Editorial: Our unusual step

An open response to Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine from Windspeaker:
First let me thank you for taking the time to respond to the editorial printed in the May 2006 issue of Windspeaker. (See letter entitled "Retribution not an issue.") Please know that it is an unusual step for us to respond to a letter to the editor. Our policy is to print the opinions of others on our letters page without comment or rebuttal. We take a different approach to your letter only because you ask for substantiation or retraction of some of the issues raised in the piece.

First, and perhaps a key point to be emphasized here, is that the first statement you make, that our May editorial was out of date by the time it was published, is incorrect. The May edition of Windspeaker was published April 20, almost three full weeks before the Conservative government officially gave the nod to the residential school compensation package. If our inability to see into the future puts us at fault in regard to an editorial position that was formulated based on the best information that we had at the time of publication, then so be it. However, many of the points on residential school compensation in your letter may best be seen through this lens.

On April 20, there was no government approval of the compensation package. No hint of it as a priority in the federal Speech from the Throne on April 4. On April 19, the prime minister announced that the deal was stalled . National chief, you admitted in late March that you too were worried at the slow pace forward on this file. (So perhap our crystal ball isn't the only one that should be sent out for maintenance.) At the time of publication this slow movement was a source of considerable worry and frustration in the community. We said the agreement could not be considered historic until it could be counted in the win column. That day, happily and finally, has arrived, though it came months-four months to be exact-after you told survivors they would be receiving cheques "within weeks."

Success, however, should be given its due, and national chief, you did finally shepherd this historic residential school agreement across the finish line. We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that fact now. We would also be remiss if we did not remind our readers that the status-historic or otherwise-of the Kelowna agreement remains in doubt, because the Conservative government has back-peddled away from this deal, as it has from other commitments made to Aboriginal people, including the Kashechewan relocation.

In regards to the issue of substantiating reports of a deal made between the Assembly of First Nations and the Liberal Party of Canada at the time of the last federal election, now let's make it clear: Windspeaker did not say the AFN had publicly endorsed any political party. What Windspeaker did say is that Ottawa insiders believed there was deal-making going on in our nation's capital. The AFN denies this is so, and that is its right.

You ask us to name our sources, and our answer is no. The secretive nature of First Nations politics is not something we created, but it is an environment in which we must function. There is a strong belief that retribution will be directed at those who choose to talk to the media about such things. That belief is real and impacts how we journalists do our work. The senior management of Windspeaker knows the names, political affiliations and titles of the people we used as sources for this material. The editor's job was to weigh their biases and look for hidden agendas. Reporters were quizzed and conclusions tested before we published. In this imperfect world of political reporting, those are the best and only checks and balances we can provide.

The AFN asserts that its relationship with the Conservative government is co-operative and constructive, and we applaud this if it is so, because the thrust of the May 2006 editorial was that no Canadian government should be using partisan anger as a foundation on which to punish hundreds of thousands of people. Over and over again in conversations with senior government staff, retired bureaucrats, highly experienced consultants and even former government ministers, we heard that the Conservative government was remaking Ottawa by removing those considered loyal to the Liberals. It should come as no surprise to you, national chief, that you are associated with the Liberals in the minds of many, many people across the country. To deny this would be disingenuous. We have been told by well-placed sources that because of this the AFN is no longer the government's favorite son. If that perception is untrue, it is for the AFN to dispel.