Four Arrows Newsletter On FNEA

e-notes> from fourarrows@rogers.
com 13 February 2014 Edition
A Tweaked Education Act Readied for Passage;

High-Level Government Attempts to Co-opt Support
Canadas Federal Budget 2014 and the New First Nations Education Act
Thanks to APTN National News for information news@aptn.ca @APTNNews Ottawa, 11 February 2014 Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty began his 2014 Budget message with a tribute to the settlers, the men and women who carved this great country of the wilderness nearly 150 years ago. As for First Nations, there is no new funding for education or anything else for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. But the message prominently promised that if Parliament passes a bill called First Nations Control of First Nation Education Act there is a promise of money in 2016. Deciding if that package is stick or if it is carrot is not easy. Apparently if First Nation chiefs do not support proposed legislation governing the operation of on-reserve schools. No Act, no money. Federal officials said the $1.25-billion has already been set aside in the fiscal framework, but it wont be released until after the legislation passes. As the message put it, We have invested in apprenticeship programs and measures to increase the numbers of people with disabilities, young people and Aboriginal Canadians in the workforce by helping them find the job training they need. But there is more we can and will do ... that is why the Prime Minister announced more than $1.9 billion in new funding to implement the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. And that was the beginning and end of any mention of aboriginal people in the budget. The budget offered no new details on the education agreement announced Friday thus far only spoken about but with neither the government nor the AFN releasing a copy of the Agreement.
The biggest chunk of new money, $1.25-billion for core education funding over three years, will only begin flowing in 2016 after the next federal election. If the legislation is passed, First Nations will get the money in addition to the roughly $1.5-billion Ottawa already spends yearly on core education funding, according to federal officials speaking on background. The additional money will amount to roughly $417million per year for three years. In addition, a 4.5% escalator will apply to the total amount after the first year, federal officials said. The funding will also be enshrined in the legislation, providing stable and predictable statutory funding. Critics point that even those numbers will still not provide funding for First Nation students equal to what the same students would be provided for in the provincial systems. Federal officials said existing education program funding from sources like the New Paths for Education, First Nation Student Success Program and Education Partnership Program, will be rolled into an overall core funding stream. The budget is silent on when the new legislation is expected to surface for tabling. Previously, the government had said it wanted the Bill whisked through House committees and debate, then Senate committees and debate, all before March 31 so it would apply with the opening of the school year in September. The federal budget also repeated Fridays announcement of a $500-million over seven years First Nations Education Infrastructure Fund Ottawa is promising for the building and upkeep of schools beginning next year. The infrastructure funding is a continuation of the $175million over three years announced in last years budget. The infrastructure dollars still fall far short of estimates that range a little over $2-billion a year to get reserve
<e-notes> PM Harper Calls Weird Lightning Meeting at Kainai To Announce Agreement With AFN on Education an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 13 February 2014 Edition
-2-
schools up to acceptable standards, according to a Parliamentary Budget Office report from 2009. As previously announced, Ottawa will also provide $160million over four years beginning in 2015 for an Enhanced Education Fund transitional funding to implement the proposed legislation. Part of that money will be used to create First Nations Education Authorities. The creation of these authorities has created concern. The First Nations Education Council, which includes 22 Quebec First Nations as members, called these authorities federal agencies and said the proposed bill would not really give First Nations control over their education. The proposed bill still carries some of the main aims of its previous incarnation, known as the First Nations Education Act which was strenuously opposed by many chiefs, including the creation of minimum education standards consistent with provincial standards and establishing roles for First Nation education administrators while requiring annual reporting on outcomes and performance. First Nations already agree to meet provincial standards in existing financial contribution agreements with Indian Affairs. Federal officials said the fine details of the proposed new education bill still need to be worked out through discussions between the Assembly of First Nations and Indian Affairs. AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo, however, said Friday that he believes that the agreement that gave birth to the renamed bill signals a turning point in the relationship between First Nations and the Crown. Ottawa sees it in a similar vein. For this young and fast-growing population, this is a game-changer, said the budget document. The federal government is also pledging to invest $323 million to improve and construct water and waste-water infrastructure on reserves over the next two years. Ottawa will also be investing $40 million over five years beginning in 2015 to improve disaster management and mitigation on reserves. The budget also includes resources for broadband connectivity in rural and northern communities, the First Nations Commercial Fisheries Initiatives, a two-year renewal of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy and resources aimed at ending violence including violence against Indigenous women and girls.
The AFN Take on the Budget An AFN media release after the budget message welcomed the announcement of new, significant and secured funding for First Nations education as a foundation for building stronger First Nations citizens, communities and governments. National Chief Atleo stands with all First Nations in continuing the press for investments in other priority areas that will achieve success for First Nations and all Canadians based on fairness and opportunity. He called the February 7 Kainai announcement coupled with the budget as the beginning of a new era in First Nations education. "First Nations have rejected unilateral control by the government and are ready to articulate their vision of First Nations control of First Nations education," said the National Chief. <<<<>>>>
Thanks to Jorge Barrera, APTN National News Rosemary Barton, CBC Power and Politics Bill Graveland,, Canadian Press; Mark Kennedy, Postmedia Karina Roman, CBC News Olesia Palaki, iPolitics and many others
<e-notes> is published as a service of Four Arrows/Las Cuatro Flechas, providing communications among First Nations of the Americas since 1968. Names may be added to the distribution list on requests; names will be removed on request. Four Arrows receives no funding to provide this service. Readers are invited to send material for publication in <e-notes>.
-3-
There was a lot of whistling in the dark at Kainai High School on the Blood Reserve in Treaty 7 Territory on February 7. Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose a Friday location in an out-of-the way location to set out what he called a great day for Canada. The occasion was historic. For his part, AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo said, Today is about fairness, opportunity and hope for First Nations children, youth and students, said Atleo. The beginning of a new era for First Nations children! Today is a victory! Hooray! Horray! Horray! The details were far less shiny. There would be no increase in funding until 2016. Then there would be three years of $417-million each. And the money seems to be connected with passage of a First Nation Control of First Nation Education which looks pretty much like the almost universally rejected draft proposal tabled by Minister Bernard Valcourt last October. The gloss, glamour and glitter seemed not to have fooled the public, nor First Nations nor television media, which seemed aggressive and caustic in questioning the statements of the three proponents. Print media, on the other hand, generally reprinted the governments media release without reading further to see if the contents were the same as what was on the label. The event took place at a high school on the Blood reserve in southern Alberta, a two-hour drive south of Calgary. Watching the pageantry were some 300 federal officials, police, media and invited guests. The invitations bore the names of Prime Minister Harper, National Chief Atleo, and Minister Bernard Valcourt. The governments announcement claimed it had unveiled a retooled education plan for First Nations which it says recognizes aboriginal control over schooling. The plan calls for reserve schools to have minimum standards consistent with provincial standards off-reserve. It also says students will have to meet attendance requirements and teachers will have to be properly certified. There was no mention about what will happen to students who play hookey, but the Act will provide that is a school doesnt meet the standards set by the Minister, he can send in a third-party manager to take over the education system until there is compliance.
photo by Enn Collins, CBC
Prime Minister Stephen Harper & Friends at Kainai High School
Ottawa is to provide funding for core education, which includes language and cultural instruction, of $1.25-billion split over three years and not starting until 2016. Theres a provision for a cap of a 4.5% annual increase in place of the 2% cap imposed in 1996. Another $500-million divided up over seven years is to go toward infrastructure and $160-million over four years is set aside for implementation. The first problem with analyzing these numbers is compared to what? How much is being spent now on core education? There are 518 schools with 120,000 students to divvy up the money, a third of it for each year.That would be $3,475 per student, on average. As for the infrastructure, the money would provide $138,000 on average for each of the seven years for each school, $600 a year per student. Atleo called the deal the beginning of a new era for First Nations children. Today is a victory for First Nations leaders and citizens who have for decades, indeed since the first generation of residential school survivors, called for First Nations control of First Nations education. "Today is about ... fairness, opportunity and hope for First Nations children, youth and students," said Atleo. Outside the school Friday, nine protesters carried signs from the Idle No More movement. Inside, one woman briefly interrupted a ceremonial paddle-signing by Harper and the national chief. Shannon Houle said she represented people of Alberta's Saddle Lake Cree Nation and of Treaty 6.
-4-
"We object to this agreement and I must make that public to let Canada know that not every First Nation has been consulted or has been part of these negotiations," she stood up and yelled. Atleo took the interruption in stride. "Your words are heard and respected," Atleo said. "What has been said here is correct. I am not the prime minister of Indians. My role is to support, acknowledge and respect that all First Nations have their rights." The Blue Dot Movement
I'm disgusted,"she said. That is why I started that blue dot series for grassroots people to reclaim their right to speak out, for the masses of people who are not able to influence decisions. For all of us who disagree, who want change, who stand up for change. Throughout history we have been considered the rebels for protecting land and speaking out. Ms. Belcourts idea struck a responsive chord. A blue dot movement has taken the Twittersphere and Facebook by storm as photographs of Indigenous people with a blue dot on their chest are being posted on social media. Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Opposes
Actually, such inconvenient moments were not supposed to occur. Admission at the door was carefully controlled by security. Those wanting in were divided into two groups: one which would find themselves in the main room within the presence of the Prime Minister, and the others would be shuffled over to a gymnasium where they could watch the spectacle on a huge LCD screen. Those directed to the inner sanctum were given ID with yellow dots. Everyone else was given a blue dot, which they would find out as they headed to see the event would get them to the gym. Cell phones were not permitted, so no news could go out. When artist Christi Belcourt heard about this social triage, she began posting blue dots on old photographs of indigenous people. She said it was a gut reaction. I'm claiming the blue dot for us as a mark of pride. We are the uninvited and I reject the essence of what that means in its entirety within my being.
The $1.25-billion announced by Prime Minister Harper is not coming fast enough. First Nations education programs are experiencing a $355 million shortfall now. They cannot wait till 2016, Bobby Cameron, FSIN vice chief., told GlobalNews. She said FSIN wanted a commitment in writing, signed by the Prime Minister, clearly stating the amount that First Nations students will now receive per school year on our Treaty Territories. She also insisted that the unaddressed 2% cap on postsecondary funding be lifted it was put in place in 1996. Children would hardly be inspired to study harder if they knew there wouldnt be money for them to go on to higher learning. We will all prosper from the honouring and implementation of treaties and advancement of our rights as indigenous peoples that are recognized globally and our inherent rights of self-determination, said Cameron.
The Yellow Dot Room at Kainai
-5-
The Torturous Road of Decolonizing Education: Ancient History:
The Tortured Recent History The Kainai Announcement was surprising for two reasons: its abrupt suddenness, and the participation of the AFN. It has been coming down the tubes for some time now. When the obsessive compulsion of the settlers to assimilate the Indians turning out to be an impossible dream, Canadian political forces have in recent years demonstrated a similar obsessive compulsion to have an education act passed through Parliament. The Government initiatives have been met by an almost unanimous vocal condemnation on the part of First Nations. The initiatives pattern is unilateral announcement, vigorous opposition, the Act being on the brink of collapse, and then resuscitated for another try.
1887: Sir John A. Macdonald tells Parliament, The great

aim of our civilization has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate Indian people in all respects with the inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit for the change.
1920: Regarding a Bill for the compulsory removal

ofIndian status from any Indian who became educated, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs Duncan Campbell Scott tells Parliament Indians should be removed from a state of tutelage when he or they are able to take their position as British citizens or Canadian citizens, to support themselves, and stand alone. That has been the whole purpose of Indian education and advancement since earliest times . . . Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department.
2010: December National Chief Shawn Atleo and

Indian Affairs Minister John Duncan announce appointment of a National Education Panel,.
2011: On 9 June 2011, Minister John Duncan and

National Chief Shawn Atleo announced a Joint Action Plan. It a paragraph about a joint engagement process which would make recommendations on a framework providing the basis to deliver quality K-12 education to First Nation children living on reserve. There would be a national panel to hold a series of roundtables across the country and set up other activities to engage parents, students, teachers, elders, educators and all those with an interest in improving First Nation education. The panel will make recommendations to the Minister and the National Chief on options to make concrete and positive changes for First Nation students, including the possibility of new legislation to improve the governance framework and clarify accountability for First Nation elementary and secondary education. The panel will report by the end of the 2011 calendar year. There were complaints the panel had no mandate to recognize Inherent or Treaty Rights. It did not address First Nations education issues of funding, languages or cultures. Federal First Nations education legislation was the focus of the consultation guidelines. The consultation process did not meet legal requirements. In April, Angus Toulouse, the regional chief of Ontario, announced Ontario Chiefs had rejected the national panel process. What the First Nations have said is that the national process fails to provide a clear understanding or agreement with Canada on how First Nations will control the decision-making over our education.
1950: Walter Harris, Minister responsible for the Indian

