Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
Top News - April - 2003
Billy Jack, a homeless man stated "I'm here to protect our women and children, so they don't end up like me."
Photo by Ann Hanson
Fighting the FNGA'Same old tricks,' lawyer
New Mi'kmaq rock band makes history
We're with you, prime minister - Editorial
InuiTV is a must for language retention - Guest ColumnCheck out Ontario Birchbark
THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF WINDSPEAKER'S APRIL ISSUE
ARE ONLINE IN THE ARCHIVES - ACCESS IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
CLICK HERE FOR ONLINE SUBSCRIPTION INFO.
Ann Hanson, Windspeaker Contributor, Toronto
Nearly 50 First Nations people from across Canada spent a rainy night on March 20 outside of Toronto's Union Station. All night they stood beside a sacred fire singing traditional songs.
In the morning they would be 2,000 strong from First Nations communities in southern Ontario, and march through the downtown streets to protest the federal government's proposed First Nation governance act.
"I came because I wanted my voice to be heard," said Tanya Anakons of the Native Youth Movement. "We are the youth of today and we need to do this so our children can carry on our traditions. We need all of the youth to be a part of this. If we don't protest, we'll end up losing all of our rights."
Roger Obonsawin, one of the co-ordinators of the march, thanked the Elders, the firekeepers and the protesters who stayed the night to keep vigil.
"In spite of the way they try and control us, we can still have that dignity to walk there, without being harassed. And we will walk there with pride and dignity," he said.
Obonsawin introduced Chief Bryan Laform, of the Mississauga New Credit First Nation, who welcomed the crowd to the Mississauga territory.
"We've been here since time immemorial and we are going to continue our fight for the next 500 years and continue it till we win. So our struggle has just begun for our inherent rights, to do and live in our First Nations as we see fit. So let's go out, walk proud and fight for our rights."
National Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Assembly of First Nations berated the administration of Robert Nault, minister of Indian Affairs, and the handling of the governance act consultations.
"Today, as I stand before you, I receive a great energy. I see a people who will stand up for what is right. I see people who want to protect their rights. I see a people who want to protect the future of their children. Our message is simple: Treaties, yes, FNGA, no."
He said the government wanted to modernize the Indian Act.
"We will not accept legislation of a colonialist act. We do not want it. The government of this country says that we as leaders and chiefs are against this act, but our people are not. So I ask you, do you want the Indian Act? Do you want the governance act? Do you want the minister of Indian Affairs? I rest my case, march on."
The roar of the crowd was deafening as the chant 'FNGA, no way' echoed off the city buildings.
Chief Roberta Jamieson of Six Nations said people came to protest the FNGA because the act consultation committee "will not come to us. This committee and this parliament that proposes to pass laws over our people decided not to go to one of our 633 communities."
She said the people will not be silenced.
"We will not have a minister interpret our silence as consent. We are here because we will not buckle under the avalanche of legislation and colonial policies that are coming our way. We are here to say in the strongest possible terms, 'We object to this First Nations governance act. We object to any piece of legislation that proposes to impose laws on our people'...In 1969, we won that fight. The government withdrew the White Paper, and we'll win this fight too."
Ontario Chief George Fox said the people have a strong sense of their identity as original peoples.
"We have rights. . .When those rights are threatened, we will stand up to protect those rights."
The Native Canadian Centre drum group was transported down Front Street on a flat bed truck, following the leaders, the eagle staff and the flag bearers. The march blocked mid-morning traffic, but proceeded without incident.
Afterwards, the large group of protesters gathered outside the Radisson Plaza Hotel as 30 people at a time were allowed into the building to watch the governance act consultation proceedings.
One of the presenters to the committee was a nine-year-old girl, Jackie McLure, of Toronto.
"I feel really strongly about this. I want this to change. We are the first people here and this shouldn't be done to us."
Other presenters included Chief R. Donald Maracle of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte and Jamieson.
Many of the protesters interviewed by Windspeaker had the same fear of the act. Thedosia May Collins from Cross Lake, Man. said, "If this goes through, First Nations will be like any other white person. The government doesn't have the right to take away our rights. The chiefs will end up living high and mighty, but what about the children and Elders? Are they going to take care of them? If the chiefs go for this, they're going to turn reserves to the white man's way. I don't think so."
Three generations of one family from Walpole Island came out to protest.
Marnie Williams from Broken Head, Ont. said, "I wanted to come out and protest against it. When I get older I don't want to think back on it and say 'I could have done something.' I wanted to come here and tell my children I stood up for them."
A homeless man who said his name was Billy Jack carried a sign that read Broken Treaties.
"I'm here to protect our women and children, so they don't end up like me."
Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer, Ottawa
Voices are being raised against the various government bills in the suite of First Nations governance legislation proposed by the federal government and a groundswell of sorts can now be seen to be gaining momentum.
In early March, two of the five mainstream federal political parties have come out against it. And, James O'Reilly, one of Canada's most experienced practitioners of Aboriginal law, says it will eventually be proven to be unconstitutional.
"We've said that the Indian Act is unconstitutional and in looking at Bill C-7 I see nothing other than an Indian Act that's not called an Indian Act."
