Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
AFN
launches class action lawsuit
Windspeaker:
September 6, 2005 - page 8.
By
Paul Barnsley
Senior Writer
OTTAWA:
National Chief Phil Fontaine
called a press conference on
Aug.
4 to announce
the Assembly of
First Nations (AFN) would
launch a class action lawsuit
against the
federal government on
behalf of residential school survivors.
The
statement of claim was
filed with the Ontario
and
Alberta courts the next day.
AFN
sources
say
the announcement
came just days
after a letter was received
from the
ministry of Justice stating
there
would be no guarantee the AFN
would play a central role in the
implementation
of the federal
governments compensation
plan
for school survivors, no matter
what
it may have said in the political accord signed by the
national chief and Deputy Prime
Minister
Anne McLellan
in
May.
There was no mention of that
letter during the press conference.
Sources close to the
Fontaine
administration say the national
chief does not believe it
is in
the
best
interests of survivors to take
on the government directly in
public. The national chief passed
up several opportunities to criticize
the
government. Instead, he
repeated a few key
talking points
throughout the press
conference.
We have filed a class action suit because we want to secure a place at the table, Fontaine said. We want to establish some certainty in the process, that the views of the Assembly of First Nations will be considered as an essential matter in whatever agreement is concluded.
It
appears, based on the number of times the national
chief
mentioned the
need to
secure a place at
the table and
that the AFNs views must be considered essential or central,
that there might be
some doubts as to
whether thats
what will
happen.
But when
questioned about this, he
stayed
away from suggesting he anticipated
trouble.
He
was asked if the lawsuit
shouldnt be
interpreted as a sign
theres a lack
of trust in the federal
government.
No, he replied. This is really about
ensuring that higher
degree of certainty that commitments
that
were made are considered
in
the
same light that we are considering them.
Fontaine admitted the AFN did
not have rock solid, unquestioned
status as a stakeholder in the current
negotiation process that will lead to
an eventual compensation plan. He
said the lawsuit was designed to
remedy
that.
We
want to go beyond
consultation. We actually
want to
be engaged in the negotiations
around
all of the elements around
this issue. Were not convinced that our
place
at
the table
is
as
secure
as
other
interests at the table and we felt that we had to do this,
he
said.
The national chief said the AFN
lawsuit
would be seeking $12
billion. The people
making up the
class include all
living survivors and all
all First Nation
community
members.
Fontaine, who will be
one of the
representative
plaintiffs in the action,
estimated
that would involve close to 750,000 people.
Were taking about the people I represent, First
Nations people, as well as other Aboriginal people we wish to invite to this
process,
he said.
While there has
.
often been controversy
about just how representative the AFN is some say that it
is
only the
lobbying presence in Ottawa for
the
more than 600 chiefs across
the country who represent the
true First Nation governments
Fontaine claimed he represents
all First
Nations people.
We negotiated the agreement
with the federal government. By
we I mean the Assembly of First
Nations. There are a number of
significant
commitments in the
political agreement and we
believe that those commitments
will be honored by the federal
government, he said. As you
know, theyre
represented in this
process by Mr. Justice Frank
Iacobucci. The Assembly of First
Nations is not the only party at
the table. There are other interests
represented at the table. We are
the only party that represents
government. The political
agreement that was
concluded on
May 30 was government to government. The Assembly of
First Nations representing First
Nations
governments and the federal government.
One might have expected the
legal community to be angry about the AFN
lawsuit, which
could be seen as an
intrusion into
their jurisdiction. But Calgary lawyer Vaughn Marshall,
who
said he
was
speaking on behalf of
his clients 620 claimants from
the Blood and Peigan reserves
and not as an official spokesman
for the consortium of lawyers
involved in the Baxter class action, criticized the AFN
decision to litigate based on the
idea that it represented the
interests of chiefs rather than all
First Nation citizens. Marshall has
been
involved in residential
school litigation
since 1997. He
is also involved in
the Baxter class
action. He said his clients just dont see the AFN as
their representative.
