3rd Party Management – Attawapiskat and Gull Bay.

APTN called me up yesterday. A couple of reporters were down with the flu and I had the chance to help out with a story about Attawapiskat at my old newsroom. Essentially I was assigned to cover how the story was playing out on Parliament Hill. Well by now we all know that depending on your politics, either Attawapiskat is the master of its own misery due to bad book-keeping or it’s underfunded.

I am not going to pretend that I know a lot about Attawapiskat, I’ve never been there. I have not spoken with people who live there. But now that it’s under Third Party Management I want to share the story of another community I covered back in 2003 that was also under Third Party Management. My experience there was eye-opening and left me with the conclusion that Third Party Management rarely solves problems.

Gull Bay is a small Ojibwa community, about 200 miles North of Thunder Bay in Ontario. It looks incredibly similar to Attiwapiskat, based on what I’ve seen of that community on TV. Dirt roads, small houses some old-fashioned 2-room cabins with wood stoves and no running water. There are also newer homes, with aluminum siding, small kitchens and simple but modern bathrooms that you might find in any small town. A lot of kids and dogs.

Like Attiwapiskat , Gull Bay had both debt and a housing problem. The two are connected, and the debt issue arose from the housing issues.

Long before I arrived there was a housing shortage in Gull Bay. Some people lived in homes that probably should have been condemned. These are the old wood stove heated shacks. They are warm, well-built, two-room cabins, but as the chief pointed out to me they are a fire trap, not to mention some have no bathrooms or taps. Every year Indian Affairs allotted money to build new homes, maybe 4 or 5 a year, but it wasn’t keeping pace with the need. Plus there was a problem with the construction of homes being built.

Some of the homes were not built properly for the north – cold winters, a clay base in the ground. There was also an over-crowding issue. It wasn’t unusual to see four or five families crowded into a home. Each family chooses a bedroom, they put mattresses on the floor and they all – 2 adults and 2-4 children crowd into a bedroom. They share the kitchen and bathroom with other families. So you can have 15-20 people living in a house, most of them kids. There is the wear and tear you get on the home from so many children living in there. Worse is what the moisture from running showers and baths to serve that many people, cook for that many people, does to a home. Just the moisture that comes off all these the human bodies can be measured in buckets. It all contributes to mould. So you have two factors at play – poor construction and overcrowding.

It’s not simple to point a finger to who is at fault for the poor construction. Indian Affairs allots a budget, the chief comes up with a housing plan, Indian Affairs studies and approves it before they release the money. Contracts are tendered to construction companies, homes are built. A number of eyes saw the plan, but apparently no one had the expertise to understand that these homes would not survive a nothern winter for more than a season or two, because they were not properly insolated for a clay-based earth. By the time I arrived there in 2003, there was a new chief who had no idea what had happened in the past, and everyone seemed so exhausted from finger-pointing that they had put it behind them. Plus there were new crises to deal with.

The homes I saw in 2003 had black mould running halfway up the walls. It was so thick I was coughing and hacking after 5 minutes in the room. I would later describe to people that, if I wanted to, I could have scraped the mould off the wall and made a mould-ball much as a child scraping up snow makes a snowball. The residents had been told to wash it off with bleach, but it kept coming back.

By this time the community was also under 3rd Party Management for debt it incurred because of housing. Nine years earlier, the community tried to solve its housing crisis by trying out a new program offered though Indian Affairs. They tried to introduce private housing. Getting a private home built on reserve is tricky, because reserve land is owned collectively and is indivisible. Banks don’t like to loan money when they can’t repossess. So the new program saw Indian Affairs guarantee loans to the bank so that families could build homes. It’s a great idea for a program. It has provided a solution to many other communities. But it went terribly wrong in Gull Bay.

