Argus Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I am not basically arguing that Natives have no need or desire for work. How many Natives actually work at the diamond plant? Do you have any actual facts on Debeers? As part of the deal with De Beers, $325-million in contracts have been funnelled through solely owned or joint-owned companies based on Attawapiskat since construction started in 2006. Attawapiskat Resources Inc. currently has contracts to provide catering, dynamite and helicopter services to Victor. However, despite all that business flowing through ARI, the band’s accounts suggest just it has made just $99,867 in profits since its inception. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/06/john-ivison-with-millions-pouring-into-attawapiskat-colonial-blame-only-go-so-far/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 And, yet, legislative changes to address the issue are opposed as "violations of treaties". I am not a treaty expert, I only know the basics 9 as hsould everyone) so I can not comment on this, but if you like, I could try and persuade an expert to join the thread, as long as the racial comments are minimalized and a dialogue of respect and intelligence is maintained. First Nations reserves have been suffering since long, long before the present government was installed; since before Harper was even born. [ed.: sp] You are absolutely right. The current day facts ARE, that the world can not sustain at the pace of the corporate greed. We need to work together for a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment. If you can not agree with my statement, then I have no interest in any further discussion with you. It is my hope that you and others, can agree and have the desire to pursue a brighter future for the next generations of all species. I for one, enjoy clean drinking water. Sadly, the reality is we have far too many communities without this 'luxury' and relocating them or assimilating them DOES NOT WORK. This has been proven. I dont have all the answers but I am willing to work for them ( as are many others). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 As part of the deal with De Beers, $325-million in contracts have been funnelled through solely owned or joint-owned companies based on Attawapiskat since construction started in 2006. Attawapiskat Resources Inc. currently has contracts to provide catering, dynamite and helicopter services to Victor. However, despite all that business flowing through ARI, the band’s accounts suggest just it has made just $99,867 in profits since its inception. http://fullcomment.n...only-go-so-far/ I will read this doc during my reading hour (thanks btw), but its my guess that these funds go to IA first to be administered by the bureaucrats. In which common case, by the time everyone gets their 'admin' cut and it hits the grassroots level, it is merely peanuts. ps: i am not that skilled with the quoting option, so please forgive if I struggle update to (re)learn the interaction process of the forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I will read this doc during my reading hour (thanks btw), but its my guess that these funds go to IA first to be administered by the bureaucrats. I would find that very surprising. Anything beyond a guess from you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 While I am on the topic of IA bureaucrats, I would like to share an article that hit my desk today. This is ongoing common place at INAC and most simply turn a blind eye. I'd love to see an investigation into their fraudulent spending habits. "Published reports include thousands of dollars in overseas trips by Indian Affairs bureaucrats to places like Russia, Belgium and Great Britain in a list of $125 million worth of extravagant expenses by federal civil servants." article: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/678561/who-is-indian-affairs-helping-in-england It is rampant misuse and uncontrolled spending with the bureacrats that is creating much mistrust between natives and non-natives. The smoke and mirrors syndrome is a long served tactic designed to have the average citizen believe that we mismanage the 'handouts' and misleads many people into thinking that we can not handle our own funds. Of course, it looks awful getting millions and billions of dollars, and there is no fresh water or infrastructure in many communities. The truth is each band/first nation has to provide audited financial statements before receiving any future monies. What I want to know is why is it OK for small towns, 'ghetto' districts and other municipalities to receive the same type of funding, without the racial backlash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 It is rampant misuse and uncontrolled spending with the bureacrats that is creating much mistrust between natives and non-natives. The Chief of Peguis First Nation spends over 3x on travel what the Premier of Manitoba does, and receives a very similar salary. There's something wrong with that. Federal bureaucrats do have to travel often. Local leaders really shouldn't have to all that often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I would find that very surprising. Anything beyond a guess from you? Unlike many posters in this thread, I actually DO read and do my own research so that I can engage in a productive conversation. Was that a feeble attempt to insult me? I'm gonna trust at this time that it wasn't and I may get back to you for further comment regarding the article. I really do have so much to read/research and follow up, so i tend to pile it for an appropriate attack time. thanks for understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 The Chief of Peguis First Nation spends over 3x on travel what the Premier of Manitoba does, and receives a very similar salary. There's something wrong with that. Federal bureaucrats do have to travel often. Local leaders really shouldn't have to all that often. Why are Indian bureaucrats in europe? ponder that for a bit- there isnt even any Natives there!! As for the chief of Peguis...are you implying that he is an example of ALL our leadership? Have you taken a good hearty look at the corrupt leaders in the Canadian system. I appreciate your point, but please, sit back down. If you are going to highlight our corrupt leaders, then be prepared to present yours too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I would find that very surprising. I wouldn't. First Nations reserves are Crown land; if my understanding of the treaties is correct, sale or use of the land on a reserve by non-aboriginals must be brokered by the Crown. That said, deals can be worded in all sorts of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Unlike many posters in this thread, I actually DO read and do my own research so that I can engage in a productive conversation. Was that a feeble attempt to insult me? No, in fact, it isn't at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I wouldn't. First Nations reserves are Crown land; if my understanding of the treaties is correct, sale or use of the land on a reserve by non-aboriginals must be brokered by the Crown. That said, deals can be worded in all sorts of ways. There is some truth to your statement. Not all treaties are the same. Much