AFN priorities skewed, say chiefs

Page 6

Robert Corbiere, the deputy chief of the Wikwemikong Unceded Nation made a long speech about his concerns about the national First Nations agenda.

"In terms of energy, we're completely drained out. There's no more wind in our sails. We're just floating at the whim of the federal government and we don't know where we're going to end up. And what's missing in all these deliberations is to be very honest and frank with each other like the previous speaker. The question he raised is 'Where are we going?' And I raise that question," he said. "The deliberations here yesterday and today, we all seem to think that this is all brand new stuff that we're talking about here. I'm sorry to say it isn't. This has been in and around us for the last 30 plus years. And I feel that the direction and the deliberations and discussions are all ass-backwards. I have to say that because I honestly feel what we should be discussing here is directions of the people we represent and not reacting to the federal government or legislation. It's time we create our own agenda that would be accepted by our own people and not the federal government.

"That's how the federal government handles us. When they want something they will get it because they'll drop more money into different areas of the country. That's what they're doing with this First Nations governance act. There's PTOs (provincial territorial organizations as tribal councils are called in Ontario) that are getting a hell of a lot of money out of this. But there is a PTO that had its tap turned off because they didn't agree to Robert Nault's directive," he said. "What I'm getting at here is we are the most confused people in the country. I have to say that because we've been talking about this subject for 30 years. Where are we going?"

He pointed out that a call from the national chief to liberate the AFN from its dependency on federal money was virtually ignored by the chiefs.

"It's very sad to hear our national chief here this morning remind us that a year ago he asked each First Nation to contribute $1,000 to a war chest that is required to defend our rights. One thousand dollars per First Nation. You know what that says? It says we are not genuinely sincere in who we are and what we believe in. And we certainly don't know how to get where we want to go. Every First Nation, as far as I'm concerned should be donating $10,000, not just $1,000."

He believes the AFN is inadequate and the current forms of First Nations governance are not meeting the needs of the people.

"It's time to wake up," he said. "I think it's time we built our own government. I'm talking about our own national government, which is the AFN. I'm talking about the regional governments, which are all the provinces. The question is where are we going to get the money. Before I go there, I think it's time to take a stand and get rid of Indian Affairs. That's where our obstacle is. We should dismantle Indian Affairs. We don't need them. We've got our own people to do what they're doing. It's my understanding that when Treasury Board releases the Indian envelope-or Aboriginal envelope-there's over $6 billion in that envelope. But the actual money that's delivered to our First Nations is about $2 billion. So there's $4 billion spent by the bureaucracy. That's the money we should be targeting. Even if they increase the amount of money that arrives on First Nations by $1 billion, that would be a significant boost for every First Nation in the country."

The idea of First Nations paying for their own governance and freeing themselves from the control of the federal government appears to be catching on with the chiefs. Chief Ralph Akiwenzie of the Chippewas of Nawash (Ontario) put forward a resolution to get First Nations to put their money where their mouths are.

"This time when I go home, I'm going to recommend to the Chippewas of Nawash unceded First Nation that we immediately authorize $1,000 to be used towards th lobbying effort. I would recommend that we all do the same," he said.

The assembly has been divided along the lines of those First Nations who want to compromise in order to work closely with the government and those who refuse to compromise and want to fight the government for full compensation for lands and resources and to assert sovereignty. The split has left bitter feelings on both sides. Officials on the side that would work with government say they are being pragmatic, that a confrontational approach closes doors. Those on the other side accuse their opponents of selling out their rights and their people.

British Columbia Vice-Chief Herb George (Satsan) revealed just how deep the divide has become when he felt the need to take on the rumors and accusations directed at him during the December Confederacy.

He pointed out that the rights recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case include the right to demand compensation for infringement of lands. He then asked why the assembly wasn't spending its time seeking to implement that rather than spending all its time fighting the government's legislative agenda, an agenda he has supported.

"What's our strategy to put that in place? I believe if we're talking about a strategy to do that there'll be no difference amongst us. There'll be no need for the nonsense that we see underneath the politics that we practice here. There'll be no need for the childish e-mails that we see criss-crossing the electronic universe, characterizing myself as a 'stand-around-the-fort Indian.' I don't spend a lot of time around the fort," he said.

"I spend most of my time dealing with the land, the leases, etc. that we just talked about. That's where my heart is. I think, if you spend too much time around the fort, then you will become a stand-around-the-fort Indian and you will forget how to build. You will forget how to have vision because all you're doing is reacting and responding to somebody else. And that'sthe problem I see here today. We know how to say no. We know how to reject. But we have difficulty talking about a pro-active, constructive, positive plan to address our inherent rights, our title rights and our legal rights."