Valcourt Game Fails as Atleo Resigns

from [email protected] 4 May 2014 Edition

Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield EndsAs National Chief Makes An Honourable Resignation:Will Valcourt Resign Over Bill C-33 Fiasco?

with information from Katie Hyslop, The Tyee.caJorge Barrera [email protected] @JorgeBarrera,APTN,Open Parliament, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail,

and many others who have reported on Bill C-33 issues

For many months now, Indian Affairs Minister BernardValcourt and even Prime Minister Stephen Harper have been using Assembly of First Nations National ChiefShawn Atleo as their shill and shield to advance theireducation legislation, said to be a Harper legacy .

That game came to an end on May 2 when a deeply-affected National Chief held a media conference, said hewould no longer be an obstacle or a lightning rod on theBill, and that he was resigning. He left the conferencewithout taking questions or making further comment.

The full story is not yet known, and may never be known.There can be no doubt, however, that the government hadbacked him into a corner where he must either supporttheir Bill virtually alone, or whether he would fulfill hisobligations to speak for the First Nations who had electedhim as National Chief, which would mean at a minimumnot supporting the Bill, and likely having to denounce it.

There also can be little doubt that Shawn Atleo chose thehonourable alternative. His support for First Nationeducation cannot be questioned. Neither is there any doubtthat Shawn Atleo believed that what he was doing was inthe best interests of the First Nations. As he said in hisresignation speech, "I have said it is our time asindigenous peoples, that we must smash the status quo,and that my job is as an advocate to open doors for FirstNations to drive change,"

His meetings with Valcourt and the Prime Minister werehis effort to open doors. The problem was that thedoorways were narrow, and his entry was used to blockothers from having their voices heard.

What is not known is what means the Prime Minister and

Bernard Valcourt used to cause him to remain all butsilent while they were holding him up as false proof thatthe First Nations of Canada supported Bill C-33.

As the proposal moved through numerous dramaticcostume-changes after it was first proposed, it finallyemerged last month as Bill C-33, about to pass secondreading late afternoon of Monday, May 5. The SenateCommittee on Aboriginal Peoples is already holdinghearings on the subject matter of the Bill.

First, under the watch of Minister John Duncan, there washoopla, then an engagement process which was laterrenamed consultation. Opposition from First Nationsbegan to swell.Then there was the so-called Crown-First Nations

Gathering which engendered both positive and negativecomments. When the Prime Minister didnt come throughwith his promises about meetings to discuss Treaties, butalso said discussions were taking place with the NationalChief on the subject, a sense of uncomfortableness set in.

photo by Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian PressShawn Atleo and Friend January 2013

Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-2-an informative by [email protected] 4 May 2014 Edition

Duncan resigned suddenly and unexpectedly over anunrelated matter. Bernard Valcourt was appointedMinister and attack dog to rescue the governmentsproposal. as Mintook on the process, and at each stepalong the way, the opposition grew to the governmentsproposal. First Nation leaders across Canada began to zeroin on numerous defects they had noted.

Valcourt countered the clamour by saying theAssembly of First Nations is backing the Bill.National Chief Atleo gave sort-of, maybe, could bestatements. In December at an Assembly of Chiefs inGatineau, Quebec, the Chiefs decided to state theirposition to the Minister and to Canada. Shawn Atleowas not there he put values over politics and waspart of the Canadian delegation to the funeral ofNelson Mandela.

After a series of passionate speeches defendinginherent rights and Treaty rights of First Nations tocontrol the education of their children and againstwhat they saw as the governments attempt to pass alaw to take over their rights, the Chiefs nearlyunanimously passed a resolution setting out fivestern conditions that the Government must meetbefore moving further ahead on any legislation.

The resolution was firmly unequivocal. The Chiefsburied the Bill the government was then proposing. (seethe full resolution below) They resolved to Reject theOctober 22, 2013, draft Working Together for FirstNations Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First NationEducation.

A principal problem had been, as CBCs James Cudmorepoints out, that First Nations across Canada felt thatValcourts negotiating a plan with the National Chief wasnot the same as fulfilling its constitutional duty to consultabout infringements on First Nation rights and to negotiateaccommodation of their rights in the legislation.

The AFN, after all, is not a national government. Atleo isnot a prime minister. And no matter how easy it might befor the feds to hold talks with just one chief, First Nations'reject that as the basis of consultation, Cudmore writes..

The failure of the government to recognize this early onand work to avoid the problem was the final set-up toAtleo's downfall.

Indeed.

And Atleo became, in the view of critics, Harper's manwhen he appeared alongside the prime minister to promote

the new deal at the Kainai High School on the Blood Tribereserve north of Cardston, Alta.Then came the suddencommand performance of Prime Minister Harper on theKanai Reserve in Treaty 7. All the conditions set out inthe resolution had been met, he said. The carefully-stagedoptics of the meeting proved to be offensive to many whosaw the National Chief being summonsed for a commandperformance on the Prime Ministers terms.

The Prime Minister also seemed to be sweetening the potto buy support. First we pass the Bill, he said. And thenstarting in 2016 there will be $420-million of increasedfunding for three years, and after that there would be a capof 4.5% increase annually. The deal was on only if the Billpassed. No Bill, no money. The Bill, however, isindependent of the funding, and leadership said that if thefunds were so important, they should have been providedregardless.

The National Chief was at Harpers side, but his wordswere carefully chosen. "What we are hearing the govern-ment commit to is a new way forward," Atleo said at thetime. When he was pressed on the new Bill, at theKanai event, he insisted, There is no new Bill, meaningthat he expected he would be involved in the drafting ofone, pursuant to the Chiefs conditions he said thegovernment had agreed to meet.

Then There Was Silence about the Bill

By now, the Bill had been in the works for almost a yearnow, but neither the public nor First Nations knew whatwas in it. It had been renamed and given birth amid much

Minister Bernard Valcourt, Prime Minister Stephen Harperand AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo at Kanai Signing


fanfare by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Assemblyof First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo at Kanai,but anticipation and worry grew waiting for it to be madepublic.

In February at Kanai, the National Chief had denied therewas any such Bill, that it all was going to be developedwith participation of the AFN, one of five conditions hesaid the Prime Minister had agreed to. Since then,however, no one had heard anything about any "jointdrafting" or anything else about the Bill. The conclusionwas that the new Bill would be pretty much like the oldBill which was almost universally denounced.

As the weeks went by, Indian Affairs Minister BernardValcourt was saying new Bill met the conditions agreed toby First Nation chiefs during an AFN assembly this pastDecember. But Chiefs and leaders were saying that if aBill has been prepared without any consultation withthem, a principal condition has already been broken.

And Then Bill C-33 Was Revealed & Tabled

No one who knows is talking about what happened afterKanai and the day the Bill was tabled in the House ofCommons in the waning hours of the last day of sessionsbefore a two-week Easter break. That day, FinanceMinister Jim Flaherty died. The House quickly shut down.

Bill C-33 was just left literally sitting on the table.

The National Chief responded to questions ambiguously,sayingelements that First Nations asked for had beenincluded in the Bill. Now First Nations must have theopportunity to fully review and fully engage on the nextsteps. ..I encourage all First Nations to do the analysis."He also vowed to stand with First Nations in support ofFirst Nations control over their own education.

Minister Valcourt told the media Shawn Atleo hadaccepted the Bill and was backing it..

The New Bill Full of Concerns

It did not take long before the contents of the Bill wereread and analyzed, and it did not take much longer beforethe opposition to it boiled over across Canada. FirstNations in region after region attacked it as a Bill toincrease the Ministers power, a Bill to take away ourinherent rights to control the education of our children, aBill to limit the governments liability for poor education.

A wave of negative reaction by First Nations across

Canada grew from a whisper to a whats this? to adenunciation of the Bill. And the more Minister Valcourtinsisted it was backed by the AFN, the louder the clamour.

