A YEAR IN THE DARK

Almost a year ago I began a journey. It started when someone suggested I attend a meeting involving my First Nation.  I asked questions.  Apparently I asked the wrong questions. Feathers got ruffled.  Asking questions about finances and political accountability will do that. 

I grew up on a street called Doghead, nestled in the small hamlet of Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. 

It is s where I call ‘home’.  I belong to the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN).  My late dad, who was a traditional trapper, was a respected member of the community.  My mom, Therese, at 95 years of age is the oldest living member of our First Nation.

My mom was always known to let her thoughts be known when she believed there was an injustice perpetrated on her children.  She was never afraid to challenge those in power. She was always writing letters to the band office, and no wonder, with 16 children, she was our only advocate.   

You see, I come by my tenacity and desire for answers honestly.

To be clear, when I started asking questions it was not an effort to criticize our chief and Council. The fact is I was proud that my cousin had been elected Chief.  He made assurances during his campaign to have a more open and transparent government, and I believed him.  I wanted to help and support him fulfill his promises to our members.

However, after I attended that first meeting I could not stem the feeling that something did not feel right, there was a foul smell around the business.  Things were just not adding up.  

Corporate Meeting

ACDEN Corp. Fort McMurray, Alberta

On October 23^rd, 2013 I went to my first corporate meeting for ACDEN, which is our First Nation’s business corporation.  It is apparently a successful business, reportedly with $270 million in annual revenue, providing various services to the heavy oil industry in northern Alberta. 

Any illusions that I was going to a ‘business as usual” corporate meeting was shattered within seconds of arriving.  As we were entering the meeting room, in our newfangled $40 million state-of-the-art office building, a vice president whispered to a member, who is also an employee of the corporation, as she walked by him.  He said, “watch what you say if you want a pay cheque next week!”  It did not seem as if it was meant as a joke.   Holy smokes, I thought!  Where was I? China?  North Korea? The Soviet Union?  

I should have known, though.  There was already a foreshadowing of this attitude. Prior to the meeting, I had written to request specific corporate documents to review for the meeting.  I didn’t get an answer. (The fact is I didn’t get any response to any of my letters over this past year.)  So I followed up with a call to the President of the company, who passed me off to a vice present when I called, and who informed me that the financial statements for our corporation would not be provided to me. He did say however, that if I wanted to review the financial statements I had to do it at their office.  Unfortunately, I was only in town for one night, having arrived from Ottawa specifically for this meeting.   Not to mention that in order to adequately review the financial statements it would take more time than I had.

I wanted to find out more.  So I had done a search of the corporate documents for ACDEN that are filed with the Alberta government.  I learned that the chief and Council are each named as directors and shareholders in the ACDEN corporation, in trust for our First Nation.  Ultimately, ADCEN exists for the wellbeing of the members, both present and future.  

Our elected leaders are trustees when they act as directors and shareholders and owe the legal duties of trustees to the First Nation (which of course means the members who make up the First Nation) in relation to the conduct of ACDEN, our corporation.  So I had every expectation that I would be given the information I requested.  After all, as a member of ACFN I was one of the ultimate owners of our company and the shareholders had a trust obligation to me in relation to the affairs of ACDEN.

Oh, how naïve I was!

The meeting began with raised questions, but none were answered satisfactorily.  Frustration from the floor was palpable. It struck me how very much it was like Parliament during Question Period.  (The Speaker of the House of Commons recently said there is a good reason why it is called “Question Period” and not “Answer Period.”)  In other words, our questions were treated as annoyances, to be responded to flippantly or just dismissively.

We were treated to a PowerPoint presentation that only serve to infuriate the members further. The graphs and charts zipped by, and those of us in attendance, especially the elders, had difficulty processing what we were being shown. Some members could not even see the screen, and asked for copies.  Initially we were told we couldn’t have copies, but we insisted, and finally – after a long delay -- copies were provided.  But the presentation had no figures about the revenues or profits of the company.

The chief, who is chairman of the board, was absent. However, the President was on his cell phone talking to him for much of the meeting, essentially giving feedback on how the meeting was going. I gather he had known it was going to be a difficult meeting and chose to not attend.  He could at least have participated by speakerphone to speak to and listen to the members in attendance, but he was interested only in feeding information into the meeting through the President.

This corporate meeting was billed as an information meeting but I didn’t witness any real information being presented. And the realization that only ones benefiting from our corporation with $270 million in annual revenues are the people who are employed, or have contracts through ACDEN, of whom I understand fewer than 1% are ACFN members.

