1

[Originally Published in the FIRST NATIONS STRATEGIC BULLETIN Volume 1, Issue 3, August 1, 2003] June 1, 2003

STATEMENT BY DAVID C. NAHWEGAHBOW, FORMER CO-CHAIR OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES COMMISSION OF THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA

Chrtiens Legacy: Betrayal and Broken Promises As a former Co-chair and one of the founders of the Aboriginal Peoples Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada, I have watched with dismay as Prime Minister Chrtien has turned his back on one election promise after another. Now as his government tries to push through the final phases of the First Nations Governance Act (FNGA) I find myself thinking back to that day, on October 8, 1993, when I stood with Chrtien in Saskatoon and listened as he released the Aboriginal Platform of the Liberal Party. Since then, every piece of policy and legislation he has brought forward regarding First Nations People the federal self-government policy, FNGA, the Specific Claims Resolution Act and the First Nation Fiscal and Statistical Management Act has been a violation of promises he made to First Nations during the 1993 election. To those of us who helped establish the Aboriginal Peoples Commission and participated in the development of the Aboriginal Platform thinking we could advance the cause of Aboriginal peoples through the institutions of the white political system, Mr. Chrtiens legacy is one of betrayal. Creation of the Aboriginal Peoples Commission I became involved with the Liberals in the late 80s. At the time, the Party had no Aboriginal policy to speak of and no structure for the organized involvement of Aboriginal Peoples. There was a loose Native Caucus which had been in place since the Trudeau era. I became Co-Chair of the Native Caucus along with Marilyn Buffalo. This provided an opportunity for us to have a seat at the National Executive and also to participate in the various policy processes within the Party. Along with a core of activists who believed we could make a difference, we started to work on what would become the Aboriginal Platform. We attended policy conventions and found that the grassroots within the Party were very receptive and very supportive of the cause of Aboriginal Peoples. We put forward policy resolutions on treaties and aboriginal rights, the inherent right of self-government and a host of other subjects, always with the unanimous support of the grassroots within the Party. In Calgary in 1990, at the Convention at which Mr. Chrtien was elected Leader of the Liberal Party, we brought forward amendments to the Partys Constitution, which would turn our Native Caucus into a full-blown Commission. The Party had two other Commissions, a Womens Commission and a Youth Commission. This status was significant because, as a commission,

2

we could create local clubs which would be able to select blocks of delegates who could vote in the election for the Leader of the Party. It would enable us to obtain more influence in the Party and hopefully secure policy commitments from the leadership contenders. Our constitutional amendments were passed, the Aboriginal Peoples Commission became a reality and we raised the profile of Aboriginal issues in the context of the Leadership race. There were leaders debates dedicated to Aboriginal issues or at which Aboriginal issues were raised. The contenders at the time, including Jean Chrtien, Paul Martin and Sheila Copps, all made progressive commitments to support the cause of Aboriginal people. Development of the Aboriginal Platform After Chrtiens election as Leader, the Party started developing the Policy Platform for the upcoming election. Paul Martin and Chaviva Hosek were the Co-chairs of the Platform Committee. Our Aboriginal Commission was tasked with drafting the Aboriginal component of the Liberal Platform. Over the period of approximately one year, our Commission members researched, reviewed and wrote the Aboriginal Platform. In the course of doing so, we met with Aboriginal parliamentarians and others who had an interest in Aboriginal issues, the most prominent of which were, Senators Joyce Fairbairn, Len Marchand, Willie Adams and Charlie Watt; MPs Ethel Blondin and Jack Anawak. Robert Nault, the current Minister of Indian Affairs, was not a significant player. As Platform Co-chair, Paul Martin had an ongoing involvement in the development of the Aboriginal Platform and so did Eddie Goldenberg, Mr. Chrtiens Principal Secretary. We also had meetings with Mr. Chrtien to ensure he understood and agreed with the Platform. We discussed key aspects with him the inherent right of self-government, the federal trust responsibility, treaty issues and land claims. In the end, Paul Martin agreed with the Aboriginal Platform and so did Mr. Chrtien. The Aboriginal Platform was released in October 1993, as a stand alone document in Saskatoon. I remember very distinctly because I was on the campaign bus with the Leader the day it was released. The Platform was also a key element of the 1993 Redbook. The News Release announcing the Aboriginal Platform read: Liberal Leader Jean Chrtien declared today that a Liberal government will bring a new approach to relations with Aboriginal peoples. The cornerstone of our approach will be the recognition of the inherent right of self-government. The News Release went on: A Liberal government is committed to building a new partnership with Aboriginal peoples based on trust and mutual respect.