So What Is in the Bill?

The Bill comes with about $1.9 billion in new funding foreducation. But it would be spread over three years, wouldnot begin until 2016, and then it would be capped at 4.5%. And the promise is not contained in the Bill.

The federal answers to questions about the Bill oftenappeared to be pure hype. Mr. Valcourt said, for instance,that a Joint Council of Education Professionals wouldhave input on every decision the Minister makes. Theactual Bill, on the other hand, specifies exactly the mattersthe minister will ask for advice, leaves other significantmatters unmentioned, and the minister can accept orignore the advice as he wishes. The advice given is aprivate matter between the Council and the Minister.

As reported by Jorge Barrera of APTN News, Mr.Valcourt said the Council would play an oversight roleover the Ministers powers, but the Bill fails to provide theCouncil with that power. In a media conference onParliament Hill, Valcourt said under the Bill the ministercannot make a decision unilaterally without the advice ofthe Joint Council and that ishow you ensure the point ofviews of First Nations will always be considered. TheBill fails to reveal how this happens.

According to the proposed bill, called the First NationControl over First Nation Education Act, the council willhave nine members. The federal cabinet will appoint fourmembers and the chair on the recommendation of theAboriginal affairs minister. Cabinet will appoint the otherfour members on the recommendation of the Assembly ofFirst Nation.

Valcourt said he didnt know how much the educationcouncil members will be paid. According to the bill, thecouncil is expected to meet at least three times a year.However, the advice-giving assigned to the Council by theAct indicates the Council would be sitting on almost afull-time basis and would need considerable bureaucraticsupport to handle the workload.

There would be, say, 70 educational authoritiesapplications to be considered. Deliberating even an houron each application would take two weeks. Giving adviceon revoking permission, a very serious matter assumeonly 7 and thats another week to consider the evidence,


reports, etc. Decision to require a special advisor: assume21 annually another 3 days work for the Council.Decision to appoint a third-party manager? Assume 14annually. Due process. Right to be heard? Right of appeal?Another weeks work for the Council. Applications toremove temporary administrator. 14 annually. Two days.Removal of temporary administrator after consideringreport 14 annually) Two days. Considering revocations ofa designation as an authority 7 annually. 2 days. Adviceof Council on regulations. Say 12 applications a year. Two days? There must be hearings! 5 weeks. Whatever,this will not be a council meeting 3 times a year.

The National Chief Responds to Bill C-33

National Chief Shawn Atleo was quoted as saying the billmet the need for stable and guaranteed funding foreducation and would help maintain Indigenous languages.However, Bill C-33 gives the Minister to set an annual capon the amount of money to be spent, notwithstanding anyprovisions to provide provincial-level funding.

Atleo was also quoted as saying Bill C-33 would give FirstNation communities a say over how their children aretaught, but the Bill provides for communities only toadminister education, and that must be done inconformity to a long list of regulations set unilaterally bythe Minister. .

First Nations must and will drive a way forward for thedevelopment of their own education system, said Atleo.We see a commitment of the principle of First Nationcontrol of education and working with First Nations. Butagain the ambiguity: We will have to do a deeper reviewof the Bill itself.

What Bill C-33 Contains

Bill C-33 allows First Nations to operate their own schoolsor to group schools together under education authorities which must be incorporated under federal or provinciallaw. Both arrangements would be governed by theMinisters regulations. Or, communities could enter intoagreements with provincial school boards. The Ministermay also pass a regulation that even schools operated byFirst Nations must operate according to provincial law.

Under the bill, all students graduating from First Nationschools will have recognized certificates or diplomas,receive a minimum number of instructional hours and betaught by certified teachers. The bill would also ensure all

children have access to elementary and secondaryeducation on reserves. These same matters are alreadyincluded in contribution agreements with the Ministerwhich First Nations must sign to receive funding.

Department officials said they did not know how manyschools currently fail to meet those standards. The correctanswer would be none, because the officials would cutoff funding if those conditions were not met.

Schools would also be required to appoint a schoolinspector responsible for ensuring the school is meetingall requirements under the Act, including the academicperformance of students at the institution. The inspectordoes not report to the community, however, but ratherreports to the Minister, who also can appoint his owninvestigators.

If a school fails to meet standards, it could be put underco-management or under third party management by theminister on the advice of the education council.

The bill would also force parents and guardians to ensurechildren under 16 are enrolled in a school. The bill allowsFirst Nations to pass bylaws make it mandatory forchildren under 18 to attend school. There are noprovisions for enforcement.

Much of the Ministers power will come from unknown"regulations" which are written by the government withoutoversight of Parliament. While Mr. Valcourt has said theregulations will be developed in conjunction with FirstNation leaders, that is not in the Bill, and is another trustme. .

Critics of the Bill say it will give more control to Ottawaover First Nation education. The Bill also .comes at a timewhen Indian Affairs is imposing third-party management

is published as a service of FourArrows/Las Cuatro Flechas, providingcommunications among First Nations of theAmericas since 1968. Names may be addedto the distribution list on requests; nameswill be removed on request. Four Arrowsreceives no funding to provide this service.Readers are invited to send material forpublication in .


on First Nations who refuse to sign contributionagreements which contain what they consider to beunacceptable conditions and controls.

Opposition Was Expressed Almost Immediately

Mohawk Council of Kahnawake Chief Gina Deer saidKahnawake opposed the proposed legislation and thecreation of an education council. She said the bill appearsto give Ottawa more control over First Nation education.

Kahnawake is not happy at all, said Deer, whoseMohawk community sits just south of Montreal. InKahnawake, nobody wants to see this government takeover education. We need more funding so students can goto post-secondary education and university.

Six Nations Chief Ava Hill told APTN News the bill onlygives an illusion of giving First Nation control over FirstNation education.

If they are giving us control, why is it an Act of thegovernment? How is that control? said Hill. Its like anoxymoron.

Hill and Deer, along with Tyendinaga Chief DonaldMeracle, found out that the National Chief had a pressconference on Parliament Hill right after their meetingwith NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. It seems that Mr. Atleohad not inform regional chiefs during an executivemeeting the previous day that he planned to hold a pressconference after the tabling of the Bill.

Nova Scotia regional Chief Morley Googoo, who holdsthe education portfolio with the AFN, said he knew littleabout the proposed bill and was concerned about thedirection things were taking. I think clarification of thewhole process is a question from everyone, said Googoo.I definitely want more information.

Quebec chiefs had already announced they were seeking aFederal Court judicial review of the governmentsdecision to table a bill on education without having donethe proper consultation and accommodation which is aconstitutional right procedurally and substantively.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation (Treaty 9) Opposed

Nishnawbe Aski Nation reiterated its rejection of thefederal governments legislation on First Nation educationafter it saw Bill C-33.

We are opposed to any legislation regarding First Nationeducation that does not reflect the unique circumstance of

our communities, address the needs of our people accord-ing to our treaty rights, or honour our nation-to-nationrelationship with the Crown as represented by the govern-ment of Canada, said Deputy Grand Chief GoyceKakegamic. Education is a sacred responsibility that ourchiefs have accepted, and NAN First Nations will notaccept unilateral encroachment of this sacredresponsibility.

The NAN Chiefs-in-Assembly also rejected Bill C-33because it: gives the minister unilateral control over FirstNations education; will force First Nations to assumeultimate liability over education while the governmentretains authority; does not respect First Nations inherentand treaty rights; does not respect or recognize FirstNations jurisdiction over education; does not include earlylearning, adult education, or alternative education; andunilaterally defines the terms upon which First Nationswill be educated.

We strongly agree that there need to be standards ineducation, but this legislation does not support our visionfor the future of education in Nishnawbe Aski Nation,Kakegamic said.