Affairs Branch of the Department of Mines and Resources, reiterated the policy: Ever since Confederation the underlying purpose of Indian administration has been to prepare the Indians for full citizenship . . . The ultimate goal of our Indian policy is the integration of the Indians into the general life and economy of the country.
1969: Federal government announces the colonizing

process has been successful. There is no longer a need to have Indians. All references to Indians will be removed from Canadian law. There will be no more Indians, no more Indian reserves, and no more Department of Indian Affairs.
1972: National Indian Brotherhood led by George

Manuel and strong support from across Canada tables Indian Control of Indian Education manifesto with Parliamentary committee.1 Minister Jean Chretien accepts it and says if will be implemented.
1982: Canada patriates Constitution, agreeing to

recognize and affirm First Nation rights and treaty rights.
http://64.26.129.156/calltoaction/Documents/ICOIE.pdf
-6-
In June, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Legislative Assembly repudiates planned federal legislation. In July, FSIN Chiefs in Assembly passed Resolution 1779, Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the Protection of Treaty that directed the AFN to cease and desist involvement in processes that may lead to negotiating legislation that may have negative impacts on the recognition and implementation of Inherent and Treaty Rights and responsibilities. A one-size-fits-all approach would never work, FSIN said. Faced with nationwide opposition, National Chief Atleo issued a media release defending the panel, and saying, "The AFN does not have a mandate to negotiate legislation nor are we engaged in this activity in any way." By August, Gloria Galloway of the Globe and Mail reported that what had been hailed as a historic turning point in co-operation between aboriginal leaders and Ottawa has been thrown into jeopardy as native groups in one province after another have withdrawn from the process. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations announced this week that it will not participate in the national panel . . . Chiefs in Ontario and Quebec made similar decisions earlier this year. It total, about 230 native groups have refused to participate in the panel process, citing a lack of consultation and concerns that it will diminish the rights of aboriginal people to control their own education. Lyle Whitefish of FSIN said, The AFN, our own national First Nations organization, is not listening to us, and appears to have been co-opted by the federal government in supporting a process that will only serve to create legislation that weakens our treaty right to education. Indian Affairs replied to the massive opposition by saying it was important to note that some individual native communities had expressed an interest in continuing the discussions. But Isadore Day, the chief of the Serpent River First Nation said he and other First Nation leaders are upset that they were not consulted before the panel was announced. If you are going to proceed with an initiative of that magnitude, he said, then there obviously should be some level of preparation and discussion with the leadership across the country. November 2011, First Nations Education Council
(FNEC), Quebec, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN), Ontario, and the FSIN, co-delivered Report on Priority Actions in View of Improving First Nations Education instead of participating in the flawed NEP consultation process.2
2012: In January, Indian Affairs released the National

Education Panels final report, Nurturing the Learning Spirit of First Nation Students.3 One of the five recommendations was to create a federal First Nation Education Act. 4 Also in January there was the gala Crown-First Nation Gathering featuring the Governor-General, Prime Minister, etc., etc. ending up with the issuing of a Joint Action Plan. February 2012, FSIN Chiefs in Assembly passed, Resolution 1798 Indigenous Peoples Inherent Right, that directed the FSIN to notify the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to cease and desist in the implementation of any parts of the Joint Action Plan. Also in February, Chiefs of Ontario released its manifesto on education, Our Children, Our Future, Our Vision.
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/files/OCOFO V%20Education%20Report%202012.pdf
March 2012 Federal Budget: the Government will work with willing partners to introduce a First Nation Education Act and have it in place for September 2014. The purpose of this legislation is to establish the structures and standards to support strong and accountable education systems on reserve December 2012: AFN Chiefs in Summit Assembly pass resolution rejecting the federal legislative process and the unilateral development of a First Nations Education Act: Be it finally resolved that the Chiefs in Assembly demand that the federal government uphold the honour of the Crown and fulfill its obligation to First Nations by providing needs based, sustainable education funding in
http://www.cepn-fnec.com/PDF/accueil/Report%20on%20Priorit y%20Actions%20in%20View%20of%20Improving%20First%2 0Nations%20Education%20-%20November%202011_eng_webs ite%20version_.pdf

3
http://www.cwlc.ca/sites/default/files/file/News/Nurturing%20the%20L earning%20Spirit%20of%20First%20Nation%20Students.pdf
4
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1373075023560/1373075345812
-7-
support of First Nations lifelong learning. The Chiefs in Assembly also rejected the creation of a National Education Steering Committee, reaffirming the role of the CCOE as the national body on education and recognizing and respecting the authority and autonomy of all First Nations to direct and implement their own decisions on education for their peoples
issued a statement. I have heard remarkably consistent and profound distrust toward the First Nations Education Act being developed by the federal government, and in particular deep concerns that the process for developing the Act has not appropriately included nor responded to Aboriginal views, said Anaya. I urge the government not to rush forward with this legislation, but to re-initiate discussions with Aboriginal leaders. He also called for increased funding to put on-reserve education systems on par with province-run systems. Dr. Anayas full report will be presented to the United Nations early this year, 2014. Buoyed by the Anaya comments, First Nation voices continued to make strong and loud demands to reveal what was being plannned. Valcourt relented and in October 2013 distributed a proposed draft of the Departments Education Act . The draft seemed to make matters worse and there was wide if not universal condemnation by First Nations. National Chief Atleo said the draft Bill was unacceptable and insisted that five conditions must be met. They included First Nation control of education, guaranteed funding, protection of languages and culture, joint oversight of the new system, and meaningful consultation. Then the government set out broad flashy brush-strokes about how the a new Act would take the criticism into account and it hadtweaked the Bill. First Nation voices say bringing a dead horse back to life would take more than tweaking. Valcourt responded with more positive noises, signals of compromise including those in a letter he sent to Atleo. In the letter, Valcourt addressed some of the AFNs concerns and insisted he wants to meet on an urgent basis. Although he had previously said he wanted a new system in place by the start of the school year in September 2014, the minister shifted tack, saying there is no deadline. Nonetheless, the considerable uproar in response continued. On December 10 in Gatineau, Quebec, across the Ottawa River from Parliament Hill, hundreds of Chiefs from across Canada engaged in dramatic debate and passed a resolution which not only trashed the Governments approach, but it also set out the criteria which must be met if any government initiative was to pass scrutiny. [The resolution appears below.]
2013: January 8-11 AFN meeting ends with a rally inside

the auditorium against attending Prime Minister Harpers Chiefs meeting that occurs with some Chiefs attending and some Chiefs boycotting it February 8, 2013: Indian Affairs holds consultations in Saskatoon with many First Nations reject federal legislation and boycott morning session while other First Nations reject federal legislation but attend the afternoon session. Either way, there was no consultation. July 2013: Indian Affairs issues its the First Nation Education Act Blueprint to stake-holders for additional consultation and feedback. July 16-18, 2013 AFN passes a resolution rejecting federal First Nations Education legislation and supporting First Nations Control of First Nations education. FSIN release by Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron:We continue to urge First Nations to take control of our childrens education by asserting our sovereign right to educate our children by creating our own Education Acts and ignoring any federal legislation that is unilaterally imposed on us. In reply to the clamour for equitable funding for First Nation schools, Valcourts predecessor, John Duncan, had said there were no problems with funding, and that instead of funding, there would be legislation. Valcourt modified that same tact by saying that first the reserves would have to demonstrate they were following the Act, and then there would be funding. Discussions with First Nations on the deal were difficult from the get-go. Chiefs and grassroots membership, carrying brutal memories of residential schools, bristled at the idea of federal government involvement in their educational outcomes. Initially, Valcourt dismissed the criticism by saying the Act has still not been finalized how could something be criticized when its contents were not known? Then Dr. James Anaya, United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples met with indigenous groups across Canada. Before he left the country, he
-8-
National Chief Atleo was not present at that meeting of Chiefs because he was travelling with the Prime Ministers delegation to attend the ceremonies on the passing of Nelson Mandela, who was held in high esteem by indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world. Just days before Christmas, Atleo told Postmedia News in an interview that he was optimistic progress was being made on the education front. The chiefs are being heard, said Atleo. The educators are being heard. And thats really important that there be an expressed willingness on the part of the federal government to say to First Nations: We recognize that your rights are real. At the same time, Atleo said there had been a consensus forged by First Nations chiefs to find a solution. There is a sense among First Nations that we have to seize this moment. This is not about pressing or pushing this down the road. It is about moving on the clear plan that we have right now. It has been reported that within the federal cabinet, several ministers were getting restless, feeling there was little political benefit to Harper continuing discussions. Just do it. Surprise! And thus Harpers unilateral, sudden and unexpected announcement at Kainai on February 7th it was only on Wednesday February 5th that the invited guests were abruptly summonsed to the Friday February 7th Kainai event. The National Chief seems to have been isolated by the chain of events. On the day before the invitations went out bearing his name along with the Prime Ministers, the AFN Council of Chiefs on Education had been meeting at Kahawake, the Mohawk community near Montreal. Present and chairing the meeting was the AFN vice-chief who carries the education portfolio on the Executive Committee, Morley Googoo. Also present was the CEO of the AFN. No mention was made of any upcoming announcement. The Chiefs attending that meeting are not happy. The next day, February 5, the National Chief issued a Special Bulletin on First Nation Education expressing hope that in his unveiling of the Federal Budget on February 11, the Finance Minister might have some positive news that there would be new and sustainable investments in the upcoming budget. Not a hint of the Kainai meeting is in the letter.
When did the National Chief know there was going to be an Announcement at Kainai? Was he told told of the Kainai meeting only on Wednesday the 5th? If not then, when? It was on that Wednesday that for the first time, the National Chief had informed his Executive Committee of regional chiefs in an email that there has been agreement from the federal government to meet their conditions. Details continue to evolve, wrote Atleo, who invited the chiefs to attend the announcement. This is a significant shift and I believe it results from our strong direction from chiefs to take all steps necessary to secure the future of First Nations children. Perhaps it was unwarranted optimism which caused him to speak too soon. But Harpers unilateral move had left the National Chief with two alternatives. He could express outrage and refuse to attend, and then have government and perhaps the public and even some First Nations dump on him for not accepting the half-a-loaf-with-a-hook the Harper Government was enticing him with. Or he could paint on a smile, declare all the Chiefs conditions had been met, go celebrate with the Prime Minister, and prepare to face the music from the Chiefs. Or maybe he had been a part of the whole plan. No one seems to know. Who knew what and when? remains a critical question. On February 7, the day of the meeting at Kainai, the National Chief issued a second special nationwide announcement: I know everyone is considering today's announcement and wondering what this means for the future of First Nations education. He apparently still did not know what would be in Harpers announcement or if he did, he wasnt telling. Theres not a detail of it is in the letter. It was like Treaty Time all over again. The parties left the event each with a totally different version of what had happened. And whether he liked it or not, National Chief Shawn Atleo had been used as a prop at the Prime Ministers gala event.
And The Blood Tribe Opposed The Prime Ministers Legislative Initiative!
Another interesting incongruity. The Prime Ministers big announcement was hosted by the Blood Tribe. The Blood
-9-
Tribe is opposed to any federal legislation on education. Hearing that the Prime Minister was about to descend upon them, the Tribe put out an official media release on Thursday afternoon, February 6. Blood Tribe Reaffirms Position on First Nations Education Act The Blood Tribe is firm on their position The Government of Canada [has] drafted legislation that will impact education for First Nations students across this land. The Government maintains that this proposed legislation bill is necessary because it is the central recommendation of their National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education for students on reserve. It also purports that extensive consultations have been completed with First Nations parents, students, leaders and educators, as well as Provincial Governments, and all have been integral to the development and drafting of this proposed legislation. It is the position of the Blood Tribe and Kainai Board of Education that this one-sided development of the proposed legislation has not met the Crowns legal duty to consult and accommodate, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada. Given that education is a treaty right, Canada is obligated to meaningfully consult with the Blood Tribe whenever there are proposed changes that adversely affect those aboriginal rights as re-affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act. The proposed First Nations Education Act is being forced onto the Blood Tribe without proper consultation. It is similar to how the Government tried to assimilate Blood children through Indian Residential Schools. The concerns
proposed First Nations Education Act has been drafted unilaterally and takes away from the guiding principle of Indian Control of Indian Education. True consultation would allow us to work with Canada to enhance education for our members, in fact we have made every effort to ensure this is available on the Blood Reserve to our members. But we are underfunded as compared to other jurisdictions and this failure to provide adequate funding is a major contributor to the gaps between the education which our students receive in comparison to non-First Nations students, gaps that the proposed FNEA purports to resolve. However, the FNEA does not address the fundamental issue of funding. It is the view of the Blood Tribe and Kainai Board of Education that the proposed First Nations Education Act will see a gradual off-loading of responsibility to the Government of Alberta from the Government of Canada, in all matters relating to elementary and secondary education. <<<<>>>> The Aftermath Atleo still faces much anger in some First Nations circles for his decision to work with Harper. The mistrust also extends to the Official Opposition. Speaking to reporters outside the House of Commons Friday, NDP House leader Nathan Cullen said it was curious Harper announced the changes with a last-minute announcement on a Friday from a distant location when the attention of Canada and the world was diverted to the opening of the Winter Olympics. One suspects that theyre not going to follow through on their commitments with First Nations people, Cullen said. If they were, trust me, theyd have lots of balloons and confetti and be celebrating and be doing something else. Lets see, when are they coming out with it on a Friday afternoon, the opening day of the Olympics. NDP Aboriginal Affairs critic Jean Crowder applauded Ottawas investments in First Nations schools, but criticized the fact that the money for core funding wont start flowing until 2016. They are promising money for future governments, Crowder said, adding the federal government has a history of broken promises on the First Nations education file. So Thats How It All Came to Pass At Kainai on February 7, 2014
CBC Power & Politics

