Governance act dead, for now-Nault

Page 11

The minister who championed the First Nations governance act has admitted it probably won't pass in this incarnation of Parliament.

With his political future out of his control and in the hands of prime minister-in-waiting Paul Martin, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Robert Nault, seemed resigned to taking a wait-and-see approach to a variety of issues as he spoke during an interview with Windspeaker in his office on Oct. 21.

"I've concluded that to get a piece of legislation like C-7, which is still in the House of Commons, through the House and into the Senate in a matter of weeks is very unrealistic. I'm just stating the obvious."

Asked what would happen to C-7, he held out hope that the next prime minister would resurrect the bill in some form.

"I accept Mr. Martin at his word that he accepts the principles of the bill, has not been concerned about the bill itself-the nuts and bolts of it," he said.

He said Martin agrees that First Nations will have need of financial administration, electoral and administrative codes as called for in C-7.

"Those are all fundamentals of any government. So I don't see that as the big haggle. What I would see is [Martin's] concern about process, his concern about relationship-building," Nault said.

The minister also said he "would take Mr. Fontaine at his word that he has no problems with the principles of the bill, either."

The minister said he was confused by the opposition to C-7.

"What is it exactly that people would like to consult and review before we move on to put in place more modern principles of governance and enable First Nations so they can have more responsive institutions for their people?" he asked. "I'm confident that this debate will conclude with improvements to First Nations governance. Under the Indian Act there is none and we all know that there is a need to have these modern tools."

He admitted disappointment that the legislation did not make it into law.

"On the one hand I'm frustrated I've come up against a timeline of transition, and potentially, election. But at the same time, I'm not at all disappointed in the debate. I think this was a necessary debate," he said.

He told Windspeaker he expected the independent claims body and financial institutions bills would become law, although they may not pass before the House adjourned. He speculated that the House would rise before the Liberal Party leadership convention in mid-November, but said he believed it would be adjourned and not prorogued, which means bills on the order paper would not die.

Nault said National Chief Phil Fontaine's shift in position away from public support of C-19, the financial institutions legislation, would not hurt the bill's chances.

"The language or comments that have been made by... the national chief are that for the public record he has to oppose C-19 [after being directed to by the chiefs in assembly in Squamish]. But I don't know how he can do that... because there's a letter that's on record to the standing committee that verifies his support." The national chief can't put the genie back in the bottle, the minister argued.

"National chiefs have to have a mandate. To fulfill their mandate they have to have an organizational structure that allows them to move forward on the mandate they've campaigned on," he said. "Mr. Fontaine campaigned on support of C-19 and every chief that voted for him, or not, voted for that. And whether there's a small group of chiefs that go to a confederacy or assembly and pass a resolution, I don't think that should change his approach to what he believes is his personal strong commitment during an election campaign. He just finished campaigning on supporting C-19 in the last election, which was only in July. You can't move away from your commitment that quickly or that easily."

The minister once again suggested the AFN needs to get its act together.

"The AFN is dysfunctional and needs to be reorganized.I have committed myself to financially resource the reorganization of the AFN simply because this should not happen what took place [at the special assembly in the Squamish Nation]."

Nault said he anticipates the cost to reform the AFN will be "in the million dollar range."

"I think the discussion we're going to have or the AFN is going to have on its own is extremely important. I'm encouraging them to do it right away, to start as soon as possible."

Nault believes his legislative agenda will outlast him because it has support from Cabinet and from Martin. He said Martin voted for C-19 and C-6 on a number of occasions in the House.

"So those legislative initiatives, I don't think will change dramatically under new leadership."

Although he sometimes doubts just how committed some of the bureaucrats within the Department of Indian Affairs may be to his agenda, he believes the direction he started will continue to be followed even if he is removed from the Indian Affairs post by Martin.

"These are all legislative initiatives that will last long after Bob Nault is gone," he said. "The important thing to remember is that these are areas of legislative vacuum that have affected the abilities of First Nation leaders and their communities both economically and socially."

Nault pointed to the AFN as the main stumbling block to progress.

"I'm not surprised there's not complete consensus, but does that mean we do nothing? I think that's been the impediment to success for the AFN. The national chief has been hamstrung by resolutions that say it's almost like all or nothing. We're all in or we do nothing. I think we should create a mechanism to move forward, those who are ready," he said.

Nault could not comment on the details of Fontaine's pre-budget submission-Getting Results-without being in violation of parliamentary rules. But he said he "appreciates" the national chief's vision.

"Some would call it his speech from the throne. It would seem to me that stating you vision would be the natural thing to do," he said, adding former national chief Matthew Coon Come "never gave me an understanding of his vision."

"This chief is much more straight up. In his vision he talks about institution building, which is really what we've been talking about for a while," Nault added. "I'm on the same wavelength."

But Fontaine has insisted that the institutions be built by First Nations' people only and that is where he and the minister differ.

"I don't think that's completely possible. In most instances we have to be a partner and we have to work together," the minister said.

Windspeaker asked if there was any possibility of a real nation-to-nation relationship between two equal partners.

"There is as long as there are two principles that are maintained," he said. "One is that it's an order of government. The second is that it's part of our constitutional family, and in our constitutional family the senior government is the federal government. That doesn't mean that in the provincial government there aren't areas where they have jurisdiction over us, because they do. Are there going to be areas where First Nation governments have jurisdiction over that we don't? Yes, they will. But it has to fit and it has to be harmonized because we're living in the same place, working in the same economy and we need to have some consistency in our relationship through the governance structures. If that's what people are talking about, I think the accommodation is easily had."

But an argument that many chiefs put forward is off limits as far as the minister-and probably the entire federal government-is concerned.

"If we're going to get into the other conversation, which reporters tend not to want to write about, is [that] the group that is opposing Phil Fontaine are the sovereigntists," he said.

"They believe the treaty meant sovereign and because of that the government of Canada and the AFN under Phil Fontaine have no right to write legislation to eliver and create these institutions. It should just be assumed, I guess, that they exist as they always have. I don't know how that's done in the modern context. I'm too practical a person. I can't get my head around that discussion. But my point is, that group are the ones that are showing up in Vancouver, fighting the good fight. Are they arguing then that the only solution for us is either constitutional change or-and I don't know how you [can have] constitutional change if you're not part of our federation. I never could figure that one our-or self-government negotiations?"

He said the AFN needed to give the national chief a mandate and then let him carry it out if anything was to be accomplished.

"My job is to have someone I can work with so that when they come to me, as a representative of the Crown, of government, they can say this is what my mandate is; this is what I'm prepared to negotiate. I understand that," he said. "But if you come to the table and say, 'I really don't have mandate . . .' that's really not going to work very well nor is the government going to put millions of dollars into a process like that."