Around 1994, five families build five homes under the program. Then they didn’t pay the mortgages. Some said because the homes weren’t well built and started to mould. Some said they were just dead-beats. I never got to the bottom of the reason. Perhaps both stories had truth, which is often the case. At this point it was just another item everyone was tired of finger-pointing over. (All I can say is that when I saw the homes, 9 years later they were abandoned and mouldy. )

In 1994, the cost of the unpaid mortgages was $2 million, the debt went to Indian Affairs (the loan  guarantor) who demanded their money back. The whole community was held responsible, since the individuals who owned the houses couldn’t or wouldn’t pay. Gull Bay was put under Third Party Management until the debt could be paid off.

When a Third Party Manager comes in they charge an average of $150,000 a year to take over the books. They still have to maintain core programs. To pay their own salaries and to try and get a surplus to pay off the debt they look for places to trim fat. If a band does not have independent income that means laying-off band employees, creating further unemployment in a community that is already under-employed. I spoke to a few of these people that went from viable income earners to welfare recipients over-night. They were mad as hell. After all none of this was their doing.Plus there are social consequences that come with an increase in unemployment –  depression, pills and hopelessness. I was told a number of people in the community had become hooked on precription drugs.  In a remote community  with a small economy, lay-offs also create a mini-recession. People who were independently employed in small micro-businesses told me they were struggling to keep ther heads above water since the lay-offs.

At this point the Chief and Council were really figure heads. Sure there is still day-to-day administration to run, but without access to the purse strings they were unable to respond to the biggest demands now coming from the community. From what I gathered the three major concerns were jobs, homes and teachers. The community very quickly turns on its chief under such circumstances. 

The Third Party Manager will also look for places they can save money in non-essentials, maybe one less teacher, cutting back on free pencils. Where ever they can find a dime. Indian Affairs ends up paying itself back, with its own money. (Which means tax payer dollars, to pay back tax payer dollars.)

Judging by what I found in Gull Bay in 2003, the Third Party Managers had not found many dimes to cut. As I said, by that time Gull Bay had been under Third Party Management for 9 years. The houses were more moldy, the school was falling apart, and the communities debt had actually doubled. They originally owed $2 million in 1994, now they owed $4.2 million. When I asked why, Indian Affairs told me it was due to interest on the debt. I never got to the bottom of just what this interest rate was. But there were clearly some other poor choices that had been made by Indian Affairs and the Third Party Manager.

For example, Indian Affairs directed the Third Party Manager to buy  6 second-hand trailers at a cost of $120,000 for some families who had to move out of their homes due to the mould problem. When the chief saw the quality of the trailers he hit the roof, saying they were in terrible condition. He called in Health Canada.  I was there when Health Canada inspectors came to look at the trailers. They were old, drafty, run down things that looked like they had once been used for logging. Health Canada declared they were “unfit for human habitation.” That accounted for an extra $120,000 out of the bands budget. I did not have access to years of books kept by the Third Party Managers (and neither did the chief and band council by the way). So I was left to wonder just how many more little mistakes like this had been made and added to the band’s debt.

The Third Party Manager would not speak to me directly. (They rarely do) But the chief shared a letter with me from the 3rd Party Manager – at the time it was Ernst and Young – asking Indian Affairs if they could forgive some of the debt, as by their reckoning it would now take 30-40 years to pay off and it would be saddling children with mistakes of the past. Indian Affairs had determined the debt was collectable and would not change their minds. Ernst and Young did not renew their contract with Indian Affairs to manage the accounts. A new Third Party manager was called in.

So I leave you with these thoughts. If outside professionals manage a community and they double that community’s debt over 9 years, perhaps underfunding is a real issue. Or perhaps we should not so easily believe that Third Party Management  is a solution to all that ails communities in trouble. 

I haven’t been back to Gull Bay since 2003. They have a new chief, according to Indian Affairs they have now moved to co-management, that should give them some control over their financial affairs. But  after seeing this video posted on YOUtube last year  little else seems to have changed in the years since I visited. I do not know what their current debt is.