We have negotiated in good faith on self-governance andeducation jurisdiction since 1999 and we look to thisgovernment to honour this process as the way forward.This legislation does not address the many challenges ourcommunities face in the delivery of education and is ablatant attempt to redefine and limit our jurisdiction towhatever the federal government dictates as appropriate.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation had earlier issued a Declarationrejecting the October 2013 version of the Bill. Wecategorically reject any legislation imposed on us by thefederal or provincial government as it is a direct violationof the treaties, the declaration stated. We will takeaction if the federal or provincial governments shouldproceed with any such legislation.

Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Opposed

Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief PatrickMadahbee also came out against the legislation. Theminister of Indian Affairs has all the power and authorityover First Nations education while taking on no legalresponsibility whatsoever, Madahbee said. Thats thereality of the kind of control this government is talkingabout.

Grand Chief Madahbee said First Nations had asked for an


integration of language and culture, but the legislationmakes French and English mandatory with an option ofFirst Nation language, if the minister approves it andunder the Ministers regulations.

We asked for fair and equitable funding, so theyannounce vague promises of increased funding after thenext federal election with no specifics on how it will beallocated, Madahbee said.

Their idea of First Nation control of First Nationeducation is to allow First Nations to be administrators oflegislation thats forced onto them. If a First Nation schoolfails to meet provincial standards, regardless of beingvastly underfunded, the minister has the legal right to putthe school under third party management thats who hasreal control of First Nation education.

Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy: Opposed

Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy said the federallegislation doesnt address the conditions raised by theAssembly of First Nations Chiefs-in-Assembly.

The AFN had five conditions set out in a chiefsresolution and this announcement does not address them,Beardy said. Bill C-33 continues to take a disciplinaryapproach rather than a collaborative approach toimproving First Nations education. We have much moreinnovative ideas on how a collaborative approach wouldserve our students better but once again, we werentinvolved in the direction of a bill that affects our future.

Grand Chief fBeardy also called for a new round ofconsultation and collaboration for the new legislation.We soundly rejected this proposal at the Chiefs ofOntario November Assembly and at the AFN Assembly inDecember, Beardy said. But now we have a new billwith no input on its content.

And Two Weeks Later, Parliament ReconvenedFor two weeks, the wave of opposition increased untilParliament reconvened. Then Minister Valcourt and theConservative caucus went on the attack. Anyone againstthe Bill was against educating First Nation children.

But most of all, they said over and over and over, TheNational Chief supports the Bill. The National Chiefspeaks for the AFN. Everyone else was a dissident. Ofcourse strong powers had been given to the Minister, itwas said, just as it was in the provinces to theSuperintendent of Education. Of course full immersion inindigenous languages would not be permitted. This is

Canada, and the languages are English and French, theTories said.

The Minister Was Still Smiling

In the fact of all this strong criticism, Minister Valcourtwas still reciting the mantra on every possible occasion:The National Chief supports the Bill. He speaks for theresponsible First Nations of Canada.

Valcourt also relied on platitudes about education to propup the bill. Our government knows that a good educationcan change a life, Valcourt told the media, Thats whyI am so pleased that we have made reforming First Nationseducation a priority and introduced the First NationsControl of First Nations Education Act. This will helpFirst Nations access the skills they need to live healthyand successful lives this is good for First Nations, forCanadians and for our countrys future.

He also said that through Bill C-33, the federal willprovide First Nations students with the educationstandards, supports and opportunities that mostCanadians take for granted.

The Media Takes the Bait

In the face of this confusing barrage, newspapers tended toopt for safe ground. The Globe and Mail urged FirstNations to accept Conservative offer rather than urgingthe government to amend the Bill.

Had not Shawn Atleo himself ran on a platform thatemphasized education as a priority? the Globe asked. Inhis own words, that meant better graduation rates, betterschools, more posts-econdary students and, simply, moreopportunity for our young people to achieve their goals.

These goals are not controversial not even among FirstNations leaders, the Globe opined. Everyone recognizesthe bleakness of the status quo. Everyone agrees thatwithout fundamental change, Canada risks failing yetanother generation of native children. Everyone agreesnative communities must achieve better than a 60% highschool failure rate for students in on-reserve high schools,a figure that hasnt shifted for more than 30 years.

The Globe went on to say, But when it comes to figuringout how to undo this shameful status quo, the consensusfalls apart. The only legitimate goal improving theeducational outcomes of native children tends to getupstaged by infighting among native leaders and withOttawa.


In other words, the problem is native leaders, alwaysharping about the days of residential schools orcomplaining about being shut out of consultations..

Why dont they just accept provincial schools? the Globeasks. Canadas provincial governments withexperience and expertise administering nearly all ofCanadas primary and secondary schools stand on thesidelines. They dont dare delve into this mess. Can youblame them?

As a result of this infighting by native leaders, Thenative education file has been a showcase of missedopportunities, recriminations, dithering and dysfunction.Who suffers? Native children.

The Globe described Bill C-33 as a narrow window ofopportunity for change. It was far from perfect. But,the Globe editorialized, but it represents the best crack ina generation at giving more native children a shot atsuccess in school, and, by extension, life.

In other words rather than criticizing the HarperGovernment for making an unacceptable offer, it was thenative leaders criticized for not accepting what wasserved on the plate.

It might as well have said, This is the best youre going toget so rather than waiting for another generation to getsomething better, take what youre offered.

Mr. Atleo had offered his cautious approval of the Bill,the editorial said. He should be applauded for this.Instead, hes getting blow-back from many native leaderswhose opposition threatens to derail the proposed Bill.

Lets hope Mr. Atleo recognizes this kind of criticism forwhat it is: a tired regurgitation of excuses for inaction,which, if given credence, would pave the road right backto square one, the Globe opined.

It alleged there had been four years worth of of nationalpanels, engagement, reports, consultations, discussion,blueprints for discussion, draft legislative proposal andopen letters, implying that Bill C-33 was the result of allthat effort on the governments part.

Without the First Nations Control of First NationsEducation Act, we are left with a vacuum, the Globefretted.

What should happen? Mr. Atleo was elected nationalchief for good reasons. His commitment to education isone of them. Its time for him to remind those who elected

him of his original mandate. Atleo is right, the Globesaid, to see Bill C-33 as a bridge. Accept it, and greatercontrol is sure to come. Without Bill C-33, anothergeneration of native children will be stranded on a bridgeto nowhere.

The Globes Readers Were In Near Unanimous Support

The children of Chinese or Indian immigrants are notgetting ahead in Canada by learning only Mandarin orHindi in Canada but they are getting ahead by going toregular schools along with fellow Canadian children.

First Nation leadership are like dictators in Africa andAsia where they have prevented spread of education andeducation of their children.

One reader pointed to his ancestors who cleared somefarmland and built themselves little log cabins, theyorganized school boards to set up and administer aneducation system for their children, all by themselveswithout handout from anyone. Think about it.

The native leaders opposing the plan were mercenarieswho are out to see funding increases with no restraint orstrings attached. They have no interest in education or thegreater good of their people. We are partly to blamebecause we keep funding the dysfunction.

Derek Napinak is a joke. Every time an issue comes up,he lays down the race card. Disrupt, undermine, andgrandstand: these are the foundations of Napinak'splatform. . . . you have to wonder if the guy EVER goesanywhere or says anything while totally sober.

Growing up and being educated within their communitydoes put [First Nation children] at a disadvantage foradvancement in Canadian society.

The big problem is the predominant racist culture amongaboriginals, where they would not mingle withnon-aboriginal people, and kids stick to gangs instead ofbeing productive. That's a cultural thing that has to dowith their leaders attitude . . .

The April 28 Media Conference

On the morning of the same day that Parliamentarians andofficials came back to town Monday, April 28 therewas a media conference of Grand Chiefs Derek Nepinakof Manitoba, Craig Makinaw of Treaty 6 and Gord Petersof Ontario. Chief Wallace Fox from Onion Lake was thereas was Mike Delisle from Kahnawake, a member of the


Quebec region.