and recommendations submitted by the Blood Tribe and Kainai Board of Education take the position that the
-10-
Sticking to a carefully crafted script, the Harper Government today revealed it was moving ahead with its new freshly-tweaked and retooled First Nations Education Act. Taking credit for the victory was National Chief Shawn Atleo. The Prime Minister proclaimed it a great day in history, They both claimed the new plan would give First Nations control over schooling. Both talked about an agreement, but it was never stated then or since what that agreement was. Prime Minister Harper described it in general terms, but the National Chief described it in other terms. It was almost as of they were talking about too different things. Federal media comments say the plan calls for teachers on reserves to be certified with equal education standards to schools off-reserves and students will have to meet attendance requirements. TTotal funding runs up to $1.9 billion for the Act over several years, with $500 million for infrastructure on reserves.
It said the Act itself would only be part of the new approach. Once the Act was passed, the government would impose a whole set of regulations which would have to be followed by First Nations. The regulations become law without parliamentary scrutiny. <<<<>>>> . Iroquois Caucus Unanimous Rejection During a two-day meeting at Kahnawake, the Iroquois Caucus announced February 6 that it had passed a resolution unanimously rejecting the Harper governments proposed First Nations Education Act. The Caucus involves seven Iroquois communities with a population totallying 55,000 persons. Kahnawake Grand Chief Mike Delisle told Christopher Curtis of the Montreal Gazette that if Stephen Harper isnt prepared to scrap the First Nations Education Act, he can expect members of the Iroquois Caucus to mobilize on Parliament Hill en masse. This is a political fight and were going to take it to Ottawa. Were going to be heard on this. We are willing to work with Ottawa as equals, its time they started working with us. Theres a serious funding problem in schools right now, we cant afford to delay fixing it, said Ava Hill, grand chief of the Six Nations territory, referring to the fact that there will be no new money flowing until 2016. Our kids want to learn, they want to go out there and get jobs and contribute to society, Hill said. This benefits all Canadians, not just First Nations. We can do a better job educating our children than the government can. We
-11-
want (the children) to know about their language, about their culture so they can get a sense of who they are before stepping out into the world. Chief among the concerns of the caucus members is a fear that the bill could make it legal for the federal government to take over local education if a school doesnt meet certain federal requirements. Delisle said the mere mention of a federal government takeover reminds him of Canadas dark history of forcing aboriginal children to attend residential schools away from their homes. I dont think this would be nearly as bad but you can understand how people are reluctant to hand over education to the government, Delisle said. The First Nations Education Act had also been rejected by a summit of Chiefs from across Canada in December at Gatineau. However, apparently National Chief Shawn Atleo has been having side conversations with Minister Valcourt. I think its time that we control our own destiny, Akweshsne Chief Bill Sunday told Kahnawake Television. Were capable of developing our own education programs. All the leaders present said that the Iroquois stand as one on this issue. We believe in Indigenous education by and for Indigenous people and we have that skill-set in our midst, said Wahta Council Chief Billy Hay. We outright oppose [the bill] in all of its components. Mikmaq Education Leader Not impressed New federal funding for First Nation education isn't enough to pay on-reserve teachers at the same rate as provincial teachers, a Cape Breton Mi'kmaq leader says. Eleanor Bernard is the executive director of the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, a Membertou-based organization that provides education funding and advice to Mi'kmaqs. Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey means "the whole process of learning." Ms. Bernard told CBC News Stephen Harpers $1.25-billion deal would still leave First Nations schools behind other Canadian schools. "It's over a three-year period and when you are talking nationally, it's not a lot of money. We're still not going to be able to pay our teachers provincial pay scales, still not going to be able to do a lot of programming," Bernard said. "It still does not provide equity."
The plan requires education standards on reserves to be consistent with schools off reserves. But Ms. Bernard said Nova Scotia First Nations schools already meet those standards for teachers and for students. "We have an 87% graduation rate, which is really good," she said. "Now we need to work on the improvements in literacy and numeracy." She added that teaching Mi'kmaq was also a priority. "Our language is suffering because we don't have funding tied specifically to improvements in language," she said. Ms. Bernard believes Nova Scotia First Nations schools will not be required to adopt the new plan. She predicts many will not. An Interview With Ms. Bernard is at http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningcb/2014/02/10/first -nations-education/ How To Understand the Debate When the Prime Minister called the Kainai meeting with less than 48 hours notice, adding National Chief Atleos name alongside his own as the hosts of the meeting, the National Chief of the AFN declares victory, and says the Government has agreed to our conditions, calls the governments ew positiona significant shift which he believes results from our strong direction from chiefs to take all steps necessary to secure the future of First Nations children," However, so far, most First Nations say they cant find anything like that in the statements of the Prime Minister and Minister Valcourt. The Minister says that "the government of Canada agrees that First Nations must have control over their education," and that his proposal is intended to empower those who know best what their children need First Nations, parents, communities and administrators to determine what is most effective for their success." The reply from the grassroots more or less said they already were empowered and always had been empowered. The problem since Confederation was federal imposition and interference designed to block and frustrate its empowerment and the new Act is more of the same. The federal government apparently wants its new Act to be in place before March 31 so that adherence to the Act will become a condition woven into the contribution agreements which will provide First Nations with money
-12-
to run their schools in the next school year. The only way that could happen would be if the Government imposed closure in both Commons and Senate. It is counting on First Nations to agree with pushing the Bill through because it has tied the bill to the new funding which is supposed to come in 2016. No Bill, no funding, even funding over two years away. Just months ago, Indian Affairs Minister Valcourt was saying that before there was any new funding, First Nations would have to prove they had improved their schools. First Nations have always maintained poor school conditions and educational results were because their students received only about half of what provincial schools were receiving in federal payments for First Nations students.
Schools on the hundreds of reserves across Canada are underfunded and there are clear gaps in the quality of education between First Nations and non-Native students, according to a 2013 report by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Aboriginal Affairs spends about $2 billion on First Nations education every year, but annual funding increases have been capped at 2% since the 1996. Meanwhile, First Nations are the fastest growing demographic group in Canada, the number of new students combined with increased costs and inflation cause the gap in funding to increase annually.
<e-notes> A Twealed Education Act Ready for the Parliamentary Railroad; PM Tries To Co-opt the AFN an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 8 February 2014 Edition
-11-
First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

