Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes An Honourable Resignation: Will Valcourt Resign Over Bill C-33 Fiasco? with information from Katie Hyslop, The Tyee.ca Jorge Barrera jbarrera@aptn.ca @J orgeBarrera,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 Bernard Valcourt and even Prime Minister Stephen Harper have been using Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo as their shill and shield to advance their education 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 he would no longer be an obstacle or a lightning rod on the Bill, and that he was resigning. He left the conference without 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 had backed him into a corner where he must either support their Bill virtually alone, or whether he would fulfill his obligations to speak for the First Nations who had elected him as National Chief, which would mean at a minimum not supporting the Bill, and likely having to denounce it. There also can be little doubt that Shawn Atleo chose the honourable alternative. His support for First Nation education cannot be questioned. Neither is there any doubt that Shawn Atleo believed that what he was doing was in the best interests of the First Nations. As he said in his resignation speech, "I have said it is our time as indigenous peoples, that we must smash the status quo, and that my job is as an advocate to open doors for First Nations to drive change," His meetings with Valcourt and the Prime Minister were his effort to open doors. The problem was that the doorways were narrow, and his entry was used to block others 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 but silent while they were holding him up as false proof that the First Nations of Canada supported Bill C-33. As the proposal moved through numerous dramatic costume-changes after it was first proposed, it finally emerged last month as Bill C-33, about to pass second reading late afternoon of Monday, May 5. The Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples is already holding hearings on the subject matter of the Bill. First, under the watch of Minister J ohn Duncan, there was hoopla, then an engagement process which was later renamed consultation. Opposition from First Nations began to swell. Then there was the so-called Crown-First Nations Gathering which engendered both positive and negative comments. When the Prime Minister didnt come through with his promises about meetings to discuss Treaties, but also said discussions were taking place with the National Chief on the subject, a sense of uncomfortableness set in. photo by Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press Shawn Atleo and Friend January 2013 <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-2- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition Duncan resigned suddenly and unexpectedly over an unrelated matter. Bernard Valcourt was appointed Minister and attack dog to rescue the governments proposal. as Mintook on the process, and at each step along the way, the opposition grew to the governments proposal. First Nation leaders across Canada began to zero in on numerous defects they had noted. Valcourt countered the clamour by saying the Assembly of First Nations is backing the Bill. National Chief Atleo gave sort-of, maybe, could be statements. In December at an Assembly of Chiefs in Gatineau, Quebec, the Chiefs decided to state their position to the Minister and to Canada. Shawn Atleo was not there he put values over politics and was part of the Canadian delegation to the funeral of Nelson Mandela. After a series of passionate speeches defending inherent rights and Treaty rights of First Nations to control the education of their children and against what they saw as the governments attempt to pass a law to take over their rights, the Chiefs nearly unanimously passed a resolution setting out five stern conditions that the Government must meet before moving further ahead on any legislation. The resolution was firmly unequivocal. The Chiefs buried the Bill the government was then proposing. (see the full resolution below) They resolved to Reject the October 22, 2013, draft Working Together for First Nations Students: A Proposal for a Bill on First Nation Education. A principal problem had been, as CBCs J ames Cudmore points out, that First Nations across Canada felt that Valcourts negotiating a plan with the National Chief was not the same as fulfilling its constitutional duty to consult about infringements on First Nation rights and to negotiate accommodation of their rights in the legislation. The AFN, after all, is not a national government. Atleo is not a prime minister. And no matter how easy it might be for 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 on and work to avoid the problem was the final set-up to Atleo's downfall. Indeed. And Atleo became, in the view of critics, Harper's man when he appeared alongside the prime minister to promote the new deal at the Kainai High School on the Blood Tribe reserve north of Cardston, Alta.Then came the sudden command performance of Prime Minister Harper on the Kanai Reserve in Treaty 7. All the conditions set out in the resolution had been met, he said. The carefully-staged optics of the meeting proved to be offensive to many who saw the National Chief being summonsed for a command performance on the Prime Ministers terms. The Prime Minister also seemed to be sweetening the pot to buy support. First we pass the Bill, he said. And then starting in 2016 there will be $420-million of increased funding for three years, and after that there would be a cap of 4.5% increase annually. The deal was on only if the Bill passed. No Bill, no money. The Bill, however, is