Compensation scrap begins (Continued from page 8)
The AFN is not and has never been the representative of grassroots Aboriginal people in this country. The AFN is a lobby group that represents the interests of band leaders, not the voices of ordinary Aboriginal people, Vaughn Marshall said in an unsolicited email message to this publication.
Marshall said the AFN wants to butt in to the court system at the last minute and apparently exploit the work of the lawyers and the decades of work they have collectively put into the residential school lawsuits.
The AFN seems to want to play the central role in resolving the legal cases with the federal government, yet, ironically, the AFN looks to this very same government to provide it with the funding it needs to exist, he added.
The lawyer said the newly filed class action is likely to cause problems, not create solutions, and will directly interfere with what the grassroots Aboriginal victims want most, prompt settlement. The class action is disruptive and is unlikely to be approved by, the court and the AFNs proceeding with its class action in the face of these obstacles will surely cause serious delay, exactly what the grassroots victims do not want.
He argued that the survivors do not want their compensation money diverted in any way to programs or administration.
The money must go directly to survivors and not he diverted into the funding of programs programs that are likely to never benefit the victims who were abused in the boarding schools. Every dollar in settlement monies that goes towards funding a program means less money for the victims who are entitled to being directly paid money damages for the abuse they suffered in these schools, he said.
The objections of lawyers, who in some cases stand to make up to 40 per cent of any final court settlement, will be scrutinized with some suspicion. But individual survivors have repeatedly told the national chief he doesnt speak for them.
Im saying that they dont represent me, said Ray Mason.
Mason lives on the Peguis territory in Manitoba. He is chairman of Spirit Wind, a Manitoba organization of residential school survivors. He is also on the board of the national survivors organization. As a member of the two groups, he said he is line for two meetings with the federal governments representative over the next few weeks.
Mason said Frank Iacobucci has sent us a letter of acknowledgement and he looks forward to meeting with us and discussing various options of what we thought the compensation should be.
The numbers put forward by the AFN will not be what the survivors put forward at those meetings.
Were not in total agreement with the 10 and three [$10,000 lump sum, plus $3,000 per year in the schools] because each claim is different. A lot of our Elders here in Manitoba are extremely upset with the 10 and three. Thats simply because there were no grassroots people having any input in the process, Mason said.
He called the AFN proposal the absolute lowest it should get.
What were recommending is a formula of $25,000 [lump sum payment] plus $10,000 [for each year in the schools]. We think Iacobucci should work between those two numbers, he added.
Mason said he doesnt trust the deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. He pointed out that she vehemently supported the governments alternative dispute resolution process before the standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs and said the government had no plans to change tactics just weeks before she announced the deal with the AFN to do just that.
I never did have any faith in Ms. McLellan because of the remarks she made at the standing committee, said Mason.
And he strongly agrees with Marshall that there is a serious disconnect between the First Nation leadership and the grassroots people.
I totally agree with that because, if anything, AFN should be reaching out and calling for participation from the grassroots people and theyre not doing that. It seems like they want to take over the process because theres money there all of a sudden, he said.
Masons point of view is not the only one. Another national survivors group board member, former chief Ted Quewezance, said the AFN class action gives survivors one more option and thats a good thing. He said too many lawyers have amassed sizeable client lists and are not doing an adequate job of representing the survivors.
With all the questions about who speaks for First Nations and what the status of the AFN is in these crucial negotiations, Windspeaker sent a long list of questions co Anne McLellans office seeking to get clarification on how the minister and her government view the AFN. None of the questions were dealt with directly.
I think the governments commitments to the AFN to ensure they are at the centre of the process have been clear. in terms of what we have committed to do, it is in black and white in the documents released, said Alexander Swann, spokesman for McLellan.
Paul Barnsley
Senior Writer