Feds to abandon 30 negotiation tables

Page 3

Minister Robert Nault encourages lively debate on proposed legislation

Robert Nault, federal minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, says he's far from finished introducing legislation that will affect First Nations people.

The minister sat down for a one-on-one with Windspeaker in Calgary on Sept. 19 and provided a few clues about what's on his agenda for the next several months, including a re-work of the Indian Oil and Gas Act, a proposed Indian Monies act that will turn over trust accounts to First Nations, and a review of membership regulations.

Nault also announced that he will shortly reveal which negotiation tables will be abandoned by his department.

Nault said legislation may be introduced as early as this fall and as late as next spring to deal with the Indian oil and gas amendments and the Indian Monies act.

In September, Nault's counterpart in the United States, the secretary of the Interior, was found in contempt of court for what the judge called stalling in response to court orders to provide trust monies documentation to the court. (See 'Disgraceful' management on page 8.) Many observers in the U.S. believe the government there did not effectively monitor Indian trust monies and allowed as much as $10 billion to disappear.

Windspeaker asked Nault if his government was in a position to account for the trust monies before turning over control of them to First Nations.

"If we have our fiduciary and liabilities dealt with," he replied. "For example, I can't turn money over and have someone spend it, you know, on an issue that is not acceptable to the community. I could then end up being in court or end up with a claim for not maintaining my fiduciary obligations. And so that's the issue we're working on."

Nault is also interested in clearing up the thorny issue of the definition of membership.

"I purposefully left membership out of the debate on the First Nations governance legislation simply because that is a very complicated and sensitive issue for communities," he said.

The government is looking at "the whole issue of how we define membership from the perspective of making sure that we build a government-to-government relationship and the communities have more say.

"I think you can assure yourself that the objective is to make it more inclusive, more respectful that governments have a right to choose their own constituency and we have to find a way to balance that with an understanding of both provincial and federal responsibilities for services and programs. And I think originally the whole definition of what a First Nation or a treaty or a status Indian was, was the objective of defining who pays for what. And I think we need to get through that hurdle in a way that maintains an understanding of our constitutional obligations, but at the same time not leaving, I think, a bad taste in people's mouths that somehow the government is trying to do away with all Native people so therefore we don't have any obligations to anyone," he said.

Nault announced last January that he wasn't prepared to stay at negotiating tables where no progress was being made.

"Well, sometime in the not-too-distant future, in the next few months, we will be announcing those tables that we're not prepared to stay at any longer simply because we have viewed all the tables and we're of the view that it's not beneficial to building a relationship to stay at a table that's moved nowhere in two, three, four, five, some 10 years of what's considered to be a funding of a process with no results."

He said it's "a different way of doing business and I think it's one that some people will be threatened by, but others will welcome simply because it's time to either make progress or agree we're not ready to make that progress and spend our valuable time on capacity building," he said.

"We have created an industry around resolving our differences. There are people who make a living, a very good living, by sitting aound a table for years and years and years without resolving the issues. I don't want this to be taken the wrong way but I think it's-from my own labor background as a negotiator-I believe it's bargaining in good faith. If you can't arrive at an agreement or you're so far apart there's no possibility that you're ever going to agree, I think we have to agree to disagree and exit from the table until there's... until a time when maybe we think things have changed."

He said the government is currently present at 177 negotiating tables.

"Out of the 177 we expect that we will more than likely exit ourselves from about 30," he said. "Some are specific claims. Some are self-government claims. Some are comprehensive claims."

Nault also provided a look ahead at the Throne Speech that was scheduled for 11 days after our meeting with him, after Windspeaker's publication deadline.

"You can expect a significant move ahead on the quality of life agenda. We have been working very hard with the reference group of ministers on improving the infrastructure and quality of life for First Nations. One of my main priorities is education and the success of First Nation children in the next generation. And I'm looking forward to the Speech from the Throne from the objective of, I think, we are going to see some significant progress and commitment on a number of items that have been asked for by First Nation citizens right across the country."

First Nation leaders have been, at times, bitterly divided by the proposed Financial Institutions act. Leaders who oppose the act have privately accused chiefs who support it of selling out their rights and co-operating with the government's agenda to the detriment of their own people.

Windspeaker told the minister some technicians and Native leaders appeared to be ready to break their unwritten rule against criticizing other chiefs in public.

"As much as I detest people getting too personal about things, I am pleased to hear that First Natio leaders are now starting to become more vocal about each other's position because it's very complicated to explain to the non-Native world that there is differing opinion in the First Nations," he said. "You know when [a leader] comes out and says 'we're all opposed to the FNG,' we all know that that's not true. When [Chief] Stewart Phillip says 'we're opposed to fiscal institutions and we're all opposed,' we know that's not true. There are differing voices out there who are supportive of things and wanting to work with the government and we're going to continue working with like-minded individuals who want to make progress. That's the message that we've been sending loud and clear and we're not going to be slowed down or intimidated by individuals who seem to have an agenda of keeping the status quo because it's not on."

He was asked to respond to accusations that chiefs who work closely with government are selling out their own people.

"I've never had that question put to me in that context before. I'll have to think about that for a minute. I've had a major concern with the leadership and the organization and how they're organized, how they've organized themselves because they've organized themselves in such a way that, you know, one could describe them as dysfunctional because they cannot seem to manage working with the government without all the interest groups within those organizations hijacking the process and arguing that good pieces of legislation or good work is somehow contrary to building a good relationship and/or moving forward on our Aboriginal and treaty obligations," he said.

Nault encouraged the coming debate on the government's proposed legislative changes, but urged Native leaders to treat each other with respect.

"I think it's time that these debates are had, as lively as it may be. I think it would be extremely unfortunate, and I would say disrespectful-and that's one thing I have learned in my years in my own region is that the Elderswill not accept this kind of language of suggesting that if you work with the government towards improving the lives of people that somehow you would be considered to be a sellout or a traitor or anything of that nature. If it's the objective of First Nations not to talk to the government or their leadership not to talk to the government at all, then someone might have to ask the very obvious question, how are we going to get this done if nobody works together and works on issues and negotiates and finds solutions to some of the very complicated concerns that people have out there."

Now that the prime minister has named the day of his departure from politics, the minister was asked if he felt any pressure to get these things done or firmly rooted before his party's leadership change.

"No, I don't. I'd like to get it done based on a different timetable, that is that our government has a five-year mandate. I'd like to have it completed before the next election. I'm not concerned about the next leader. I'm very convinced that this is good policy that will be supported by whoever becomes the leader," he said. "The people so far who are running for the leadership were all in the Cabinet when this came through. It's my belief they were supportive then. I have no belief that they would not support it now because they certainly didn't voice their opinion otherwise during the discussion and so that's not my timetable. I'd like to have this through and in and starting to be implemented before the election which, I don't know, it'll be probably 2005, somewhere around there."

The Prime Minister has prorogued Parliament. That means all government bills, including the First Nations Governance act must start the legislative process all over again. Nault said he didn't see that as a threat to his legislative package.

"Well, if we went back to square one, we were only at a motion to debate for a very short time. I think it was three hours in the House and so to do that over ag