independent of the funding, and leadership said that if the funds were so important, they should have been provided regardless. The National Chief was at Harpers side, but his words were carefully chosen. "What we are hearing the govern- ment commit to is a new way forward," Atleo said at the time. When he was pressed on the new Bill, at the Kanai event, he insisted, There is no new Bill, meaning that he expected he would be involved in the drafting of one, pursuant to the Chiefs conditions he said the government had agreed to meet. Then There Was Silence about the Bill By now, the Bill had been in the works for almost a year now, but neither the public nor First Nations knew what was in it. It had been renamed and given birth amid much Minister Bernard Valcourt, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo at Kanai Signing <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-3- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition fanfare by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo at Kanai, but anticipation and worry grew waiting for it to be made public. In February at Kanai, the National Chief had denied there was any such Bill, that it all was going to be developed with participation of the AFN, one of five conditions he said the Prime Minister had agreed to. Since then, however, no one had heard anything about any "joint drafting" or anything else about the Bill. The conclusion was that the new Bill would be pretty much like the old Bill which was almost universally denounced. As the weeks went by, Indian Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt was saying new Bill met the conditions agreed to by First Nation chiefs during an AFN assembly this past December. But Chiefs and leaders were saying that if a Bill has been prepared without any consultation with them, a principal condition has already been broken. And Then Bill C-33 Was Revealed & Tabled No one who knows is talking about what happened after Kanai and the day the Bill was tabled in the House of Commons in the waning hours of the last day of sessions before a two-week Easter break. That day, Finance Minister J im 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 been included in the Bill. Now First Nations must have the opportunity to fully review and fully engage on the next steps. ..I encourage all First Nations to do the analysis." He also vowed to stand with First Nations in support of First Nations control over their own education. Minister Valcourt told the media Shawn Atleo had accepted the Bill and was backing it.. The New Bill Full of Concerns It did not take long before the contents of the Bill were read and analyzed, and it did not take much longer before the opposition to it boiled over across Canada. First Nations in region after region attacked it as a Bill to increase the Ministers power, a Bill to take away our inherent rights to control the education of our children, a Bill 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 a denunciation of the Bill. And the more Minister Valcourt insisted 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 for education. But it would be spread over three years, would not 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 often appeared to be pure hype. Mr. Valcourt said, for instance, that a J oint Council of Education Professionals would have input on every decision the Minister makes. The actual Bill, on the other hand, specifies exactly the matters the minister will ask for advice, leaves other significant matters unmentioned, and the minister can accept or ignore the advice as he wishes. The advice given is a private matter between the Council and the Minister. As reported by J orge Barrera of APTN News, Mr. Valcourt said the Council would play an oversight role over the Ministers powers, but the Bill fails to provide the Council with that power. In a media conference on Parliament Hill, Valcourt said under the Bill the minister cannot make a decision unilaterally without the advice of the J oint Council and that ishow you ensure the point of views of First Nations will always be considered. The Bill fails to reveal how this happens. According to the proposed bill, called the First Nation Control over First Nation Education Act, the council will have nine members. The federal cabinet will appoint four members and the chair on the recommendation of the Aboriginal affairs minister. Cabinet will appoint the other four members on the recommendation of the Assembly of First Nation. Valcourt said he didnt know how much the education council members will be paid. According to the bill, the council is expected to meet at least three times a year. However, the advice-giving assigned to the Council by the Act indicates the Council would be sitting on almost a full-time basis and would need considerable bureaucratic support to handle the workload. There would be, say, 70 educational authorities applications to be considered. Deliberating even an hour on each application would take two weeks. Giving advice on revoking permission, a very serious matter assume only 7 and thats another week to consider the evidence, <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-4- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition reports, etc. Decision to require a special advisor: assume 21 annually another 3 days work for the Council. Decision to appoint a third-party manager? Assume 14 annually. Due process. Right to be heard? Right of appeal? Another weeks work for the Council. Applications to remove temporary administrator. 14 annually. Two days. Removal of temporary administrator after considering report 14 annually) Two days. Considering revocations of a designation as an authority 7 annually. 