National chief hanging in there, having fun

Page 18

Mention of rumors that he was thinking of stepping down got a chuckle from the national chief after the first day of the confederacy in Ottawa.

"I am enjoying myself. I find it very challenging," he said. "There are 80 First Nations. We are very diversified. We have different strategies and different approaches. The challenge is trying to find a middle ground. When we talk about issues like housing, trying to bring down the high rate of unemployment in our communities, the incarceration of our people, we all seem to agree. That's what we want to tackle, to eradicate poverty. But the minute we start talking about what the minister wants to do, unilaterally, and continue to push it, we come into a disagreement. But when we talk about where we want to go then the challenge is will the government give that mandate to the minister so that then we can sit down to a process and begin down the path of implementing it and moving forward."

So you're sticking it out? he was asked.

"I've been around for 25 years, I don't plan to go away. At least that's my plan. I don't know about those guys. They might get rid of me tomorrow," he said, laughing again.

Why ban the press?

Reporters weren't too impressed when they were asked to leave for the governance debate. The national chief wasn't ready to apologize when he faced the national press after a six-hour closed session.

"We're entitled to be able to have a good discussion among ourselves and I think that it's healthy. It's a request from the members so we respect that. I think, for us, it's imperative that we have that discussion among ourselves before we go out there," he said.

But the secrecy of band councils is one of the issues the minister has used as a reason to review First Nations governance and this will add fuel to the fire, Windspeaker argued.

"That's your interpretation. The people that are here, our members are not excluded. Whoever's a member here can participate. The only ones who are excluded, unfortunately, are you guys."

The press represents the people who can't be here, a Native reporter countered.

"Well, we deliberate. Even in band councils, they have their own internal meetings and you don't go there," Coon Come said. "I think you should. Find out for yourself whether they'll kick you out or not. You go to the James Bay Crees where I'm from, when we discuss things we'll kick you out. We've done it many times because we believe we have to discuss among ourselves as our people and if you're a member of that you'll participate."

And the chiefs aren't the only ones who have closed meetings, he added.

"Try to go to the premier's meeting. Or a cabinet meeting."

Governance Act by March?

The published report claiming unnamed senior government sources had lost confidence in the AFN had one piece of news that was easy to miss. A senior government official said there was a chance the First Nations governance act could be ready for first reading by March, six months earlier than previous dates mentioned by the minister. Indian Affairs spokesman Alistair Mullin said it's possible. He said the joint ministerial table on governance is expected to report back to the minister with recommendations for drafting by early February at the latest. If the recommendations are simple and straightforward, he said, the process could be that quick.

Vice-chief Ken Young thinks that's the way it's going to shake out.

"The piece of legislation that he's developing, it's quite simple. There's three aspects to it: there's governance, and there's the election issue and there's the accountability issue. It's not going to be a very lengthy piece of legislation," he said. "It's a stand-alone piece of legislation. It's not an amendment to the Indian Act as everyone describes it. The fundamental issue there is the issue of legal capacity. Legal capacity meaning, in our view, means the government is attempting to make First Nations into political corporate entities.

"To our way of thiking that's a threat to the treaties, threat to Aboriginal title, threat to the relationship that we have to the Crown. Corporations never sign treaties and corporations never said that Aboriginal title belongs to us. It was First Nations that said that, the First Nations people. The treaties were signed by nations of people, not corporate entities. The fiduciary relationship is owed to First Nations people, not the corporations. I believe that that aspect of the legislation is the most questionable one."

No money for meeting?

AFN CEO Dan Brant has a tough job to do after the holiday break. He's got to find the money to hold an emergency chiefs meeting on governance. It was recommended at the Ottawa confederacy that the meeting be held in Winnipeg in February, but there's no money in a very tight budget for an unscheduled national meeting.

"We don't have anything planned yet and certainly one of the things is cost," he said. "We have to look at can we or how do we do this. We're still scratching our heads about how we put things together to make it happen. A special chiefs' assembly at this particular point in time, it's a matter of trying to find the resources to get it going."

Sarnia denied leave to appeal

Chief Philip Maness, Chippewas of Sarnia, told the confederacy that the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear his community's appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the Sarnia case. In that case the court imposed the laws of equity in what many observers said was a reach by the court to avoid recognizing the band's title to land within the city of Sarnia even though the court recognized that the band had a legitimate claim to the land because of a faulty surrender.

"We applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal," the chief said. "The appeal was based on a claim that the Ontario Court of Appeal ignored Section 35 of Constitution Act. On Nov. 8 the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave."

The chiefs voted to support a resolution calling fr a letter of support from the AFN in the band's application to the court to re-hear the case. The Supreme Court justices do not have to provide reasons why they decide to hear or not hear a case and it's very rare that the court will change its mind. But there is a section of the law that allows for such an application.

"It's a long-shot probably," Maness admitted. "We feel very strongly that we had the best case that we could take forward in addressing Aboriginal title because of our land that was set aside by treaty. We also think that because of the significance of the case . . . we feel it's a political decision by the courts to avoid to hear it."

Anti-terrorism Act a huge insult say chiefs

Several chiefs made passionate speeches when it came time to discuss the anti-terrorism bill on Dec. 5.

Chief Ralph Akiwenzie made an especially good presentation, pointing out that Canada had a history of using force against Native protesters at Oka, Ipperwash and other places, and this bill would only make legitimate political protest more dangerous for his people.

"I find it absolutely incomprehensible with that level of participation that we have and loyalty to the country, to have to deal with something like this terrorism act," the Ontario chief said. "So I'm going to cut my speech short because I'm going to get quite upset because I come from a family of veterans, very loyal people in our First Nations communities that fought in World War I and so on. But I'm not going to dwell on that, I'm going to dwell on this. Let's think very seriously about the basic fundamental freedoms that we have."

He slammed the proposed act as oppressive and insulting.

"It's a big excuse to my people to subjugate and a big excuse not to have us exercise our rights, Aboriginal and treaty. Legislation again! It makes me sick!" he said.

Chief Art Manuel brought home the point that even the possibility that Native people engaged in political protests could be lumped in with the mass urderers who spawned the legislation was offensive, as was the Justice minister's unwillingness to include a specific exemption from the act for Native protesters.

"We must make sure that those people do not be labeled as terrorists because they aren't flying planes into buildings in New York City. What they're doing is quite different, like night is to day."