|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
February 26, 2003 Newsletter on The Federal Suite of Legislation Winter 2003 – Issue 2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This newsletter is available for download in Word and PDF format. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Status of Bill C-7 / FNGA Bill C-7 was referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development, and Natural Resources (SCAA) on October 9, 2002 after first reading. The SCAA will hold hearings on the Bill. This is a departure from parliamentary procedure (see chart on page 3 ) that will presumably allow the Committee greater latitude in making amendments to the Bill and to provide the second round of ‘consultations’ to First Nations according to the Nault plan. When the hearings are completed, the Committee will submit a report to the House of Commons in April and send it to the Senate by early May. Committee Hearings: Both AFN and COO urged the committee to conduct extensive hearings in First Nations across the country to enable greater participation by our First Nations members. Instead, a limited schedule was selected. Hearings in 20 urban locations will be held; none will be held in First Nations community, yet another example of total disregard to First Nations who will bear the brunt of the legislative impacts. COO wrote a letter to the Committee expressing disappointment of the decision. Hearings in Ottawa started on January 27 to February 14, led by a presentation from the INAC Minister. Among other points, Minister Nault claimed he consulted with the elders and expressed dissatisfaction in the Chiefs rejection of the Penultimate Plan, November 2001. Most of the presenters selected for the Ottawa based hearings appear to be those who support the government agenda for First Nations and who will not be directly impacted by the proposed legislation. This observation raises questions regarding the independent status of the Standing Committee. Hearings across the country commenced in the west on February 16th. COO will make a presentation to the Committee in Thunder Bay on March 20th, 2003 regarding the principle of the bill not on specific amendments to the bill. Grand Chief Stan Beardy of Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Grand Chief Leon Jourdain of Grand Council Treaty #3 will also be making presentations. Hearings Schedule in Ontario: March 19, 2003 – Sudbury, March 20, 2003 – Thunder Bay, March 21, 2003 – Toronto |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Status of Bill C-6: Specific Claims Resolutions
Act In September, Bill C-6 was reintroduced in the House of Commons. At the Committee stage, the bill was rushed through the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in three days allowing testimonies in only three sittings. First Nations were only allocated 6.5 hrs. The National Chief and other First Nations were given five minutes to make their presentations. Many others were denied their requests. First Nations unanimously stated the bill is fundamentally flawed and inadequate; some proposed amendments to the bill. The majority of First Nations, stated the bill should be withdrawn in favour of negotiations with the Federal Government. The Liberals used its majority to ram Bill C-6 despite the opposition of First Nations. Strategies for the delay of this Bill are being implemented through a continuing lobby with the parliamentarians. Third reading is expected any day and then will proceed on to the Senate. The Chair of Senate Committee indicates the bill will be sent to her Committee by mid-March. The federal government states that the Specific Claims Resolution Act will set up a more efficient and fair process that will offer First Nations more choices than the current system. The new claims body will establish a Commission to facilitate and ensure good faith negotiations through dispute resolution mechanism, and a Tribunal to make binding decisions on the validity of grievances, compensation criteria and award compensation. Bill C-6 will establish a Tribunal to hear claims that cannot be settled at the Commission level, however, it will have very little authority to make binding decision for the federal government. Additionally, the Bill will not create an independent and impartial body to resolve the hug backlog of stalled claims. Wit the unilaterally determined cap of $7m on claims, the federal government will not be bound to compensate the majority of claims that are estimated to be more than $7m. The federal government will also control the pace of settlements and decisions. The Bill also adds a list of claims that cannot be filed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Status of Bill C-19: First Nations Fiscal
and Statistical Management Act The consultative draft First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act was unveiled at a Press Conference on August 15, 2002. The consultative draft was tabled in Parliament as Bill C-19 on December 2, 2002. The Bill has been on the order papers for Second Reading since February 5, 2003. Second reading vote is expected any day and then it will go to the Standing Committee in sequence after Bill C-7 is passed. If all goes according to the government’s plan, the SCAA will begin examining Bill C-19 in May. The federal government states that this proposed legislation will make First Nation communities more financially independent and attractive to investors by creating four fiscal institutions for First Nations: 1) Tax Commission 2) Financial Management Board 3) Finance Authority and 4) Statistical Institute. The FNFSMA, is consistent with the federal agenda behind the FNGA agenda. Canada does not want to deal with rights, especially the inherent right, and it doesn’t want to increase fiscal transfers to First Nations. Instead, the federal government blames the victim, the First Nations. The FNFSMA, like the FNGA, promotes on-reserve revenue collection (through taxation and own source revenue) and the imposition of tighter and tighter financial management rules. There is no mention of increased fiscal transfers or resource revenue sharing which is key for economic self-sufficiency. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Update on Chiefs of Ontario (COO) Lobbying