2 days. Advice of 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 bill met the need for stable and guaranteed funding for education and would help maintain Indigenous languages. However, Bill C-33 gives the Minister to set an annual cap on the amount of money to be spent, notwithstanding any provisions to provide provincial-level funding. Atleo was also quoted as saying Bill C-33 would give First Nation communities a say over how their children are taught, but the Bill provides for communities only to administer education, and that must be done in conformity to a long list of regulations set unilaterally by the Minister. . First Nations must and will drive a way forward for the development of their own education system, said Atleo. We see a commitment of the principle of First Nation control of education and working with First Nations. But again the ambiguity: We will have to do a deeper review of the Bill itself. What Bill C-33 Contains Bill C-33 allows First Nations to operate their own schools or to group schools together under education authorities which must be incorporated under federal or provincial law. Both arrangements would be governed by the Ministers regulations. Or, communities could enter into agreements with provincial school boards. The Minister may also pass a regulation that even schools operated by First Nations must operate according to provincial law. Under the bill, all students graduating from First Nation schools will have recognized certificates or diplomas, receive a minimum number of instructional hours and be taught by certified teachers. The bill would also ensure all children have access to elementary and secondary education on reserves. These same matters are already included in contribution agreements with the Minister which First Nations must sign to receive funding. Department officials said they did not know how many schools currently fail to meet those standards. The correct answer would be none, because the officials would cut off funding if those conditions were not met. Schools would also be required to appoint a school inspector responsible for ensuring the school is meeting all requirements under the Act, including the academic performance of students at the institution. The inspector does not report to the community, however, but rather reports to the Minister, who also can appoint his own investigators. If a school fails to meet standards, it could be put under co-management or under third party management by the minister on the advice of the education council. The bill would also force parents and guardians to ensure children under 16 are enrolled in a school. The bill allows First Nations to pass bylaws make it mandatory for children under 18 to attend school. There are no provisions for enforcement. Much of the Ministers power will come from unknown "regulations" which are written by the government without oversight of Parliament. While Mr. Valcourt has said the regulations will be developed in conjunction with First Nation leaders, that is not in the Bill, and is another trust me. . Critics of the Bill say it will give more control to Ottawa over First Nation education. The Bill also .comes at a time when Indian Affairs is imposing third-party management <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>. <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-5- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition on First Nations who refuse to sign contribution agreements which contain what they consider to be unacceptable conditions and controls. Opposition Was Expressed Almost Immediately Mohawk Council of Kahnawake Chief Gina Deer said Kahnawake opposed the proposed legislation and the creation of an education council. She said the bill appears to give Ottawa more control over First Nation education. Kahnawake is not happy at all, said Deer, whose Mohawk community sits just south of Montreal. In Kahnawake, nobody wants to see this government take over education. We need more funding so students can go to post-secondary education and university. Six Nations Chief Ava Hill told APTN News the bill only gives an illusion of giving First Nation control over First Nation education. If they are giving us control, why is it an Act of the government? How is that control? said Hill. Its like an oxymoron. Hill and Deer, along with Tyendinaga Chief Donald Meracle, found out that the National Chief had a press conference on Parliament Hill right after their meeting with NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. It seems that Mr. Atleo had not inform regional chiefs during an executive meeting the previous day that he planned to hold a press conference after the tabling of the Bill. Nova Scotia regional Chief Morley Googoo, who holds the education portfolio with the AFN, said he knew little about the proposed bill and was concerned about the direction things were taking. I think clarification of the whole process is a question from everyone, said Googoo. I definitely want more information. Quebec chiefs had already announced they were seeking a Federal Court judicial review of the governments decision to table a bill on education without having done the proper consultation and accommodation which is a constitutional right procedurally and substantively. Nishnawbe Aski Nation (Treaty 9) Opposed Nishnawbe Aski Nation reiterated its rejection of the federal governments legislation on First Nation education after it saw Bill C-33. We are opposed to any legislation regarding First Nation education 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-nation relationship with the Crown as represented by the govern- ment of Canada, said Deputy Grand Chief