Stand Off, AB 7 February 2014 Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced2 an historic agreement between the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN)3 to proceed with the final drafting4 and introduction of the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act.5 This agreement is the result of years-long, unprecedented process of consultations and discussions.6 The Government of Canada and the AFN are committed to improving K-12 education outcomes for First Nation students, and providing First Nations children on-reserve with a high quality education, just like every other Canadian. To this end, the Government of Canada also announced today that it will make a significant financial commitment of over $1.9 billion to support the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. Funding will account for language and culture programming. What will the bill do? The legislation will ensure First Nations control of First Nations education while establishing minimum education standards, consistent with provincial standards off-reserve. For example, the legislation will require that First Nation schools teach a core curriculum that meets or exceeds provincial standards, that students meet minimum attendance requirements, that teachers are properly certified, and that First Nation schools award widely recognized diplomas or certificates. These requirements do not currently exist. This has resulted in situations where First Nations youth graduate from education institutions on-reserve but cannot demonstrate a recognizable diploma to a workplace or post-secondary institution and are therefore required to return to school. The legislation will also improve transparency and promote accountability by establishing clear roles and responsibilities for First Nation education administrators, and annual reporting requirements. The bill will also allow for the establishment of First Nation Education Authorities. These Authorities will act like school boards in the provincial education system to provide the key secondary support to help ensure that First Nation schools are meeting their requirements under the Act, and are providing a quality education for First Nation students. Following on our Governments 2010 commitment, the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act will also repeal the provisions in the Indian Act related to residential schools. This measure is of great symbolic importance and aligns with the purpose of this bill; namely, to turn the page on the dark chapter of the Residential School system, and provide the framework for First Nations to develop and implement a quality education system under the control of First Nations. What is new? The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act will contain a number of significant changes to the October 2013 draft legislative proposal shared with all First Nations Chiefs. These include:
All footnotes attached to the governm ents m edia statem ent are editorial com m ents by <e-notes> and of course did not appear with the governm ents own docum ent. There is no information as to what this agreement says, when it was made, by whom it was made. Final drafting implies the Bill is all but ready to go just some tweaking to do, as the Prime Minister put it. An Act by the Parliament of Canada to be administered by government officials which will provide for First Nation Control of First Nation Education is classic doublespeak at its most insidious best. As W ikipedia defines it, Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language. There has been no consultation and no accommodation even to the minimum legal requirements set by the Supreme Court of Canada. Neither has there been consent.
<e-notes> A Twealed Education Act Ready for the Parliamentary Railroad; PM Tries To Co-opt the AFN an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 8 February 2014 Edition
-12-
Creating a Joint Council of Education Professionals to provide advice and support to the Government of Canada and First Nations on the implementation and oversight of the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. Outlining our Governments commitment to adequate stable, predictable and sustainable funding. This funding will replace the complex structures now in place with three funding streams: a statutory funding stream that will have a reasonable rate of growth; transition funding to support the new legislative framework; and funding for long-term investments in on-reserve school infrastructure. Enabling First Nations to incorporate language and culture programming in the education curriculum, and providing funding for language and culture programming within the statutory funding stream. Committing the Government to work in conjunction with First Nations to develop the Acts regulations. Education Funding Core Funding (includes language and culture) + 4.5% escalator $1.252-b over three years, beginning in 2016-17 and increasing annually thereafter, per the escalator. Infrastructure $500-m over seven years, beginning in 2015-16, when Budget 2012 investments expire. Implementation Fund/ Education Enhancement Fund $160-m over four years, beginning in 2015-16. Major milestones December 2010 - The Government of Canada and the AFN announce the creation of the National Panel on First Nation Elementary and Secondary Education.
June 2011 - The Government of Canada, together with the AFN, officially launch an engagement process. February 2012 The National Panel releases the Final Report. December 2012 The Government of Canada launches consultations for development of a First Nations Education Act and releases a Discussion Guide. July 2013 The Government of Canada releases the Blueprint for Discussion with all Chiefs; a document outlining what the Government heard during the consultative process. October 2013 - The Government of Canada releases a draft legislative proposal. November 2013 The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations sends an Open Letter to the Government of Canada. December 2013 The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development sends an Open Letter to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. For a more detailed chronology of activities to date please visit: Chronology of First Nations Education at http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1358799301258/1358799341720 . The Path Forward: The Government of Canada and First Nations agree to work together on the passage of the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act and on the joint development of necessary regulations to follow. The partnership does not end with the introduction of a bill. The overriding goal of the legislation is better outcomes for First Nation students. First Nations and the Government of Canada agree that this is best achieved through First Nations control over First Nations education.
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/02/07/first-nations-control-f irst-nations-education-act#sthash.NahGPHMX.dpuf
-13-
This Is The Resolution Passed in Gatineau By Chiefs from Across Canada on December 12, 2013 Moved by Doug Kelly, B.C., Seconded by Chief Joe Miskokomon Carried by Consensus WHEREAS: A. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Article 14 recognizes the right of First Nations to develop our own education institutions and systems, reflecting our languages, cultures and identities, including language immersion initiatives and institutions, and requires state governments to seek the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations governments prior to enacting measures which impact our rights. B. First Nations education is a key foundation for strengthening our cultural identity, ensuring the transmission of our languages, and ultimately strengthening our families, our clans, our communities, and our nations. C. First Nations are united in advancing education that is child-centred, respecting the diversity across regions but coming together always in understanding that all initiatives, approaches, and potential agreements in education must place the child at the centre. D. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has a Chiefs Committee on Education (CCOE), supported by the National Indian Council on Education, which has regional representation and continues to provide advice and recommendations to the AFN National Executive. E. First Nations Control of First Nations Education 2010, which incorporates the original Indian Control of Indian Education 1972 paper, is the official education policy for the Assembly of First Nations. F. On October 22 2013 the Federal government released: Working Together for First Nation Students: a Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education. First Nations across all regions have reviewed this proposal and reached consensus that the current proposal is unacceptable and has been rejected. Resolutions from Nations and regions set out the following as essential for achieving success for First Nations students and schools: a. Any proposal must respect inherent and Treaty rights and contain First Nation jurisdiction of First Nation education as the overriding, paramount principle and not be imposed unilaterally by the
Aboriginal and Northern Affairs bureaucracy. b. Canada must recognize its obligation and provide a statutory guarantee for funding of First Nations education that is sustainable and reflects actual costs. c. First Nation education systems must be enabled, supported and funded in a way that supports full immersion and grounding of all education in Indigenous languages and cultures. d. First Nations are diverse, and this diversity must be fully respected and enabled in the variety of ways in which First Nations choose to advance First Nations Control of First Nations Education. G. First Nations have affirmed that there must be an agreed-to process that fully respects and reflects partnership, consistent with Treaty relationships, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to support implementation and achievement of First Nations jurisdiction over education. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chiefs-in-Assembly: 1. Reject the October 22, 2013 draft Working Together for First Nations Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education as is. 2. Call upon Canada to negotiate to advance First Nations Control of First Nations Education, Assembly of First Nations policy framework 2010. 3. Are resolute and determined to achieve justice, fairness and equity for First Nations children, through strong, culturally-grounded education, and committed to working together and providing child-centred solutions. 4. Guided by points 1, 2 and 3 above, direct the National Chief, National Executive, and First Nations to take all necessary steps to press Canada to respond to the conditions required to achieve success for First Nations children including: a. Respect and recognize inherent rights and title, Treaty rights, and First Nation Control of First Nation Education jurisdiction. First Nations must retain all options to advance their education and all such agreements must be fully respected, enabled and supported. b. Provide a statutory guarantee for funding of First Nations education as a precondition that is sustainable and reflects needs-based costs consistent with Canadas obligation. c. Enable and support systems to provide full
-14-
immersion and grounding of all education in Indigenous languages and cultures. d. Develop mechanisms to oversee, evaluate, and for reciprocal accountability and to ensure there not be unilateral federal oversight and authority. e. Ensure a meaningfully supported process to address these conditions through a commitment to working
together through co-development, fully reflective of First Nations rights and jurisdiction. 5. Direct the National Chief and National Executive to advocate urgently and strongly for Canada to commit immediate investments in Budget 2014 to address the current funding gap, and advance a statutory guarantee for the future of First Nations education systems.
What the National Chief Wrote on February 4: No Mention of Kainai National Chiefs Special Bulletin on First Nations Education
As noted in last months Bulletin, the Government of Canada is tabling the federal budget on February 11, 2014. In advance of every federal budget, the AFN presses forward specific priorities as set by First Nations in resolution and by the National Executive through the pre-budget process. This year, additional efforts have been made to continue our advocacy for action on First Nation education through direct correspondence to the federal Finance Minister and the House of Commons Committee on Finance. Fairness for First Nations children has been our shared priority since the early 70s through our push for Indian control of Indian education. In 2009, at my first Assembly as National Chief, we reaffirmed our support for our youth and students and set education as a top priority. In June 2010, we stood together at the Nipissing First Nation to launch the Call to Action on First Nation Education. The Call to Action built on our national strategic plan and resolution, calling for support and partnership to recreate learning environments within our communities, recognizing the critical need for full First Nation community participation, engagement and control. It set clear principles on the need for Canada to respect our rights and responsibilities, establish a statutory guarantee for funding for our youth, support for systems development and curriculum on language and culture. Our advocacy efforts included a major rally in September 2010 where we joined student walkers from Kitigan-Zibi Anishinabeg, marching together to Parliament Hill, honouring the tremendous leadership of our youth like the late Shannen Koostachin. Dozens of organizations across the country supported our call to action including universities and colleges, student and teachers federations, chambers of commerce, business, unions, civil society, and even provincial and territorial governments. There have been a number of milestones including successive Auditor-General reports, Senate reports and important consensus motions in Parliament, such as the one in 2013 supporting Shannens Dream and fair, equitable funding for First Nation students. I look as well to the interim report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that highlighted the words of survivors speaking to their own healing journeys, clearly expressing their hope for change so that all First Nations children will have the opportunities in education that were denied to them: to be nurtured in their language and culture and to be supported within their families and communities. While our Nations are diverse, we all agree that the status quo is not acceptable. We agree that fundamental reform is required based on our vision and framework for First Nations control of First Nation education. And we all agree that this generation of children must not wait. Weve seen increased attention and increased mobilization of our peoples across the country. First Nations clearly rejected the current federal proposal on First Nations education and called for a vigorous effort to advance reform through First Nations control supported by fair, sustainable funding. In an Open Letter to the Federal Minister on November 25th, 2013, sent to all First Nations, I reiterated our firm opposition to any initiatives or efforts aimed at unilateral control. Referencing the apology and commitment to reconciliation, we set clear conditions grounded in resolutions and mandate to achieve the change First Nations envision and demand.
-15-
(February 4 Special Bulletin, Continued) At our 2013 December Special Chiefs Assembly, extensive dialogue and debate took place over several days resulting in national consensus that First Nations will put our children first, equipping them with the systems and supports they need, that we will demand fairness and that we have a clear plan of action, our policy framework of First Nations Control of First Nations Education. . Resolution 21/2013 affirmed a) our rejection of the October 2013 federal proposal and mandated a clear path forward based on a) respect for First Nations jurisdiction and Treaties and rights, b) a statutory guarantee of funding, c) resources for language and culture, d) reciprocal accountability and e) ongoing meaningful dialogue. On December 13, 2013, Minister Valcourt sent an Open Letter to all First Nations acknowledging that change is long overdue and it must be done together. He wrote: The government agrees that First Nations must have control over their education. The Chair of our Chiefs Committee on Education, Regional Chief Morley Googoo together with the mover and seconder of resolution 21/2013, Grand Chief Doug Kelly and Chief Joe Miskokomon, pressed for clarity from the Minister on moving forward on the resolution and setting a clear way forward in mutual respect and partnership. A meeting occurred on January 27th with a follow-up report that same day to the National Executive of the AFN. Today, February 4th , a meeting of the Chiefs Committee on Education took place as well to keep advancing the terms of our resolution and our advocacy to achieve reform consistent with First Nation control of First Nation education. Let me be clear: achieving this change requires investment, it requires recognition of rights and it must enable every First Nation, every Treaty area and region to advance and negotiate education systems that reflect their languages and cultures while ensuring that every First
Nation child has the benefit of systems and supports enabling their success. There is no one size fits all model. Respecting and reflecting diversity is essential. I want to thank all of you who have been reaching out, responding and engaging in this important work. There have been conversations and contributions with so many citizens, leaders and experts. So many have helped as well to reflect back on where we have come from, pointing to our successes and helping us see the way forward. Reflections by people like Verna Kirkness, Leroy Littlebear, Lorna Williams, Elinor Bernard, and Diane Longboat are captured in the framework discussed at the Chiefs Committee on Education and will serve as the foundation for upcoming discussions on how you and your First Nation want to drive change in education. In closing, let me reiterate the appreciation I feel for all of the voices and all of the efforts underway in our communities every day. During my time as National Chief I have travelled to nearly one hundred schools across all regions and have had the chance to sit with our educators and our students. This has confirmed a deep resolve to keep pressing no matter how difficult. Our work as leaders is strengthened by the clarity of direction. The status quo has been rejected. A unilateral approach of government has been rejected. Now, First Nations are driving the way forward and we do so, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples standards that call for a process of mutual respect and partnership between states and indigenous peoples and as in articles 14 and 15 confirm the standard of First Nation control and full and equitable access to meaningful education opportunities for our children. We will take every opportunity to stand up for fairness for our children. We will continue to find the ways to work together. There is a growing consensus and support throughout all sectors and regions of Canada that investment is needed for our kids right now. First Nations have a clear plan and we will, together, achieve change for our children.
ONION LAKE CREE NATION DENOUNCES THE DEAL ON EDUCATION For Immediate Release
Onion Lake Cree Nation, Treaty No. 6 Territory, February 11, 2014 The Onion Lake Cree Nation opposes the recent announcement made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Indian Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt, and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo relating to First Nations Education released on the Kainai Nation, Treaty No. 7 territory, February 7, 2014. Onion Lake Cree Nation was forced to watch this historic announcement through media outlets as advance notice about the event was not supplied to our Nation. We condemn the way in which this announcement came about since we were not included in any discussions or negotiations of such a deal that affects our Treaty promise to Education. I want to remind the successor state of Canada that it has no authority to enter into negotiations with any other party in matters relating to Treaty that affect the peoples of Onion Lake, including Education, as it impacts our children and future generations stated Okimaw Wallace Fox, Chief of the Onion Lake Cree Nation. Our Nation has never given up our authority to another party, such as the Assembly of First Nations, to speak on our behalf or make decisions for us, especially when it impacts our Treaty. We are not willing partners in any political process that undermines our inherent jurisidiction to control how we educate our children. We ask the Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo and the Executive of AFN if they knew of an Education deal being struck; if they knew of any negotiations taking place to agree to the contents in this announcement and when these discussions took place? said Okimaw Fox. The newly named First Nations Control Over First Nations Education Act (FNCFNEA) is nothing new and continues the top down dictatorial approach in addressing First Nations issues by the state of Canada under Prime Minister Harper. In fact, the contents of the announcement leave us with more questions than answers and appears to impose more burden on our Education system. Despite announcing an increase in funding steeped in uncertainty; it will not come into force until after the next federal election in 2015 as it is to be rolled out in 2016. Our Nation has consistently rejected the proposed First Nations Education Act (FNEA) through various forms of written communication to the state of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. Our Nation has developed our own Education Law to govern our Cree ways of passing knowledge to our generations of learners and we continue to exercise our inherent jurisdiction over Education as intended by the original instructions from our Kise-Manito (Creator), stated Okimaw Fox. We will continue to
reject unilaterally imposed agreements by the state of Canada and invite the federal government to a bilateral discussions under our Indigenous legal framework; a nation to nation table based on the Treaty made between our ancestors and the Crown. Onion Lake Cree Nation will continue to enact its own laws, exercise our form(s) of self-determination, honour the Treaty, and ensure the international communitiy is kept apprised of the actions taken by Canada in breaching its legal obligations under Treaty, thus bringing dishonour to the Crown. The Onion Lake Cree Nation is within the Treaty No. 6 Territory, near the city of Lloydminster. Onion Lake has its own Cree Indigenous Governance System and has over 5,500 citizens. For media inquiries: Winston Walkingbear, Director for Operations (OLCN) Phone: (780) 870-7228
-16-
Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador

