"3rd Party" booted out of Attawapiskat

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
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?

We pay half toward that community as compared to citizens in any other community in Canada.

An audit would only tell us what's wrong with the half that we've paid so far.

We still owe them far more than that to begin with.

By the way, I would not have these sorts of reservations if I wasn't aware of the Indian Act. I'm still trying to digest the legal ramifications, but as far as I understand, we need to be in keeping with those treaties.
 
Last edited:

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,276
2,903
113
Toronto, ON
We pay half toward that community as compared to citizens in any other community in Canada.

An audit would only tell us what's wrong with the half that we've paid so far.

We still owe them far more than that to begin with.

I am not arguing that we should not pay them more. Just that they seem to have not made wise choices with the money given them. Giving them more money to be misspend won't help.

Also, most communities get a good chunk of their money through taxation of their own citizens. They do get some downloaded money from the fed/prov govts but ask any city mayor and they will also say its too little.

First Nations are different as they get money from the Fed as part of their treaties and such. They could also choose to tax their own citizens to make up the shortfall.

But its all nice theoretical discussion without an audit of the finances and expenditures.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
I am not arguing that we should not pay them more. Just that they seem to have not made wise choices with the money given them. Giving them more money to be misspend won't help.

No rational person would misspend enough money to put themselves into a state of emergency.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,276
2,903
113
Toronto, ON
No rational person would misspend enough money to put them into a state of emergency.

You are making assumptions about rationallity and community interest. Helecopter hunting trips and Zambonies are not the sign of a rational community interested group of people (who have control of the money).
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
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?

That might be a little simplistic depending on what transpired before the money was handed over, what was asked for and what it was asked for for. Citizen A could need a house and ask for money. Citizen A might not understand what conditions must be in place before construction could start. Was it simply a matter of a cheque being mailed out or was there a proper meeting of the requesters and the donors laying out the procedure to be followed? Was the money in fact specified for house construction? Someone is probably at fault but the question remains...................who?

You are making assumptions about rationallity and community interest. Helecopter hunting trips and Zambonies are not the sign of a rational community interested group of people (who have control of the money).

Probably we are not talking about conventional hunting trips here like in the south, where the reason is first for sport, second for food. I'm guessing that a large percentage of what they eat is obtained by hunting and seeing that the area is not served by road, perhaps helicopters are an acceptable means.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
You are making assumptions about rationallity and community interest. Helecopter hunting trips and Zambonies are not the sign of a rational community interested group of people (who have control of the money).

Yes, the word Zamboni definitely sounds like a really evil buzzword. I'm not surprised people are being swayed.

But when you put that into perspective within the context of payment for housing, education and the like. These people would have to have stashed that money into a pretty elusive piggy bank to warrant the current conditions they are in now.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
If you read the cover letter, and understood what it says, you would understand that the audit was conducted for the purposes of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements as a whole.

That doesn't mean there wasn't an analysis of the expenses and their source.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
And it doesn't mean there was one, either.

See how that works?

Of course.

But it still doesn't deny that they are receiving half of what other Canadians get in the first place. I think a third party audit to weed out those illegitimate expenses is fine, but to make it the first order of business without admitting that the community is grossly underfunded is a bad move.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Everything? :smile:

Yes, the word Zamboni definitely sounds like a really evil buzzword. I'm not surprised people are being swayed.

But when you put that into perspective within the context of payment for housing, education and the like. These people would have to have stashed that money into a pretty elusive piggy bank to warrant the current conditions they are in now.

Pretty fancy Zambonis and Choppers to add up to $90 million! :lol:

Of course.

But it still doesn't deny that they are receiving half of what other Canadians get in the first place. I think a third party audit to weed out those illegitimate expenses is fine, but to make it the first order of business without admitting that the community is grossly underfunded is a bad move.

Maybe all this "toing and froing" should at least initially be done between the two sides without the Gov't. using it in a futile attempt to gain "brownie points". After the bottom of the matter has been reached is plenty of time to inform the public. Public is great at jumping to conclusions.

If you read the cover letter, and understood what it says, you would understand that the audit was conducted for the purposes of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements as a whole.

Is an "opinion" what we are after here?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
The auditor general of Canada speaks up.

The auditor general of Canada released a report in June of this year examining Programs for First Nations on Reserve. A similar report was published in 2006. This report identifies deficiencies in program planning and delivery by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Health Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

The reports also provide a number of recommendations to improve these deficiencies. The 2011 report evaluated the progress made since the 2006 report, and in most areas, gave these federal agencies a failing grade.