When the conference ended, the clear writing was on thewall in big letters. One by one, the Chiefs denounced theBill for unilaterally imposing standards withoutguaranteeing the funds to meet the standards, givinghimself power through arbitrary regulations, and allowingthe Minister of Indian Affairs to intervene into a schoolsmanagement with a third-party manager. They also saidFirst Nations had been shut out of having any involvementin the drafting of the Bill.

Grand Chief Gordon Peters said First Nations shouldn'thave to make threats to have their voices heard. Whileactions could include a blockade on the AmbassadorBridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit if Bill C-33becomes law, he added that he and other First Nationsleaders shouldn't have to make threats to be heard.

Stan Beardy, the regional chief for Ontario on the AFNexecutive, says the legislation was crafted withoutconsultation and takes a disciplinary approach rather thana collaborative approach to First Nations education.

Perry Bellegarde, the regional chief for Saskatchewan onthe AFN executive, said the bill needs much moreanalysis. His initial statement fell short of condeming theBill, but before the week was over, he said he could nolonger support the Bill.

Donald Maracle, the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay ofQuinte in southeastern Ontario, said the bill would transferunlimited liability to First Nations, without enoughfunding to succeed.

Grand Chief Michael Delisle of the Mohawk Council ofKahnawake said, We are planning, whether they bedeemed demonstrations, rallies ... to again get attention.But I think (the) Canadian economy, eventually, will bethe target. Again, I can't give you specifics today, butwe're prepared to take whatever action (is) necessary toensure the control is not taken away from us."

Chief Delisle noted that Ghislain Picard, the AFN regionalchief for Quebec and Labrador had filed an application fora judicial review of the government's plan. In an interviewwith CBC News on Thursday, Picard said that after apreliminary read, the proposed bill contains mostly"cosmetic changes." Picard said he is particularlyconcerned about the Joint Council of EducationProfessionals which he thinks would still give the ministertoo much control.

Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron of the Federation ofSaskatchewan Indian Nations said in a separate interviewthat First Nations people have Treaty rights to educationas well as under international law neither can betrumped by federal legislation. He adds that the federalgovernment failed to consult in any serious way with FirstNations and have ignored all concerns raised by nativeorganizations.

The panel of Chiefs was not shy about direct extensivecriticism at the AFN. They said they were the AFN itwas made up of its member First Nations but that theAssembly had run off in its own direction.

An AFN analysis of the B didnt help matters any. It hadbeen produced by technicians, and not been ratified byanyone. Ir said Bill C-33 was a constructive andnecessary step, supportive of goals expressed by FirstNations for control, respect for treaty and aboriginalrights, recognition of language and culture and a clearstatutory guarantee for fair funding.

Leaders responded in a chorus asking where in the Billwas there substantiation for the analysis, and under whoseauthority had the analysis been released?

The Mantra and the Beat Goes On

But Indian Affairs Minister Valcourt continued themantra, repeating that Bill C-33 had met the fiveconditions outlined by the Assembly of First Nations inGatineau, and had the approval of the National Chief.Those conditions required the government to ensureaboriginal communities retain control of education, thatthere be a statutory funding guarantee, recognition of FirstNations languages and culture, shared oversight andongoing, meaningful engagement.

"The introduction of this legislation comes after years ofunprecedented dialogue and consultations with FirstNations all over the country and the Assembly of FirstNations, who identified a need for a better educationsystem for First Nation children," Valcourt's office said inan emailed statement. As for the Joint Council, Valcourtinsisted that it would simply provide Ottawa withinformation on how the schools are performing, not givethe federal government direct control. It would prevent"unilateral oversight by the minister," Valcourt said.

The Chiefs took issue with the Ministers comments,saying that not one of the conditions had been met. Theyalso took issue with the AFN negotiating with the federal


government on behalf of First Nations.

A New Era of First Nation Leadership: Derek Nepinak

"This is a new day," Grand Chief Nepinak said. "This is anew era in First Nations leadership where we don't acceptthe crumbs that they are offering as enticements to allowfor our jurisdictions to be swept away under theirlegislation." Pushing the legislation through without thesupport of First Nations across the country would be anact of discrimination and racism, he said.

"Oftentimes we get caught up in these dialogues wherewe're talking about using force against force, and that tome puts it in a tailspin and it gives Canadians the wrongidea about who we are. We are a loving people. We are acaring people. We are a hospitable people. And we wantwhat's best for our children, and that's the bottom line."

"I agree with the words of Shawn Atleo that the AFN isnot a rights-bearing entity. I agree with his words when hesays that," Nepinak said.

"The challenge we face is we come up against a ministerwho says that the proponent for negotiating and consultingon this bill is the AFN. So clearly when our national chiefsits with the minister, there is a clear misunderstandingabout who's doing what and who's saying what."

Meanwhile, Atleo was urging each First Nation to letOttawa know what they think of the bill. "AFN continuesto advocate as directed by chiefs from across the country,to achieve fairness and equity in education respectful ofour languages and cultures," he said in a statement.

The Minister Was Not Listening

The problem was that Ottawa was not listening to FirstNations. The Minister said the National Chief had spoken.There was nothing more to be said.

When asked whether he would push the bill throughParliament without widespread support of the FirstNations, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourtpointed to the AFN endorsement. I am pleased that theAssembly of First Nations has placed the needs of childrenfirst and confirmed that Bill C-33 is a constructive andnecessary step forward, the minister said in an e-mail onFriday.

"The introduction of this legislation comes after years ofunprecedented dialogue and consultations with FirstNations all over the country and the Assembly of FirstNations, who identified a need for a better education

system for First Nation children," Valcourt's office said inan emailed statement.

However, Nepinak and the others take issue with the AFNnegotiating with the federal government on behalf of FirstNations. "I agree with the words of Shawn Atleo that theAFN is not a rights-bearing entity. I agree with his wordswhen he says that," Nepinak said.

"The challenge we face is we come up against a ministerwho says that the proponent for negotiating and consultingon this bill is the AFN. So clearly when our national chiefsits with the minister, there is a clear misunderstandingabout who's doing what and who's saying what."Meanwhile, Atleo is urging each First Nation to let Ottawaknow what they think of the bill.

"AFN continues to advocate as directed by chiefs fromacross the country, to achieve fairness and equity ineducation respectful of our languages and cultures," hesaid in a statement Monday.

"This effort is built on a solid foundation of First Nationscontrol of First Nations education and continues to beabout the children our future educating them in theirhome territories and supporting their dreams andeducational success anywhere they choose."

Mr. Atleo had earlier said the AFN is working under thedirection of chiefs from across the country and supportswidespread assessment of the legislation. But Mr. Nepinaksaid at the time he does not believe Mr. Atleos support ofthe bill has the blessing even of the majority of theexecutive of the AFN.

Chief Nepinak said Mr. Valcourt should recognize that theBills impact will be felt at the community level, andconsultation must be done with individual First Nations,not the AFN. I think what weve got to do is take a reallycritical review of the AFNs role in this process, said Mr.Nepinak. I think there has to be fallout from this.

And yes, there certainly was fall-out.

By the end of the week, the National Chief had resigned.

The Friday after the Monday

As the dissonance increased of the Minister tellingCanadians what the First Nations were saying about hisBill and what the First Nations were actually saying, therewere rumbles about calling a meeting of the Confederacyof Nations. In fact, several prominent First Nation leaders


had asked the National Chief on May 2 to call such ameeting. Talk of impeachment was starting to be heard.

Early on May 2, word got around that there would be a4:30 p.m. conference call of the Executive Council theten regional vice-chiefs.

Later on May 2 came the sudden notice. MediaConference. National Chief. What could it possibly beabout?

