Withdraw AFN support, urges group's vice-chief

Page 8

Satsan (Herb George) may be the British Columbia vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations, but that didn't stop him from urging the member chiefs of the First Nations Summit to "withdraw public support for the national chief and executive."

In a letter sent out on AFN letterhead to all B.C. chiefs on March 4, Satsan, who is also a member of the three-member leadership group of the First Nations Summit, told the chiefs he would "explain to you my thoughts" on the AFN resolution removing him as the executive portfolio holder for the fiscal relations committee. He and Clarence (Manny) Jules were removed as the fiscal relations committee co-chairs during a special chiefs' assembly in Ottawa on Feb. 21. They were accused of lobbying on behalf of Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, in defiance of an AFN resolution rejecting the bill. (Sources tell Windspeaker the AFN executive wrapped up its fiscal relations committee during a meeting in Regina in early March. That made the resolution calling for the removal of Satsan and Jules more symbolic than meaningful.)

In his letter, Satsan told the B.C. chiefs that he and Jules were removed from the fiscal relations committee "on the instructions of a small ad hoc non-constitutional, regionally based body of membership."

He added that the "majority of B.C. chiefs have made it clear to me that they are adamantly opposed to the direction that the AFN is moving."

The B.C. vice-chief reported that a number of B.C. chiefs "raised serious concerns at that [Feb. 20 and 21] meeting on the procedural errors surrounding the special assembly and the validity of the resolutions that resulted."

He said both the Summit and Squamish First Nation Chief Bill Williams sent letters to the national chief and executive, raising "legal and constitutional issues that potentially invalidated the results of the special assembly."

"Neither has been dealt with," he added.

The Summit and Squamish-both strong supporters of Bill C-19-obtained legal opinions that suggest there are legal issues that invalidate the resolutions passed at the last three national AFN chiefs' meetings.

Satsan stated his opinions on why the attendance at recent AFN meetings has been so low. What he wrote amounts to a scathing indictment of his fellow executive members.

"Attendance at AFN meetings has diminished significantly due to the record number of meetings being called, their locations, the expenses involved, the lack of a clear agenda, the lack of regional diversity and input, and most importantly, the lack of recognition and respect for regional interests," Satsan wrote, adding, "The national executive appears unable and unwilling to take a position on matters that affect the political credibility of the AFN, including enforcing and respecting its constitution."

He ended his letter by suggesting the B.C. chiefs withdraw their support for National Chief Matthew Coon Come and his executive board and "organize nationally to pursue and secure national policy objectives that benefit First Nations in B.C."

Six days after the Satsan letter was circulated, Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), issued a detailed response in a 10-page open letter to the B.C. vice-chief. In that strongly worded letter, he accused Satsan of being in a conflict of interest by virtue of holding onto his AFN vice-chief position after being elected to the First Nations Summit task force executive board. He also suggested that anyone who holds the views put forward in Satsan's letter must be a "collaborator" acting against the best interests of his own people.

Phillip is one of the driving forces behind the "ad hoc" group Satsan criticized.

"Regrettably, your note was neither accurate nor a balanced account of the events leading up to today's situation," Phillip wrote.

While Satsan claimed the chiefs-in-assembly had given their support to C-19 during the 2001 AFN annal meeting in Halifax, Phillip suggested he was leaving out important information that would negate that claim. During that meeting, chair Luc Laine erred when he declared a simple majority vote to be a victory for those in favor of the motion to support the bill. He forgot that votes at annual meetings require a 60 per cent majority. The motion did not receive 60 per cent support. Laine would later receive a board position with one of the financial institutions that stands to benefit from the passage of C-19.

During the confusion caused by the chair's mistake, Phillip claims, Satsan and Jules promised to bring the final version of the bill back for review by the chiefs. This was a promise made in return for a promise by the chiefs who opposed the bill to not challenge the faulty vote.

"When the 23rd AFN [annual general assembly] was held in Kahnawake Mohawk Territory July 16 to 18, 2002, we were told the proposed fiscal institutions bill was not ready to present to the chiefs," Phillip wrote. "However, a month later, on Aug. 15, Robert Nault, the minister of Indian Affairs, and Mr. Manny Jules, the chairman of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, held a joint press conference to announce the release of a draft bill for formal consultations. As far as the UBCIC is concerned, this announcement was in direct contravention of the commitments both you and Mr. Manny Jules made at the Halifax AGA."

Phillip accused Jules and Satsan of taking extreme steps to not keep their promise.

"We find it difficult to see how you could seriously advance the position that the chiefs of Canada would give blind approval to federal legislation before they had even seen it," he wrote.

Phillip took aim at Satsan's claim that the AFN resolutions passed at the last three assemblies are invalid.

"Yourself and the First Nations Summit-along with the Minister of Indian Affairs Robert Nault-appear to share the opinion that these three resolutions are 'procedurally invalid' because a specil assembly cannot change a general assembly mandate without 'reasonable notice,'" the UBCIC president wrote.

He noted that Satsan had sent out a notice to all B.C. chiefs well in advance of the meeting "and you encouraged the chiefs, or their representatives, to attend.

"It is therefore hard to take you seriously when you try to use the 'sufficient notice' argument after the fact or when you try to attack the use of proxies," he wrote. "Your complaints seem instead to be mostly based on the fact that the votes did not go the way you wanted them to."

C-19 is described as part of the "suite of legislation" proposed by the government, which includes C-7, the First Nations governance act. Phillip said C-19 cannot be looked at as separate from C-7.

"Among other things, the intent of C-7 is clearly to change the legal status of First Nations communities, apply the Canadian Charter to further dismember our nations and communities by placing individual rights over our collective rights, and increase federal domination and regulatory authority over First Nations," Stewart Phillip wrote. "Consequently, we have no choice but to regard any organization which supports any or all of these three bills as collaborators, working with the federal government against the title, rights, jurisdiction and interests of the UBCIC membership. Given the abundant evidence at hand, anyone who says that either of these three bills is 'optional,' including C-19, is either naive or not telling the truth."

Phillip was most aggressive when it was time to discuss his opinion of the way the B.C. vice-chief was performing his duties.

"We have attempted to demonstrate patience and respect for you in our various forums here in B.C. Even when you ran for an elected position with the First Nations Summit as a task group member, we gave you the benefit of the doubt that you would still fairly and objectively represent the interests of the B.C. region as a whole. Unfortunately, we were wrong," he wrot. "You are obviously advocating and representing the interests of only those First Nations in the [British Columbia Treaty Commission] process, against the interests of the UBCIC and its members who are not in the BCTC negotiation process. Obviously, holding two political positions places you in a conflict of interest."

Phillip attacked Satsan's statements about the AFN's implementation committee, saying his criticism that it is a "regionally based ad hoc group of technicians and chiefs" was "simply untrue and a misrepresentation of the facts."

Phillip said the committee had the same structure as other AFN committees and the only difference between this grassroots chiefs-created committee and others was that it received no money from any AFN budget.

In closing his letter, Phillip gave Satsan formal notice that UBCIC wants him to "refrain from asserting that you represent the whole B.C. region."