Back to Attawapiskat, I don’t know what’s up with their books. I am not an accountant. I don’t pretend I have the skills to solve debt problems or properly manage a multi-million dollar budget for a small town. But I leave you with this observation: the former Auditor General, Sheila Fraser said years ago said that the Third Party Management system did not get value for money, and based on what I saw I agree with her, and I have little faith that this is a solution for the troubles in Attawapiskat.

Remembering Jack

Jack Layton was known in Ottawa as an approachable man, with a good sense of humour, a hearty laugh and what some call the gift of gab. My first interview with him was when I was a young reporter for the then fledgling Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. That was in September 2006, at the NDP’s convention in Quebec City. Jack was the first national party leader to agree to give a full one-on-one interview with APTN. Even back then, when the NDP appeared to be entrenched as Canada’s third party with few prospects of becoming more, Jack spoke about the NDP as if they had a really fighting chance of one day governing Canada. I don’t think anyone in the Press Gallery took that kind of talk seriously back then. By vaulting the NDP into the official opposition last Spring, he surprised everyone.

Two notable things I can say about Jack. First, if you haven’t met him – he was exactly the same person when you met him face-to-face as he was on TV: ambitious, a little awkward when delivering prepared media lines, better when he spoke in his own words. Secondly, he loved to chat. It wasn’t uncommon to run into Jack on the streets of Ottawa. He always struck up a conversation. It was always hard to get a word in edgewise.

Like many of you, I had my doubts when we saw how thin he was at the recent press conference when he announced the return of cancer. He was thin. His booming voice reduced to a hoarse whisper. It brought back memories of my own father’s struggle with cancer. My dad was so thin at the end of his battle that I could lift him and carry him. But Jack expressed an optimism that my father didn’t have.

Despite how Jack looked and sounded, Jack spoke hopefully of a return to the House in September. Thousands of Canadians sent their best wishes via email, twitter and Facebook. They shared his hope. Today, Jack’s tragic and early death is touching everyone. People of all political stripes are expressing sadness at the loss. In a country where politics has become so polarized, it’s moving to see people laying aside what are sometimes passionate and hard fought differences to honour Jack.

Great First Nations youth video with all the Stats

Some First Nations youth pulled together a video with stats from the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey (RHS).

I should mention that this survey is First Nations owned and controlled and is an arm’s length from politics, though funded by Health Canada. It is not a census, but uses a sort of random scientific method of collecting data. If your a layman like me, the best way to understand it is that they collect a smaller amount of data from a number of First Nations communities, and when you crunch the numbers it gives some pretty accurate stats of what’s going on regionally and nationally. This is different from a census that tries to collect data from each household in Canada. (See post on why some First Nations and the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs criticize the census here. By contrast RHS collects data reflective of all First Nations communities including those that would not be “officially” recognized as reserves. It does not collect urban data yet, but my understanding is they hope to do so one day in the future.) The RHS methodology was peer-reviewed by experts at Harvard and got a thumb’s up, so it’s solid data to draw on for journalism. Expect a release of new data in the Fall.  

The video itself is just really interesting, thoughtful, sometimes sad and sometimes funny. We have some very creative youth out there.

Get unspun: Indians are not leaving reserves.

One little, two little, three little Indians…Much ado about number-crunching

Oh yes the 2011 census is underway. The long forms were somewhat rescued as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). So once again, First Nations, Inuit and Métis will be counted. But it will create new controversy over what the numbers mean, and if data is comparable.

Counting Aboriginal peoples is a hot-button issue in Indian Country. After all, these numbers influence public opinion, determine who gets funding, if services get cut, and which aboriginal groups have political power. That’s why governments and lobby groups pull different sets of numbers, even when using the same source of information. The last time the census data was released, there was a swirl of controversy over on and off-reserve numbers, that made life very confusing for journalists.  So I thought I’d take a look back at the much ado about number-crunching, because no doubt we’re in for more of it.

