Letters show depth of division

Page 16

British Columbia Vice-chief Satsan (Herb George) and National Chief Matthew Coon Come exchanged letters in October that reveal the strong feelings the debate over the proposed fiscal institutions act has created.

The B.C. vice-chief began the exchange with a strongly worded letter to Coon Come, dated Oct. 9. The national chief responded in writing the next day.

Satsan began by telling the national chief he had learned the national chief had called a meeting that would have involved the AFN executive, the chiefs committee on fiscal relations and the implementation committee on governance.

"The purpose of this meeting, I understand, was to respond to demands by the implementation committee to seek support from the national executive for holding yet another special assembly to deal with their last minute concerns on the fiscal legislation," Satsan wrote. "Fortunately, that meeting was wisely cancelled."

He argued the meeting was "completely unnecessary" for several reasons. Satsan argued that the national chief was ignoring the protocol for calling executive meetings. He also wrote that calling the meeting would "expand [the implementation committee's] mandate beyond their existing authority."

"Giving them anything more because they demand it diminishes our responsibility as nationally elected leaders and this would be politically humiliating and unacceptable," he added.

Satsan also wrote that the idea of "even having a special assembly is a waste of time and resources." He added that many resolutions have been passed in support of fiscal institutions and "rejecting the hard work of many chiefs and people over many years at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute is senseless."

"Finally, capitulating to the implementation committee's last minute demands, despite compelling reasons not to, will in my opinion erode public confidence in the AFN, affect our credibility with First Nations, the First Nations Summit, the Union of Ontario Indians, and the Atlantic chiefs will likely express their anger at the AFN in the media and politically," he added.

He believes First Nations who do not support the fiscal institutions "can express their views through the legislative process or they can choose not to opt in."

Matthew Coon Come wrote back that he called the meeting, not in response to demands from the implementation committee but "because of a commitment I made at our Sept. 25 executive meeting in Vancouver and again when I addressed the National Conference on Fiscal Relations on Sept. 26. This was done to get a unified approach on this issue."

He said Six Nations Chief Roberta Jamieson "made a well reasoned presentation" to the executive on behalf of her community, not the implementation committee.

"She raised legitimate concerns about whether we as an executive and assembly are being consistent in asking for fiscal legislation but not governance legislation," Coon Come wrote. "She raised concerns about whether this would lead to First Nations taxing our own people."

Coon Come told Satsan that Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault opened the door for the implementation committee to expand its influence to the fiscal legislation when he publicly stated that the fiscal institutions were part of his governance package.

"Even if the minister had not done this it could be argued that the powers contemplated in the fiscal legislation are core powers of governance and as such fall within the mandate. That however is not the issue," Coon Come wrote. "At the centre of the issue is the understanding arrived at during the Halifax [annual general assembly] last year to bring the fiscal legislation back to the chiefs. Chief Larry Sault and other leaders withdrew their opposition to the resolution with that understanding and it is on that basis that the resolution now stands. In reviewing the tapes it appears clear that such an understanding was arrived at."

Technicians told this publication the tapes the national chief isreferring to were the tapes made by the Canadian Parliamentary Access Channel (CPAC) who covered the Halifax meeting.

During the National Conference on Fiscal Relations in Vancouver in late September, Manny Jules, director of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and the chief proponent of the fiscal institutions act, stated that he had a firm resolution.

'There was a clear resolution in Halifax and a clear vote of 60 per cent in favor," Jules said.

Others, including the national chief, say Jules is ignoring the facts of what happened in Halifax. During that meeting, assembly co-chair Luc Laine applied Confederacy rules-which call for a simple 50 per cent plus one majority for a motion to be carried-to an annual general assembly (AGA). But the AGA rules require a 60 per cent majority for a motion to be carried. Laine was clearly in error and the resulting confusion was anything but clear. Counting in a considerable number of abstentions, the number in favor was 56 per cent, meaning the motion should not have passed.

Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs President Stewart Phillip, a central player on the implementation committee, discussed this matter in Vancouver at the conference.

"The matter was decided eventually in a back room," he said. "The legal issue at that time was: Did the rules of the assembly prevail?"

Phillip suggested the chiefs in opposition to the fiscal institutions could have defeated it but not without a bitter and divisive fight.

"We talked among our own group and decided we could not jeopardize the assembly. We decided to step aside with the understanding that the issue would come back for our consideration," he said.

AFN sources say the chiefs committee on fiscal relations is now acting as though the motion was iron-clad and final. But another motion attached to the issue is also causing trouble for those who want to move ahead without any more discussion. Some sources say a promise to travel the country and consult with individual Firt Nations who had concerns about the proposed legislation wasn't kept to the satisfaction of all concerned. That, they say, may be seen as another strong reason to revisit the matter.

Laine was later appointed to the First Nations Statistical Institute Advisory Panel. Some observers have expressed some suspicion that a person who was a central part of a botched process that resulted in the resolution being passed in Halifax should become a member of an advisory board who receives an honorarium for attending meetings. Laine was out of the country at a family function and could not be reached for comment. But another member of the advisory panel, Stolo Nation Chief Joe Hall, strongly rejected that idea.

"Luc was not a part of the [First Nations Statistical Institute] during the time of Halifax," he stated. "He was appointed by [Quebec Vice-chief Ghislain Picard] months later, closer to the Confederacy in November."