their feet?
 
captain morgan
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course not. But for the chrissake, do the audit after you supply humanitarian aid.

I have no problem with that sentiment... Where I do have a problem is that your entire focus at this point is assessing blame exclusively on the shoulders of one party and refusing to accept any actions that may lead to understanding 'why' this crisis has developed at all.

If you wish to stick your head in the sand on this, that's your decision, but don't demand that everyone also follow your lead when it's their money that you're playing with.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Our primary concern should be getting these people back on their feet, not "where did the money go?"

The biggest concern is "why", unless you get off by seeing this very circumstance played over and over each year with all kinds of different groups.
 
taxslave
+1
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course.

The capital expenditures are the biggest expense and they barely received enough to cover those. You don't need an audit to figure that out.



Your metaphor doesn't work.

If the government gave First Nations money to go toward a house, they know it's going toward a house. They are obligated to be the ones accountable for that capital expenditure as per the Indian Act.

No they don't know that housing money went to housing. That is the whole point of a third party audit. DO you know for a fact that it did not buy snowmobiles? I'm betting you have never been on any rez let alone a remote one. In one boat/fly in rez we are currently working on there are around 50 people collecting government paycheques as best as I can tell out of a TOTAL population of 1800.
You might also want to ask yourself why outside contractors are required to build houses other than some of the trades. Another question for you to ponder is why the residents can't do simple maintenance to their homes like painting and cleaning the garbage out of the yards.
Just because you have an irrational hatred of the current governing party does not mean they are at fault for every perceived problem in Canada. Many problems have been inherited and are entrenched in a ideological driven bureaucracy that opposes change.
 
mentalfloss
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

No they don't know that housing money went to housing.

Financial Statements | Attawapiskat First Nation (external - login to view)

This is not an isolated problem. If the government truly believed an independent audit is the grand solution to a state of emergency, then they should complete audits on all First Nations reserves in states of emergency.

Manitoba chiefs in Ottawa to push for better housing

Some Manitoba chiefs are in Ottawa this week, as the Assembly of First Nations is urging the federal government to address a housing crisis on reserves across Canada.

Chiefs from the province are hoping their national leaders can convince the federal government to help provide more decent housing to First Nations people.

On Manitoba reserves like the Wasagamack First Nation and the Sandy Bay First Nation, many members live in shacks or homes that are falling apart, and some do not have access to running water or sewage systems.

"There's mould. The drywall is torn down. The floor is broken in because there's a lot of traffic," said Chief Jeffrey Naopokesik of Shamattawa, Man., in describing one of the worst homes on his reserve.
Naopokesik said he was so desperate for new homes on his First Nation, he turned to a private lender — a move that he said costs a lot more money that his band does not have.

"Sometimes it keep me up in the wee hours of the night," he said.

Severe shortage of homes


Pukatawagan, Man., Chief Arlen Dumas, who is in Ottawa this week, said his community has more structurally sound homes than other reserves, but there is a severe shortage of homes that he said is creating overcrowded conditions.

"We have 30 people living in a five-bedroom home. We have 10 to 15 people living in a three-bedroom trailer," he said.

Keewatin Tribal Council Grand Chief Arnold Ouskan, who is also in Ottawa this week, said First Nation leaders are not just asking the federal Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Department for more money.

"We know what the problem is: the department has to be more flexible with their funding," he said, adding that First Nations cannot move around the federal funds they receive.

The issue of substandard First Nations housing has surfaced in recent weeks thanks to a crisis in Attawapiskat, Ont., where some people in the community of about 1,800 live in unheated tents, condemned housing and portable trailers.

Chiefs support Attawapiskat


Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence declared an emergency in October as winter approached.

But this week, Spence criticized Ottawa's handling of the crisis, after federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan ordered an independent audit of Attawapiskat's finances and has appointed a third-party manager to oversee spending.

When the outside manager, Jacques Marion, arrived in Attawapiskat on Monday, he was promptly asked to leave by the band, which said his presence was unwanted.

Grand Chief David Harper of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO), an organization that represents northern Manitoba First Nations, said his group supports the decision by leaders in

Attawapiskat to kick out the third-party manager.

If other First Nation leaders do not help Attawapiskat stand up to the federal government, they could be targeted next, Harper said.

"We have to stand with her, regardless of what people might think, what people might say," he said.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...fn-ottawa.html
 
taxslave
+1
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Financial Statements | Attawapiskat First Nation (external - login to view)

Wrong answer. That is why an audit is needed.
 
TenPenny
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Financial Statements | Attawapiskat First Nation (external - login to view)

Without an audit, you don't know where those numbers come from.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of an audit.
 
Nuggler
+1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Red cross steps in when there is a state of emergency.

The reason why there is a state of emergency is because the government hasn't provided enough funding or accounted for that funded properly.

It's already been shown that the "$90 million" was not enough.

The government is ducking their responsibility.



Guilty until proven innocent?



The Red Cross was supposed to build 5000 houses after the Indonesian tsunami. It had the money. several millions. 5 years later. No houses and lots of bafflegab from RC.
 
mentalfloss
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Without an audit, you don't know where those numbers come from.

If you guys actually opened up the first document, you would see that these statements are based on an an independent audit report by Ross, Pope & Company LLP (external - login to view).
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course.

The capital expenditures are the biggest expense and they barely received enough to cover those. You don't need an audit to figure that out.



Your metaphor doesn't work.

If the government gave First Nations money to go toward a house, they know it's going toward a house. They are obligated to be the ones accountable for that capital expenditure as per the Indian Act.

But if they use that money for the housing and use it to buy a Zamboni, and then say 'the government hasn't given us enough money for housing' ... thats the type of thing an audit would pick up.
 
Nuggler
+2
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I'm just following the Indian Act. In that agreement, the government is supposed to be dealing with this mess, not an independent party.

I'm not against an audit, but it's clearly a second priority. They can provide the right resources now and then sue the First Nations later if they really want.


They are dealing with it, MF. They appointed a 3rd party to do an audit and to TAKE CONTROL of the rez's affairs. Damn, thought there'd never be a day I'd agree with Harpo.

Suing them later is like getting blood from a stone.
 
mentalfloss
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

But if they use that money for the housing and use it to buy a Zamboni, and then say 'the government hasn't given us enough money for housing' ... thats the type of thing an audit would pick up.

Of course it would.

But for now, just pay for the damn housing and work out the audit later.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Dec 7th, 2011 at 10:45 AM..
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Of course it would.

But for now, just pay for the damn housing and work out the audit later.

But if you have given X millions to group A in the past to build houses B and then houses B never get built, does it make sense to give more millions to group A to build same houses B? Good money after bad. Group A has already shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Why trust them more?
 

Similar Threads

113
"The Western BlocK Party!!!"
by Ron in Regina | Jun 5th, 2012
5
3
Will we put the "party" back in "Party"?
by Ten Packs | Mar 17th, 2005
no new posts