A commonly misunderstood statistic.
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), a group that represents urban aboriginal people, and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) say 73.7% of aboriginal people live off-reserve. They arrive at this number by tallying the total number of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people counted in the 2006 census, and subtracting First Nations people who live on reserves. The number is accurate, but the way the number is interpreted can be misleading.

  • The 73.7% statistic can create a false impression that First Nations are leaving reserves in droves. The reality is that Métis, Inuit and non-status Indians cannot legally reside on reserve, except in specific circumstances (such as being married to a status Indian). Therefore the majority of the people counted in this number, have never lived on a reserve. The statistic is inappropriate for measuring off-reserve migration.
  • This statistic has sometimes been used to argue that too much money is spent on reserves. According to CAP’s numbers, (which I have not independently checked)  for $8 spent on reserve, only $1 is spent off reserve. The argument goes that if 73.7% of the aboriginal population lives off reserve, the lion’s share of the funding should be directed off-reserve, a point Patrick Brazeau made when he was leader of CAP 2006 – 2008. While Brazeau never stated what a fair split would be (Did he want 73.7%?), there is a logic problem with simply divvying up funding by the numbers: reserves have some very high infrastructure expenses that urban-living aboriginal people do not, such as building and maintaining roads, water and sewage systems, etc. A better way to measure funding programs is by determining what off-reserve services are needed, which can be done through other census statistics. For example there are specific statistics on urban and rural housing needs for First Nations living off-reserve, Métis and Inuit.
  • Using the 73.7% statistic to determine funding creates a false impression that urban aboriginal people are in a fighting over the same dollars that fund First Nations on reserve. In fact the federal government funds most on-reserve programs, while provinces fund most off-reserve programs (housing is one example). Considering that First Nations frequently have family on reserve and that status Indians tend to move back and forth between reserves and cities, it’s also true that many don’t want to see services cut to their families and communities.

Of course, the myth that urban-people and their on-reserve cousins are beating each other up over programs and funding was not helped by the adversarial relationship that existed for several years between CAP and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). However, it’s worth noting that the AFN has worked cooperatively with other groups like the Métis National Council (MNC) and the Inuit Tapirrit Kanatami (ITK) who represent half of the people  (33% and 4% respectively) included in the 73.7% statistic.

First Nations on and off-reserve and migration in the 2006 Census.

Rather than using the total aboriginal population to measure the on and off-reserve population, and to determine migration patterns it’s better to use First Nations specific numbers in the census. (Although the AFN disputes the census numbers, discussed in a moment.)

  • According to the 2006 Census 40% of those who self-identify as First Nations lived on reserve in 2006, 60% lived off-reserve. However, this does not signal any major migration from reserve to cities, as it’s only a 2% growth in the urban population over 20 years, since the 1996 census. Nor should it be assumed that this 2% change means people are relocating from reserves to cities.

When you look at where First Nations people have been moving, over the past 5 census cycles – that’s 25 years – both cities and reserves experienced net in-migration. How can this be?

  • The 2% growth off-reserve is not necessarily because people are leaving reserve, it’s just a reflection of a high birth rate and more people who are self-identifying as First Nations on the census.  In reality almost as many people are moving onto reserves as leaving, and that is why the real number of First Nations, both on and off-reserve is growing.

Why does the AFN dispute the census numbers?

The AFN offers a number of reasons to dispute the census numbers.

  • The AFN says the census undercounts First Nations people living on reserve, a fact that StatsCan admits. StatsCan recognizes 615 First Nations reserves but did not count 22 reserves who refused to take part in the census, which they estimate amounts to somewhere between 28,205 to 53,041 people. But taking these numbers into consideration does not radically shift the numbers. By my calculations at the low-end of the margin for error you’d get 42.3 % on reserve and 57.7 percent off-reserve; at the high-end you’d get 44.4 on-reserve and 55.7 off-reserve.
  • The AFN says that on another 166 First Nations, at least one-quarter of residents weren’t counted– an issue not clearly addressed one way or the other by StatsCan.
  • The census may also under-calculate the on-reserve population because the AFN recognizes 633 communities, but only 615 are recognized as reserves by StatsCan and other government agencies.
  • The AFN also disputes census numbers because only status Indians can legally live on reserve, (although a small number of non-status Indians live on reserve anyway) but Statistics Canada’s counts non-status Indians in the comparative urban population. In other words they are counting people who can’t live of reserve if they want to. 

