Left to wonder about Fontaine

Page 5

Dear Editor:

After the recent passage of Bill C-6 and the stay against bills C-7 and C-19, I am left to ponder the role of our current National Chief Phil Fontaine and whether he can deliver on his promise to be effective and inclusive.

During the election campaign for national chief this past summer, Mr. Fontaine declared that Matthew Coon Come's penchant for confrontation had led to an organization hell bent on protest with little time for negotiating improvements where it could. Coon Come's style, Fontaine contended, was so one-dimensional that it could never respond effectively to the diverse needs of First Nations.

If elected, Fontaine promised an approach that would successfully tackle the array of issues important to First Nations. He gave assurances that he would work towards making improvements in the day-to-day lives of First Nations, while also supporting their efforts in treaty processes, in the fulfillment of Aboriginal title and rights, and in their claims for a fair share of resources.

In his victory speech he also sent a strong message to government declaring that, "....sometimes we will be at each other's throats. Sometimes we will be pulling in the same direction, But we will always be there." These words made it clear. Phil Fontaine would do whatever it took to ensure that First Nations were "part of every debate, discussion and decision." In other words, the Assembly of First Nations under Fontaine's tutelage would become a force for government to reckon with at all levels.

Bill C-6's recent passage and the current stay on Bills C-7 and C-19 occurred with little to no involvement from Fontaine. It was through the hard work and dedication of regional groups like the Chiefs of Ontario and a smattering of chiefs from Quebec and Alberta that delays to the passage of bills C-7 and C-19 occurred. When pressed on AFN's lack of involvement in the lobby, chiefs have been told that it is not the national chief's 'style' to lobby and that his approach is one based on negotiating and compromise. To satisfy their demands, however, letters had been sent to key parliamentarians outlining AFN's position. Chiefs were informed further that the current situation (i.e. a suite of First Nations legislation before the House of Commons) was one which had been inherited from Coon Come and clearly something that would never have happened under Fontaine's 'watch'.

Given the recent passage of Bill C-6 and the lack of clarity of the majority of MPs regarding AFN's position on C-19, Mr. Fontaine's letter writing campaign was akin to crossing one's fingers and closing one's eyes in the hopes that the bad things would just go away. Clearly whether inherited or not, First Nations were in need of a national chief who knew that when negotiating was no longer a viable option, hard lobbying was in order. After all, didn't parliamentarians also need reminding that the AFN was a political force and "would always be there"?

If Fontaine's assertion that Coon Come's one-dimensional, protest style was not effective, then his penchant for negotiating is equally flat and one-dimensional. It cannot serve the needs of all First Nations and has already shown itself to be not enough, insufficient and ineffective.

Anne Chabot,

Chelsea, Que.