Goyce Kakegamic. Education is a sacred responsibility that our chiefs have accepted, and NAN First Nations will not accept unilateral encroachment of this sacred responsibility. The NAN Chiefs-in-Assembly also rejected Bill C-33 because it: gives the minister unilateral control over First Nations education; will force First Nations to assume ultimate liability over education while the government retains authority; does not respect First Nations inherent and treaty rights; does not respect or recognize First Nations jurisdiction over education; does not include early learning, adult education, or alternative education; and unilaterally defines the terms upon which First Nations will be educated. We strongly agree that there need to be standards in education, but this legislation does not support our vision for the future of education in Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Kakegamic said. We have negotiated in good faith on self-governance and education jurisdiction since 1999 and we look to this government to honour this process as the way forward. This legislation does not address the many challenges our communities face in the delivery of education and is a blatant attempt to redefine and limit our jurisdiction to whatever the federal government dictates as appropriate. Nishnawbe Aski Nation had earlier issued a Declaration rejecting the October 2013 version of the Bill. We categorically reject any legislation imposed on us by the federal or provincial government as it is a direct violation of the treaties, the declaration stated. We will take action if the federal or provincial governments should proceed with any such legislation. Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Opposed Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee also came out against the legislation. The minister of Indian Affairs has all the power and authority over First Nations education while taking on no legal responsibility whatsoever, Madahbee said. Thats the reality of the kind of control this government is talking about. Grand Chief Madahbee said First Nations had asked for an <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-6- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition integration of language and culture, but the legislation makes French and English mandatory with an option of First Nation language, if the minister approves it and under the Ministers regulations. We asked for fair and equitable funding, so they announce vague promises of increased funding after the next federal election with no specifics on how it will be allocated, Madahbee said. Their idea of First Nation control of First Nation education is to allow First Nations to be administrators of legislation thats forced onto them. If a First Nation school fails to meet provincial standards, regardless of being vastly underfunded, the minister has the legal right to put the school under third party management thats who has real control of First Nation education. Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy: Opposed Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy said the federal legislation doesnt address the conditions raised by the Assembly of First Nations Chiefs-in-Assembly. The AFN had five conditions set out in a chiefs resolution and this announcement does not address them, Beardy said. Bill C-33 continues to take a disciplinary approach rather than a collaborative approach to improving First Nations education. We have much more innovative ideas on how a collaborative approach would serve our students better but once again, we werent involved in the direction of a bill that affects our future. Grand Chief fBeardy also called for a new round of consultation and collaboration for the new legislation. We soundly rejected this proposal at the Chiefs of Ontario November Assembly and at the AFN Assembly in December, Beardy said. But now we have a new bill with no input on its content. And Two Weeks Later, Parliament Reconvened For two weeks, the wave of opposition increased until Parliament reconvened. Then Minister Valcourt and the Conservative caucus went on the attack. Anyone against the Bill was against educating First Nation children. But most of all, they said over and over and over, The National Chief supports the Bill. The National Chief speaks for the AFN. Everyone else was a dissident. Of course strong powers had been given to the Minister, it was said, just as it was in the provinces to the Superintendent of Education. Of course full immersion in indigenous languages would not be permitted. This is Canada, and the languages are English and French, the Tories said. The Minister Was Still Smiling In the fact of all this strong criticism, Minister Valcourt was still reciting the mantra on every possible occasion: The National Chief supports the Bill. He speaks for the responsible First Nations of Canada. Valcourt also relied on platitudes about education to prop up the bill. Our government knows that a good education can change a life, Valcourt told the media, Thats why I am so pleased that we have made reforming First Nations education a priority and introduced the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. This will help First Nations access the skills they need to live healthy and successful lives this is good for First Nations, for Canadians and for our countrys future. He also said that through Bill C-33, the federal will provide First Nations students with the education standards, supports and opportunities that most Canadians take for granted. The Media Takes the Bait In the face of this confusing barrage, newspapers tended to opt for safe ground. The Globe and Mail urged First Nations to accept Conservative offer