There was no information about how profitable our corporation was, or what it owned, or what debts it had, and where any profits went.  We were in a brand-new  $40 million dollar state of the art office building and didn’t even know how much equity our corporation had in it.  It turns out, apparently next to nothing!  The building is mortgaged to the hilt and apparently the down payment was covered by a line of credit.

In my opinion this meeting was designed superficially to meet the minimal requirements of appearing to inform the members on general corporate matters. What we were given was the type of presentation you might give to prospective clients, with graphs showing a glowing picture of a successful corporation and all the services it claims to offer.  This is a corporation that should have enough resources to address some of the major financial issues of the First Nation if only managed well.

Hence, the question members are asking is if it is so successful, why are our members broke and lacking in opportunities?  ACDEN does not employ our members, and all we get is $1,000 at Christmas time.  We are grateful, but is that all the money ACDEN is making?

Membership Meeting

After the ACDEN meeting I decided to travel to Alberta again for a March 6, 2014 membership

meeting.   I was looking forward to asking our chief my questions directly.  It was unfortunately much the same as the October corporate meeting.  Apathy blanketed the room and members sat dispiritedly with low expectation that this would be any different than previous meetings.

They voiced their concerns and asked questions, some punctuated with strong emotions. However, it was immediately obvious that they didn’t feel like they were being heard. The chief became defensive and argumentative. His body language and facial expressions resembled someone who wished he were anywhere else but there. There was much eye rolling and swiveling in his chair. Clearly, he heard the questions before and was fed up. And the Councillors didn’t say anything.     

Moreover, the meeting was not designed to engage discussion. It was set up to provide information only.  It was all one-way, with the chief providing information and members listening. There was an elder who participated by the phone, having just had surgery to address complications from cancer.  After she hung up, the chief said, “I will never allow this again!” visibly upset that she had made comments he didn’t agree with.

I came away from the meeting feeling discouraged, listening to people saying as they left, “what a waste of time.”  I felt used, like we’re there to rubber stamp policy, and other initiatives that have already been decided. Because I really felt that the meeting was not intended for a conversation on the merits and concerns of the membership. Or to obtain direction on what the members felt were priorities our leaders should be focusing.  

I left with more unanswered questions. I approached the chief with one more letter, asking for compliance with a federal law that was about to come into effect, requiring financial disclosure to members. He looked at it, tossed in aside, and said, “that law is not my law.” 

Our Integrity is All we have

My relationship with my chief was irreparably impaired.   Also, my relations with his direct supporters, who happen to be close relatives of mine, is also in question, all because I dared to say out loud what members were saying amongst themselves.

Although, I don’t think the issue was asking questions because they obviously are used to members’ discontent. What seems to have pushed it over the edge was a blog postI wrote on the Neil Young Tour and my subsequent cbc radio interview.  

I wasn’t against the tour as such. In fact, I agreed we must be mindful of the environment and ramifications of oil industry on our environment and health. However, I suggested the message be more balanced.  As the tour progressed, the tour that was billed as “Honour the Treaties” became an extended rant against the oil industry.  The message about our treaty rights was lost.  In addition, media coverage in Alberta revealed that the oil industry and non-Aboriginal people in Fort McMurray were offended by the anti-industry rhetoric from Neil Young.

I tried once more to help the Chief as the tour ended.  I advised him to make a gesture to heal some of the wounded feelings that the tour had generated, and repair any damage with the city of Fort McMurray and our business partners in the oil sands industry.

I sent him a draft open letter that could get a more nuanced message out to the public.  His communications coordinator told me that Neil Young’s publicist said it would be backsliding on “their” position.  The very idea of such a draft letter was rejected.  I think if this letter were taken seriously it would have presented the chief in a different light, as someone capable of taking a hard stand, but of acting with a sense of diplomacy and statesmanship.  Instead he took the advice of someone with no stake in his First Nation’s future because he thought he was winning a public relations war and didn’t want to seem weak.

I blogged about my concerns and tried in my own way to communicate the message that our First Nation and the industry have a complex relationship.  We are economically dependent on industry but at the same time need to ensure that resource development takes place responsibly, because we are also dependent on the land.  It turned out that my message was of interest to the media, and I was asked to give some interviews.  I tried very hard not to criticize our leaders but tried at the same time to convey the more complex message that the Neil Young tour had failed to generate.

Following this, a couple of my family members deleted me as their “friend” on social media, and some took the extra step of blocking me. I received a scathing email from one of them stating, “What you are doing has great potential to hurt all of the work that the leadership has worked so hard to achieve.” 

This “wrongdoing” was writing the blog about how conflicted I felt about the Neil Young Tour and the message of division that the media coverage had created around it.  