The AFN would prefer that reporters use the Indian registry, a database maintained by the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs, which showed that in 2006, the same year as the census, that a slight majority of status Indians, 53%, lived on reserve. (Only 43 % lived off reserve and 4% lived on crown land.)

However the Canadian Taxpayers Federation disagrees with using these numbers. In their report “Life is better in the Cities,” which advocates for the elimination of reserves, they argue census figures are better: “Statistics Canada figures measure actual on- and off-reserve registrants present on census day. In contrast, DIAND’s list is about people who have the potential to live there but may already be present in another reserve, in non-reserve towns and cities, or outside of Canada.” The tie breaker in this dispute is Aboriginal Affairs, who sided with the AFN. Dan Beavon, director of strategic research for the Department, has gone on the record saying he’s made the same points (as the AFN) to StatsCan himself. “I imagine that they’ll be doing changes to the way the census questions are done for the 2011 census.”

Hmm.. we shall see…

So which numbers should you use, say if you’re a journalist?

Whichever numbers you use it’s important to ensure they are given in the right context.

  • Numbers pointing to aboriginal populations are not an accurate measure of migration. First Nations specific numbers should be used.
  • Numbers used to argue for funding need to be specific.
  • When census numbers are used, keep in mind they undercount the on-reserve population and off-reserve numbers include people who do not have the legal option to live on a reserve.
  • When looking at the increased growth in the off-reserve population, keep in mind that the numbers are increasing because of population growth, and that almost as many people move on-reserve in a given year as those who leave

Native community rallies to help families of missing girls.

 

 

Runners at KZMore than 100 people signed up for the Kitigan Zibi run for Maisy and Shannon

On Sunday more than 100 people turned up at the Kitigan Zibi First Nation to join in a fundraising race for the families of two missing girls, Maisy Odjick  and Shannon Alexander. Proceeds will go toward an award for anyone who can help solve the mystery of how and why the girls disappeared almost three years ago.

All participants received a medal bearing the two girls pictures

All participants received a medal bearing the two girls pictures

On Friday September 6, 2008 Maisy slept over at her friend Shannon’s home in Maniwaki, the town next to the reserve. Shannon’s father, Bryan, saw the girls the next morning before took a trip to Ottawa. Maisy failed to check in with her family that weekend and they began to worry. When Bryan returned home on Sunday he found both girls’ clothing, money and identification in the house, but Shannon and Maisy were gone. There were no signs of forced entry. The case has stumped police. People in the Kitigan Zibi community have rallied around the families ever since to offer emotional support, and to help organize searches.

This latest event saw visitors from Ottawa and other First Nations communities as far away as Kahnawake and Wendake — including Quebec Regional Chief Ghislain Picard — make an early morning drive to join local residents in the race. Local businesses donated mp3 players, gift certificates and other prizes for the winners, but all participants received a medal bearing the smiling faces of the two missing teens. Shannon and Maisy’s families hope that someone will come forward with information to help them find their missing daughters. For updates, to contact the family or make a donation go to http://www.findmaisyandshannon.com/

Maria Jacko, Laurie Odjick

Laurie Odjick (Maisy’s Mom, right) and Maria Jacko (Maisy’s Aunt, centre) thank volunteers.


Bryan Alexander
Shannon’s dad finished the race blistered and barefoot, but to applause.
rezdog
Yes. Even this rezdog finished the race and earned his medal.