>> On May 29, 2014, at 11:08 PM, Kim Patrick Weaver

<kim@kimpatrickweaver.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> She:kon Rosemary
>>
>> I watched this interview. It would be useful if the questions
actually
>> recognized some of the background issues and not the usual
Mainstream media
>> approach of 1/2 deep, mile wide coverage. Case in point is
the questions
>> on the money. There was no money. A simple check reading of
the bill would
>> have revealed that. Being well versed on a topic is the
responsibility of
>> good reporter or interviewer.
>>
>> Here is an analysis that should be read with the Bill. It
becomes clear that
>> none of the Chiefs 5 conditions were met and that the 1.9
Billion was not
>> real money.
>>
>> I take exception that your interview just furthered the belief
that the AFN
>> has some meaning in this negotiation with Canada when it does
not. It has
>> no place in this. It is simply a lobby group. Why would
Canada go to a
>> lobby group to negotiate Treaty rights away from treaty
holders? If your
>> logic as conveyed by the interview that the AFN is the go to
group then
>> the logic holds that the government should negotiate with the
lobby group
>> for the F35 fighters rather than the builder.
>>
>> I offer this with respect and hope that better research will
provide more
>> meaningful discussion on Indigenous Issues so the Canadian
public is better
>> informed rather than feeding a picture that encourages more
hatred against
>> indigenous People.
>>
>> :nen ki' whi
>>
>> Kim
>>
>> Kim Patrick Weaver
>> Turtle Clan
>> Kanyenkeh:ka


>> <220693998-An-Analysis-of-the-AFN-s-Analysis-of-the-Education-
Act.pdf>
>> <C-33 FNCFNEA.pdf>




On 2014-05-30, 5:23 AM, "Rosemary Barton" <rosemary.barton@radio-
canada.ca> wrote:

> Hi Kim,
>
> Thanks for the email.
>
> I have read the bill and do know the money is not contained in
the
> legislation. But as I've also spoken to the minister I know the
money
> is not coming without reform and/or legislation.
>
> But I understand many people believe this was not the right way
to do
> things and there was a lack of consultation.
>
> Thanks for reaching out.
>
> And thanks for watching.
>
>
> Rosemary
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
Nya:wen Kowa for responding. The analysis I sent is done by the
folks from Idle No more core group on the analysis of the Bill
by the AFN. It is useful because it exposes the government "lie"
that led to the rejection of ex Chief Atleo.

The minister's idea of reform and /or legislation is aimed at
termination of Indigenous People in what is called Canada. There
is no First Nations Control of funding, curriculum, and
infrastructure. How he sees this as progressive I don't quite
understand. It is clearly regressive and is a modern day twist
to the tactics of Sir John A MacDonald to get the Indians onto
the reservations. You starve the buggers and they will do what
you want. In this case undercut funding even more and they will
crawl back to the table, relinquish their Treaty Rights and beg
for our handouts.

Did you know that every single First Nation in Canada submits 167
reports to seven ministries to account for funding, spending,
planning and success outcomes? I am not sure what more the
Minister wants in terms of reform except to remove elements of
cultural resurgence to speed termination to the end game.

Onen

Kim