The media gathered. Ten minutes late, the Conferenceopened by an official saying the National Chief wouldmake a statement. Then he would leave. There would beno questions. Another official, Peter Dinsdale, AFNsCEO as it turned out, would be available for questions.

Thus May 2 became the day the National Chief resigned.He would no longer be an obstacle nor a lightningrod, he said.

And obviously, no longer would he be used by theMinister as his principle advocate.

Minutes after the resignation announcement, the Regionalvice-chiefs joined their pre-planned conference call. Theyhad just learned about the resignation at the same time aseveryone else.

Even before the surprise resignation, the call was out for aConfederacy of Nations meeting on May 14. Ottawa. Thesame day a massive manifestation will take place onParliament Hill. Idle No More organizers say they will bethere. The topic: Bill C-33.

It was now a very different game than it had been onMonday. For all the players.

What Happened?

The more the Minister used Shawn Atleo as his shield, thegreater was the volume of dissent of First Nations whowanted to be heard.

The National Chief did not join the debate nor did hedefend the Bill. Mostly he remained silent.

And then seeing no other honourable way out, he abruptlyannounced he was resigning. And then he turned and leftthe stage.

That leaves the author of the melodrama, the Minister. Thescript has lost its principal actor, and has no happy ending.

If anything, it was the governments shameful continuing

insistence, day after day, that the National Chief spoke forthe First Nations of Canada, even though the near-unanimous wave of criticism of Bill C-33 was well knownto it. His name was invoked over 30 times in the secondreading debate on the Bill.

Will the Minister resign?

A Different Kind of National Chief

Originally from Ahousaht, a community just north ofTofino, the most populous First Nations on westernVancouver Island, Atleo was first elected to the positionof national chief in 2009, running on a platform ofeducation reform. He was well-known in British

Columbia, a hereditary chief and regional vice-chief, butlittle known on the national scene. Atleo won re-electionin 2012, but faced criticism during the election for beingtoo close to the federal government.

But even from among his supporters, many could not


understand the National Chiefs acceptance of Bill C-33.Jody Wilson-Raybould, regional Vice-Chief for BritishColumbia, has been a close ally of Mr. Atleos on manyissues. As she told Gloria Galloway of the Globe andMail, she was disappointed with the loss of a respectedleader who articulated clear priorities and a positivevision. But even she did not agree with his support of theeducation act and used her Twitter account before hisresignation on Friday to say First Nations do not want ananny state in our classrooms.

As Tristen Hopper noted in the National Post, tonon-aboriginal Canadians, Atleo became the chiefspokesman of the view that healthy, well-educated FirstNations communities were not just a matter of principle,but a matter of economic self-interest. The aboriginalpopulation is the most youthful, burgeoning population ofCanada, and that should be seen as a tremendoushuman-resources potential we should be tapping into, hetold B.C. Business magazine in 2008.

But what would most characterize his tenure andultimately lead to his Friday downfall was Mr. Atleosclose collaboration with the Tories. A statement issued byPrime Minister Stephen Harper after Mr. Atleosresignation illustrated the relationship:

Together, we helped improve opportunities forgreater participation by First Nations in the economyand standards of living and quality of life on reserve,including through the Crown-First Nations Gatheringin 2012. We also shared a commitment to improvingFirst Nation education and ensuring that students onreserve have the same education standards, supportsand opportunities that most Canadians take forgranted.

Although there was no criticism of the Tories on theeducation bill, the National Chief had last year warned theTories that they faced collaboration or collision if theyfailed to consult with First Nations on energy projects but the tack was bound to be politically risky, Hopperwrote.

Atleo had been first elected to the position of nationalchief in 2009, running on a platform of education reform.He was 37 years old. He won again in 2012, but facedcriticism at the time for being too close to the federalgovernment. There were mumblings even from peoplewho admired his commitment and energy that he did notseem to understand what many First Nations saw as thehistoric role of the National Chief or, really, the historic

role of the AFN. Was the Assembly of Chiefs just anadvocacy group?

He had been a different kind of National Chief. As TristenHopper wrote in the National Post, He was youngenough to have dodged the residential school era, he was auniversity chancellor with an Australian Masters degreein education, a breakdancer who could moonwalk oncommand and, in an organization composed largely ofTreaty peoples, Mr. Atleo came from the untreatied landsof British Columbia.

Before roomfuls of Toronto suits, he had no qualmsdeclaring that First Nations were here to stay and werelooking for partners. Were open for business, as he hadtold a gathering of the Toronto Board of Trade.

After the National Chiefs May 2 resigneation, the Nuu-cha-nulth Tribal Council issued a statement ofshock andsadness. It expressed its pride in the National Chief forcarring himself with dignity and honour, acting withrespect and caring, and noting his service, sacrifice andcommitment.

Katie Hyslop of The Tyee.ca wrote of the Atleoresignation that Atleos support had been seen by thefederal government as its best bargaining chip in Bill C-33's passage. That view was advanced by NathanMatthew, senior advisor and negotiator for the FirstNations Education Steering Committee in B.C.

But with Atleo's surprise resignation from the position,Prime Minister Stephen Harper has far less leverage inconvincing First Nations to accept the bill, Matthew said.

"Now that [Harper] doesn't have the national chief there,he's going to face the full attention of the [Assembly]executive, who will replace in the interim the nationalchief," said Matthew. A lot of those regional chiefs in theexecutive have voiced their opposition to this bill."

Instead, Matthew said the federal government "did notallow co-development" of the system with First Nations indrafting its bill. Other concerns include the positioning ofthe minister of Indian Affairs as the ultimate authority inFirst Nations education; mandatory instruction in Englishor French; and no commitment to funding on par withprovincial funding in B.C.

Despite their opposing views on the education bill, therelationship between Atleo and the committee was "veryrespectful," said Nathan Matthew. "He was verysupportive of First Nations education; he's made it a


priority. He certainly supported what we're doing in B.C."

The British Columbia First Nations Education SteeringCommittee has also spoken out against the bill. Theorganization acts as a de facto school board for themajority of First Nations' on-reserve schools in BritishColumbia. In January 2012, it signed a tripartite agreementwith the provincial and federal governments to delivereducation on reserves, boosting annual funding for schoolsto bring them on par with public schools in the province.

But the agreement expires in 2017, and the province'son-reserve schools would then be subjected to theproposed legislation, which Matthew described as tooprescriptive in terms of how a First Nations school shouldbe run.

"[The tripartite agreement] is not perfect, but it'ssomething that all of the First Nation schools negotiated,"he said. "If the legislation recognized the continuation ofthat tripartite agreement and been flexible and respectedregional diversity, then we probably would have been a lotmore easy on the legislation."

Matthew said the Bill did not respect the five conditionsthe Assembly of First Nations and national chiefs outlinedat the Gatineau Assembly in December.

Despite their opposing views on the education bill, therelationship between Atleo and the committee was "veryrespectful," said Matthew. "He was very supportive ofFirst Nations education; he's made it a priority. Hecertainly supported what we're doing here in B.C."

So what happens next?

The Organs of Governance of the AFN

The principal governing organ is the Chiefs inAssembly, with an annual general assembly: 2014Halifax, 2015 Winnipeg. That is where, supposedly, theChiefs determine direction, policy, and give marchingorders to the National Chief.

The next national chief elections will take place during theAssembly's 2015 Annual General Meeting in Winnipeg.The Assembly of First Nations executive will take overthe position of chief in the interim.

The Charter stipulates that the Executive Committee stepsin to take over the role and function of the National Chief.

The Charter also stipulates that when the post of NationalChief becomes vacant, it is up to the Chiefs in Assemblyto make other arrangements.

This means it is the Executive Committee, acting in theplace of the National Chief, who would have to call aspecial meeting of the Chiefs in Assembly. Likely in thecircumstances it would seek the concurrence of theresurrected Confederacy of Nations at its meeting on May14. By the time an Assembly of Chiefs could be arrangedfor an proper notice given, it would be mid-June, and theannual General Assembly has already been called forHalifax for the week of July 15. Chances are ttheExecutive Committee will govern until then.