variance between 1-11. Also many communites are unceded territory while others were tracts of land promised for native partnership as allies in the earlier wars. So much rich history here and we wouldnt be as confused as we are today, if this had been properly taught in the school system. Sadly, there has been numerous attempts to erase us from history, even our valuable contributions. I encourage you to take the time to watch this video, Russ Diabo brings many treaty truths to light and hopefully will give you abetter understand of the treaties/history process and current state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I wouldn't. First Nations reserves are Crown land; if my understanding of the treaties is correct, sale or use of the land on a reserve by non-aboriginals must be brokered by the Crown. This land isn't on a reserve though. This company is making payments and using reserve owned companies. The money of the companies should not have to flow through the crown in any way, as they are separate corporate entities that just happen to be owned by the reserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 SmallC is correct. Bands can own Corporations separate from the gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 It seems to me that too many people have issues with Natives receiving any financial benefits, let alone any prosperity as investors with resource development.Depends on how the deals are structured. Training programs that allow natives to compete for the available jobs - a must. A portion of the royalties that would normally go to the government - definitely fair. But the issue with Attawapiskat is a suspicion that native bands are run like feudal kingdoms for the benefit of the chiefs and their families. Personally, I think the problem is the dogmatic insistence that land must be held communally and a general refusal to tax their own people for the services rendered (it is much harder to get away with abusing funds if the people that put the chiefs in power see the funds as their own). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 This land isn't on a reserve though. This company is making payments and using reserve owned companies. The money of the companies should not have to flow through the crown in any way, as they are separate corporate entities that just happen to be owned by the reserve. Are you sure that money doesnt flow through the crown? This is where the back room deals get tricky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Personally, I think the problem is the dogmatic insistence that land must be held communally and a general refusal to tax their own people for the services rendered (it is much harder to get away with abusing funds if the people that put the chiefs in power see the funds as their own). I agree, however, not all bands are run the same. remember there are over 600 Native nations spread vast across the country, with very different cultural protocols and leadership. Some leaders are hereditary, while some vote for chief. In many cases, communities do indeed want the right to tax their own, but thanks to legislation this is not an option. Soverignty is something that many are working so very, very hard towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Are you sure that money doesnt flow through the crown? This is where the back room deals get tricky. I'm pretty sure. The Crown really have very little if anything to do with these corporate entities. They aren't Crown Corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I'm pretty sure. The Crown really have very little if anything to do with these corporate entities. They aren't Crown Corporations. Ok, im gonna put that on my 'look into' list or see if i can pass it off on a fellow researcher. Very curiouser indeed. I am certian that if it was handful of peoples ( the owners) getting filthy rich off these deals at the expense of the community, then I am certain I would know about it. 'Ndn country" is very small and scenarios like this are usually quickly brought into the light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 The community owns the corporation, generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I agree, however, not all bands are run the same. remember there are over 600 Native nations spread vast across the country, with very different cultural protocols and leadership.That cuts both ways. When places like Attawapiskat are in the news we are lead to believe that every band is like that when it is not true. Many bands have formed productive partnerships with the local non-native communities and their people are doing well. As for the Indian Act - it still exists for one reason and one reason only: that is what the chiefs want. The government would have gotten rid of it decades ago if it could have gotten approval from the chiefs. It is time to stop blaming the 'white man' for the absurdity of the Indian Act - it is chain that natives have chosen for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NativeCharm Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 As for the Indian Act - it still exists for one reason and one reason only: that is what the chiefs want. The government would have gotten rid of it decades ago if it could have gotten approval from the chiefs. It is time to stop blaming the 'white man' for the absurdity of the Indian Act - it is chain that natives have chosen for themselves. And you come to this expert conclusion how? Oh yeah thats right, its the Natives that wrote and implemented the Indian Act *smh*. You're a fool to think thats what all chiefs want. Do away with the Indian Act and honour the treaties... but that would cut into the canadians 'handouts' and we cant have that now can we? Oh my, imagine the civil unrest if Settlers had to actually pay for the lands they squatted on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Quite true. A bag of ciggies at the 'reserve' is a fraction of the cost at the 7-11. The savings are passed along to the consumer. A win-win situation...for all except those pirates at the corner gas bar. Which is why we should let them sell beer. Wait different thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Not a link to the same right wing bozo, but one that would verify those numbers..... If you read the "right wing bozo's" page, you'd see that the source link is right at the bottom of the graphic. It's Attawapaskat's own financial statements: http://www.attawapiskat.org/financial-statements/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 And you come to this expert conclusion how? Oh yeah thats right, its the Natives that wrote and implemented the Indian Act *smh*. Because there has been more than one push to remove it - both times by Jean Chretien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) And you come to this expert conclusion how?Because most non-native politicians want it gone. The only people that support the Indian Act are the chiefs who protest any attempt to change it. But you do bring up the real issue: the Indian Act is preferable to nothing from the point of view of chiefs but it does not change the truth of my claim that the only people who want the Indian Act are the chiefs. Edited January 4, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.