rather than urging the government to amend the Bill. Had not Shawn Atleo himself ran on a platform that emphasized education as a priority? the Globe asked. In his own words, that meant better graduation rates, better schools, more posts-econdary students and, simply, more opportunity for our young people to achieve their goals. These goals are not controversial not even among First Nations leaders, the Globe opined. Everyone recognizes the bleakness of the status quo. Everyone agrees that without fundamental change, Canada risks failing yet another generation of native children. Everyone agrees native communities must achieve better than a 60% high school 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 figuring out how to undo this shameful status quo, the consensus falls apart. The only legitimate goal improving the educational outcomes of native children tends to get upstaged by infighting among native leaders and with Ottawa. <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-7- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition In other words, the problem is native leaders, always harping about the days of residential schools or complaining about being shut out of consultations.. Why dont they just accept provincial schools? the Globe asks. Canadas provincial governments with experience and expertise administering nearly all of Canadas primary and secondary schools stand on the sidelines. They dont dare delve into this mess. Can you blame them? As a result of this infighting by native leaders, The native education file has been a showcase of missed opportunities, recriminations, dithering and dysfunction. Who suffers? Native children. The Globe described Bill C-33 as a narrow window of opportunity for change. It was far from perfect. But, the Globe editorialized, but it represents the best crack in a generation at giving more native children a shot at success in school, and, by extension, life. In other words rather than criticizing the Harper Government for making an unacceptable offer, it was the native leaders criticized for not accepting what was served on the plate. It might as well have said, This is the best youre going to get so rather than waiting for another generation to get something 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 leaders whose opposition threatens to derail the proposed Bill. Lets hope Mr. Atleo recognizes this kind of criticism for what it is: a tired regurgitation of excuses for inaction, which, if given credence, would pave the road right back to square one, the Globe opined. It alleged there had been four years worth of of national panels, engagement, reports, consultations, discussion, blueprints for discussion, draft legislative proposal and open letters, implying that Bill C-33 was the result of all that effort on the governments part. Without the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, we are left with a vacuum, the Globe fretted. What should happen? Mr. Atleo was elected national chief for good reasons. His commitment to education is one of them. Its time for him to remind those who elected him of his original mandate. Atleo is right, the Globe said, to see Bill C-33 as a bridge. Accept it, and greater control is sure to come. Without Bill C-33, another generation of native children will be stranded on a bridge to nowhere. The Globes Readers Were In Near Unanimous Support The children of Chinese or Indian immigrants are not getting ahead in Canada by learning only Mandarin or Hindi in Canada but they are getting ahead by going to regular schools along with fellow Canadian children. First Nation leadership are like dictators in Africa and Asia where they have prevented spread of education and education of their children. One reader pointed to his ancestors who cleared some farmland and built themselves little log cabins, they organized school boards to set up and administer an education system for their children, all by themselves without handout from anyone. Think about it. The native leaders opposing the plan were mercenaries who are out to see funding increases with no restraint or strings attached. They have no interest in education or the greater good of their people. We are partly to blame because we keep funding the dysfunction. Derek Napinak is a joke. Every time an issue comes up, he lays down the race card. Disrupt, undermine, and grandstand: these are the foundations of Napinak's platform. . . . you have to wonder if the guy EVER goes anywhere or says anything while totally sober. Growing up and being educated within their community does put [First Nation children] at a disadvantage for advancement in Canadian society. The big problem is the predominant racist culture among aboriginals, where they would not mingle with non-aboriginal people, and kids stick to gangs instead of being productive. That's a cultural thing that has to do with their leaders attitude . . . The April 28 Media Conference On the morning of the same day that Parliamentarians and officials came back to town Monday, April 28 there was a media conference of Grand Chiefs Derek Nepinak of Manitoba, Craig Makinaw of Treaty 6 and Gord Peters of Ontario. Chief Wallace Fox from Onion Lake was there as was Mike Delisle from Kahnawake, a member of the <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-8- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition Quebec region. When the conference ended, the clear writing was on the wall in big letters. One by one, the Chiefs denounced the Bill for unilaterally imposing standards without guaranteeing the funds to meet the standards, giving himself power through arbitrary regulations, and allowing the Minister of Indian Affairs to intervene