3

The Chrtien Record Though he is constantly boasting about his benevolence towards Aboriginal people, Chrtiens record says the opposite, especially when measured against the promises he made in the Aboriginal Platform of October 1993. When the Liberal Party was elected into power, Prime Minister Chrtien named Ron Irwin as Minister of Indian Affairs. In 1995, Irwin released the federal policy on self-government. Though it purported to fulfill the Aboriginal Platform commitment to recognize the inherent right of self-government, in fact, the policy was hollow. It recognized the existence of the inherent right in the abstract, but refused to recognize that First Nations actually possessed this right. The policy required First Nations to negotiate with the federal government before the right of self-government would be recognized or exercised. Moreover, the policy contained numerous conditions and restrictions on these negotiations. Contrary to the promises in the Aboriginal Platform, the federal self-government policy was developed without the consultation and cooperation of First Nations. Understandably, it was rejected by the Assembly of First Nations right after it was introduced. In 1996, in a manner similar to the present Nault FNGA initiative, Ron Irwin tried to amend the Indian Act against the wishes of First Nations. This was called the Indian Act Optional Modification Act. He did it without proper consultation and failed. Burning the 1993 Redbook I, and several other members of the Aboriginal Commission Marilyn Buffalo and Russell Diabo finally came to the conclusion that Mr. Chrtien did not intend to honor his promises in the Aboriginal Platform. So, we broke with the Liberal Party and denounced Chrtien for not honoring his election promises to First Nations. We joined Ovide Mercredi, then National Chief, in burning the Redbook. At the time, Finance Minister Paul Martin did not escape our criticism either, though I acknowledge that Indian Affairs was not his portfolio, and as such there were limits on what he could do to implement the Platform. The FNGA and the Suite of Legislation The FNGA is the most blatant breach of Chrtiens electoral commitments. Contrary to the promises made in the Aboriginal Platform, the FNGA is not based on recognition of the inherent right of self-government the Bill itself admits this in the preamble and in s. 3; and judging from all the demonstrations and opposition by First Nations, it is obvious that it is not based on trust or mutual respect. It is being touted as a means of bringing more accountability to First Nation governments. But this is false. The Bill contains reporting requirements that are presently contained in federal contribution agreements. The Auditor General in her 2002 Report was highly critical of the burdensome reporting requirements imposed on First Nations by the federal government:

4

A study of federal reporting requirements found that First Nations have to submit a total of 168 reports a year to four main funding organizations and most of the information is never used.

Since most First Nations are small, with 500 or fewer residents, and are often located in remote areas, these reporting requirements amount to a significant burden, and the consequences of not reporting can be severe. If reports are not filed on time, First Nations risk losing federal funds for the subsequent period.

The study describes extensive overlap and duplication among the reports required by many federal programs. Because reporting requirements are dictated by the federal government, rather than arrived at in consultation with First Nations, the requested information often does not reflect community priorities. To make matters worse, new reports are added with little or no consideration for existing requirements.

The Auditor General, speaking at a recent conference hosted by Indigenous Bar Association, also noted accountability must flow two ways: from First Nations to the federal government, and from the federal government to First Nations." A review of the other First Nation Bills currently before Parliament makes it clear that they also do not accord with the promises in the Aboriginal Platform. For example, the Platform says: A Liberal government will create, in cooperation with Aboriginal peoples, an independent claims commission for both specific and comprehensive claims. Its mandate will be jointly developed with Aboriginal peoples. However, the Specific Claims Resolution Act deals only with specific claims, not comprehensive claims which are claims base on Aboriginal title. The Chrtien government has steadfastly refused to modify the Comprehensive Claims Policy, which was last amended by the Mulroney government and has clearly been made out of date by Court decisions. Moreover, the Specific Claims Bill was not developed in cooperation with Aboriginal people. As a result, it has been rejected by the Assembly of First Nations. The AFN rejected the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act as well, because it is tied to the FNGA. The Chrtien Martin Kafuffle After being provoked into defending the First Nations Governance Bill when Paul Martin threatened not to implement it if it is passed into law and he becomes Prime Minister, Mr. Chrtien made it obvious that he is the real driving force behind the legislation, and not Bob Nault, the current Minister of Indian Affairs. The press was quick to jump to the defence of Nault, the Minister whose credibility is very questionable, because of his insistence on versions of reality not sustained in any way by the facts before us. For example, he insists that First Nations people were properly consulted on the FNGA, when reports from his own advisory committee question the validity of the consultations due to flaws in methodology. Moreover, he insists that First Nations people favor the legislation

