AFN executive works to end governance boycott

Page 3

Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault announced on Aug. 28 that the consultation on his proposed First Nations governance act would resume on Sept. 1 with or without the participation of the Assembly of First Nations.

Although the question of whether the AFN will join the process had not been answered definitively as of Aug. 29, a draft protocol agreement obtained by this publication reveal the national AFN's executive committee is strongly in favor of working jointly with the government and is making that goal a priority.

After the revised resolution on governance was passed by the chiefs in Halifax on July 18, opening the door for First Nations to approach the government and work out terms that would allow the AFN to participate in consultations, the national chief met with the minister on July 31. They emerged from that meeting to announce the minister would suspend consultation for 30 days.

On Aug. 8, British Columbia Vice Chief Herb George (Satsan) and members of his staff, Indian Affairs Asociate Deputy Minister Dennis Wallace, Ottawa-based AFN staff advisor Carolann Brewer, Nault advisor Ron French and Rosie Mosquito, executive assistant to Ontario Vice Chief Charles Fox, met in Vancouver.

"The purpose of the meeting was to further develop the draft work plan which had been provided to Minister Nault by National Chief Coon Come and me on July 31," Satsan wrote in a report to the executive committee.

Changes were made to the original work plan. It could not be confirmed why the changes were made but sources with senior government experience believe the government must have rejected at least some parts of it.

After the meeting, Satsan sent copies of the second draft to the executive members for their perusal. In Satsan's report, he said that Wallace (the second-highest ranking and most senior bureaucrat in the department) "indicated surprise at the AFN's insistence on the importance" of inclusion of inherent rights issues in any joint agreement. After he was informed the AFN would not budge on that issue, he said he would have to discuss the matter with the minister before responding.

Wallace revealed the government would welcome an agreement with the AFN.

"Twice during the meeting, Mr. Wallace made reference to Canada's concern that it be in a strong legal position if the legislation which results from the process is ever challenged. He indicated that the AFN's involvement in the process would be advantageous from this viewpoint," Satsan wrote.

Wallace, according to the B.C. vice chief, said the government was "committed to the process as it has evolved to date, but prepared to make a series of adjustments to accommodate the AFN."

The man who made the motion on governance in Halifax was watching these developments very closely. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs President Stewart Phillip was a very vocal opponent of any backtracking on the governance boycott announced at the May AFN Confederacy meeting in Vancouver before he headed to Halifax in mid-July for the organization's annual general meeting. After a series of backroom negotiations in Halifax, he lent his support to a revised position and is noted as the mover of the governance resolution that was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by the chiefs in Nova Scotia. (See story page 6 and 7.) He thought he had the AFN executive council's assurance that a tough stand would be adopted in the upcoming talks with the Indian Affairs minister.

Now he's not so sure.

In a letter he addressed to the national chief and British Columbia and Manitoba regional chiefs dated Aug. 27, titled Re: AFN-Canada 'Governance' Collaboration Process, Phillip slammed the AFN executive for "managing their discussions with the government of Canada, with respect to the First Nations 'governance' initiative, in a secretive, exclusive and arbitrary manner, contrary to the intent of the AFN Confederacy and Halifax assembly resolutions."

"[O]ur representative was ecluded from attending an AFN-DIA officials' meeting in Vancouver on Aug. 8 by AFN staffer Carolann Brewer, and another representative was excluded from attending the AFN executive committee meeting in Ottawa on Aug. 16, when the committee decided to hold its discussions 'in camera,'" Phillip wrote. "A subsequent technical session held the afternoon after the 'in camera' AFN executive committee meeting was over revealed that the committee had rejected the option of establishing a full national committee for a number of reasons, including lack of funds and, according to an internal AFN briefing note, [because] an AFN national committee 'could undermine regional vice chiefs authority' and 'would be . . . difficult to manage.' This sounds like the Department of Indian Affairs talking. Who do the members of the AFN executive committee think they are, premiers?"