11 February 2014
First Nation Education Act: Free, Prior & Informed Consent is Must
The recent announcement made by the Prime Minister respecting First Nations' education on Friday, February 7th, was political opportunism at its best. The so-called commitment amounts to little more than a name change accompanied by recycled promises. It was made without consulting with or receiving the consent of Quebec First Nations. The Prime Minister renamed the federal legislative initiative respecting First Nations education the The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, but announced no new proposed measures to increase First Nations' real control of their childrens education. First Nations' role in education would be reduced to administration. The federal government would determine and impose standards. In the absence of details, we can only assume that the next proposal will be the same as the last: to seize jurisdiction over education from First Nations and to confer it on the Minister. The announcement also offered familiar promises: a statutory guarantee of stable, predictable, sustainable funding, but no statutory guarantee of necessary funding; a recognition of, but no concrete commitment to meaningful support for, Aboriginal languages and cultural values. The draft Bill circulated this fall did not deliver on these promises or answer Quebec First Nations' concerns. Why should we believe the next proposal will be different? First Nations students need adequate funding immediately. The Prime Minister announced funding for First Nations education, but not before 2016, after the next elections. "We have been waiting 20 years for new money and are now told to wait another two years. Moreover, the promise for new funding is dependent on what happens in the next federal election" stated Chief Whiteduck, of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg. "We cannot allow the Prime Minister to play politics with our children's futures" he concluded. Any education legislation must receive free, prior, and informed consent from First Nations in Quebec. First Nations governments hold jurisdiction over and the right to self-determination with respect to education. The Crown must deal with First Nations and their appointed representatives directly. The Assembly of First Nations does not have the authority to conclude any agreement on behalf of First Nations in Quebec. "We have been looking to engage the government of Canada in a respectable manner and through a collaborative effort. We wrote to Minister Valcourt to set what we felt were winning conditions to have our support" added Chief of the AFNQL, Ghislain Picard. "Not only did the Minister not respond to our calls, he chose to continue with his unilateral approach." Our position has not changed. Any education legislation must include the following: recognition and respect for First Nations' jurisdiction over and control of First Nations' education, allowing First Nations' solutions to be implemented without imposed oversight; a guarantee of necessary, adequate, equitable, and stable funding for First Nations' education; meaningful support for the teaching of First Nations languages and cultural values; We will do everything in our power including, if necessary, undertaking legal proceedings to see our rights respected, the Crown's obligations fulfilled, and our children's futures secured. [The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador is the political organization bringing together 43 chiefs of the First Nations in Quebec and Labrador. www.apnql-afnql.com ] For further information: Mlanie Vincent (vincentmelaniemv@gmail.com)
-18-
While all the events at Kainai were taking place, a delegation of First Nations were in Geneva, Switzerland, holding meetings with members of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The following document is its submission to the Commtitee.
Submission to the 89th Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination With Regard to Canadas Failure to Comply With Human Rights Conventions, Declarations and General Recommendations No. 21 and 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 3 February 21 February 2014 Geneva
While Canadian political observers were trying to figure out what had happened and not happened regarding the mystery-laden Kainai Conference Announcement on February 7, a First Nation delegation was in Geneva, Switzerland, meeting with members of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The topic: violations by the Government of Canada of the human rights of indigenous peoples. The submission is put forward by the Onion Lake Cree Nation, Ermineskin Cree Nation, Ochapowace Cree Nation, Saddle Lake Cree Nation, Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, Thunderchild Cree Nation, Piapot First Nation, Nigigoonsiminikaaning First Nation, Seine River First Nation and the 64 First Nations of Treaties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 represented by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. These are Indigenous Peoples and Nations as understood within the international jurisprudence5 , and as such we
institutions and legal system. This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors: Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them; Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands; Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.); Language (whether used as the only language, as mothertongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language); Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; Other relevant factors. On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through selfidentification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group). This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference. [UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 and Add. 1-4].
further declare that we are also a peoples as articulated by the same jurisprudence. Being understood as a peoples within the international jurisprudence the Nations have an inherent right by such status to selfdetermination.
The Nations for this submission accept that the working definition of indigenous peoples as found in the seminal work of Special Rapporteur, Martinez Cobo in his report on the Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations (Cobo Report), and submits that they meet the criteria as set out in this definition, The definition from the Cobo Report reads as follows: Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social
-19-
We assert our Nations inherent right to self-determination to freely determine our political status and to freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development without interference from foreign nations. The Nations not only assert that such an inherent right to self-determination is recognized and consistent with the treaty relationship that the Nations entered into with the British Crown, to which the Canadian state is the successor, but that also the implementation of the treaty relationship is an important means in which the Nations exercise such a right.6 The Nations assert that the Canadian state has failed to implement its obligations under the treaty relationship with our Nations by consistently imposing their laws, policies and procedures on our Nations based on the premise that we, as Indigenous Peoples, are unable to govern our lands, resources, communities or our people. The Nations submit that such a premise is based upon colonial beliefs and attitudes that hold the Nations, as Indigenous Peoples, to have presumed inadequacies based on race as expressed through images of stupidity, poor decision-making, and childish, irresponsible and frequently irrational behaviors. These colonial attitudes and beliefs also hold that the Nations and our members are stuck in an unprogressive and non-evolving past that is associated with maladaptive cultural characteristics. Although the Canada state has premised its relationship with our Nations on this basis and created its structure upon it, the Nations have never participated in the creation of this Canadian state structure, and as such the Canadian state continues its attempts to colonize our Nations and Peoples contrary to international jurisprudence. Though pervasive in much of Canadas law and policies relating to our Nations, the most recent example of Canada states colonial beliefs and attitude can be demonstrated in its unilateral attempt to impose upon our Nations the proposed First Nations Education Act (the Act). The Act purports to not only provide First Nations children with an educational system equal with provincial standards, including standards of accountability and
transparency, but to also include First Nations in the administration of such a system. However, such purposes are false, as ultimate authority to determine the content of the education, the manner in which it is to be delivered and the financial resources to be provided for the administration of such education is left with the federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (the Minister). Given the ultimate authority of the Minister, particularly the control over the financial resources for the educational system, the actual role of our Nations is superficial at best, and certainly not in keeping with the Treaty relationship between the Nations and the Crown, nor our inherent right as peoples to self-determination of which control of the education of our children is a component of its expression. Accordingly, the Act is nothing more than a continued attempt by the Canadian state to paternalistically control our Nations childrens lifelong learning, despite consistent opposition by the majority of Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Assertions and Requests The Nations assert that as Indigenous Peoples and Nations and peoples as recognized within the international jurisprudence, we have the inherent right, as a component of self-determination, to develop, control and manage our childrens education, and that such a right was not relinquished through the treaty relationship. Further, we assert that the treaty relationship recognized our Nations right to develop, control and manage our childrens education, and that the same treaty relationship only requires the Canadian to maintain schools to allow us to exercise our right. The Nations assert that Canadas treaty obligation to maintain schools requires it to provide the necessary financial resources as required by the Nations to develop, control and manage our childrens education. The Nations further assert that the Canadian state racially discriminates against us by its continued adherence to racist colonial beliefs and attitudes based upon the premise that we, as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, are unable to govern our lands, resources, communities or our people as other peoples and Nations are capable of accomplishing. The Nations respectfully requests that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination under its urgent action procedure find:
For the purposes of this submission, the Nations agree with the findings of Special Rapporteur, Miguel Alfonso Martinez in his Study on Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Populations E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/20 (Martinez Report).
-20-
1. The presence of a significant and persistent pattern of racial discrimination within Canadas continued unilateral imposition of laws and policies regarding our Nations education based on colonial beliefs and attitudes that holds racial and negative stereotypes of our Nations and our members, and that views our Nations as incapable of governing, our lands and resources, our communities or our people, as other peoples and Nations are capable of accomplishing, and as a result interferes with the Nations ability to exercise our inherent right to self-determination; 2. Canadas attempt to unilaterally impose the First Nations Education Act on the Nations, despite widespread opposition to such legislation from all of Canadas Indigenous Peoples and Nations, is a continued manifestation of the Canadian states racist colonial beliefs and attitudes that is contrary to the Nations inherent right of self-determination and/or their treaty right to education as set out in the treaty relationship between the Nations and the Canadian; 3. A lack of effective mechanisms for our Nations to exercise our inherent right to self-determination within the current Canadian states political landscape, and that such a lack of effective mechanism is a result of the Canadian states continued use of ideologies that hold Indigenous Peoples and Nations as unable to govern our lands, resources, communities or our people as other peoples and Nations are capable of accomplishing. Such a premise is based on racist colonial beliefs and attitudes that held the Nations, as Indigenous Peoples, to have presumed inadequacies based on race as expressed through images of stupidity, poor decisionmaking, and childish, irresponsible and frequently irrational behaviors. Further these racist colonial attitudes and beliefs also hold that the Nations and our members are stuck in an unprogressive and non-evolving past that is associated with maladaptive cultural characteristics; and 4. A lack of a national effective mechanism for the Nations to bring complaints regarding this persistent pattern of racial discrimination within Canadas continued unilateral imposition of laws and policies regarding our Nations childrens education, as the Canadian state strategically aligns itself with certain Aboriginal non-governmental organizations that do not politically represent our Nations and neither possess
the inherent right of self-determination nor are they bound by the Treaty relationship that Canada, as a successor state, has inherited. Finally, the Nations request the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in so finding the above take the following measures to ensure that the Canadian state takes positive action to ensure our Nations free exercise of our inherent right to self-determination and that the Canadian state meets its obligation in the implementation of the treaty relationship as set out in the recommendations found in the Martinez Report: 1. To request the Canadian state to make an urgent submission of information on the situation as described in this submission under the early warning and urgent action procedure; 2. To request the Secretariat to collect information from field presences of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and specialized agencies of the United Nations, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations on the situation as described in this submission and more specifically to appoint and direct UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Co-Chairperson Noureddine Amir to investigate and collect information regarding the allegations contained in this submission and to report back to UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with recommendations; 3. The adoption of a decision including the expression of specific concerns, along with recommendations for action, addressed to the Canadian state, and the Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples; 4. To offer to send to Canada one or more members of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in order to facilitate the implementation of international standards regarding the situation as described in this submission; and 5. Any other action that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination feels necessary to address the situation as described in this submission. Background Concerning the Proposed First Nations Education Act The Nations are representative Treaty Nations within Canada, most of which have long outstanding grievances with Canada concerning the recognition of inherent Indigenous rights including those rights recognized by the
-21-
treaty relationship as well as those rights accruing to us as Indigenous Peoples. The Nations all maintain a historical relationship with our traditional lands and its resources that extends over many countless centuries. It is this very relationship to our traditional lands and resources that is paramount to the Nations identity as Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Prior to the creation of the Canadian state in 1867, and beginning anew from 1871 through to 1923, the Nations, along with other Indigenous Peoples and Nations, negotiated and made various peace and friendship treaties with the British Crown, of which Canada is the successor state, including, but not limited to, Treaties 1 through 9. Through the resultant relationship as created through these treaties, our Nations provided for the British Crown and its subjects, including today through succession the Canadian state and its citizens, passage through our homelands and a share of the resources found within our homelands. The Nations have always honoured our obligations as contained within the treaty relationship that our Nations leaders had negotiated, but more often than not the Canadian state has not likewise reciprocated. The Canadian states failure to implement the promises and obligations made to our Nations leaders in the treaty relationship is not only a violation of such treaty relationships, but also contrary to international jurisprudence and the findings and recommendations of the Martinez Report. Consequently, the Nations must do what is necessary to defend and assert our inherent rights as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, including our inherent rights as peoples, and those rights that have been recognized through the treaty relationship, including constant negotiations, litigation and protests when necessary. Despite our Nations actions, the Canadian state continues its failure to implement the treaty relationship and deny us our inherent rights as Indigenous Peoples and Nations. The negotiations between our Nations leaders and the British Crown that lead to the treaty relationships included lengthy discussions pertaining to the education of our Nations children. With great foresight our leaders ensured that future generations would benefit from the construction of schools on our lands so as to have the necessary knowledge to prosper in a changing environment. However, our leaders never relinquished our Nations inherent right to develop, control and manage our childrens education. Despite this fact, the Canadian state from its beginning has unilaterally acted in the development, control and management of our Nations childrens education, often to
their detriment, and consequently, to the detriment of our Nations. The detriment to our children and Nations is no better attested to than by the horrors of the residential school system. Although the principles underlying the residential school system had its origins prior to Canadas creation as a state, the system was primarily active following the passage of an 1886 amendment of the Indian Act, first enacted in 18767,
until approximately 1996 with the closure of the last residential school.
The original Indian Act was a consolidation of all the legislation to that point relating to Indians, and many of its provisions were designed to hasten the Canadian states agenda of assimilation of Indigenous Peoples and Nations. As an example, some of these provisions attempted to eliminate the traditional systems of the Indigenous Peoples and Nations by imposing European political systems (s.s.6163), conceptions of property (s.s.4-10, & s.s.25-44), and economic systems (s.s.58-60) upon them. These provisions, coupled with general policies of forced education and religious conversion, contributed to the Canadian states goal of the assimilation of Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Although ostensibly created as means for the Canadian state to meet its constitutional8 and treaty obligations to maintain schools (which will be discussed in more detail later in this submission), the residential school system was in fact a means used to civilize the Indian. The residential school system, in conjunction with other Canadian laws and policies, was a manifestation of the Canadian states racist colonial beliefs and attitudes about our Nations that held indigenous cultures, identities and populations to be racially inferior that needed to be destroyed and replaced by European culture. The Canadian states colonial ambitions of such cultural destruction and replacement was to erase the Indigenous Peoples and Nations rights, based upon such indigenous culture, identity, and populations, to coveted lands and resources. Many of the social and economic woes facing our Nations are a direct result of the residential school system.9
7
S.C. 1876, c.18 (39 Vict.) and then amended by R.S.C. 1886, c. 43 (43 Vict.).
According to section 91(24) of the British North American Act of 1867 )30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 11), which is now a part of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 , the federal government of the newly created Canadian state had the responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians.
-22-
Although the last of the residential schools closed in 1996, the underlying racist colonial attitudes and beliefs that created and maintained these schools remain in place as evidenced by the proposed Act, and the process in which the current Canadian government has gone about imposing such legislation. Similar to the manner in which the earlier Indian Act provided over ultimate authority over the education of Indians based on the goal of the destruction of indigenous cultures, identities and populations and assimilation into the Canadian mainstream, the Canadian state, in proposing the Act, will maintain the Ministers ultimate control over the education of our Nations. Although the Act purports to not only provide First Nations children with an educational system equal with provincial standards, including standards of accountability and transparency, but to also include First Nations in the administration of such a system, such claims are false for the following primary reasons10: 1. Section 34 of the Act holds that The Minister may make any regulations that are necessary for the carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act, including regulations and then sets out a number of areas where such regulations can be made, including annual budgets, management of human resources, determining qualifications for and the hiring of all school related staff,
9
approving school success plans, programs, operations and maintenance of schools, community education committees, and at subsection (p) regulations . . . prescribing anything that by this Act, is to be prescribed. This section in fact reaffirms the Ministers, and hence the Canadian states, total control over our Nations childrens education; 2. As noted above, and through various other sections of the Act, the Minister has the ultimate authority to develop and control how education will be provided to our Nations children, while the Nations are ultimately responsible for the administration of such education. The Minister and the Canadian state specifically within the Act take no responsibility for the administration, even though they control the financial resources required to ensure such a successful administration of the Act; 3. Section 34 of the Act also provides that the Minister may fund a First Nation or a First Nation Education Authority to operate one or more schools, based on a formula created within the regulations that the Minister makes, and hence creates a discretion for the amounts of funding the Minister provides for such schools; 4. Section 8 of the Act provides that in carrying out its responsibility to provide access to education, Nations government must either administer a school on reserve, delegate it powers or functions to a First Nation Education Authority, or enter into an agreement with a provincial school. Given that no government within the Canadian state directly administers schools for its constituents, the Act would require our Nations to create an incorporated body (either under the laws of the province or federally) to delegate its authority or enter into an agreement with a provincial school. In creating an incorporated body under provincial or federal legislation, our Nations would be forced to accept the authority of the Canadian state and consequently be forced to agree to violate a component of our inherent right to self-determination, resulting in the weakening of such a right. By entering into an agreement with a provincial school, our Nations lose complete control over the education of its children. Neither of these options are neither in keeping with the Canadian states obligations pertaining to the treaty relationship with our Nations, nor its international obligations relating to our inherent right to self-determination; 5. Although the Act purports to reform sections 114-122
The beliefs and attitude As explained in 1920 by Duncan Campbell Scott, the Deputy Minister of the precursor of the current Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and North Development, . . . I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone . . . But after one hundred years, after being in close contact with civilization it is enervating to the individual or to a band to continue in that state of tutelage, when he or they are able to take their position as British citizens or Canadian citizens, to support themselves, and stand alone. That has been the whole purpose of Indian education and advancement since earliest times . . . Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department (emphasis added) - (as quoted in Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: a History of Indian-White Relations in Canada , J.R. Miller: University of Toronto Press, 1989). The reasons provided at this section are taken from Preliminary Analysis of the Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education Working Together for First Nation Students Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the Ontario Native Education Counseling Association by Kahontakwas Diane Longboat, M.Ed dated November 6, 2013 and obtained from the author.
10
-23-
of the Indian Act by the establishment of the Act, the bureaucracy responsible for the Act will remain that of the Department of Indian Affairs. Accordingly, such a bureaucracy does not have the necessary skill to ensure a quality education for our Nations children, and as a result, our Nations education will be of a lesser quality than that available to the general Canadian population; 6. At section 3 of the Act, it reads Nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or Treaty rights of the Aboriginal people of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (emphasis added). Although purporting to not take away or add to already existing Treaty or Aboriginal rights, as recognized by Canadian jurisprudence, what this section actually provides is that the Act will not take away or add from the mechanism to protect such rights. Accordingly, this section provides that the Act will only not affect the protection of the rights under consideration, but does not provide that the Act will not affect the rights themselves, and in fact as set out in this submission does affect the Nations rights; and 7. Within the whole body of the Act, there is no mention of protecting or enhancing our Nations languages or culture, of our Nations right to self-determination or jurisdiction over education, the implementation of the Canadian states treaty obligations, or determination other than the discretion of the Minister to determine funding formulas in regulations, without any public input, once the Act is passed. Taken as a whole, the Act itself is not only contrary to the principles contained within the concept of selfdetermination, such that a peoples are able to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and as a result is not only contrary to the Canadian states international obligations as set out in this submission, but also discriminates against our Nations in the provision of education. Further, the proposed Act, and its underlying racist colonial beliefs and attitudes, is also the latest manifestation of the Canadian states consistent discrimination based on race against the Indigenous Peoples and Nations. The Canadian states failure to recognize our Nations inherent right of self-determination as a peoples by purporting to legislate on rights properly understood as belonging to the realm of self-determination, and protected by our treaty relationship,
is solely based on the fact that we are Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Basis of the Nations Right to Control Our Education Our Nations submit that there are two sources upon which we claim a right to develop, control and manage our childrens education. First, we assert that based on our status as Indigenous Peoples and Nations we are a peoples having an inherent right, as a component of self-determination accruing to all peoples, to develop, control and manage our childrens education. Our Nations assert that it is through a lifelong learning process that our distinct cultures will be passed on to new generations, that our languages will be preserved, and that our identity as distinct Indigenous Peoples and Nations is guaranteed. Accordingly, all Indigenous Peoples and Nations in Canada, as peoples, have an inherent right to develop, control and manage their childrens education as a component of selfdetermination. Second, in the particular instance of the Nations providing this submission, our leaders understood the importance of education when they entered into a treaty relationship with the British Crown. As evidenced by the oral and written record, the education of our children was recognized as an important aspect of the treaties, so as to enable future generations to compete in the changing environment occurring as a result of the influx of European settlers. Each of these sources is set out more fully below. Development, Control and Management of Our Childrens Education a Component of Our Inherent Right to SelfDetermination as Peoples Although the concepts of peoples and selfdetermination, as understood in the present international jurisprudence, was not known to our leaders at the time of treaty, the principles underlying such terminology were indeed understood. As history records, we practiced these principles in our relations with the many Nations with whom we were neighbours. We know that the Creator placed us upon our homelands, and as a result, had rights and responsibilities to such homelands and the resources found upon such lands. Further, we identified as, and were recognized by other Indigenous Peoples, and later European settlers, as distinct cultural, historical and political entities, with a defined territory and population who were, and continue to be capable of governing ourselves, and entering into
-24-
