Thursday, January 13, 2005
Aboriginals and third-party benefits
From: RUSSELL DIABO
Ottawa spends $5.8 billion annually on First Nations people. True, $5.8 billion is a lot of money, but it comes at a price. The price is ensuring that neighbouring towns and regions receive a piece of the pie, otherwise known as "third-party benefits."
So Indian Affairs monies support more than the 633 band councils, the many tribal councils (akin to regional municipalities) and the 50 or so "provincial/territorial organizations" across the nation.
And can you imagine if all the "government spending" on a group you belong to was scrutinized in the manner that First Nations' spending has been? Adding up the municipal, regional, provincial and federal organizations meant to service the individual citizen is plain misleading.
What if all Canadians had to endure oversight of their affairs the way First Nations have? What if all local community councils had to require a federal department's approval for most of their decisions before being ratified?
My community, a First Nation with 1,900 members on the government list, receives approximately $6 million from the federal government. Of that, $2.3 million pays tuition and administration of the elementary and secondary school students. Then there is $1.7 million for the post-secondary education program.
However, the vast majority of money flows through the First Nation into the hands of non-aboriginal educational institutions. I went to a neighbouring town's Catholic elementary and high schools, and then to southern Ontario universities.
A tiny $23,000 is our allocation for community economic development: no wonder there are fewer than 50 full-time jobs outside of our First Nation government.
If it were not for the money from Casino Rama, there would be no economic development in my community. The reason? Economic development projects must include benefits for neighbouring communities.
My community manages its administration the best it can. Special projects have to be negotiated on a project-by-project basis, but for the most part, First Nations go to their local banker and get loans like most communities. There are no taxes paid to these governments, other than grants in lieu of taxes paid by utilities that cross into reservation boundaries.
A similarly sized community might receive $5 million in property taxes each year. The 99-year leases that were meant to benefit my community but only costing the neighbouring town $15 a year, are happily almost over.
However, there continues to be mismanagement of our affairs. For example, the municipality that supplies water to my community - only five miles from the water treatment plant - charges double what is charged to town residents for the same services.
The infrastructure and "hook-up" fees for the community to be serviced by this system was paid for by a multi-million-dollar Indian Affairs project.
First Nations reservations have their spending scrutinized in the government accounts because of the unique constitutional status as "Indians." Very little of this money is considered treaty money other than the $4 or $5 a year in government annuities to individual treaty Indians, allowance for suits for the Chief and councillors every two years, gill nets and other utensils to make good - literally - on treaty promises.
Many see the answer to chronic underfunding, (yes, underfunding) is the settlement of land claims and asserting treaty rights to allow access to natural resources. Both involve expenses - legal fees and research - for which there is little budget.
The problem is not the everyday "I cannot afford my lawyer's retainer" problem: the problem is systemic - litigation on aboriginal files is so drawn out - taking decades to go through the courts. Negotiations with governments typically take one step forward with each new government, and two steps back with each successive government. Add to this a government policy to challenge every claim, and you end up with delays that cost enormous amounts of money.
Land claim negotiations can also be problematic because of non-native neighbours crying foul, frightened of losing their land or their property values going down. The land claim agreements I have seen always have generous provision for third-party interests. A firm principle in land claim negotiations is that "third-party" lands are never to be considered - it's only crown land that may be given back to its rightful owners. Furthermore, if land is "lost" by a municipality, rather than using the common multiplier of 10 years to reimburse it for lost taxes, Indian Affairs generously gives the municipality 25 years' reimbursement of lost taxes under the Treaty Land Entitlement program.
Blaming First Nations communities is not the answer. The problem of First Nations overspending is a false one. The problem is the Department of Indian Affairs, and the "third-party interests" who benefit from management of the Indian dilemma. The policy on third-party interests has to be examined.
With all these billions being spent, why are so many aboriginals still impoverished?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/ipsm-l/attachments/20050114/ba576fc7/attachment.html>