At Halifax, several options of other arrangements areopen to the Assembly. They could decide to continue withthe Executive Committee in charge until the expiration ofthe current term of office in July 2015, when there will bea General Assembly and election in Winnipeg.

They could also decide to call an election to take place inthe interim. The election process of naming an electoralofficer, doing nominations, holding the election wouldtake a minimum of ten weeks, sometime after September30. Since this is the first time in the 32 years of theAssemblys existence that there has been a resignation ofNational Chief, there is no precedent. Apparently anautumn election could be to fill the unexpired term ofoffice, until July 2015, or a new three-year-term cyclecould be started.

The Return of the Confederacy of Nations

When the Assembly of First Nations was created in 1982and its Charter adopted in 1985, one of the organs ofgovernance was a Confederacy of Nations to governbetween Assemblies. It consisted of one delegate fromeach of the AFNs ten regions plus one delegate for every10,000 First Nations membership. At that time, there wereabout 40 delegates. It met quarterly, special meetingscould be called, and it was chaired by the National Chief.

Today, with population increases, the Confederacy wouldhave about 75 delegates, plus the ten members of theExecutive Committee composed of the regional vice-chiefs. And one vacant chair which would have beenoccupied by the National Chief.

In 2004 and years after, there were numerous specialassemblies, and the Confederacy just sort of stoppedmeeting. There was no amendment to the Charter, there


was no decision not to meet. It just drifted into silence,and the obscurity, and now ten years later, there are manyin the AFN who did not really know of its existence.

Initially, the move of the Chiefs and organizations was torevitalize the Confederacy to take control of what theysaw the Secretariat taking over the role of the Assembly ofChiefs. They also say the possibility of the Confederacybecoming the voice government would have to listen to,and in that way, prevent the National Chiefs office frombeing co-opted by the Minister.

Now, particularly until a new National Chief is chosen perhaps as far away as late September or even July 2015,the Confederacy of Nations becomes the de factogoverning body of an AFN without a National Chief..

The Charter calls for the Executive Committee to be justthat an executive board of directors essentially. TheAFNs governance is in the hands of the Confederacybetween Assemblies and provided with strong powers.

It interprets and implements resolutions, decisions anddirections of the Chiefs Assemblies .

The Confederacy oversees the National Chief andExecutive Committee to ensure they conform with themandates of the Chiefs-in-Assembly, takingcorrective or remedial disciplinary measures whennecessary.

The Confederacy approves, allocates, monitors andcontrols the fiscal resources of the AFN. It developsshort- and long-term plans and establishes prioritiesconsistent with the directions of the Chiefs inAssembly.

(See summary of Charter set out below)

But What About Bill C-33 in the Meantime?

All of this leaves the Assembly of First Nations extremelyvulnerable to machinations of the government regardingBill C-33. Very shortly, the government will make itknown how it intends to deal with this whole newballgame.

Will it keep on pushing hard for Bill C-33 to be passed inthe shortest possible time? The Governments timetable isto have the Bill have Royal Assent the first week in June a month from now.

That would then be the prelude for the Prime Ministers

celebration of the June 11 anniversary of the Apology onResidential Schools. But if there is still anger and outrageabout the passage of Bill C-33, and no National Chief forthe Prime Minister to hold up as a friendly voice, wouldthat be rain on the Apology parade?

May 14 on Parliament Hill will be a telling andthcrystalizing event. Not only will there by the rally, but theConfederacy of Nations will also be taking a position,officially speaking for the Assembly of First Nations forthe first time since the National Chiefs resignation. It willthen be clear to Canadians and Mr. Valcourt what theposition is of the AFN on Bill C-33.

Among the strategies being considered are demonstrationsthat could last for multiple days, blockades of resourceindustries, constitutional challenges, and an appeal to theinternational community through the United Nations.But it could also be the opening curtain on an electioncampaign to fill the vacancy, one candidate attempting tooutdo another. That would leave it for the government tocome up through the middle and just pass the Bill. TheConfederacy of Nations could consider a Compact ofleadership and potential candidates to declare amoratorium on election activity, to delay anyannouncements of candidacy, any electioneering atleast until Parliament has prorogued for the summer.

In the meantime, the Standing House Committee onAboriginal Affairs will get the Bill in the evening ofMonday, May 5. It will likely open hearings the next day.The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples isalready into hearings on the subject matter of the Bill, agovernment move which opens the door for thegovernment to push the Bill through the Senate likegreased lightning.

Both Committees are being deluged with requests toappear to present views on the Bill. Some oppositionmembers are moving to have regional hearings on the Bill,but the government is likely to want the Bill passed beforethe summer recess.

Of the AFNs ten regions, B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan,Ontario and Quebec are firmly opposed. Alberta isconsulting on it and is also likely to be opposed. TheNWT, Yukon, and Nova Scotia are yet to be heard from.That leaves Roger Augustine from New Brunswick/PEIalone on a limb as the only regional chief offering supportat this moment. .

It is not known if the Executive Committee or the


Confederacy ofNations will alsoseek to appearbefore theCommittees toput theirrespectiveofficial view onrecord.

It is also notknown whatthey or otherFirst Nationleadership willhave to sayabout MinisterBernardValcourts rolein his ambitionto get Bill C-33passed through Parliament at any costs.

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of ManitobaChiefs was critical of Valcourt, understanding of Atleo.He praised the National Chief for doing the right thing bystepping down. He said Atleo had been put in a difficultposition.

"Shawn Atleo came into leadership in a very difficulttime," Nepinak told CBC News in an interview. "He cameinto leadership at a time when we knew that theConservative government was going to be pressing usfrom many different directions. He came at a time when alot of people are starting to wake up to the recognition ofself-determination."

Grand Chief Nepinak blamed the federal government for"cornering" Atleo. The federal government hasdisrespected our national leader."

"It's put him in a place where he had very little choice butto make the decision that he did. His integrity was calledinto question. I think he brought back some integrity todayin the decision that he made.

When Bill C-33 was tabled and seen for the first time,Manitoba Grand Chief Derek Nepinak said the Bill was

an attempt to create the illusion of First Nations controlover education. He said it was an illusion: because thegovernment was enticing support by selling the Bill asFirst Nations control, while in reality maintained theunfettered discretion of the minister, granting him or herwith sweeping power and control over a variety ofeducational matters. At the same time, he said, it wasperpetuating the denial and the existence of inherent andtreaty rights of indigenous peoples and their jurisdictionover the education of their children."

"I'm just asshocked andsurprised asyou all are,"said FSINChief Perry Bellegardeafterhearing of Atleosresignation.

Bellegarde,who ranagainstAtleo in themost recentAFNleadership contest, said his differences with Atleo werenever personal.

"Anytime you see a leader resign it's a sad day, becauseit's a difficult job," he said.

As far as Bill C-33 was concerned. Chief Bellegardewanted to be counted with those who opposed it. "It's aflawed bill," Bellegarde insisted Friday. "It needs to bewithdrawn and a proper consultation process with all FirstNations leaders across Canada needs to be undertakenpretty quick."

photo by Angela Johnston, CBC NewsGrand Chief Derek Nepinak, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs

FSIN Chief Perry Bellegarde

Video of the National Chiefs Resignation:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shawn-atleo-the-pragmatist-couldn-t-reconcile-opposing-first-nations-styles-1.2630621


WHEREAS:

A. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Article 14recognizes the right of First Nations to develop ourown education institutions and systems, reflectingour languages, cultures and identities, includinglanguage immersion initiatives and institutions, andrequires state governments to seek the free, priorand informed consent of First Nationsgovernments prior to enacting measures whichimpact our rights.