DiCaprio and ACFN members

Desmond TuTu and chief Adam

I couldn’t help but notice that many of my critics are either employed by or have contracts with our First Nation, and or are enjoying some benefits and perks such as hobnobbing with celebrities and catching reflected glory.  Indeed, these individuals don’t want to rock the boat. 

Democracy?

What prompted my involvement initially was a telephone call, and like my mom, I could not stand by when a perceived injustice was taking place. It involved a band member who was employed by the First Nation who had questioned a large expense cheque, and which resulted in that person’s firing.  

Then I learned subsequently of the appalling circumstances under which that person, having been fired for questioning an expense cheque, was induced to “sign” a release of the First Nation from further liability.  I trust strongly in the integrity and moral character of that person, and feel that the treatment of that person was indefensible. This was a “red flag” that something was fundamentally wrong with how band affairs were being run. This ‘whistleblower’ actually thought that the chief and Council would respond differently for the diligence shown in seeking proper justification for an expense claim.

The word that comes to my mind is oppression. The firing immediately became an object lesson to all employees and contractors, a prime example to anyone who would dare to question the validity of an expense claim, or by extension any other arbitrary decision of chief and Council.  The message sent to the employees across the board is unequivocal. The ripple affect of that one action is still being felt today, in the form of a total clampdown of any information relating to any financial matter, especially relating to the expenses of our political leaders. Which begs the question, are there other expense irregularities? We’ll never know.

He sent me this after my CBC interview

And for me, my personal experience is that if you speak up you will be chastised and shunned. The last part of of the chief's text said, "I hope you know what you just did",  this was the last time he texted me.  He has not acknowledged any of my texts and letters since January 30,2014.  

This it is not a democracy.  This is more of a third world type of governance where leaders provide benefits only to their supporters and the people are intimidated into submission. I do understand the silence from our members.  It isn’t all apathy; much of it is fear.  Although we supposedly live in a democracy, the majority are afraid to speak up.  It is no wonder, when a few control all the resources and with no access to basic information we are rendered powerless.

We know complete power can breed abuse of power.  I am not saying this is what is happening.  But I honestly don’t know.

I do know that a lack of substantial information, transparency and accountability makes this is a perfect storm for oppression, intimidation, and control.  This is just the tip of an iceberg.  Over this past year I have heard more stories of abuse of power and intimidation. I am not so proud of my cousin the Chief at the moment, and the Councillors who allow this to continue.  

Using my Voice!

Why would I write about the private business of my First Nation in a public blog, you might be thinking.

• This blog is about my life, and over the past twelve months this very issue has preoccupied much of my time and energy. The withholding of vital information, answers, and a perceived lack of good governance is an affront to all our members.

• Although I don’t relish being seen as an agitator, I feel strongly that silence perpetuates injustice.  When people are silenced an additional injustice is done to them.

• Being part of a First Nation is a privilege.  But with that privilege comes responsibility to ensure we have strong governance that is benefiting all members equally.  Individually, we have a duty to be involved by offering our expertise by volunteering, creating committees and giving back to our community.  Collectively, we must look toward creating a strong nation based in the foundation of respect, accountability, and a shared responsibility.

I have no illusions that blogging about my experience will change the power disparity of my First Nation. However, judging by the conversations I’ve had over the past year with various members, I am confident that the members are ready to take their power back.  All I can do is hope that I planted a seed that will encourage us to collectively to recognize we can have a government that is empowering, successful and progressive. We must work together.

As we approach next Fall, and the opportunity to elect a new Chief and Council, we ought to be generating ideas amongst ourselves regarding what type of governance we would like to have.  Fundamentally as I see it, the problem is systemic, and real reforms must occur now in order to bring us into the 21^st century and into a true democracy. I am hopeful that members who are considering an elected position next Fall will generate a movement toward total inclusion within a open and transparent government.  

Was It Worth the 15 Minutes of Fame?

Fort Chipewyan, Alberta

I am a beneficiary of Neil Young’s 2014 Canadian tour, or rather my First Nation Athabasca Chipewyan is.

At the beginning of this year, musician Neil Young began a four-city “Honour the Treaties” tour to raise money for litigation to stop Shell’s Jackpine oil sands mine expansion near Fort McMurray, Alberta.  After expenses, all proceeds raise from the four-concert tour is to go to the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation for their litigation defence fund. According to media reports, the amount raised was approximately half a million dollars. A second fundraising contest, to win tickets for the concert and other promotional gifts, ran online at the same time as the concert.  It netted an additional approximately $77,000.   Not bad for a week’s work!

The title of the benefit concert series was “Honouring the Treaties,” although the organizers ought to have titled it “Canada’s Hiroshima” because our Treaty was not the main focus. There was no real conversation on the Treaty, certainly not in any meaningful way, because the emphasis was placed on what Neil was saying.