Activities January to February 2003 COO lobby efforts and political action continues to focus on the withdrawal of Bill C-7 and the suite of legislation in favour of our own alternatives supported by many recommendations made in the 1983 Penner Report, 1996 RCAP Report and current case law including Delgamuukw and Marshall Decisions. January 27, 2003 Meetings with Federal MPs Sue Barnes & Maria Minna January 30, 2003 Meeting with the Toronto Star Editorial Board February 1, 2003 Community Information Session on FNGA Batchewana First Nation February 4, 2003 Presentation – Lakehead University February 6, 2003 Meetings with MPs Allan Tonks & Shawn Murphy February 12, 2003 Meeting with MP Jim Peterson February 17, 2003 Meeting with the Chronicle Journal Editorial Board February 19, 2003 Presentation -Manitoba Keewatinowi OkimakanakThe Pas, Manitoba February 20 & 21, 2003 AFN Special Confederacy on INAC Suite of Legislation Ottawa, ON THANKS TO ALL ONTARIO CHIEFS & GRAND CHIEFS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE PARLIAMENTARY LOBBY SESSIONS ORGANIZED BY AFN & COO. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Committee Study of a Bill Before Second
Reading (Precis of Parliamentary Procedure) The adoption of the second reading motion for a bill defines the principle contained in the bill. This limits the scope of the amendments that can be made to the bill in committee and at report stage. By referring a bill to committee before the principle has been adopted, the House gives itself more flexibility to review and fine-tune the legislation. The committee will conduct its clause by clause examination of the bill subject to the same rules and procedures governing the committee study of bills after second reading. However, the scope of the amendments which can be made to the bill is much wider. At the conclusion of its study, the committee will report the bill to the House, with or without amendments. A combined report and second reading stage will follow. Members of the House can offer amendments to the legislation, just as at report stage after second reading. The same procedures for dealing with amendments will apply. When the bill has been concurred in and read a second time, it will go into third reading and passage at the next sitting of the House. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
First Nations are Already Accountable
The AG calls for a fundamental change, steps be taken to streamline
the First Nations reporting requirements and resources used to meet
reporting requirements be better used to provide direct support
to the community. The Auditor General’s report essentially
states that First Nations are doing more than an excellent job of
being accountable. However, this report is a double-edged sword.
In the government’s response to the Auditor General’s
Report, the First Nations Statistical Institute cited as a First
Nations led initiative will play a key role in improving the current
reporting structure. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information Sessions on FNGA The National Aboriginal Women’s Association (NAWA), a break off group of the Native Women’s Association of Canada and established fifteen months ago as a policy and research organization, is conducting FNGA Information Sessions across the country. NAWA states they do not have a political position, and the information sessions are intended to enable women to make informed decisions on the FNGA and are not for political debate. The NAWA power point presentations appear to be similar to the INAC presentations given at the $5,000 Information Sessions offered by INAC. Mileage and childcare subsidies are being provided to interested women. It appears that INAC is trying to build an historical record in anticipation of the many inevitable legal challenges against the legitimacy of the fundamentally flawed FNGA if rammed through by this majority government. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HOW A BILL BECOMES LAWTHE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis of Federal Governments Phase I
Consultation on FNGI in Ontario (May – November 2001) Ontario has the largest status Indian population, both on and off
reserve at 157,062 in Canada. The 445 participants at .3% of the
total status Indian population in Ontario out of the 10,000 who
were purportedly consulted is not representative of the First Nations
populations across Canada. This under weighting of Ontario at close
to half a percentage point (.3%) of the total status Indian population
is a serious deficiency. This is further compromised by the .07%
of the on-reserve population that were consulted; this is less than
half a percentage point. In Ontario, the duty to consult as required
by Supreme Court decisions was not met and is supported by the attached
analysis of the consultation summary reports available on the government’s
web site. The analysis shows the following key points:
SUMMARY OF TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
*(OMAA) Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association - This organization, the provincial arm of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, was retained to conduct off-reserve/urban consultations after First Nations refused hearings in their communities. This is problematic because it appears INAC is employing an organization that primarily represents Metis to advance their First Nation legislative agenda. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosie S. Mosquito, Senior Policy Advisor, Chiefs of Ontario: Phone 807-626-9339 or Sara Neuert, A/Executive Director, Chiefs of Ontario: Phone 519-750-1016 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
