Coon Come critized for Burnt Church involvement

Page 5

Dear Editor:

I am amazed at the profundity and grasp of significant issues by the chiefs' national leader. I stand in wonder as he pronounces his petulant indignation reminiscent of the malevolent futility of the early and mid-nineties' leadership. During the onset of this ongoing claim to our inherent right to resources (which coincided with the AFN election campaign), the newly minted national chief and his campaign staff deigned to participate in a forum hosted by the Atlantic chiefs. Now, after stamping his feet and proclaiming that AFN's first order of business was to advocate the negotiated right to hunt endangered species, he decided to go where the cameras were.

This seeking of photo opportunities does not serve our people. Had the Burnt Church people any confidence in the new national chief, they would have demanded his ongoing presence in the negotiations from day one. They have not. Sadly, an ex-national leader was sent in the place of Coon Come.

The results? None to date.

This, in my opinion, is a foreshadowing of things to come. While we have heard that First Nations have not agreed to be silent, we have not heard anything of substance from the speaker of this clever witticism. Nor have we heard any proposed government-to-government solutions offered by the AFN.

It is a fortuitous occurrence that Chief Allison Metallic and the Burnt Church leadership have the necessary skills to deal with this issue in the absence of a national leader.

To my mind, a national leader must do more than blow smoke rings and forget items from a prepared text. During his publicized bombast from the heart of Burnt Church, he wisely proclaims that, "the federal minister of Fisheries says that the events at Burnt Churchare about the orderly regulation of fisheries, versus Aboriginal illegality, greed, and refusals to negotiate." But the train of thought stops there. Perhaps he was set up again? We are not criminals. We are not greedy. And we are always masterful negotiators.

I take no comfort in reading the text of this speech. The self-serving, vacuous nonsense that I read will open no doors that have closed. The vapid rhetoric will build no bridges. The assurances that, as long as the cameras roll and the microphones point, the national chief will be there, ring hollow and are meaningless.

To add insult to injury, whilst Mi'kmaq fishers are being run over by DFO patrol boats, the AFN has the audacity to send over a non-elected "special advisor" to foment controversy and exacerbate deteriorating possibilities to a negotiated settlement. What happened to the national chief? Was he not elected to stand in the First Nations' camp? Why has the AFN hijacked a regional responsibility, despite the presence in the Atlantic of more than capable First Nation leadership and an AFN vice-chief?

It truly seems as if the AFN is rapidly creating a fiefdom, with no room for regional elected officials to act in their mandated capacity. This arrogation of the chiefs' roles in regional issues by the national chief and his barnstorming henchman is a strong indicator that dark times will befall First Nations.

When the first Mi'kmaq fisher dies as a result of this expression of sovereignty, it is the direct responsibility of the national chief and his advisor. Any injuries incurred by either side of the dispute are intimately attributed to the inability of the national chief and his advisor to function as competent, lucid representatives of First Nations governments.

At this juncture in time, what is explicitly not needed are agent provocateurs dancing around the flames of unrest, irresponsibly dribbling gasoline in a shared hallucination.

I wish the chiefs well. You elected him. He's your leader. Now, you live with him.

Meegwetch

Mike Fontaine

Sagkeeng First Nation