Chiefs reject governance process

Page 1

Angry chiefs gave the national chief and the Assembly of First Nations executive a strong mandate to fight Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault's push to pass legislation he says is aimed only at strengthening the Indian Act.

Debate throughout the three-day Confederacy of Nations at the North Vancouver-area Squamish First Nation Recreation Centre showed that the chiefs arrived on the West Coast in the mood for a fight. As vice chief after vice chief reported on varying portfolios, the theme quickly emerged that the chiefs have had enough of patiently participating in negotiations with the federal government that seem to be going nowhere.

The minister's own public statements created the momentum for the chiefs' backlash. Many AFN leaders and technicians expressed anger with remarks Nault made in this news publication last month and during the official launch of a consultation process for Nault's proposed First Nations governance act, a heavily staged media event on the Siksika First Nation in Alberta on April 30.

In Siksika, the minister spoke to a crowd of high school students in the school auditorium as national media and dozens of Indian Affairs officials added to the crowd.

"I'm told that at the current rate of negotiation we're 60 years away from all First Nations getting under self-government," the minister said. "That means, if you're a student here today, you may well be an Elder when that goal is reached."

AFN officials were quick to point out that self government negotiations frequently involve specific claim negotiations and the minister has personally created that 60-year backlog by proposing a cap on the amount of money the federal government is willing to spend each year to settle specific claims.

In another comment that is not sitting well with the chiefs, Nault told the audience that the most powerful person in Indian Country "is me." He went on to say that he is proposing his governance act as a way of correcting that situation. But First Nations politicians and bureaucrats say they have seen no sign the minister is prepared to enter into nation-to-nation relationships where First Nation leaders are equal partners with the federal government.

Many observers see it as significant that television coverage of the minister's announcement in Alberta terminated at the end of his remarks, even though Siksika Chief Adrian Stimson spoke after the minister and expressed his council's concerns about the proposed act.

Stimson said the Supreme Court of Canada gave Indian Affairs 18 months to consult First Nations about how to change one line in the Indian Act that the court found, in the Corbiere case, violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The chief said the two-month-long consultation period for the governance act seemed far too short in comparison. Nault responded that his plan was to have the act ready for first reading by the autumn of 2002, a two-year period, not two months. But chiefs believe the bulk of the consultation will be done between now and October.

"We're not happy it's not optional," Stimson told the minister and the auditorium audience. "There's something very undemocratic in that proposal."

He also reminded the minister that First Nations did not ask for the governance act and they would rather the government implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, instead. He said First Nations leaders will only be satisfied with a nation-to-nation approach to governance.

The minister left the school after a short press conference that followed Stimson's remarks and attended a community meeting at the Siksika community centre. There he heard from grassroots people who told him they were most concerned about the level of federal government spending on health care, social assistance and economic development.

"Where do we stand on our treaty rights?" a community member named Joseph asked the minister. "A few years back, we didn't have to pay anything (for medcation). Now we have to dish it out of our own pockets. You federal government, you're supposed to look after us, not the province."

Nault replied that he was talking directly with Alberta Premier Ralph Klein about establishing a treaty commission in the province.

Asked by grassroots people about the amount of money that chief and council make, Nault said, "As minister, I've seen the numbers. There are a very small number (of chiefs) who are paid more than I think is acceptable."

A few days later, on the eve of the Confederacy of Nations in Vancouver, department officials released statistics on the earnings of First Nation leaders for the first time. First Nation leaders suspect that move was an attempt to embarrass them and undermine any statement it was anticipated they would make against the governance act initiative. They also see it as a sign of just how far the minister is prepared to go to impose the governance act on them.

After two long sessions dealing with the governance act, National Chief Matthew Coon Come and his executive members met with the press and announced the chiefs had passed a resolution rejecting Nault's plan.

"First Nations have spoken clearly about Minister Nault's initiative-a clear rejection of it. I am asking the minister to listen to the First Nations leadership and take the direction being provided, as he said he would," he said. "First Nations citizens and governments are asking for fair and equitable treatment. This means giving them the tools to manage their own affairs and provide for their communities. This proposed legislation is not about that. It's about perpetuating the colonial mentality against First Nations. First Nations were not fooled by the minister into thinking this process is about governance. It clearly is not."

The national chief spelled out the vision for accomplishing the goal of modernizing the way First Nations are governed.

"As a starting point, we are asking the federal government to work with and asist First Nations to develop their own laws based on traditional community practices at the community, regional and national level, where appropriate. Yes, the Indian Act is flawed; yes, the Indian Act is coming apart. But we remind the minister that the Indian Act is not ours. It was not created by the First Nations. It was created by the federal government, unilaterally, and imposed on First Nations," Coon Come said. "First Nations have lived with the Act for more than 125 years. We know better than anyone else that changes are needed to address our priorities and achieve our own aspirations. It is time to give First Nations the opportunity and the means to identify the necessary changes so we can throw off the yoke of colonization. A unilateral and federally driven process will not work. It's exactly the same approach that created the Indian Act in the first place."

He said the Nault process served federal needs and ignored First Nations' needs.

"First Nations are saying they will not support any process that is not controlled by them or does not address the First Nations' priority issues. The minister's initiative will not address First Nations poverty, high rates of suicide, unemployment, infant mortality. It will not address the fundamental issues related to real First Nations governance," he said.

The national chief hinted that he suspects the minister has his own agenda and isn't interested in what First Nations want.

"We can work with the minister and the government. The problem is he doesn't want to work with us. Many, if not all, of the issues the minister wants to address can be dealt with by the parties through ongoing policy work," he said.

Many grassroots people say the chiefs are rejecting the governance initiative because it will force them to give up control of a powerful network of patronage, nepotism and intimidation that allows them to rule their communities with no tolerance for opposition. Coon Come said the chiefs aren't against accoutability measures, but they insist they be allowed to be accountable in their own way.

"First Nations are saying we will take action to stop this initiative and to work towards nation building. And I want to be clear that this rejection of the federal initiative is not a rejection of the concept of accountability, which seems to be so important to the minister and his advocates in the Reform-Alliance party," he said. "We are accountable and will continue to be accountable to all our citizens. But government is about much more than accountability. It is about treaties, treaty implementation and self government. The minister says that's not what this process is about. We say it's what First Nations want. That is governance."

The AFN leader urged all First Nations people to join in the fight against the governance act.

"We will inform the public, cabinet ministers, senators, the Governor General, the international community of our position. We will oppose this and any other attempts to impair or hinder our right of self-determination or our Aboriginal and treaty rights. First Nations [chiefs] are asking all First Nations communities and organizations to boycott any federal governance consultation and to prepare their own action plans to oppose this initiative," he said.

He said Canada needs to send a signal that it is serious about improving conditions on First Nations and not just controlling costs and maintaining political control.

"Canada has options to implement First Nations priorities," he said. "Many of these were laid out in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People and more recently were reiterated in the speech from the throne. We will ask the prime minister to sit down with the First Nations to map out a process that can address those recommendations and those references to the First Nations that came from the Throne Speech.

"We want to work with Canada on a renewed relationship that is based on a nation-to-nation [relationship]