However, Neil didn’t seem to know enough about the Treaty to speak on this subject, so he

talked about what he knew, and his message was overwhelmingly anti-oil and anti-industry. Even our Chief deferred to Neil.  Our Chief, who was on stage for all of the pre-concert press conferences was virtually silent. It appeared to those of us on the sideline that it continues to be acceptable to allow well intended non-natives speak for us, even in the 21^st century.

Neil pulled no punches at his first press conference at Massey Hall, in Toronto, Ontario, where he repeated his earlier analogy of Fort McMurray’s oil sands industry to that of Hiroshima. The intent was to be provocative and controversial, and it was that and more. 

That said there was a small “teach-in” after the press conference prior to the last concert, but by that time, media had fatigue, and even APTN didn’t file a report on this portion of the tour.  There was virtually no news about the “teach-in,” presumably put on to provide information on the Treaties, the one area where information had been lacking on tour.  Regrettably, it came too late to be newsworthy. The story of that day was that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers left after Neil and David Suzuki would not accommodate their request for a neutral moderator for a debate.

According to the tour organizers, the tour was an overwhelming success. Media, politicians and the public alike responded on a very emotional and visceral level to what Neil was saying. The conversation that followed was very polarized, much of it played out on social media.

Actually, at this moment the public relations battle may have been won.  The tour generated support from many quarters.  But it is also possible that we have not seen the full extent of the ramifications resulting from this anti-oil campaign yet. And I have no doubt, if there are any negative implications, it would not be Neil Young who will bear the brunt, but the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

 

I am of very mixed feelings about the tour. On one hand, I am very proud that our Chief was able to gain the attention of and partner with a high profile celebrity to draw attention to our plight and to raise much-needed funds for litigation.  In my immediate family, Neil Young has always been held in high esteem for his musicianship and songwriting.  Last Christmas, long before Neil became involved with our First Nation, I bought Hubby a very expensive set of Blu-ray discs that are the first instalment of Neil’s Archives as well as Neil’s book Waging Heavy Peace.

On the other hand, I also feel cheated and duped. I feel that the response to Neil’s celebrity and his flamboyant rhetoric overrode our First Nation’s interests and the balanced message our Chief started out expressing. Clearly, the entire tour was on his terms, or at least the media coverage of the tour gave that strong impression. One of the organizers admitted as much, that it was Neil who decided who was on stage with them when an appeal was made to include Dene elders at the press conference.  When I recommended that the message be clarified and moved to a more balanced one, away from the virulent anti-oil and anti-industry position, I was told that Neil’s publicists and the inner group didn’t want to appear they were backing down.  At that point, it became clear that the tour ostensibly about Treaties, was really about anti-oil at all costs.

If the intention was actually about honouring our Treaty, there should have been an effort to engage the public in a transformational conversation about how the treaty is a living document and is just as relevant today as the day it was signed.  Instead the Treaty became secondary, almost an afterthought.

The tour had an opportunity to identify specific serious breaches resulting of the Treaty.  Our Treaty means to us reconciliation, coexistence and sharing.  It also means honouring and protecting the earth and its plants and animals.  

Our Treaty position is not anti-development; it is that development must be carefully scrutinized and justified so that economic gain does not come at too great a cost to our land and our way of life. That should have been the headline. 

• The approval of the Jackpine expansion should be challenged.  From what I understand it poses too great a risk to the environment.  We have to figure out where to draw the line.
• The tour could have started a conversation on how our First Nation does not live on a reserve because the reserve land set aside for us is virtually inhabitable. And because we are not on a reserve, exemptions enjoyed by other First Nations are not available to us.
• It could have brought to the conversation how the Bennett Dam in BC wiped out our traditional trapping and harvesting lifestyle in one season by draining the lake that fed the delta where our people had always harvested. Our members who relied on their traditional occupation were forced to seek alternative employment with industry.
• The tour could have brought to the conversation that the “cows and ploughs” clause in the Treaty remains unresolved.   This means that the main economic development provision in our Treaty remains unfulfilled.

At this critical point in development, with pressure for expansion on all fronts and an ongoing weakening by the federal government for environmental protections, it is vital that we hold industry accountable.  But I don’t think taking the fight public by shaming and over the top rhetoric was the correct way to get there.  Or at least, at the conclusion of the tour, there should have been a gesture of reconciliation, or a willingness to coexist with industry and an attempt to heal wounded feelings that the tour had caused.