B. First Nations education is a key foundation forstrengthening our cultural identity, ensuring thetransmission of our languages, and ultimatelystrengthening our families, our clans, ourcommunities, and our nations.

C. First Nations are united in advancing educationthat is child-centred, respecting the diversity acrossregions but coming together always inunderstanding that all initiatives, approaches, andpotential agreements in education must place thechild at the centre.

D. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has aChiefs Committee on Education (CCOE),supported by the National Indian Council onEducation, which has regional representation andcontinues to provide advice and recommendationsto the AFN National Executive.

E. First Nations Control of First Nations Education2010, which incorporates the original IndianControl of Indian Education 1972 paper, is theofficial education policy for the Assembly of FirstNations.

F. On October 22 2013 the Federal governmentreleased: Working Together for First NationStudents: a Proposal for a Bill on First NationEducation. First Nations across all regions havereviewed this proposal and reached consensusthat the current proposal is unacceptable and hasbeen rejected. Resolutions from Nations andregions set out the following as essential forachieving success for First Nations students andschools:

a. Any proposal must respect inherent andTreaty rights and contain First Nation

jurisdiction of First Nation education as theoverriding, paramount principle and not beimposed unilaterally by the Aboriginal andNorthern Affairs bureaucracy.

b. Canada must recognize its obligation andprovide a statutory guarantee for funding ofFirst Nations education that is sustainableand reflects actual costs.

c. First Nation education systems must beenabled, supported and funded in a waythat supports full immersion and groundingof all education in Indigenous languagesand cultures.

d. First Nations are diverse, and thisdiversity must be fully respected andenabled in the variety of ways in which FirstNations choose to advance First NationsControl of First Nations Education.

G. First Nations have affirmed that there must bean agreed-to process that fully respects andreflects partnership, consistent with Treatyrelationships, and the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to supportimplementation and achievement of First Nationsjurisdiction over education.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chiefs-in-Assembly:

1. Reject the October 22, 2013 draft WorkingTogether for First Nations Students: A Proposal fora Bill on First Nation Education as is.

2. Call upon Canada to negotiate to advance FirstNations 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, andcommitted to working together and providing child-centred solutions.

4. Guided by points 1, 2 and 3 above, direct theNational Chief, National Executive, and FirstNations to take all necessary steps to press

Special Chiefs Assembly, Gatineau, QuebecDecember 9, 2013


Canada to respond to the conditions required toachieve success for First Nations childrenincluding:

a. Respect and recognize inherent rights andtitle, Treaty rights, and First Nation Control ofFirst Nation Education jurisdiction. First Nationsmust retain all options to advance theireducation and all such agreements must befully respected, enabled and supported.

b. Provide a statutory guarantee for funding ofFirst Nations education as a precondition that issustainable and reflects needs-based costsconsistent with Canadas obligation.

c. Enable and support systems to provide fullimmersion and grounding of all education inIndigenous languages and cultures.

d. Develop mechanisms to oversee, evaluate,and for reciprocal accountability and to ensurethere not be unilateral federal oversight andauthority.

e. Ensure a meaningfully supported process toaddress these conditions through acommitment to working together through co-development, fully reflective of First Nationsrights and jurisdiction.

5. Direct the National Chief and NationalExecutive to advocate urgently and strongly forCanada to commit immediate investments inBudget 2014 to address the current funding gap,and advance a statutory guarantee for the future ofFirst Nations education systems.

The Last Word: Shawn Atleos Resignation Speech I have stated clear priority on the recognition of Treaty, of Indigenous rights and title, on the safety and security of ourmost vulnerable, and I have also made my priority on education for our kids plainly clear.

I have said it is OUR TIME as Indigenous peoples, that we must smash the status quo and that my job is as an advocateto open doors for First Nations to drive change.

It is on this basis that we have worked very hard to achieve a new conversation between Canada and First Nations aconversation grounded in recognition, respect and ultimately reconciliation, and to reach a realization that stronger FirstNations are vital for a stronger Canada.

I have had the great honour and privilege to visit over one hundred First Nation schools in every region. It is the timespent with kids, their dedicated teachers the parents and the grandparents that has both inspired me and created a steelyresolve and determination. I think of the late Shannen Koostachin, young boys and girls in remote northern communitieslike young Jayden youve heard me reference so many times before.

It is the spark in their eyes and the knowledge that as leaders as the adults we must get this right right now.

The work before us is absolutely challenging if it were easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Todaysconversation began over 40 years ago with the remarkable leadership of the late George Manuel and many others. Indiancontrol of Indian education in 1972 a policy statement crafted by our own educators including Verna Kirkness remainsa powerful affirmation of our resilience and our determination to achieve change and justice for our children througheducation.

Smashing the status quo means ending the glacial pace of change for our people and providing full support for growthand success. Smashing the status quo means new approaches grounded in recognition and in reconciliation.

The current discussion and diverse views remind us within the Assembly of First Nations that we too have much workahead. The inspiration behind the creation of the Assembly of First Nations was to serve as an advocacy body bringingtogether the Nations and supporting one another. I have encouraged reflection on our processes and approach within theAssembly to reflect a sense of re-building our Nations.


Smashing the status quo means that everyone has a role to play. The status quo should NOT be acceptable to anypolitical party the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives. This status quo should also never be acceptable to ourChiefs and leaders.

This work is a challenge for all Parliamentarians and it is a challenge for our Nations. Everyone knows the recent historyhere of an open letter and of a clear resolution and five conditions.

Throughout and, with that mandate of Chiefs, I and many others with me have done everything possible to achieve thischange.

I am very proud of the work accomplished very proud of our collective efforts to overcome the status quo on this issueand others.

Weve been through important and sincere efforts before in constitutional negotiation, a Royal Commission, and othermore recent important efforts such as Kelowna taken forward by former Prime Minister Paul Martin. The currentproposal on education is the latest attempt and a sincere, constructive effort on the part of Prime Minister StephenHarper to take a step forward.

This work must be understood in that context as a challenge, not for me, or any one individual but a challenge and acall to action for the entire country.

I have fought for this work and to achieve this mandate. This work is too important and I am not prepared to be anobstacle to it or a lightening rod distracting from the kids and their potential. I am therefore, today resigning as NationalChief.

I have carried out my actions based on principle and integrity. Personally, I believe this work must happen. It can andshould happen in parallel to other efforts addressing fundamental questions of how we do this work. Now the workstarted so many years ago must continue. It must continue in every community and it must continue within Parliament. Ichallenge every party and every First Nation to carry forward this work. Failure is simply not an option. Fighting for thestatus quo is simply not acceptable.

Today I express my deepest gratitude for the support, the generosity and the respect afforded to me by First Nations andincreasing multitudes of Canadians across this country. I have been deeply honoured to serve.

I will, as I have all of my life, continue this struggle in other ways. I want to thank all of those who have quietly workedfor education and for our kids. While people do not hear or see them today YOU will emerge as the heroes of thiswork in the future.

Shawn A-in-Chut Atleo


Charter of the Assembly of First Nations

(Excerpts Relating to the Confederacy of Nations)

. . .

PRINCIPLESARTICLE 2

. . . The purpose, authority, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Assembly of First Nations shall be derivativein nature and scope. All actions or initiatives in excess of the delegation from First Nations shall be null and voidand of no force or effect.

All delegated power, mandates or responsibility derive from the sovereignty of First Nations; and the persons orinstitutions entrusted to exercise such delegation have a sacred trust and duty, in performance, to comply strictlywith the nature and quality of the delegation.

Any decision or direction on a subject matter of a fundamental nature that may affect the jurisdiction, rights andsurvival of First Nations, may be undertaken as a national or international matter provided the FirstNations-in-Assembly have reached a consensus to grant delegated power, mandate or responsibility to theAssembly of First Nations. . .

