Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
November - 2005
Getting it right
We read with great interest the leaked eight-page executive summary of the final report of the Assembly of First Nation (AFN) Renewal Commission, in which profound changes to the way the AFN functions are proposed. (see page 8.)The idea of who represents whom is identified in the report as a most pressing issue and rightly so. Given that the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues, arguably one of the most important moments in the history of Crown-Indigenous relations, is fast approaching, the timing of that conclusion really makes us think.
The First Ministers' Meeting will take place at the end of this month at the Grand Okanagan Hotel over two days, commencing on Nov. 24. But before that, from Oct. 31 through to Nov. 2, the chiefs meet in Regina for a special assembly.
Hanging in the air will be the leaked renewal commission report and the idea of representation. That's not a new question for First Nations' people. Our readers are all aware of the historic Crown practice of seeking Indigenous agreement to terms favorable to itself from the legitimate Indigenous leaders and, if that failed, then going to the first person in the band who would sign on the dotted line.
With all due respect to the current leadership of the five national Aboriginal organizations-who have all been duly elected according to the rules of their respective organizations-we see it as the central issue that the legitimacy of Aboriginal political organizations is not yet unquestioned.
Colonialism destroyed or decimated the legitimate traditional Indigenous governments. What serves in their place right now is, at least partly, a government of Canada creation. Each of the five Aboriginal organizations that will be at the FMM has problems in that regard. For example, AFN sources frequently question the legitimacy of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, saying CAP simply declared itself to exist and then claimed to have a mandate from the people it purports to represent.
The AFN itself is acting like a national First Nation government, but its charter says it is merely the national voice of the true First Nation governments-the more than 600 band councils.
Given the chaos created by the colonial process and the imposition of the Indian Act, it's no surprise that there are questions and confusion about who should be the rightful spokesperson for all First Nation-and all Aboriginal-people.
Grassroots voting for national chief is one of the renewal commission's chief recommendations. Many First Nation political workers were aghast when they heard that-or at least confused.
If grassroots people vote for national chief, what role do the chiefs play, they wondered? Isn't the AFN the chiefs' organization?
The AFN's own hand-picked renewal commission believes that only by allowing grassroots people to vote for national chief can the national chief truly claim to have a connection to all First Nations people. How then can the current chiefs-only elected national chief claim to represent all First Nation citizens at the FMM?
We understand the concerns of the chiefs in the areas covered by treaties 1 to 11. They're saying their needs as treaty nations have been neglected as the AFN seeks to find common ground with the federal bureaucrats. People who have been ordered to find ways to close the gap in life chances and address the poverty of Aboriginal people by bringing about transformative change in how programs and services are managed.
AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine has proven to be a master at bringing First Nations and the government closer together and he has produced results on many very difficult files. But he has clearly not completely satisfied the treaty nations. We hear those nations will demand a seat at the table at the FMM.
We think, since Fontaine has proven so capable at bringing disparate groups together and finding ways to forge agreements, that he should welcome their representative to sit beside him.
The national chief himself has often said that protecting treaty rights is a sacred trust.
When dealing with federal and provincial governments that do not appear anxious to uphold the terms of the historic treaties, the national chief could use all the help he can get.