AFN break-off group talks leadership, governance

Page 8

A two-day gathering of chiefs that is not an officially-sanctioned Assembly of First Nations meeting has an agenda that could drive a permanent wedge between warring First Nations factions.

The agenda includes a lengthy leadership forum and the announcement of a "First Nations declaration" and "the presentation of a First Nations political agenda."

AFN sources say they've heard of the meeting, but haven't been involved in its planning. National Chief Matthew Coon Come is mentioned on the agenda as an invited, but unconfirmed speaker.

Billed as a protection of treaty and inherent rights gathering addressing the federal government's First Nations governance initiative, the meeting will take place at a downtown hotel in Winnipeg on March 11 and 12. The meeting will be hosted by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC).

The three keynote speakers listed on the agenda have all been vocal opponents of the Indian Affairs minister's First Nations governance reform agenda. Listed as presenters are Ontario Vice Chief Charles Fox, who originally held the AFN governance portfolio before it was taken over by British Columbia Vice Chief Herb George, and Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians (AIAI, Ontario) Grand Chief Larry Sault is listed as a presenter. He may not attend because he has recently decided to leave politics to head up an economic development initiative in California.

The Chiefs of Ontario, the AMC, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, the AIAI and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs are members of the Inherent Rights Coalition. That organization surfaced late last year as an informal group of chiefs concerned that the AFN executive is not standing up to the Indian Affairs minister on rights issues.

Formulating a national political agenda and providing leadership would seem to be functions reserved for the national chief and his organization. A political technician associated with one of the groups, who preferred to remain anonymous, was asked if it was fair to deduce that the coalition chiefs have lost faith in the effectiveness of the national leadership and are organizing to represent their own interests, the source said "it's obvious" there is an element of that behind the movement.

"But the national chief's invited, the executive have been invited. This coalition was not created to undermine the authority of Matthew Coon Come or the AFN," the source said.

In fact, many of the chiefs in the coalition were Coon Come supporters in the last election.

"The analogy we're using around here is, well, it's like when there's a band election and a new chief comes in but the old council undermines the new chief," the technician said.

Chiefs Phillip and Sault are already on the record in criticizing the executive members and the way the executive functions within the AFN. They believe the vice chiefs who make up the executive have not been responsive to the spirit of resolutions passed on the floor of chiefs' assemblies and are not opposing the governance act initiative with the vigor that's required. The coalition chiefs are holding this meeting because they're not convinced the AFN leadership is willing to aggressively fight the minister.

"There are deep concerns the executive of the AFN are back-pedaling on their commitment for a special assembly," the source added.

The AFN postponed the special chiefs' assembly scheduled for Feb. 25 and 26 until some time in the new fiscal year because, AFN CEO Dan Brant said there was no money to pay for it. The assembly was intended to be a forum for discussion about where the chiefs will go next after rejecting a governance work-plan developed by the national chief, his executive and Indian Affairs.

Many vice chiefs were outraged that the Inherent Rights Coalition was able to defeat the motion to accept the work-plan, saying a group that constitutes a minority nationally hijacked the agnda.

The coalition members say the vice chiefs should be paying closer attention to previous resolutions that spell out the terms under which the chiefs will consent to work with the government. They also say that many chiefs are under pressure from the minister and are not willing to publicly oppose him, but secretly support the coalition.

Russ Diabo, a veteran of AFN/DIAND struggles, is now working as an advisor to the Algonquins of Barriere Lake. The Kahnawake Mohawk was a leading player in former national chief Ovide Mercredi's fight against former Indian Affairs Minister Ron Irwin's attempt to change the Indian Act. He'll be in Winnipeg and he's hoping the chiefs will decide to take some immediate action against the current governance initiative.

"The coalition was formed because of the concern about the executive's promotion of the penultimate draft work-plan."

Many chiefs in different parts of the country are reporting that the minister is using every method available to him to get First Nations to go along with his governance initiative, Diabo said.

"This forum, I also understand, is going to be bringing people from the treaty areas in Saskatchewan and Alberta, which is where Nault claims to have support. This is what I'm interested in seeing, who's going to show up. I have no doubt that people are telling Nault that they're supporting him because he is bullying people and threatening to withhold funds. But we'll see who shows up here because I also know that treaty people have been pretty strong about not wanting to see their status altered," he said.

Another way the minister appears to be applying pressure is by changing policies to take away departmental supports for First Nations. Changes to the third party intervention policy, the threat of a review of First Nation political organizations, the recent decision by the minister to enforce a 20-year-old policy that imposes conditions on granting ministerial guarantees for housing loans to First Nation each point to an aggressive new round of pressures being applied on First Nations by the government.

Diabo believes the government strategy to withdraw support from First Nations is linked to legal concerns the department has about lawsuits that may be filed to oppose the First Nations governance act.

". . . it's part of justification. What the courts have said about Section 35 rights is that they're not absolute. They can be justifiably infringed. That's Aboriginal or treaty rights. But there's a strict test you have to go through to justify it. Part of that test is that it has to be consistent with the Crown's special relationship with the group, the fiduciary obligations," he said.

That meshes with the thoughts expressed in a legal opinion rendered by lawyer David Nahwegabow for the AFN that concludes that joining in any consultation process could be interpreted by the courts as consent and that consent would justify infringement of Aboriginal rights.

"What [Indian Affairs is] trying to do is head off future litigation [under Section 35] if the legislation is passed. Like Dave's paper says, there are existing constitutional rights there and that's why First Nations have to conduct themselves carefully in their relationships with the Crown. Because those could come back and bite them in the future, depending on how they're interpreted by the courts," Diabo said.