June 5, 2001

Honourable Robert Nault
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
21st Floor, Suite 2100
10 Wellington Street
Hull, Quebec
K1A 0H4

Dear Mr. Nault:

RE: RESOLUTION 02/01 - “CHIEFS OF ONTARIO NATION-TO-NATION
POSITION (NATIONAL REFERENDUM REGARDING GOVERNANCE
BILL)”

Please find attached a copy of the above-noted Resolution 02/01 passed at the Special Assembly in Ottawa last month. As you know, the focus of the Special Chiefs Assembly was on the proposed First Nations Governance Act.

The Resolution deals with two inter-related issues. First, there is a critique of federal funding policy for First Nation governments. Second, there is a critique of the substance of the proposed First Nations Governance Act (FNGA) and its consultation process. On both matters, the Resolution proposes practical and positive bilateral approaches.

First, on the fiscal front, the Resolution takes exception to the apparent federal assumption that funds flowing to First Nations are merely “tax dollars” or “public dollars”. In particular, this assumption underlies the accountability provisions of the current INAC funding agreements and the Governance Initiative. In contrast, the First Nation perspective is that the funds are a partial payment on rents, royalties, and other entitlements due under the Treaties. The Resolution is also critical of the ongoing restriction on funding levels for First Nations, in spite of federal surpluses and the fiscal recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). As a first step in the right direction, the Resolution calls for a “nation-to-nation review” of funding levels, based on legal obligations, inflation, population increase, and other factors. To my knowledge, this kind of comprehensive review is not being conducted in any existing or national process.

Second, Resolution 02/01 is critical of the Governance Initiative. With regard to substance, the proposed First Nations Governance Act is inconsistent with the inherent right of self-government. The increased red tape or micro-management philosophy of the proposed Act will hinder the development of First Nation governments. This is especially true in view of the ongoing restriction of basic funding levels. With regard to process, the Resolution is critical of the compressed consultation time-frame before the tabling of the Bill in Parliament. Also, it seems that Canada will not accept “no” as an answer from elected First Nation governments, instead proceeding on the assumption that the proposed Act is supported by the grass roots of First Nation citizens. This is evidenced by your official response to the position taken on the proposed FNGA at the National Confederacy of Chiefs in Vancouver, May 8-10, 2001. Assuming that the federal agenda does not change, the Resolution challenges INAC to participate in a national independent referendum of First Nation citizens on the legal text of the FNGA. Such a referendum would be consistent with INAC policy on accountability and would fairly test the INAC assertion that there is a dis-connect between First Nation governments and citizens on the content of the Bill. My view, of course, is that there is no such dis-connect.

A substantive response to the Resolution would be greatly appreciated. The Resolution is not merely critical, but sets out pragmatic approaches on the related issues of restricted funding and the proposed FNGA. Your response may be an important input for the All Ontario Chiefs Conference (AOCC) of June 26-28, 2001 in the Walpole First Nation traditional territory.

Sincerely,

CHIEFS OF ONTARIO
Charles D. Fox
Ontario Regional Chief

Attachment

cc. Ontario Political Confederacy