5

in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary out of 201 presentations to the Parliamentary Standing Committee, 191 objected to the Bill and only 10 (including the Minister and his officials) approved of it. As the heat gets turned up from First Nation leaders, Nault is beginning to resemble the Iraqi Information Minister, because of his insistence on his version of reality, which bears no resemblance to the truth. But Bob Nault is really a minor player and a sideshow in this drama. He is simply the Prime Ministers spokesperson in delivering an unpalatable set of legislative reforms, which the Prime Minister paternalistically insists on imposing on First Nations people whether they like it or not, because he has decided it is good for them and because he was unable to impose it on them in 1969. The 1969 White Paper When Chrtien was Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969 under the Trudeau government, he introduced the infamous White Paper on Indian Policy. This was a policy proposal based on assimilation, which proposed to do away with reserves, Indian status and Native rights. It was a non-rights based approach to dealing with the so-called Indian problem, similar to the non-rights based agenda he promoted in his speech responding to the Throne Speech in 2001. The White Paper was resoundingly rejected by Indian leaders at the time and Trudeau had the good sense to withdraw it. It has often been hinted that Chrtien resented having his proposal withdrawn, which may explain his stubborn refusal to drop the FNGA. Indeed, it seems obvious that Chrtien never intended to drop it, not in 1969 and not even in 1993 when he was running for the leadership of the country. Yet, when he announced the Aboriginal Platform in Saskatoon, he showed a completely different face. Having observed Mr. Chrtiens conduct on Indian policy over the years, I believe that he refuses to admit the White Paper was wrong! Most recently, in 2001, when National Chief Matthew Coon Come spoke about racism in Canada during the Anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, Chrtien lamented that he tried to do away with reserves in 1969 presumably implying that this would have done away with the racism and the Indians objected. I also recall one instance in which the Aboriginal Peoples Commission put forward a motion to the Liberal Policy Convention in 1994, to the effect that the Party was disavowing the 1969 White Paper. We were summoned to Mr. Chrtiens office and chastised for putting forward such a resolution. Chrtien and Goldenberg tried to intimidate us into withdrawing the motion, but we refused. Why First Nations Oppose FNGA and the Other Legislative Proposals The pundits seem puzzled that the Bills now before Parliament are so strenuously opposed by First Nations. But Aboriginal peoples are no different that others in society to the extent that they expect politicians to live up to their promises. Indeed, because First Nations have a history

6

of promises to them being broken, they have even more reason to be distrustful and upset by more broken promises, especially from Chrtien. It is easy to dismiss the concerns and protests of Aboriginal people as yet another example of selfish Chiefs wanting to preserve their cosy situations. The reality is that these concerns and protests express the genuine and deep sense of continuing alienation of First Nation people, starting at the grassroots, in the face of the arrogant imposition of laws from on high, without adequate consultation, sensitivity, and respect. How else, to account for the fact that First Nation citizens have had to resort continually to the Courts for observance of Treaties made in good faith by their ancestors? How else to interpret the sad facts that the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples, and the 1993 Red Book Aboriginal Platform, have been left to gather dust on the governments shelves? Favours are not what we ask for but genuine consultation, participation and respect for our rights. What Will Become of the Chrtien Legacy? So what will become of Chrtiens First Nations legacy? Paul Martin is now the leadership contender and may very well become Prime Minister. Though he has been harshly criticized by the media for wading into the FNGA debate, I commend him for his intervention. In my view, his position is more true to the promises, which both he and Chrtien committed to in the 1993 Aboriginal Platform. In the criticism that has been leveled at him, it has been asked: if he differs from Nault, what is Martins plan? The answer is easy: the Aboriginal Platform of 1993. I assume that, unlike Chrtien, Martin feels some sense of obligation to the promises contained in that Platform. Most of them have never been meaningfully implemented, so Paul Martin may have a unique opportunity to fulfill them if he becomes Prime Minister. This may repair some of the damage that 10 years of Chrtien has caused. That is the best thing that could happen to the Chrtien legacy. - 30 - FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: David Nahwegahbow Office: (705) 753-9802, Cell: (613) 795-3145 Attachment copy of the Aboriginal Platform of October 1993.

[Originally Published in the FIRST NATIONS STRATEGIC BULLETIN Volume 1, Issue 3, August 1, 2003]Chrtiens Legacy: Betrayal and Broken Promises