Introduction
The Framework Agreement Initiative (FAI) was a historic agreement to restore self-governing jurisdiction to First Nations in Manitoba and, ultimately, dismantle the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND).
Signed on December 7, 1994 by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and DIAND Minister Ron Irwin, the agreement aimed to establish a framework and 10-year process to address the issues of land management, economic development, and self-governance for First Nations in the province.
The Framework Agreement Initiative’s objectives included:
- Develop and recognize First Nations governments in Manitoba as legally empowered to exercise authority to meet the needs of the peoples of the First Nations.
- To restore to First Nations the jurisdiction (including those of other federal departments that are consistent with the right of self-government).
- To dismantle the existing structures of the DIAND as they affect First Nations in Manitoba.
- To remain consistent with the inherent right of self-government.
While dismantling DIAND, or otherwise changing its role with First Nations, was considered a long-term goal, the signatories agreed the priority of the FAI was self-government and correcting an “injustice that has been institutionalized by government for 125 years.”
Stakeholders on both sides of the agreement sought self-determination for First Nations including the development of government structure, the creation of infrastructure in communities, stable financing, access to natural resources, and education and training for a sustainable workforce. By all measures, the FAI was considered an ambitious community development effort to address the need for healing and capacity building in First Nations.
Crucially, self-government would be based on First Nations culture, traditions, and language including key roles for Elders in discussions and decision-making regarding how self-government could be implemented. While deeply grounded in traditional First Nations culture, and maintaining the protection of treaty rights as a central tenet, self-determination and self-government would adjust to meet modern conditions.
However, the inherent complexity of the underlying issues combined with high expectations for the FAI on a short, fixed timeline, competing and sometimes shifting concerns and interests, slow progress, difficulty setting priorities, and lack of commitment and funding on the part of the federal government led to eventual dissolution of the agreement.
In January 2007, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs voted to dissolve the agreement, citing an absence of federal commitment to the process and concerns about negotiations after the Conservative government took over in January 2006.
As noted in the AMC statement on the 2023 Federal Budget, nearly two decades after Canada agreed to the FAI process, the federal government has yet to commit to a new fiscal relationship between Canada and First Nations in Manitoba.
Demise of the FAI: Differing Needs and a Lack of Continuity
Within its first two years, at least three of the 60 First Nations that had signed the agreement withdrew their participation. Reasons for withdrawal included concern self-government was not the top priority considering ongoing difficulties associated with delivering much-needed basic services. There was also concern self-government would ultimately lead to reduced federal funding for basic programs and services needed by First Nations citizens.
By 1997, the chief architects of the FAI – Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and Minister Ron Irwin – had moved onto different roles. Compounding their early departure was a lack of continuity within AMC Grand Chief leadership throughout the lifespan of the initiative. Changing leadership among First Nations, coupled with the shifting economic fortunes and politics of Liberal and Conservative federal governments, also contributed to the agreement’s demise.
The agreement also suffered considerable year-over-year shifts in workplan priorities that slowed momentum. In its first year, the FAI established administrative structures, built awareness in First Nations, conducted research, and identified four program areas (Education, Fire and Emergency Services, Capital, and Child and Family Services) to initially transfer authority to First Nations.
By its second year, however, a sense First Nations were not sufficiently informed or involved resulted in a return to Nation consultations. This change triggered a shift in the FAI budget and staffing which limited the ability of to conduct research required for ongoing negotiations and key activities.
While there were several accomplishments in the second year — including interviews with Elders, key reports, and development of communication strategies — several important targets in the workplan were not achieved. These included developments in health, justice, the environment, and economic development.
By the agreement’s third year, negotiations over the expedited items had stalled.
It was evident the two parties had highly different expectations of how the FAI goals could be met, with DIAND focussing on deliverable products while the AMC considered capacity-building with institutions and human resources as important.
Review and Refocus
The FAI included a schedule for a Joint Review Committee, consisting of representatives of AMC and DIAND, to evaluate and review progress at the end of the third, sixth, and tenth years. The only review known to have taken place occurred in 1999.
That review – which included Chiefs and Nation coordinators, Executive Directors of Tribal Councils, and First Nations citizens among its respondents – identified key characteristics that would ultimately limit the agreement’s success, which included:
- Deeply entrenched historical mistrust between First Nations people and the federal government.
- A fear of loss (e.g., treaty rights, traditional culture, or benefits distributed by DIAND) and uncertainty of how a new system of self-government would protect the rights of First Nations citizens, ensure resource sharing, entrench accountability of leaders, address the loss of some sources of revenue and economic development opportunities, and support natural resource management and program development.
- A concern day-to-day issues such as housing, health, and education, were a more important priority than the development of self-government, at least in the short-term.
- First Nations ‘readiness’ and ability (politically, socially, and economically) to transfer to self-government.
These concerns, along with the failure to develop a joint relationship between the AMC and the federal government, the diminished role and responsibilities for DIAND in the FAI, and strained lines of communication led to the characterization of the FAI relationship between the two parties as “Two Dichotomies.” Without a sense of shared direction, the FAI process became increasingly adversarial.
Inadequate and inconsistent funding to properly implement the ambitions laid out in the Framework Agreement Initiative, a lack of meaningful consultation with First Nations, differing views on the FAI and the parties’ commitment to it, and the sheer scope of the agreement itself also became key determinants in its eventual failure.
Ultimately, the decision to end negotiations was grounded in the belief the Framework Agreement Initiative did not actually meet the needs of First Nations and failed to properly address land rights, sovereignty, and the ongoing impacts of colonialism. Above and beyond the agreement’s shortcomings, very little progress was made despite the considerable efforts by the individual teams within AMC and DIAND.
The lack of shared vision and trust, and stalled progress, combined into far too large an obstacle for the agreement’s success. By the time the AMC voted to dissolve the agreement, distrust and disillusionment had replaced the energy and optimism that had come together a decade prior.