constructive agreements and treaties. Indeed, such a status at the time of our first interaction with Europeans was recognized by United Nations Special Rapporteur Miguel Alfonso Martinez in his 1999 Report where he comments on the status of Indigenous Peoples at the time of treaty making with the Crown at paragraph 110 through 112: 110. In establishing formal legal relationships with peoples overseas, the European parties were clearly aware that they were negotiating and entering into contractual relations with sovereign nations, with all the international legal implications of that term during the period under consideration. 111. This remains true independently of the predominance, nowadays, of more restricted, Statepromoted notions of indigenous self-government, autonomy nationhood and partnership if only because the legitimization of their colonization and trade interests made it imperative for European powers to recognize indigenous nations as sovereign entities. 112. In the course of history, the newcomers then nevertheless attempted to divest indigenous peoples, as pointed out above, of their sovereign attributes. (Emphasis added) The Nations assert that, as found by Special Rapporteur Martinez in his report to the United Nation Economic and Social Council, we retain our status as sovereign nations, and as distinct Indigenous Peoples. In being understood as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, we assert that we have the inherent right to self-determination in line with the international norms regarding the subject, and as guaranteed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), and other covenants and declarations. We further assert that as a minimum condition for the exercise of our right to ongoing self-determination, the Canadian state must not interfere with such a right, and its various forms of expression, through the implementation of legislation, policies and practices that de facto act to discriminate against us as Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Although within the international jurisprudence, an exact meaning of self-determination as applied to peoples is unclear, the approach taken by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (the Committee) is that Article 1 of the ICCPR pertaining to a peoples right to self-determination is informed by those individual rights as contained within the other articles of covenant. For example, in Apirana
Mahuila et al v. New Zealand11 at paragraph 9.2 the Committee found: . . . that the Optional Protocol provides a procedure under which individuals can claim that their individual rights have been violated. These rights are set out in part III of the Covenant, articles 6 to 37, inclusive. As shown by the Committees jurisprudence, there is no objection to a group of individuals, who claim to be commonly affected, to submit a communication about alleged breaches of these same rights. Furthermore, the provision of article 1 may be relevant in the interpretation of other rights protected by the Covenant, in particular article 27 (emphasis added). Further in Marie-Helene Gillot et al v. France12 the Committee considered the relevance of article 1 to the enjoyment of other Covenant rights: Although the Committee does not have the competence under the Optional Protocol to consider a communication alleging violation of the right to self-determination protected in article 1 of the Covenant, it may interpret article 1, when this is relevant, in determining whether rights protected in parts II and III of the Covenant have been violated (emphasis added). In keeping with the Committees interdependence approach to defining the contents of self-determination, the Nations submit that our ability to develop, control and manage our childrens education is a component of our right to selfdetermination as peoples as through the education Nations children do we freely pursue our current and future economic, social and cultural development as guaranteed by Article 1 of the ICCPR. Whereas as noted above the Committee has at times taken an interdependence approach to determining the content of the right of self-determination within the context of the ICCPR, the Nations submit that even though the Committee is so limited to the ICCPR, the need for a further elucidation of the concept must not be limited to this sole international instrument. The Nations submit that the rights protected from discrimination based on race within the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (the ICERD) are civil and political rights that accrue to individuals but can be viewed as collective rights of Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Accordingly, violations
11 12
HRC 2001 Report, Vo.II, Annex X, Sect. A, HRC 2002 Report, Vil. II, Annex IX, Sec GG, para. 13.4.
-25-
of the individual rights protected by the ICERD are violations of our Nations right to self-determination. As an expression of this inherent right to self-determination, the Nations assert that we have the right to develop, control and manage our childrens education as a means to freely pursue our current and future economic, social and cultural development. Through the development, control and management of education, the Nations will transmit to current and future generations, those aspects of our distinctive cultures that provide for our individual Nations identity as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, and provide skills and knowledge that is culturally appropriate to engage in meaningful economic pursuits. The importance of the development, control and management of our Nations childrens education can be no better seen than the Canadian states unilateral control of our Nations education to civilize the Indian, and thereby control how our Nations developed economically, culturally and as a society.13 As a peoples, the loss of this ability to develop, control and manage our childrens education, and even on a fundamental level to participate in a meaningful manner in such development, control and management is contrary to ICERD Articles 1(1) and 5 (c) and (e)(v). The rights contained within these find equivalent expression in the ICCPR, and as such can be viewed as being components defining the right of self-determination. Specifically, Articles 1 and 5 of ICERD is equivalent to Articles 1, 25 and 27 of ICCPR respectively. Further, the control, development and management of the Nations childrens education, free from the Canadian states interference, provides our Nations the ability to maintain and freely develop our economic, societal and cultural existence equal to other sectors of Canadian society. Accordingly, in recognition of this component of self-determination CERD has called upon states in its General Recommendation 23: Indigenous Peoples at paragraph 4: (a) Recognize and respect indigenous distinct culture, history, language, and way of life as an enrichment of the States cultural identity and to promote its preservation; (b) Ensure that members of indigenous peoples are free and equal in dignity and rights and free from any
13
discrimination, in particular that based on indigenous origin or identity; (c) Provide indigenous peoples with conditions allowing for a sustainable economic and social development compatible with their cultural characteristics; (d) Ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interest are taken without their informed consent; and (e) Ensure that indigenous communities can exercise their rights to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs and to preserve and to practice their languages 14. Treaty Right Protecting Our Inherent Right As an example of education within the treaty relationship, the English version of Treaty 6 as used by Canada states . . . Her Majesty agrees to maintain schools for instruction in such reserves hereby made, as to her Government of the Dominion of Canada may seem advisable, whenever the Indians of the reserve shall desire it (emphasis added). Although the Nations submit that the English version of Treaty 6 is not the full understanding of the treaty, the importance of education within the treaty negotiation process is nonetheless demonstrated, prima facie, by the above provision. The Nations submit that the English version of the Treaty 6 clearly stipulates that the Crown will maintain the schools for our children, not control, develop, manage or otherwise deny us our right to self-determine how our children will be educated. As a basic principle of international jurisprudence, a right of a peoples cannot be taken away or otherwise significantly impaired without the consent of such peoples holding the right. In the context of Indigenous Peoples, it is clear from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration), at Article 19, that Canada must consult and cooperate in good-faith with our Nations through our chosen representative organizations in order to obtain our free, prior and informed consent prior to adopting or implementing legislation that will affect our rights as Indigenous Peoples. We submit that neither the treaty relationship nor any other means provide the Canadian state with our free, prior and
14
Please refer back to footnote 5 for Deputy Superintendent General Duncan Campbell Scotts quotation on this subject, which the Nations submit is indicative of the attitude that still prevails to the present day.
U.N. Doc. CERD/C/51/misc 13/Rev 4 (1997).
-26-
informed consent for it to develop, control or manage our Nations education for our children. However, due to its racist colonial beliefs and attitudes towards our Nations, whereby we are viewed as incapable of governing, our lands and resources, our communities or our people as other peoples and nations are able to accomplish, the Canadian state has consistently misinterpreted its treaty obligation of maintaining schools to mistakenly believe it has a mandate to develop, control and manage our Nations childrens education. Such misinterpretation has led to the Canadian states unilateral imposition of laws and policies, now and in the past, regarding education upon our Nations to our detriment. The Canadian states unilateral imposition of its laws and policies, and their negative affects upon the Nations is no better embodied than in the previously mentioned residential school system. Accordingly, the Nations submit that our peace and friendship treaties did not relinquish our inherent right to self-determination as a peoples of which the right to develop, control and manage the education of our children is a component. The Nations submit that the treaty relationships established by the various peace and friendship treaties were for the Crown to maintain schools for our Nations, which should properly be understood to be providing the necessary financial resources to maintain those education systems, and corresponding physical and human resources. Canadas Actions are a Violation of International Obligations It is the Nations submission that Canadas actions are a violation of its obligations under the following international conventions, declarations and norms: 1. Articles 2(1)(a), and 5(c) and (e)(v) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; 2. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the General Recommendation No. 21 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; 3. Section 4 of General Recommendation No. 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; 4. Articles 1 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and 5. Articles 3, of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada is a signatory and has ratified both the ICERD and the ICCPR. Accordingly, Canada is bound by the articles contained within each of these instruments, and to the norms that flow from each. The Nation submits below how Canadas actions in relation its laws and policies relating to First Nations education, culminating in the proposed Act is a violation of its obligations under these international instruments and the norms that flow from each. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination According to Articles 2(1)(a) of ICERD, in condemning racial discrimination each State Party to the Convention . ... undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation. Articles 5(c) and (e)(v) provide that State Parties, in compliance with article 2 of the Convention: . . . undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equally before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: . . . (c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate in election to vote and to stand for election on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service . . . (e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular: ... (v) The right to education and training. Taking the above articles as whole into consideration, the Nation submits that Canada has failed in its obligations so contained within the articles as follows: 1. As to Article 2(1)(a), the Canadian state has engaged in discrimination against our Nations that we submit is based on our status as Indigenous Peoples and Nations. We assert that as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, we are peoples as understood by international jurisprudence, and accordingly possess the inherent right of self-determination.
-27-
Our Nations have never relinquished our inherent right to self-determination, whether through the treaty relationship or otherwise. As an aspect of our inherent right to self-determination, our Nations have the rights to develop, control and manage our childrens education as it is through a lifelong learning process that the Nations will transmit to current and future generations, those aspects of our distinctive cultures that provide for our individual Nations identity as Indigenous Peoples and Nations, and provide skills and knowledge that is culturally appropriate to engage in meaningful economic pursuits. 2. As to Article 5(c) and (e)(v), by not recognizing the Nations inherent right to self-determination, the Canadian state has failed to guarantee the Nations political rights on two accounts. First, the second 5(c) of ICERD provides only that the right enumerated in that section are included in political rights, and as such the Nations submit that our Nations inherent right to self-determination is included within the paradigm of political rights. Accordingly, the political rights of our Nations have been violated as the Canadian state purports to unilaterally act on our behalf, based on racist colonial beliefs and attitudes, in areas comprising our inherent right of self-determination. Second, section 5(c) specifically mentions to take part in the conduct of public affairs. However, the Nations have been denied meaningfully participation in the process to develop, control and manage our childrens education. As noted above, the Canadian state has aligned itself with certain Aboriginal organizations that neither have the inherent right to self-determination nor are signatories to any treaty. However, Canada has used the practice of brief meetings with these organizations to justify the implementation of the Act. By failing to include our Nations in meaningful participation within the conduct of public affairs relating to our Nations childrens education, the Canadian state is in fact violating our inherent rights to selfdetermination, and at a minimum denying us our political rights as guaranteed by the ICERD, and informed by the international jurisprudence relating to Indigenous Peoples. Further, by unilaterally imposing the Act, or any future piece of legislation or policy properly within the scope of self-determination, the Canadian state is denying us a reasonable enjoyment of our economic, social and
cultural rights, particularly in relation to education, as the provision of education to our Nations children must be informed by the international jurisprudence relating to Indigenous Peoples. Whereas the ICERD protects everyones political, economic, social, and cultural rights, such rights cannot be manifested absent the context that we are Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Accordingly, we submit that the Canadian states failure to meaningfully include our Nations in the conduct of public affairs and processes that developed and implements the Act denies us a reasonable enjoyment of our economic, social and cultural rights, particularly in relation to education, and that such denial is based on racial discrimination as Indigenous Peoples and Nations. Canadas denial of our Nations rights as guaranteed by the ICERD was recognized by Mr. James Anaya, Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples when he visited Canada in the autumn of 2013. In Mr. Anayas Statement upon conclusion on the visit to Canada dated October 15 2013, he stated: However, I have heard remarkably consistent and profound distrust toward the First Nations Education Act being developed by the federal government, and in particular deep concerns that the process for developing the Act has not appropriately include nor responded to aboriginal views. In light of this, I urge the Government not to rush forward with this legislation, but to re-initiate discussions with aboriginal leaders to develop a process and ultimately a bill, that addresses aboriginal concerns and incorporates aboriginal viewpoints on this fundamental issue. An equally important measure for improving educational outcomes, and one that could be implemented relatively quickly, is to ensure that funding delivered to aboriginal authorities for education per student is at least equivalent to that available in the provincial education systems. As clearly stated by Special Rapporteur Anaya, Canada was cautioned to re-engage with our Nations because the process and the unilateral imposition of the Act as to that date did not take into account our viewpoints and concerns. However, despite Special Rapporteur Anayas caution, the Canadian, utilizing its racist colonial beliefs and attitudes of superiority and Indigenous Peoples and Nations inferiority, pushed on with the Act without heeding such caution.
-28-
One week after Special Rapporteur Anayas statement on October 22, 2014, the Canadian State announced the proposed Act. Given the Canadian states blatant acts, the Nations have no confidence that it will respect our Nations inherent right to self-determination regarding education, outlined in this submission, or other areas within the scope of self-determination. The Nations submit that Canada continued actions are a violation of its obligations under the ICERD as noted above, and further elucidated later in this submission. General Recommendation No. 21 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination According to sections 3 of General Recommendation No. 21, CERD emphasized that: . . . it is the duty of States to promote the right to selfdetermination of peoples. But the implementation of the principles of self-determination requires every State to promote, through joint and separate action, universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Section 4 provides: The right to self-determination of people has an internal aspect, i.e. the rights of peoples to pursue freely their economic, social and cultural development without outside interference. In that respect there exists a link with the right of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs at any level referred to in article 5(c) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Section 5 provides: In order to fully respect the rights of all peoples within a State, government are again called upon to adhere to and implement fully the international human rights instruments and in particular the International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. These sections of the General Recommendations clearly set out that States in guaranteeing the political, economic, social and cultural rights of those person within their boundaries must take into consideration the right of peoples to selfdetermination. As noted above, the Nations assert that as Indigenous Peoples and Nations that they are a peoples as understood by international jurisprudence and as discussed within this General Recommendation. Accordingly, taken together with those articles of the ICERD
as noted above, the Canadian state is required when meeting its obligations under the ICERD to fully respect all peoples within its boundaries such that their right to selfdetermination is promoted. The Nations submit that by the Canadian states actions in relation to the education of our children, it has not only failed to take into account our Nations inherent right to selfdetermination as a peoples, but in fact has acted contrary to such a right. As a result, the Canadian state is in violation of its obligations under the ICERD to guarantee our Nations political, economic, social and cultural rights as they pertain to the education of our children by failing to promote our right of self-determination as a peoples. General Recommendation No. 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination According to section 4 of General Recommendation No. 23, CERD called upon State parties to: (a) Recognize and respect indigenous distinct culture, history, language, and way of life as an enrichment of the States cultural identity and to promote its preservation; (b) Ensure that members of indigenous peoples are free and equal in dignity and rights and free from any discrimination, in particular that based on indigenous origin or identity; (c) Provide indigenous peoples with conditions allowing for a sustainable economic and social development compatible with their cultural characteristics; (d) Ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interest are taken without their informed consent; and (e) Ensure that indigenous communities can exercise their rights to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs and to preserve and to practice their languages In conjunction with what has been stated above in its totality, the Nation submits that the Canadian states failure to meet its obligations under the ICERD and General Recommendation No. 21 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is also a failure to heed the General Recommendation No. 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Indigenous Peoples. The Nations submit that the Canadian states unilateral imposition of the Act, and violation of
-29-
our Nations inherent right to self-determination, is not in keeping with the direction provided by CERD in relation to Indigenous Peoples in implementing the provisions found in the ICERD. Articles 1 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights According to Article 1, All peoples have the right of selfdetermination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Further, Article 25 provides, Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without reasonable restriction: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. The Nations submit that given its recommendations in General Recommendation No. 21 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that requires States, in protecting the rights of all peoples in the State, must adhere to and implement fully the international human rights instruments, the Canadian state must adhere to and implement fully Articles 1 and 25 the ICCPR. The Nations submit that the Canadian state has not only not adhered to or implemented these articles, but have in fact violated these articles by not protecting and implementing our Nations inherent right to self-determination as set out in this submission. Since the Canadian state has neither adhered to nor implemented these articles, it is also in violation of ICERD and CERDs General Recommendation No. 21 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 3 of the Declaration provides Indigenous peoples have the right to selfdetermination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Declaration is part of the international jurisprudence that is part of the customary international law, and is used to provide a minimum standard in which States are to relate to Indigenous Peoples and Nations. This article is the same as Article 1 of the ICCPR, the only difference is the descriptor indigenous, and as such must be contemplated in the consideration of Indigenous Peoples and Nations inherent right to self-determination.
The Nations submit that failure of the Canadian state to consider Article 3 of the Declaration in the imposition of any piece of legislation or policy, including the Act, is discrimination based on the fact that the Nations are understood as indigenous peoples within the international jurisprudence. Action Sought The Nations respectfully requests that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination under its urgent action procedure find: 1. The presence of a significant and persistent pattern of racial discrimination within Canadas continued unilateral imposition of laws and policies regarding our Nations education based on colonial beliefs and attitudes that holds racial and negative stereotypes of our Nations and our members, and that views our Nations as incapable of governing, our lands and resources, our communities or our people, as other peoples and Nations are capable of accomplishing, and as a result interferes with the Nations ability to exercise our inherent right to self-determination; 2. Canadas attempt to unilaterally impose the First Nations Education Act upon the Nations, despite widespread opposition to such legislation from all of Canadas Indigenous Peoples and Nations, is a continued manifestation of the Canadian states racist colonial beliefs and attitudes that is contrary to the Nations inherent right of self-determination and/or their treaty right to education as set out in the treaty relationship between the Nations and the Canadian; 3. A lack of effective mechanisms for our Nations to exercise our inherent right to self-determination within the current Canadian states political landscape, and that such a lack of effective mechanism is a result of the Canadian states continued use of ideologies that hold Indigenous Peoples and Nations as unable to govern our lands, resources, communities or our people as other peoples and Nations are capable of accomplishing. Such a premise is based upon racist colonial beliefs and attitudes that held the Nations, as Indigenous Peoples, to have presumed inadequacies based on race as expressed through images of stupidity, poor decision-making, and childish, irresponsible and frequently irrational behaviors. Further these racist colonial attitudes and beliefs also hold that the Nations and our members are stuck in an
-30-
unprogressive and non-evolving past that is associated with maladaptive cultural characteristics; and 4. A lack of a national effective mechanism for the Nations to bring complaints regarding this persistent pattern of racial discrimination within Canadas continued unilateral imposition of laws and policies regarding our Nations childrens education, as the Canadian state strategically aligns itself with certain Aboriginal non-governmental organizations that do not politically represent our Nations and neither possess the inherent right of self-determination nor are they bound by the treaty relationship that Canada, as a successor state, has inherited. The Nations further request the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in so finding the above take the following measures to ensure that Canada take positive action as allowable in a democratic society to curtail the spread of such negative stereotypes found in the articles and videos in accordance with its international obligations as follows: 1. To request the Canadian state to make an urgent submission of information on the situation as described in this submission under the early warning and urgent action procedure;
2. To request the Secretariat to collect information from field presences of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and specialized agencies of the United Nations, national human rights institutions and nongovernmental organizations on the situation as described in this submission and more specifically to appoint and direct UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Co-Chairperson Noureddine Amir to investigate and collect information regarding the allegations contained in this submission and to report back to UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with recommendations; 3. The adoption of a decision including the expression of specific concerns, along with recommendations for action, addressed to the Canadian state, and the Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples; 4. To offer to send to Canada one or more members of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in order to facilitate the implementation of international standards regarding the situation as described in this submission; and 5. Any other action that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination feels necessary to address the situation as described in this submission.
photo Aljazeera News Prime Minister Harper: The Perfectly-Staged Event, Kainai, 7 February 2014
-31-
Recognize Aboriginal rights and say 'no' to the First Nations Education Act
By Pamela Palmater15 On Friday Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister Bernard Valcourt and National Chief Shawn Atleo announced "re-tooled" education legislation. It should be pointed out that despite all the hype leading up to this announcement, there is no actual legislation to scrutinize. So, what did First Nations get from this announcement? The Prime Minister explained that this legislation is an agreement between Shawn Atleo of the AFN and Harper's government. Minister Valcourt also stated that they are looking at this legislation through an "economic lens" and not a treaty or inherent right lens. Therefore, the inherent right to be self-determining and exercise our own jurisdiction over education does not play into this legislation. Valcourt reconfirmed that Atleo was instrumental in the agreement which will ensure "stable and predictable oversight" by the federal government. During the brief question period, Harper confirmed that the legislation was about the deal he struck with Atleo -uniform standards, curriculum and accountability. Atleo didn't really say much of anything in the announcement. Here's a quick look at the announcements "promises": (1) There will be legislation, with a new name First Nation Control of First Nation Education. (2) The regulations will be drafted later, by the government, after the Act is law. (3) The focus of the legislation will be on provincial training, provincial rules, provincial certification, provincial curriculum and provincial standards. (4) The legislation will impose "transparency and accountability" on First Nations as opposed to give First Nations any real control; (5) There will be funding, but not until 2015 and/or 2016 (after Harper's term); No Act, no increase in funding. (6) The funding will not be based on need or in line with the treaty right to education. Instead, a cap of 4.5% in funding.
15
(7) There is nothing to address the funding crisis in First Nation post-secondary education.
Administration Building, Attawapiskat First Nation, 2013
It should be noted that no where in the announcement was there any description of whether this funding was "new funding" in addition to the current core funding; whether it is re-purposed monies from education or other programs that have been cut; or how this funding will be accessed by "non-willing partners" -- that is, those First Nations who reject the legislation, [if, indeed, rejection is will be an option. There is talk about third-party management if there is no compliance.]. This appears to be more about deflecting the nasty publicity around the increasing litigation and human rights claims being brought by First Nations in relation to discriminatory funding in areas like education, housing and child and family services. A promise about future money doesn't educate First Nations kids now. The promise of future funding is being used as a carrot to gain support for legislation that has not even been shared with First Nations yet. They are hoping that we are desperate enough to support this plan before we can see the army inside the Trojan Horse. This is really about tricking First Nations into voluntarily turning their treaty right to fully-funded education into a program privilege that is subject to federal legislation, control and budgets. This is just another delay tactic. While we sit in meetings, the natural resources are removed from our territories. While we negotiate announcements, Justice Canada drafts the details of our surrender.
This article is an excerpted version of an article which first appeared in www.rabble.ca. The full text can be found at http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2014/02/recogni ze-aboriginal-rights-and-say-no-to-first-nations-educa
-32-
The Harper government is radicalizing First Nations

