A legal opinion prepared for First Nations includes a clear warning that the Indian Affairs plans for changing the Indian Act - including the First Nations Governance proposal and a joint AFN/Indian Affairs work plan are threats to Aboriginal rights.

The November 29, 2001 legal opinion was written by the law firm Nahwegahbow, Nadjiwan, Corbiere for the Chiefs of Ontario. It concludes, " The FNG Proposal if enacted into law will potentially infringe upon First Nation Aboriginal and Treaty rights, namely the inherent right of self-government. The Penultimate Draft establishes a process for the Crown to carry out consultations in respect of this Proposal in a manner, which does not contain adequate safeguards for First Nations."

The legal opinion also concludes the joint AFN/Indian Affairs work plan does not reflect what First Nations chiefs agreed to, " In light of the AFN Charter and given the terms and the spirit of the Resolution of the Chiefs-in-Assembly of July 17, 18 and 19, 2001, the Penultimate Draft does not conform to the Resolution because: first, it does not reject the FNG Proposal but rather provides for its continuation; second, it does not give inherent rights priority over the FNG Proposal and does not directly link work and approval on the FNG Proposal with implementation of inherent rights; and third, it does not define the criteria and high standard of conduct for consultation and justification."

First it was the Union of BC Indian Chiefs to reject the AFN - Indian Affairs co-operative work plan deal. Now the Chiefs of Ontario reaffirmed their opposition to the federal government's First Nations Governance Agreement - " the Initiative of Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault - and the so-called Penultimate draft work plan negotiated between the Assembly of First Nations AFN and the Department of Indian Affairs is unacceptable at this point in time."

Ontario Regional Chief Charles Fox said, " What we have here are amendments to the Indian Act which threaten First Nations Inherent and Treaty Rights and which are contrary to the resolution passed at the Chiefs Assembly in Halifax last July."

The Ontario Chiefs issued their statement again in preparation for the AFN Confederacy meeting beginning Tuesday, December 3 in Ottawa. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs, the Interior Alliance and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have taken the same stance against the Draft Agreement.

The political rift has been growing for some time over Indian Affairs efforts to win First Nation support for plans to change the Indian Act.

The Union of BC Indian Chiefs accused the Assembly of First Nations of " buying into" Indian Affairs' First Nations Governance Initiative.

In a sharply worded letter November 28th, 2001 to National Chief Matthew Coon Come, UBCIC President Chief Stewart Phillip continued to challenge the AFN's process for dealing with the governance issues. He referred to the Co-operative AFN-DIAND draft work plans that he calls "watered down" and do not live up to the resolutions passed by the at the AFN gathering in Halifax earlier this year.

In fact, Chief Phillip strongly suggested that Indian Affairs' staff have had too much influence in the drafting of the documents. He says there is "an appearance of immediate action" in the work plans but in fact their contents are "vague and uncertain".

In the past Chief Phillip accused the AFN leadership of conducting business behind closed doors with Indian Affairs officials rather than following the guidance of the chiefs and their instructions.

Those opposed to the Governance Proposal and Robert Nault's agenda, liken the situation today to 1969 and Jean Chretien's infamous White Paper, when he was Minister of Indian Affairs.