O'Reilly said the governance act was initiated because of an outcry from the public because there were some abuses by a few of the First Nations.
"So they started going in with this third party manager business. They liked that. The best defense is a good offense. So they said we can turn this thing around by blaming the Indian people for mismanaging public funds and the public really likes that."
But O'Reilly points out there is nothing in the Indian Act that gives the government the power to impose third party management.
"They didn't have any power, even under their own legislation, basically the Indian Act, to appoint third party managers and to give people the control over the affairs of Indian people. And of course, it's totally, totally, against this idea of self-government. A basic part of that is you have the right to manage your own affairs. If self-government means anything, it's the right to manage your own affairs. Well, you can't just go in to any company and just appoint a trustee and take over their funds because they're not doing well. If they're doing something criminal you take action against them in the criminal courts."
He said what C-7 is designed to do is, "hidden among all the so-called nice principles they think the non-Indian population will respond to. . . they legitimize the third party management which gives them the big sword but legitimizes and legalizes, according to them, the power to go in to any band and just take over the running of their affairs."
That's the exact opposite of self-government, something the Liberal Party has been on record in favor of since 1995, he said.
"It's the farthest thing away from self-government."
O'Reilly said self-government is assured in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution and the government says it recognizes it in their 1995 policy on the inherent right of self-government. So "what the hell are they doing undermining it even more than it already is undermined under the Indian Act?" he wondered.
"We think we've got a very strong argument if that ever gets into law. Our problem is it's not quite law yet and in principle you're supposed to have a statute before you can have it declared unconstitutional, but we're trying to get around that. I think we have a couple of good arguments."
O'Reilly agrees with the chiefs who argue that the FNGA is another step away from the treaties that allowed Europeans to colonize Canada without opposition from Indigenous peoples.
"And where does this nation-to-nation relationship come in? And where does this business of the treaty being a partnership and that the way things were going to be run on the reserve to the extent that the feds were involved was going to be a partnership with the consent of the Indian people? I mean, this just goes back to 1876, for instance with Treaty 6, when they were going out and negotiating on the plains. No one, not even the famous Mr. Morris who was the head commissioner, ever mentioned the Indian Act that had been adopted in April of 1876. And you've got the treaty process going on in August and September of 1876. And 125 years later it's the same sort of trick but disguised under nice words. This is such a sham that I'm surprised the general public hasn't twigged to this. I think the Indian people and the [Assembly of First Nations] have tried to bring this out but it hasn't come out in that articulated fashion," he said.
"The feds are basically taking the position: 'We are going to judge whether somebody is suited to manage their own affairs or not.' We're back to worse than 19th century colonialism," said James O'Reilly.
Pat Martin, the NDP Critic for Aboriginal Affairs, is a member of the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs. He's the MP for Winnipeg Centre.
During the two-week spring break in the committee hearings from Feb. 27 to March 16, Martin wrote an article that sums up his impressions of what the standing committee is hearing.
"Virtually all the presenters to date have soundly rejected Bill C-7 as offensive, paternalistic, and completely out of touch with the real issues facing First Nations communities," he wrote.
Most presenters have told the standing committee that the secret to addressing the social ills of First Nation communities is genuine self-government, where Native people have genuine control of their affairs.
"None of this is remotely possible under Bill C-7. In fact, instead of ceding jurisdiction and powers to First Nations to govern their own affairs, it imposes a heavy-handed template of governance codes and regulations which undermines their ability to design effective governing institutions that fit community ideals, customs and traditions," he said. "In fact, it actually expands the discretionary authority of the minister and the role of the Crown!"
He said the FNGA will not achieve its stated goals because it ignores the lessons of history.
"If the federal government wants to retain and even enhance its own direction and control over the lives of Aboriginal people as contemplated by Bill C-7, then it must continue to bear primary responsibility for what can only be described as 130 years-so far-of social tragedy under the Indian Act," he wrote.
Comments from another corner show the FNGA bill is under attack from all sides. While some critics say the bill goes too far, the Canadian Alliance critic for Indian Affairs said it doesn't go far enough.
Bryan Pallister, MP for Portage-Lisgar in Manitoba, said on March 11, "In the last year, Minister Nault has invoked powers under the Indian Act to intervene in situations at Dakota Tipi and Sandy Bay First Nations," he said. "In the future, under the FNGA, the minister will no longer have any authority to step in to situations that are anything but financial in nature. Any problems, increased violence, election disputes, or allegations of wrongdoing, will be off limits to the minister of Indian Affairs," he said. "Future disputes will be out of bounds for the minister and reserve residents would have only 'chief appointed' ombudsmen to turn to for assistance. This minister is abdicating his responsibilities, which will put people at risk in the future."
Pallister also noted that the committee has been hearing from many witnesses who criticize the bill.
"The Indian Affairs committee has been hearing witnesses express concern about this bill right across the country-concerns ranging from the lack of women's rights to potential abuses of power. Minister Nault's disappearing Act will do little to protect people living on reserves, create transparency, improve accountability and improve the daily lives of Aboriginal Canadians," he said.Withdraw AFN support, urges group's vice-chief
Paul Barnsley, Windspeaker Staff Writer, Vancouver
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 annual 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 special 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 naïve 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 wrote. "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."
Top