Our First Nation’s relationship with the oil industry is complex.  It is an intricate dance, of give and take, balancing the economic benefits with our responsibility to maintain the integrity of the environment.  We assert our legal rights but always with an awareness that we cannot “match industry dollar for dollar,” as Neil mistakenly put it at one of the press conferences.  A half-million dollar legal defence fund is a grain of sand in the multi-billion dollar energy juggernaut that is the Alberta oil sands.

We are mindful of our traditional harvesting activities, protecting the sensitive wetlands, other pristine ecosystems, and our culture. Our elders advise the process. We jointly work with industry, ironing out these elements as we draft our impact benefit agreements. And again when we partner with them on contracts through our company. It is at this stage where we can’t give up, where we can make the changes required. It is not an easy task, but a necessary one to ensure that this equilibrium is preserved. This relationship took years to cultivate.

The fact is that just about everything we own is directly or indirectly paid for with revenue from the oil sands industry.  We are proud owners of a multi million-dollar company, ACDEN, that services the industry around Fort McMurray.  We own a $38 million state of the art building occupied by ACDEN, which is made possible by revenues from industry.  Our programs, environmental studies, and elders meetings, are all funded by industry dollars.  There are many examples, but the point is the fabric of our community is directly interwoven with the oil industry and whether we want to admit it, we are dependent on it for the livelihood of our members.

I am afraid that the tour’s negative oil campaign, and the notoriety of partnering with Neil Young, may have put us on a self-destructive path. The momentum the tour started has left us in a position that may make it increasingly difficult to continue to partner with industry. The rhetoric generated by the tour seems to have put us in a position that we have to make a choice: are we with industry or against it? Until now we have been able to take a balanced position:  we support responsible development and oppose development that is not responsible.  We partner with industry when it conducts itself responsibly and respectfully.  Now it is beginning to feel as if we have to take a stand.  A choice must be made, are we with industry or against it. We can’t be both. We can’t one day be slamming industry in the media, and the next day sit across from them in a boardroom hashing out contracts without having that impact the negotiation on some level.  You have to be all the way in or you have to be all the way out.

I feel today that the gamble that our leaders have taken with our corporation and the livelihood of our members is reckless.  At this point I am not sure if it was worth the half a million dollars we got for litigation from the tour. That will remain to be determined.

I regret that this tour, and some statements by Neil, that has such potential to shed light on our situation and bring understanding to the complexity of our circumstances, has instead insulted and offended not only those oil industry partners who have conducted business in a responsible manner, but also the municipality of Fort McMurray, and not least of all the hard-working people who make a living in this industry.

And while I would like to be on the bandwagon cheering on our Chief with the rest of the activists, I find I simply can’t. It is lonely to feel like the odd person out, when so many First Nations and environmental activists are cheering on our Chief and the aggressive message that the tour has sent.  Many people who don’t fully understand our economics and how we are entwined to this industry just see us as the little guy fighting the giant. How can they not cheer for him?

I don’t make my living in this industry, and it would be easy for me to join the activist. I understand the arguments against development and the health issues surrounding industry. I understand, but I also understand the community has little choice, and they look to our leadership to mitigate these damages. 

 So why do I care so much?  Because it is my community, I was raised there, and I care what happens at the

community level.  I am certain the community is also conflicted about industry. Members from the community are going to work at camps for over 14 hours a day, living away from their families for days at a time, they are aware of what industry is about, but with few alternatives available, they make that choice for the betterment of their family.  It is a balancing act.  It has been for a long time now. How can you ask them to risk what they have sacrificed to have a roof over their head and food in their belly?

I know my position is not a popular one, and I am sure people will see me as a sell-out, and less of a warrior.  Some of my brothers confronted the FBI at Wounded Knee in the 1970s.  I come from a family of activists, so my position is that much more difficult.

It is essential to look beyond the emotional surface of the issues, and to deliberate them on deeper levels.  This is a community, where I grew up, that has struggled to overcome many hardships to be in the position we find ourselves, a position of economic influence, that is very close to economic independence from government funding because of our relationship with the oil industry.  The risks must be balanced against the probability of the success.

I can’t shake the feeling that there is too much at stake for my community and that the direction we take next will determine if we win or lose what Neil Young’s “Honouring the Treaties” Tour started.  All I know is that if I were Chief I would ensure that all of my members were on board, and I would discuss with them the risks and benefits of taking this stand. More importantly, I would get a clear mandate from my members moving forward. 

Indeed, something that began as positive and empowering has left a bad aftertaste, for me at least. I find myself surrounded by people with extreme opinions, extreme feelings, pride on one side and anger and resentment on the other.  It does not seem to bode well for our First Nation or for a calm discussion of what our Treaty means, and how it must be honoured.