ROLE AND FUNCTIONARTICLE 3

The role and function of the Assembly of First Nations is:

. . . c) To be a national delegated forum for the purpose of advancing the aspirations of First Nations and toremain subordinate in strength power and resources to the First Nations jurisdiction for which it is establishedto serve.

d) To perform and adhere strictly, as a sacred trust and duty, to the nature, scope and extent of the delegationgranted from time to time by First Nations.

. . .

ORGANSARTICLE 5

1. There are established as principal organs of the Assembly of First Nations:

First Nations-in-Assembly; The Council of Elders;The Confederacy of Nations; The Council of Women; andThe Executive Committee; The National Youth Council

The Secretariat (also known as the National Indian Brotherhood;. . .


THE CONFEDERACY OF NATIONSCOMPOSITIONARTICLE 11The Confederacy of Nations shall be composed of First Nations representatives of each region on the basis ofone representative for each region plus one representative for each 10,000 First Nations citizens of that region.

For the purposes of representatives and quorum, the Executive Committee shall maintain a record of the FirstNations populations of each region which shall be British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,Ontario, Quebec and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island,Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory.

FUNCTIONS AND POWERSARTICLE 121. The Confederacy of Nations exists and functions as the governing body between assemblies of the FirstNations-in-Assembly, with authority:

a) To review and enforce decisions and directions of the First Nations-in-Assembly.

b) To interpret resolutions, decisions and directions of the First Nations-in-Assembly in cases whereambiguity or conflict arises in the interpretation of resolutions, decisions.

c) To ensure that the Secretariat and Executive Committee (including the National Chief) conform to, andimplement, the decisions and directions of the First Nations-in-Assembly.

d) To take corrective and remedial disciplinary measures in respect of any member of the Secretariat orExecutive Committee (including the National Chief) in instances of willful breach of a national mandate.

e) To receive, consider, make decisions and take appropriate action on any matter raised by an individualFirst Nation or collectively of First Nations between meetings of the First Nations-in-Assembly providedthat the response and action undertaken is within the scope of existing delegated mandates of the FirstNations-in-Assembly, and provided resources that may be required are available and within the budget ofthe organization, and further provided that the matter dealt with does not have a detrimental effect on therights and interests of all First Nations.

f) To address any emergency in matters of a fundamental nature affecting one or more First Nations. TheConfederacy of Nations shall consider, first, whether that matter is of a fundamental , second, whether anemergency exists before any decision or action is taken on that matter. Any decision made shall be referredto the First Nations-in-Assembly at the earliest opportunity for ratification.

g) To approve, allocate, monitor and control the fiscal resources of the Assembly of First Nations.

h) To develop short-term and long-term plans and establish priorities consistent with the directions anddecisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly.

i) To ensure that quarterly written reports are submitted directly to the Chiefs of the First Nations.


ACCOUNTABILITYARTICLE 13The Confederacy of Nations shall be accountable to, shall report to and take direction from the FirstNations-in-Assembly.

The Confederacy of Nations representatives may be elected or appointed and removed by the Chiefs of eachregion at a meeting convened for that purpose.

MEETINGSARTICLE 14The Confederacy of Nations shall meet in regular quarterly sessions and in such special sessions as occasionmay require. Special sessions may be convened by the National Chief on his (or her) own initiative, or at therequest of a quorum for the duly selected members of the Confederacy of Nations or at the request of theExecutive Committee.

QUORUMARTICLE 15Fifty percent of participating representatives and fifty percent of the participating regions shall constitute aquorum for any meeting of the Confederacy of Nations.

PROCEDUREARTICLE 16The Confederacy of Nations shall adopt its own Rules of Procedure.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. . . FUNCTIONS AND POWERSARTICLE 18. . .

The Executive Committee shall bring to the attention of First Nations, the First Nations-in-Assembly and theConfederacy of Nation any matters which, in their opinion may jeopardise the security, survival, rights,aspirations and jurisdiction of First Nations.

The Executive Committee shall develop the budget requirements of the Assembly of First Nations and obtainthe approval of the budgets by the Confederacy of Nations.

In implementing the decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly and the Confederacy of Nations, theExecutive Committee shall comply in all cases with the true spirit and intent of the delegation granted fromtime to time.

In performing their duties or responsibilities, the Executive Committee may establish portfolios and deployresources as deemed necessary, subject to the approval of the Confederacy of Nations and to the nature of thedelegation granted by the First Nations-in-Assembly.

Members of the Executive Committee may participate in Confederacy of Nations meetings with votingprivileges.


ACCOUNTABILITYARTICLE 19The Executive Committee shall be accountable to, shall report to and take direction from the Confederacy ofNations and the First Nations-in-Assembly.

NATIONAL CHIEF

ROLE AND FUNCTIONARTICLE 20. . .

The National Chief shall take direction from the Executive Committee as a unit, and, with the ExecutiveCommittee, is responsible to the Confederacy of Nations and ultimately to the First Nations-in-Assembly.

The National Chief shall make regular political and financial reports to his (or her) colleagues in the ExecutiveCommittee, to the Confederacy of Nations and to the First Nations-in-Assembly.. . .

The National Chief shall maintain and direct the Secretariat in accordance with the directions set by theExecutive Committee, the Confederacy of Nations and the First Nations-in-Assembly.

The National Chief shall preside over Executive Committee and Confederacy of Nations meetings.. . .

The National Chief shall operate the Secretariat within the Budget approved each fiscal year by theConfederacy of Nations.

AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITYARTICLE 21

The National Chief shall have no inherent political authority.

Any authority the National Chief may have shall derive exclusively and entirely from authority granted fromtime to time by the First Nations-in-Assembly.

As a leader who exercises delegated mandates, authority, responsibilities and duties, the National Chief has asacred political trust to comply in every respect with the direction given by the First Nations-in-Assembly, theConfederacy of Nations and the Executive Committee.. . .

ELECTION AND TERMARTICLE 22. . .

The National Chief shall be elected for a three-year term and be eligible for re-election but may be removed bya majority of 60% of the registered representatives of First Nations at a Special Assembly. convened by theConfederacy of Nations for that purpose.


ROLE AND FUNCTION

COUNCIL OF ELDERS ARTICLE 24The Council of Elders may discuss any question or any matter within the scope of the present Charter orrelating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, may makerecommendations to the Executive Committee, the Confederacy of Nations, the First Nations-in-Assembly orto any subsidiary organ on any such question or matter.

Any Elder may participate in meetings of the First Nation-in-Assembly or of the Confederacy of Nations or ofany subsidiary organ The Chairperson of the Council of Elders may participate in meetings of the ExecutiveCommittee in an advisory capacity.

COUNCIL OF WOMENARTICLE 24.AThe Council of Women may discuss any question or any matter within the scope of the present Charter orrelating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and makerecommendations to the Executive Committee, the Confederacy of Nations, the First Nations-in-Assembly orto any subsidiary organ on any such question or matter.

Any member of the Council of Women may participate fully in meetings of the First Nations-in-Assembly orof the Confederacy of Nations or of any subsidiary organ.

NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCILARTICLE 24.B

At least two representative of the National Youth Council (chosen by consensus by members of the Council)shall participate in all Annual General Assemblies and Confederacy of Nations meetings.

THE AFN SECRETARIAT (NATIONAL INDIAN BROTHERHOOD). . . FUNCTIONSARTICLE 26The Secretariat (NIB) shall function in accordance with its By-laws but so as to ensurethe implementation of the decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly and those of theConfederacy of Nations consistent with the decisions of the FirstNations-in-Assembly.

The Secretariat shall provide administrative, technical and support services to theAssembly of First Nations.

The Secretariat shall receive, administer and distribute monies and transact businessand engage in such activities as are ancillary to, or necessary for, the realization of thedecisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly, the Confederacy of Nations and theExecutive Committee.

Documents

Valcourt Game Fails as Atleo Resigns