By Michael Harris16
The column below was written by Michael Harris and published by iPolitics on 21 March 2013 almost a year ago. Somehow, it seems even more pertinent in the light of current events. Brace yourself for the Indian Wars, Stephen Harper style. This federal government doesnt give a flying fornication about indigenous issues, and the way the stars are lining up, there will be a price to pay for their disdain. The Indian Wars of history were actually comprised of 40 major military actions against American aboriginals under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Dropping the John Wayne factor from the chronicle, they amounted to a continental eviction notice. It was served on indigenous peoples by wave after wave of European settlers and squatters backed up by the U.S. Cavalry. In those days, south-side, the gun-to-the-head choices facing indigenous peoples were assimilation, forced relocation to reservations, flight or resistance. Manifest Destiny was the rallying cry to justify the serial massacres designed to convince American Indians to voluntarily exchange their land for treaties that often proved worthless. Sadly, Hollywood and the cowboys got to write the history. Today, the chief weapon used against indigenous peoples in Canada is not the repeating rifle or canon. It is the poisoned word innocuously inserted into complex agreements. It is the poisoned image of a people retailed by a federal government interested in only one thing jump-starting resource development on native land with
16
photo by Robin Rowland, Canadian Press
Members of the Gitxsan First Nation blockade a CN Railway track in Kitwanga, B.C., on 16 January, 2013
minimum interference from the owners. Ironically, the choices facing Canadas indigenous peoples are not much different than the ones that led the Cherokee Nation down the Trail of Tears, where 60,000 of them died on the way to Oklahoma: assimilation, the reserve, flight or resistance. The economy has now replaced Manifest Destiny as the justification, but the end game is the same take what belongs to someone else by diminishing them and their rights as much as possible. The easiest victims of this slow, smothering approach are the ones who are the most trusting. Even the credulous Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, must now understand the extent to which he has been taken in by the prime minister and the growing distance between the misplaced passivity of the native leadership and the skepticism and activism of the grassroots Idle No More movement. Not consulted on the PMs appointment of the so-called envoy on native affairs, unaware of sneaky changes to the contribution agreements First Nations sign each year with Ottawa, and still wondering when all those high-level transformative meetings will take place, Atleo has been contemptuously tossed aside by his Tory friends. To his credit, he has begun to speak up. Chief Atleo has asked that First Nations be consulted on any changes to the contribution agreements. Good luck. He has also demanded that Ottawa rescind changes to this years
Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us. His eight books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare Ambition, Lament for an Ocean , and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. He is currently working on a book about the Harper majority government to be published in the autumn of 2014 by Penguin Canada. Readers can reach the author at michaelharris@ipolitics.ca.
-33-
agreements, which the government has disingenuously referred to as merely administrative. The fact is, they could be interpreted as seriously diminishing indigenous and treaty rights, which is precisely why they were made. If the PM runs true to form, Atleo will simply be ignored. Someone should tell the masters of the universe in Aboriginal Affairs that Canadas indigenous people no longer conduct their commerce in beads and pelts, and that their educations go well beyond the diplomas in terror and suffering they got at the residential schools. Brilliant minds familiar with the native community, people like Wilton Littlechild and Constance Backhouse, have been carefully tracking the federal governments insidious changes to the language of the contribution agreements. They have written that the federal Justice Department has been experimenting for some time with replacing the clear non-derogation language with many weaker versions. It is very wise of keen observers like Littlechild and Backhouse, and small online outfits like the Wabanaki Press, to watch and report on what justice department lawyers are doing at the governments behest. After all, Stephen Harper doesnt give his word, he gives wording. Every word of every sentence of Harper legislation must be parsed. Stephen Harper is not the only prime minister who has tried to outfox indigenous peoples. But as noted in the blog apihtawikosisan, the Harper government is the first to slip a new law onto the agenda, Bill S-8, that actually has an active derogation clause. It is the most obvious evidence to date that Ottawa is seeking to get around Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, which offers protection for aboriginal and treaty rights. As the Cree-speaking Metis blogger notes, the proposed law explicitly states that aboriginal and treaty rights deemed to be in conflict with the laws stated intention will not be respected. And for the first time, a new law would contradict promises made to aboriginal peoples in treaties as to the interpretive primacy of those treaties. What better place to subtly undermine indigenous rights than the very agreements through which Canadas 600 bands are funded? As reported by Olesia Plokhii in iPolitics, some experts think the Harper government is playing a game of fiscal extortion and tantamount to nothing less than economic terrorism.
Though some in the government may see bringing communities like Burnt Church to its knees as a success, nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, it has forcibly reminded moderate First Nations peoples that this federal government is not their friend. Cooperation means capitulation and bending to the status quo. Harper is well on his way to radicalizing the First Nations communities across the country. When a minister like Tony Clement talks about the once in a lifetime opportunity to develop the resources of the Ring of Fire in Ontario, he is not talking about fifty years hence hes talking about right now. Bottom line? The federal government plans major resource developments long before the ink is dry on any land claims agreements. Every indigenous person in the country knows what that means. With $650 billion worth of resource development looming across the country, its now or never when it comes to making their case for inclusion. Given the Harper governments blindness to both aboriginals and the environment, how do the First Nations peoples fight back? The media used to be available to them, but many indigenous people are convinced that even the press has become antagonistic, if not occasionally racist. The proof they offer is the appalling treatment meted out to Chief Theresa Spence during the recent Idle No More actions in Ottawa. That leaves the courts and the streets. The courts have been heroically just in holding governments to the honour of the Crown but famously, and perhaps necessarily, slow. With huge political decisions looming in the short term, including Northern Gateway, mining activities in northern Ontario and offshore drilling in the waters off 34 reserves in Atlantic Canada, that leaves the streets. And here is the dilemma with that option. Protests are getting to be tricky business. They often involve prior approval, permits, notification of time periods, fees, the imposition of liability insurance on protesters, not to mention infiltration by security agencies, police surveillance and intrusive searches. The received wisdom these days in government circles seems to be that no protest is peaceful unless it also utterly pointless. Judges in both Manitoba and Ontario have recently granted injunctions against the blocking of roads by native protesters. An Ontario judge, Robert Riopelle, said police charges were warranted against members of the Attawapiskat band for blocking the ice road into De
-34-
Beers Victor diamond mine. Again, the Ontario Provincial Police wisely kept their powder dry. Protesting has become such an endangered activity that the Human Rights Council of the United Nations is about to hold a special debate on the subject. It already has received nine submissions, including one from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, on protecting the right to social protest as a fundamental democratic freedom.
So here it is: if the government isnt responsive to native issues, the mass media is unfavourably disposed, the courts are slow, and the right to protest is under pressure and against all that there is also a resource development juggernaut bearing down on First Nations territory should anyone be surprised if the earth moves this summer? No one can say they didnt see it coming. <<<<>>>>

