Minister undeterred by chiefs' criticism

Page 3

Even as First Nations chiefs rallied themselves to more effectively oppose the proposed First Nations governance act a few blocks away, Robert Nault, the minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, was telling that he's more determined than ever to see the legislation through to completion.

Nault has a new office in the Confederation building on Parliament Hill, but nothing else has changed as he proceeds with his plan to introduce the act and get it passed late this year or early in 2003.

Nault was invited to attend the special chief assembly, but he said he decided not to attend because he knew he would come under attack and he didn't want to distract the debate away from the issues.

National Chief Matthew Coon Come thinks the minister should have made an appearance.

"It's very unfortunate. Here's a man that has gone across the country as he has done consultation," he said. "The very least he could do is make an appearance and be able to convey to us his findings and allow the chiefs that are here to ask him questions if need be. That's totally unacceptable for a minister who says he represents on behalf of the First Nations. Here's the First Nations leadership that's elected by the people and he does not show up?"

In his office, the minister was happy to deal with the comments made that morning during a speech by Six Nations of the Grand River Chief Roberta Jamieson. She said First Nations and Canada have a dysfunctional relationship and the government has to share in the blame for that. Reforms are needed, she said, and the department can't be relied upon to reform itself. She suggested the appointment of minister of state for Indian Affairs and an Ombudsman to oversee the rehabilitation of the department.

"If you're asking me whether I think there's some responsibility for having probably the worst piece of legislation to administer of any minister in the Western world, I would say that that's factually correct," Nault responded. "I take responsibility for that and that's why we're moving to repair an archaic piece of legislation. That's why the First Nation Land Management Act came into being, that's why the governance legislation is coming forward, that's why we're looking to improve the independent claims body."

As for the suggested new positions, Nault was non-committal.

"I accept that historically ministers have been somewhat timid and reluctant to improve the lives of First Nations people through making improvements to the Indian Act. That we agree with," he said. "As far as our interest in having an ombudsman-she's a past ombudsman, she would have a particular interest in that, I'm sure. The question would have to be 'what does an ombudsman do exactly?' I don't believe for a minute that the First Nations leadership should feel that they're the only ones to blame. I think we equally have responsibility though, and my argument has been since Day 1, if First Nations are going to criticize the federal government then they'll have to take responsibility for the agenda that suggests the status quo should stay in place. I don't believe we're going to move from where we are now to self government in quick order.

"We have a lot of capacity issues to deal with. We have a lot of community members through the last poll that we did who are suggesting that self government is very low on the priority list and that we need to do other things before we get to that. But if we don't make changes to the Indian Act, what would be Roberta's suggestion or the other chiefs'?"

Jamieson also called on the minister to scrap initiative and start again in concert with First Nation leaders on a process not dictated by the government.

"I disagree with her that it's unilateral," the minister said, arguing that his department had conducted 400 consultations, more than 200 on First Nations territory.

The Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee, with Aboriginal members, reviewed the drafts of the bill, he said.

"Justice, IndianAffairs and Aboriginal groups themselves made it very clear what they wanted to see in legislation," he said. "So I don't see how anyone can portray this as unilateral. Is she right that the [Assembly of First Nations (AFN)] executive originally made a serious error in suggesting a boycott? Absolutely. Is there lots of time to get back to working together? I believe there is because, first of all, this is only the first set of consultations out of the three sets. So there's two rounds of consultations to go. One is when the legislation is tabled before second reading. There'll be lots of time for people to mull it over, make good suggestions and make arguments for or against certain things in the legislation. Thirdly, there'll be consultations on the regulations, which are always part of any legislation. We're looking to work with chiefs and/or regional groups, which we are now, and would include the AFN.

"Now I can't stop, as you know, the scenario that occurred last Christmas where we had an agreement with the national chief and his executive on a work-plan to work together and then they send it to something called a confederacy, that's not even constituted properly, and they turn it down and say they don't want to work with the government. So my point [is] the AFN has to find a way to work with the government. If they want to be nothing but an opposition group, that we're quite accustomed to and accept. But if they want to work with the government, I'm still very open to doing that. We have extended our hands many times and we'll do it again. I want to work with the First Nation leadership, including the AFN."

Jamieson echoed the suspicions of many Native leaders that the minister has a hidden agenda. Many have argued that a recent increase in the number of bands forced into third party management is a sign that the minister is using his discretionary powers to focus attention on First Nations with troubles in order to justify his push to change the Indian Act

"We have not changed our third party intervention policy. I made it very clear that we expect our regions to adhere to the policy and they have done so," he said. "High profile cases that you may be speaking of are Burnt Church and the Innu and, of course, Dakota Tipi and Pikangikum."

He said all those communities had serious social issues and were considered to be politically unstable, so they needed to be worked with.

"I don't see that as a hidden agenda, I see that as being more pro-active as a minister because I have some very strong feelings about people who are, socially, not doing very well, who are poor, who need good governance structures and who need to have their financial resources managed properly. That's my obligation. In two of the four cases that we speak of, and probably three because we've never gotten an audit from Pikangikum, the three communities besides Dakota Tipi were all in financial difficulty. So we would want to protect the core programs that we have a legal obligation to deliver."

Rumors are rampant in Ottawa that a final draft of the act now exists.

"There's never a final draft until the prime minister agrees to it," the minister said. "That's the way the system works but at this point I can safely say we've been through a series of drafts, we've shared them with the Joint Ministerial Advisory Council. We've taken them back, so they shouldn't be floating around unless somebody has unfortunately leaked it. We're pretty much ready to go. We've got a couple more issues to deal with, obviously. We always do when we work on files but for all intents and purposes it's pretty much what you will see in the next couple of weeks. We've already been to Cabinet. Now it's a matter of the prime minister accepting the time-table and it's his prerogative to take his time and ask questions."

So the current state of affairs is that the prime minister is studying the bill? he was asked.

"I don't even know if it's been sent to him, yet," Nault repled.

Many chiefs have said the minister is about to force bands with custom election codes to give those customs up and fit into a one-size-fits-all governance act.

"False," he said.

So there's still room for custom bands under the proposed bill?

"Yes," he answered.

He hopes the First Nations leaders, once they see the proposed legislation, will realize he is not out to do any harm to Aboriginal or treaty rights.

"I have a lot of respect for the leadership and they should, hopefully, have a lot of respect for what I'm trying to accomplish and if we have a good debate, people will line up on either side," he said. "Today in Ottawa we have 160 chiefs in town. That means there's a good 500 that are not here. That tells me that there's 500 chiefs who have something else on their mind. There's a lot of chiefs who I've spoken to who are very supportive of this initiative. I think those in the room downtown should recognize that as well. This debate is not just about those people in the room, it's about the whole community out there and how they see our improvements in their quality of life."

Nault emphatically insisted he has not hidden agenda.

"There is no hidden agenda. None. If I was trying to have a hidden agenda I would not have JMAC. I would have not spent $10 million on the consultation under the first phase. I would have not been prepared to spend another $5 million on the second round. I don't know how much it'll cost for the third round but it'll be significant," he said. "This is a lot of money I could have built houses with. If people set up a strategy, which has not been well thought through in my view, of boycott . . . boycotting what? People have an opportunity to speak their mind."