Low turnout to discuss $2.3 million report

Page 11

Money was tight leading up to the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) special assembly, held beginning March 27 in Gatineau, Que. The chiefs were convened so they could consider the organization's renewal commission report.

How tight were dollars? Well, the turnout was low because it was the final week of the government's fiscal year. With last year's government funding mostly spent and this year's funding not yet in hand, many chiefs simply could not afford to attend. There were at most 100 chiefs or proxies and fewer than 50 observers present at the meeting scheduled for three days, a turnout so low that the AFN called it quits at 6:00 p.m. on Day 2.

Several chiefs told Windspeaker the AFN was forced to hold the meeting at this inconvenient time because the approximately $200,000 set aside under the renewal commission agreement for a special assembly had to be spent before the end of the fiscal year (March 31). If it wasn't spent by then it would have had to be returned to the department of Indian Affairs, they said.

For two days the cavernous banquet hall sat mostly empty. Proceedings started at 10:20 on the morning of March 27 and about 1:25 p.m. on Day 2. The afternoon of the first day, after a two-hour lunch break, and the morning of the second day were set aside for regional caucus meetings and breakout sessions with AFN staff to discuss the various elements of the renewal commission report.

Circulating in the room right from the start of the meeting was an analysis of the report done for the AFN's Quebec region. Quebec chiefs, led by Regional Chief Ghislain Picard, have not been in step with the national chief and the rest of the national executive on a number of matters. They refused to endorse the process that led to the first ministers' meeting in Kelowna, for example.

The Quebec analysis concluded that the renewal commission report strengthens the national chief and risks weakening chiefs and regions' powers. It also helps implement the federal agenda, which Quebec determines is a relationship based on individuals, not nations.

Making note of the fact that renewal co-chair Joe Miskokomon is very close to current the national chief and was head of his transition team after the election, the Quebec analysis suggests it "creates doubt" about the claim that the commission is arm's-length from the national chief and the AFN executive.

The report also recommends that Picard write a letter to the national chief demanding that the process slow down so more studies can be made of the recommendations.

The Quebec caucus was not alone in that sentiment.

During the breakout session on the afternoon of Day 1, which dealt with the proposal the AFN institute universal voting for national chief, it became apparent the chiefs were not ready to let that happen in the immediate future-if ever.

Chief Bryan LaForme of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (Ontario), along with a member of his council, began the assault, saying band members would feel they could go over the heads of their local council to the national organization if they were allowed to vote for national chief.

Union of Ontario Indians Grand Chief John Beaucage echoed those sentiments at the time, as did chiefs from Alberta. Later, during a phone interview, Beaucage expanded on his concerns.

"One of the things that we really, really have to consider very much is that when we start moving into First Nations governance, self-government across the board, that we have very distinct constitutions set up," he said. "That there's a constitution set up at the local level that might fit in to a constitution at a provincial level that would fit in to a constitution at a national level. Until that is set up we really cannot have universal elections for a national chief or a regional chief because it would upset the balance of how things work at the community level."

As a former chief, he said he could see that any transitio to universal voting would have to be handled with care.

"I was a community level chief for eight years and I know pretty well how things work at the community level and not everybody is in tune with what the chief and council want to do. By and large there's a majority that voted chief and council in and they set a mandate one way or another and they go ahead with their mandate. But not everybody's going to buy into it," he said. "So if I voted for the chief and I voted for a regional chief and a national chief and didn't like how my chief was working I would phone the national chief and say, 'I don't like the way things are going here and I think you'd better change it.' And that can't be done under the current situation. As a grand chief, and Angus Toulouse as a regional chief or Phil Fontaine as a national chief, you can't step in and start micro-managing in a community."

While one member of the Ontario caucus told this publication that there were doubts about whether the AFN executive backed the renewal commission recommendations, Beaucage said that was not the way he interpreted things.

"That might be going a little bit too far," he said. "I think that the renewal commission is basically returning our thoughts back to us. It went out and got ideas from across the country. So I can't say that they're off base. Some of these things are going to have to start slipping into place, but I think it's going to have to be a bit of an evolutionary process"

"We're not going to see it all happen this year but maybe in the process of three to four years these things will start fitting into place in an organized fashion. But if we want to change everything, change all the rules very quickly, I don't think it's going to work," said John Beaucage.

As the second day came to a close and the decision was made to push forward with business and bring things to an early conclusion, resolution 11/2006 was brought to the floor. It was moved by Ochiichagwe'babigo'iningFirst Nation (Ontario) Chief Allan Luby and Grand Chief Doug Kelly, attending as proxy for the Sumas First Nation in British Columbia. Both are seen as strong supporters of the national chief. The resolution proposed to establish a "regional representative political committee" to create a process for debating and eventually deciding on the changes proposed in the renewal report.

But earlier that day, Oneida of the Thames (Ontario) Chief Randall Phillips stood to speak for a group of Ontario chiefs known as the Iroquois Caucus. He served notice that, while his group acknowledged the efforts of the renewal commission, they would "continue on our own path."

Six Nations of the Grand River (Ontario) Chief Dave General backed up that statement saying the Iroquois chiefs, representing communities in southern Ontario and along the St. Lawrence River into Quebec, were attempting to re-establish their traditional governance roots.

"Nationhood, nation building is on our minds," he said, adding that the Iroquois Caucus wanted to ensure that any "reincarnation of the AFN is inclusive of our wishes as Iroquoian people."

Phillips and General were central to the debate on the resolution later that day.

Each proposed an amendment to the resolution that tended to add more regional input to any renewal decision making and ensure that the national executive did not have exclusive power to direct things from Ottawa.

A work plan that will lay out how the renewal process will continue is scheduled to be tabled at the annual general assembly in Vancouver in July. But the main focus of attention at that meeting will be the election for national chief. Any parts of the renewal proposals that the chiefs do not welcome could become bargaining chips in the backroom dealing for political support.

If too much of the commission's report is bargained away, the $2.3 million expended on the process could eventually be seen as wasted.

Accountability has become a buzzword in Ottawarecently. The federal government introducing the Federal Accountability act on April 11 and, knowing it was coming and would soon become an issue, the national chief has said repeatedly that First Nations welcome accountability. So Windspeaker demanded copies of the contribution agreement that covered funding for the AFN renewal process from both the AFN and the department of Indian Affairs (INAC).

Neither provided a copy of the actual contribution agreement. AFN disclosed some financial information. INAC provided nothing.

The AFN documentation shows that in the fiscal year 2005-2006 alone INAC provided $600,000 for renewal. While individual salaries for the co-chairs and staff and per diems for the commission members were not revealed, one line shows that "salaries" for the year equalled $139,111. Travel expenses totalled $82,500. Consultants were paid $120,594. Expenses, including $200,000 for "advertising, promo & publications," used up the rest of the money.

The documents also showed that AFN was facing an April 28 deadline for providing a "final activity/progress report," including a report on the special assembly, and a "final revenue and expenditure report."

That suggests the renewal commission's work is done and the matter now lies completely in the hands of the chiefs.