Four Arrows Newsletter On FNEA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four Arrows Newsletter On FNEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

e-notes> from fourarrows@rogers.

com 13 February 2014 Edition

A Tweaked Education Act Readied for Passage;

Prime Minister Stephen Harper & Friends at Kainai High School

The Yellow Dot Room at Kainai

The Torturous Road of Decolonizing Education: Ancient History:

1887: Sir John A. Macdonald tells Parliament, The great

1920: Regarding a Bill for the compulsory removal

2010: December National Chief Shawn Atleo and

2011: On 9 June 2011, Minister John Duncan and

1950: Walter Harris, Minister responsible for the Indian

1969: Federal government announces the colonizing

1972: National Indian Brotherhood led by George

1982: Canada patriates Constitution, agreeing to

2012: In January, Indian Affairs released the National

http://www.cepn-fnec.com/PDF/accueil/Report%20on%20Priorit y%20Actions%20in%20View%20of%20Improving%20First%2 0Nations%20Education%20-%20November%202011_eng_webs ite%20version_.pdf

2013: January 8-11 AFN meeting ends with a rally inside

CBC Power & Politics

First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act

Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador

U.N. Doc. CERD/C/51/misc 13/Rev 4 (1997).

Administration Building, Attawapiskat First Nation, 2013

The Harper government is radicalizing First Nations

photo by Robin Rowland, Canadian Press

You might also like