We've heard it all before

Page 5

Editorial

May was a month when the big story was the brief flurry of words between the man that would be king and the fellow who is doing the bidding of the current sovereign. Yes, Liberal leadership front-runner Paul Martin and Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault, crossed swords on the battlefield that is the First Nations governance act, with Martin dealing a substantial blow to the legislation in which Nault has so much invested-perhaps his political future.

Nault accused Martin of playing politics with legislation vitally important to the Canadian public. But really, whose interest is the minister serving? Nault said the interests of the grassroots First Nations people, that's who, but discussions in the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs tell a different tale.

Martin says because the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations were skirted in the consultation process, the legal ramifications of passing the bill into law will leave Canada open to decades of court action. He said "the well has been severely poisoned in terms of this piece of legislation."

Nault says he can't deal with the chiefs. Well, not the chiefs... the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Matthew Coon Come.

"Care should be taken not to measure this government's relationship with First Nations people on the basis of our relationship with Grand Chief Coon Come," he said. Why? We measure Canada's relationship with Americans based on the prime minister's relationship with the U.S. president.

We've seen this petulant little drama unfold before. Remember Ron Irwin, the Indian Affairs minister in the 1990s who introduced amendments to the Indian Act that were going to improve the lot of the grassroots people?

Irwin said the same thing about then-national chief Ovide Mercredi.

'Oh, Ovide disagrees with everything. We can't work with him,' said Irwin when the Indian Act changes he initiated got a rough ride by the First Nations leadership.

Personal attacks on Matthew Coon Come and other First Nation leaders? No, Mr. Nault, that's not the way a fiduciary acts when his trustee has some complaints about how things are being handled. Not the fiduciary that wants to steer clear of serious trouble, anyway.

We think the strain is starting to show on Robert Nault. He's starting to make comments not worthy of someone in the soon-to-be-facing-re-election category.

He says he's immune to protests? What's up with that? That's just arrogance. And he's not alone. The behavior by the Liberals in the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs has been arrogant in the extreme.

We're counting down. It's an hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute battle to see if the standing committee can rush the final report on the FNGA to the House before it's in recess for the summer.

The only triumph for democracy that could possibly come out of this mess, however, is if the Opposition succeeds in stopping the FNGA.

If the government rams it through it will be a sad day for every lover of real democracy, Native and non-Native alike.

As we've said before, let's go back to square one and get it right this time. Mr. Martin says that's what he intends to do. Let's hope he's telling the truth. If so, the sooner he can get to work, the better.

-Windspeaker