Phillip is angry the AFN executive members would exclude a member of his organization and even more angry that they would not see Wallace's comments about the AFN's participation strengthening the government's legal position as something to worry about.

"Despite this signal from Dennis Wallace about Canada's intention to use the AFN's involvement in the process to thwart potential legal challenges, the AFN executive committee still persists in collaborating in a joint process," he wrote.

UBCIC observers weren't the only ones who had trouble gaining access to the Vancouver meeting.

"The vice chief sent a couple of people from the Chiefs of Ontario-legal counsel plus a couple of senior staff, advisory staff-and yes, they were excluded. But they maintained they had a right to be there and eventually one individual- Rosie Mosquito-was included in the process," Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians Grand Chief Larry Sault told Windspeaker.

Both Phillip and Sault said the deal that led to the Halifax resolution was made with the understanding that representation from outside the AFN executive committee wouldbe involved in all talks with the government. Both accused the executive members of breaking that deal.

"I think the resolution was clear. I talk about inclusiveness. For me specifically, as well as Stewart Phillip, it's about process. It's about protocol within the AFN nationally," Sault said.

The Chiefs of Ontario were "disturbed" by another aspect of the Vancouver meeting and fired off two letters to the national chief.

"First we are dismayed with the continued exclusion of Ontario and other regions in the implementation [of the Halifax resolution]. For example, Vice Chief Fox was not invited to the ministerial meeting of July 31. Further, the AFN and the office of the B.C. vice chief are not sharing key documents," the second letter, sent Aug. 14 and signed by six influential Ontario chiefs, stated. "Second, Vice Chief Fox shares the governance file with Vice Chief Satsan Herb George, yet this fact has been completely overlooked."

The Ontario chiefs told the national chief they could only conclude that Fox had been replaced or removed from the governance portfolio.

"At minimum, the lack of courtesy of notification in the purported re-assignment of the portfolio is disturbing," they wrote.

This internal discord was on the agenda when the executive committee met in camera in Ottawa on Aug. 16. Sault said the executive members eased the Ontario chiefs' concerns by taking an unusual step.

"As a result of that in camera session amongst the executive, as far as I understand, they decided that all of the executive would work together and take the initiative forward with the national chief leading it," he said.

Sault and Phillip see these events as a sign that some executive members are out of line.

"I agree with Chief Phillip in B.C. where in earlier letters he chastised the executive in terms of their role and responsibilities within the AFN and accountability mechanisms," Sault said. "I think there's a real need to re-structure the Assembly of First Nations There has to be accountability mechanisms with the executive in how they relate to the national chief. Does the national chief have authority? Do the vice chiefs have authority, and if so what kind of authority? How do they relate to their own communities and the regions? There's a lot of issues there in terms of what's unsaid in the charter."

Phillip feels the executive has not lived up to the spirit of the Halifax resolution.

"The bottom line here is the AFN continues to operate in a very unilateral fashion and seems to take the view that it's optional whether to follow the instructions contained in resolutions that come forward from the chiefs in assembly. Of course our view is it's certainly not optional. They're obligated," he said. "I'm deeply disappointed. We find it very difficult to get involved in an open conflict with the AFN executive. However, we feel a very deep and real obligation to continue to express the concerns of our membership in terms of the governance issue. The motion itself in our minds and in our view is very clear instruction. Once again the chiefs in assembly have categorically rejected the minister's governance initiative and instructed the national chief and the AFN executive to serve notice on the minister and now we find . . . they've been working behind the scenes in a very exclusionary manner to get involved in the consultation process that we rejected. And now we find that the AFN is poised to sign a protocol agreement with the minister as early as Aug. 31."

After the executive meeting, technicians from all across the country met in Ottawa for two days of intense work. The result was a third draft of a proposed work plan and a draft protocol agreement. The draft protocol agreement, ends with the line "Signed on behalf of the government of Canada this (blank) day of September, 2001."

The protocol's stated objectives are "to develop a joint process" to look at the "full range of changes needed to support First Nations in exerc