Recent federal government actions show it was not forthcoming in late August and early September 2003, when it cited its upcoming priority or "must" bills to the public. At that time, there was no mention that Bills C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, or Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act, were on the list of the top bills for Parliamentary debate and passage. But quietly and sneakily, it made both bills appear suddenly on Parliamentary schedules for substantial debate.

In the case of C-19, it is scheduled for debate over three days during the week of Oct. 6-10. Government actions on C-6 indicate a big push to have it out of the Senate by Oct. 23 leaving the House of Commons two weeks to consider expected Senate amendments to the Bill. Nov. 7 is widely expected to be the last day of Parliamentary business and any bills not passed by that date will have to start the process all over again when Parliament resumes.

Lobbying efforts by Chiefs have created more debate in the Senate on C-6 than the Government liked or expected. Bill C-19 is also receiving a rough ride but the Government seems determined to ram it through despite majority First Nations objections. The small but determined group of Chiefs lobbying to date has made an impression on MPs and Parliamentarians have noted the recent increase of letters, faxes and emails demanding both bills be stopped. Precious House and Senate debating time is now the focus for the few supporters and the majority opponents of the bills. Chiefs are urged to continue sending letters and other forms of communication outlining their objections to MPs and Senators, in particular, to Paul Martin. The main message to the Prime Minister-to-be is that he can make moves now publicly and/or behind the scenes to ensure he does not inherit the mess of political and legal action if C-19 and C-6 pass. First Nations still have a chance to prevent passage of the bills if political action is increased over the next few weeks.

On Sept. 30 2003, the Senate's only First Nations Senator, Aurlien Gill, an Innu from Quebec, made a passionate intervention to stop a motion supported by the Government sponsor of Bill C-6 that would have limited debate on the Bill. The Senate had asked the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to review the impact on Bill C-6 of the recent Supreme Court Powley decision on Metis rights. The motion was introduced only an hour and a half into the debate and following testimony from only two Government witnesses. Senator Gill objected strenuously with a rare direct attack questioning Parliamentary democracy in Canada when it comes to First Nations matters. He said, "I want to know the rules of the game for this committee. Are you making up the rules as you go along or are you following ethical rules, for example, hearing from the people who want to talk? We still have another witness to hear from (this evening) and we have submitted a complete list of other witnesses. This motion means that you refuse the right of these people to speak to the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. You refuse the right of these people to speak while we were supposed to have a few days to hear the additional witnesses. Is that Canadian democracy? I want to know on what you (the Chair) and Senators Austin and Carney base yourselves to put a gag, to bulldoze over the people who want to speak here, in the Aboriginal room, in the room of the First Nations in our country? By what right do you arrogate to do this? (The Senate several years ago refurbished one of its Committee rooms along a First Nations theme.) Senator Gill was supported by others. Emotional outbursts and strong speeches followed that expressed the vigorous opposition to shut hearings down early. During hearings on Oct. 1, the Chair indicated the motion would be considered only after the last witness had been heard, due Oct. 7.

Four witnesses were heard on C-6 during the week of Sept. 29 - Oct. 3. They were officials from Indian Affairs (INAC) and the Privy Council Office (PCO), Larry Chartrand, law professor at the University of Ottawa and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), represented by Brian Schwartz and Roger Jones. INAC and PCO said it's too early to determine the full impact of the Powley decision, that Powley will certainly change the landscape, but it is about Aboriginal rights and C-6 and Federal specific claims process have nothing to do with Aboriginal rights and that the Federal Government never had exclusive responsibility for Metis or Inuit.

Professor Chartrand said the Powley decision has a significant indirect impact on C-6, that it recognizes Metis have full status as Aboriginal people and that Metis are likely to use Powley to launch court action to challenge C-6 as being unconstitutional on grounds of equality because it does not offer Metis equal access that First Nations have to a process to resolve their land claims. He recommended an amendment to add Metis to the definition section to ensure Metis are eligible under the C-6 process.

On Oct. 2, the AFN representatives read a letter from National Chief Fontaine into the record. It says C-6 is unacceptable and it leaves the door open to returning to negotiations with the AFN to develop acceptable legislation. AFN also urged that C-6 be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further review of the many legal and constitutional issues that have yet to be fully discussed by the Senate. The AFN supports the "reasonable and just responses to the just claims of all Aboriginal peoples including the Metis and Inuit" and it emphasized the main responsibility for resolving Metis claims rests with the provincial governments. However, the AFN does not support making the Metis eligible for any First Nations specific claims resolution process. The AFN warned legal and political challenges would ensue if the unjust bill were passed into law. It stressed as well that the AFN's role in a new specific claims regime must be recognized.

Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, remains ready for debate on a report from Committee with amendments. Many observers speculate C-7 is finished. However, it is not dead, only dormant.

The presence of Chiefs in the Parliamentary galleries observing debates and informally talking to Parliamentarians is having a marked effect. MPs and Senators are very conscious that they are being watched and that they will be held accountable. Much remains to be done and maximum political action over the next few weeks is crucial. Pease call the Chiefs of Ontario office to schedule your tour of duty in Ottawa.