Don't worry, there is a point to this, stay with me.

The 2011 report has this to say:
In our view, many of the problems facing First Nations go deeper than the existing programs' lack of efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that structural impediments severely limit the delivery of public services to First Nations communities and hinder improvements in living conditions on reserves. We have identified four such impediments:


  • lack of clarity about service levels,
  • lack of a legislative base,
  • lack of an appropriate funding mechanism, and
  • lack of organizations to support local service delivery.
I know this is going to look like mumbo jumbo at first, so let me break it down a little for you. This will help explain why millions of dollars of funding is not enough to actually improve the living conditions of First Nations people, particularly those on reserve.


Lack of clarity about service levels

As explained earlier the federal government is in charge of delivering services that are otherwise provided by the provinces to non-natives. The auditor general states:
It is not always evident whether the federal government is committed to providing services on reserves of the same range and quality as those provided to other communities across Canada.​
Shockingly, the federal government does not always have clear program objectives, nor does it necessarily specify specific roles and responsibilities for program delivery, and has not established measures for evaluating performance in order to determine if outcome are actually met.

What!?

That's right. The federal government is not keeping track of what it does, how it does it, or whether what it is doing works. The auditor general recommends the federal government fix this, pronto. How can a community rely on these services if the federal government itself isn't even clear on what it is providing and whether the programs are working?


Lack of a legislative base
Provincial legislation provides a basis of clarity for services delivered by provinces. A legislative base for programs specifies respective roles and responsibilities, eligibility, and other program elements. It constitutes an unambiguous commitment by government to deliver those services. The result is that accountability and funding are better defined.​
The provinces all have some sort of Education Act that clearly lays out the roles and responsibilities of education authorities, as well as mechanisms of evaluation. There is generally no comparable federal legislation for the provision of First Nations education, health care, housing and so on.

As noted by the AG, legislation provides clarity and accountability. Without it, decision can be made on an ill-defined "policy" basis or on a completely ad hoc basis.


Lack of an appropriate funding mechanism


The AG focuses on a few areas here.

Lack of service standards for one. Were you aware that provincial building codes do not apply on reserve? Some provincial laws of "general application" (like Highway Traffic Acts) can apply on reserve, but building codes do not. There is a federal National Building Code, but enforcement and inspection has been a major problem. This has been listed as one of the factors in why homes built on reserve do not have a similar 'life' to those built off reserve.

Poor timing for provision of funds is another key issue. "Most contribution agreements must be renewed yearly. In previous audits, we found that the funds may not be available until several months into the period to be funded," the auditor general states.

This is particularly problematic for housing as "money often doesn't arrive until late summer, past the peak construction period, so projects get delayed and their costs rise," the CBC says.


Lack of accountability.
It is often unclear who is accountable to First Nations members for achieving improved outcomes or specific levels of services. First Nations often cite a lack of federal funding as the main reason for inadequate services. For its part, INAC maintains that the federal government funds services to First Nations but is not responsible for the delivery or provision of these services.​
The AG also refers to a heavy reporting burden put on First Nations, and notes that the endless paperwork often is completely ignored anyway by federal agencies.


Lack of organisations to support local service delivery

This refers once again to the fact that there are hardly any federal school or health boards, or federal infrastructure and expertise. Some programs are delivered through provincial structures, while others are provided directly by the federal government, with less than stellar results.

Chelsea Vowel: Attawapiskat: You Want to Be Shown the Money? Here it Is.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,858
14,424
113
Low Earth Orbit
There is something Health Canada is hiding from the public. The pandemic of MRSA and other super bugs.

This rez is severely infected. Until health concerns are addressed eveything else is just fluff.

That kid with burns in the video posted runs the risk of losing a big chunk of it's arm from something as simple as a burn.

MRSA is nasty and it kills hundreds of Canadians daily. It kills more people than AIDS but you hear **** all about it.

MRSA Can Kill You! What You Need To Know! - YouTube

The real reason you see so many alcohol hand dispensers isn't because of flu it's because of MRSA.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,858
14,424
113
Low Earth Orbit
Yuuuup! Mostly those infected post-surgery. I've lost two elderly relatives to it, my wife has been treated twice from working in a hospital and I got it from her. I had a really bad reaction to the antibiotics (vancomyacin) and damn near died.

Health Canada had better fess up about this killer in our midsts.