C-19, C-6 live on despite chiefs objections

Page 10

The newly appointed Indian Affairs minister chose a speech to a university Native Studies class as the vehicle to announce he will push forward with most of his predecessor's legislative agenda.

Minister Andy Mitchell was speaking to students at the University of Alberta in Edmonton on Jan. 21. While Mitchell restated Prime Minister Paul Martin's announcement that Bill C-7, the First Nations governance act, was dead, he also said he would push on with the financial institutions act (C-19) and the independent claims body legislation (C-6), as well as the Westbank and Tlichco (Dogrib) self-government agreements.

"I will be seeking to have [C-19] reinstated when Parliament resumes," he said. "I see this as an issue separate and apart from the governance legislation which we will not be moving forward as I mentioned, but rather as an opportunity to provide tools to First Nations that will allow them to pursue development opportunities in their individual communities. C-19, as you may know, was developed through the type of collaborative approach that I believe is necessary with First Nations and other Aboriginal Canadians being very much involved in the development process."

The fact that the bill is optional seems to be what convinced the new minister to give it new life.

"The other thing that I think is critical about C-19 is there is the opportunity to either opt in or to stay out. Again, based on my philosophical approach of ensuring the communities have an opportunity to approach their needs in the way that they think best, this legislation will give them the opportunity to utilize the tools when they make sense to their community. Or not to if it is their view that these tools don't make any sense," Mitchell said.

When it came to C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution act, Mitchell made a number of promises, which included accelerating the review requirement of the act after three years, and to allow First Nation members to participate in the process in making claims commission appointments.

He also said this about the compenstation cap currently set out in the legislation:

"There's been some concern that that limit may be problematic in terms of achieving a just and fair settlement in terms of some of these claims. I've made a commitment and I'm making a commitment that we will monitor jointly how that limit may or may not inhibit the process. If we find that difficulties are arising on specific claims then we will have to move to deal with changing that amount," Mitchell said.

Six Nations of the Grand River Chief Roberta Jamieson chaired the former Assembly of First Nations administration's implementation committee, a group of chiefs and technicians that fought the Nault legislative agenda on Parliament Hill.

"I start to ask myself who is advising the minister and do the comments . . . represent the direction the Paul Martin government is going to take?" she asked. "I understood from the Prime Minister's statements coming in that he was listening to the First Nation's leadership, he had heard us certainly on C-7 and that he was looking for a new relationship that didn't have the kind of poisoned environment-that's his phrase, not mine, poisoning the well."

She said the new Indian Affairs minister was accepting part of a legislative package that has been roundly rejected by a majority of First Nation leaders.

"What they need to understand is that C-19 and C-6 are part of an entire suite of legislation, a part of a direction that has been clearly rejected by the chiefs in assembly for good reasons. I think he's getting very poor advice and at this point I'm looking to the Prime Minister's Office to clarify what is the direction that government is taking in its relationship with First Nations."

Jamieson said there's a good chance the protests on Parliament Hill will resume if the minister doesn't rethink his announcement.

"Well, I can tell you that the opposition of chiefs right across the country isstrong to C-6 and to C-19. If C-6 proceeds . . . I've been encouraged that it hasn't been proclaimed . . . what they'll be doing is putting into place a system that lacks independence and thus credibility. It will be institutionalizing delay, artificially limiting claims and putting the claims settlement process into the next century. I can't believe that that's what the Prime Minister has in mind," she said.

Jamieson was not reassured by Mitchell's promises regarding the specific claims legislation.

"No. If you look at the legislation you see the legislation is fundamentally flawed. And promises to behave in a way that insures the independence of this commission are best delivered by amending the legislation. It's very clear this body is appointed by, responsible to, accountable to the government of the day against whom the claims are lodged. No implementation plan can correct those fundamental flaws. It also tells me that there's a lack of understanding of some of the things that are in the bill that fundamentally change the current situation," she said. "The current commission can do inquiries. That ability will be lost under the new bill. So there are still important pieces that need to be addressed. It's taking away some of the existing power and it's institutionalizing the ability of the minister to delay indefinitely responding to the validity of a claim. That can't be fixed in process of implementation."

Some technicians have said that C-19 limits the possibilities for First Nations at future negotiating tables, that it sets the bar too low and in effect extinguishes the future hopes of First Nations. Jamieson said she would not use the word extinguishment to describe the minister's first major decision, but she does believe C-19 works for the government's interests and against the interests of First Nations.

"The concept of national institutions like this that really promote taxation, promote municipalization, do not support recognition of inherent rigt. They are taking our people down a whole different path and if some First Nations want to walk that path, that's up to them. But the chiefs in assembly have said repeatedly, 'That's not the path we want to walk.' We want to walk the path of fiscal transfers, government to government relationships. That's the kind of path that's much more in tune with the original relationship that we signed on for with the Crown. That's the bit of homework that we need to get back to and these kind of shiny objects, these institutions, are diversions from the main agenda," she said.

National Chief Phil Fontaine did not dismiss Mitchell's announcement as whole-heartedly as Jamieson.

"There are some positive aspects to the minister's announcement, in particular giving priority to implementing two important self-government agreements and his willingness to work with First Nations to address our concerns regarding the Specific Claims Resolution act," Fontaine said. "But we are concerned by the minister's statement that he plans to proceed with Bill C-19, which has been rejected by the Assembly of First Nations."

Although Fontaine wrote a letter supporting C-19 shortly after he was elected, he was directed by the chiefs in assembly at Squamish, B.C. not to speak in support of the bill.

"If the minister plans to pursue Bill C-19, it should be revised so that it specifically and explicitly only applies to those First Nations who want to sign on to the legislation. We will not stand in the way of those First Nations who want to pursue Bill C-19."