into a schools management with a third-party manager. They also said First Nations had been shut out of having any involvement in the drafting of the Bill. Grand Chief Gordon Peters said First Nations shouldn't have to make threats to have their voices heard. While actions could include a blockade on the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit if Bill C-33 becomes law, he added that he and other First Nations leaders shouldn't have to make threats to be heard. Stan Beardy, the regional chief for Ontario on the AFN executive, says the legislation was crafted without consultation and takes a disciplinary approach rather than a collaborative approach to First Nations education. Perry Bellegarde, the regional chief for Saskatchewan on the AFN executive, said the bill needs much more analysis. His initial statement fell short of condeming the Bill, but before the week was over, he said he could no longer support the Bill. Donald Maracle, the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte in southeastern Ontario, said the bill would transfer unlimited liability to First Nations, without enough funding to succeed. Grand Chief Michael Delisle of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake said, We are planning, whether they be deemed demonstrations, rallies ... to again get attention. But I think (the) Canadian economy, eventually, will be the target. Again, I can't give you specifics today, but we're prepared to take whatever action (is) necessary to ensure the control is not taken away from us." Chief Delisle noted that Ghislain Picard, the AFN regional chief for Quebec and Labrador had filed an application for a judicial review of the government's plan. In an interview with CBC News on Thursday, Picard said that after a preliminary read, the proposed bill contains mostly "cosmetic changes." Picard said he is particularly concerned about the J oint Council of Education Professionals which he thinks would still give the minister too much control. Vice-Chief Bobby Cameron of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations said in a separate interview that First Nations people have Treaty rights to education as well as under international law neither can be trumped by federal legislation. He adds that the federal government failed to consult in any serious way with First Nations and have ignored all concerns raised by native organizations. The panel of Chiefs was not shy about direct extensive criticism at the AFN. They said they were the AFN it was made up of its member First Nations but that the Assembly had run off in its own direction. An AFN analysis of the B didnt help matters any. It had been produced by technicians, and not been ratified by anyone. Ir said Bill C-33 was a constructive and necessary step, supportive of goals expressed by First Nations for control, respect for treaty and aboriginal rights, recognition of language and culture and a clear statutory guarantee for fair funding. Leaders responded in a chorus asking where in the Bill was there substantiation for the analysis, and under whose authority had the analysis been released? The Mantra and the Beat Goes On But Indian Affairs Minister Valcourt continued the mantra, repeating that Bill C-33 had met the five conditions outlined by the Assembly of First Nations in Gatineau, and had the approval of the National Chief. Those conditions required the government to ensure aboriginal communities retain control of education, that there be a statutory funding guarantee, recognition of First Nations languages and culture, shared oversight and ongoing, meaningful engagement. "The introduction of this legislation comes after years of unprecedented dialogue and consultations with First Nations all over the country and the Assembly of First Nations, who identified a need for a better education system for First Nation children," Valcourt's office said in an emailed statement. As for the J oint Council, Valcourt insisted that it would simply provide Ottawa with information on how the schools are performing, not give the 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. They also took issue with the AFN negotiating with the federal <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-9- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition 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 a new era in First Nations leadership where we don't accept the crumbs that they are offering as enticements to allow for our jurisdictions to be swept away under their legislation." Pushing the legislation through without the support of First Nations across the country would be an act of discrimination and racism, he said. "Oftentimes we get caught up in these dialogues where we're talking about using force against force, and that to me puts it in a tailspin and it gives Canadians the wrong idea about who we are. We are a loving people. We are a caring people. We are a hospitable people. And we want what's best for our children, and that's the bottom line." "I agree with the words of Shawn Atleo that the AFN is not a rights-bearing entity. I agree with his words when he says that," Nepinak said. "The challenge we face is we come up against a minister who says that the proponent for negotiating and consulting on this bill is the AFN. So clearly when our national chief sits with the minister, there is a clear misunderstanding about who's doing what and who's saying what." Meanwhile, Atleo was urging each First Nation to let Ottawa know what they think of the bill. "AFN continues to advocate as directed by chiefs from across the country, to achieve fairness and equity in education respectful of our languages and cultures," he said in a statement. The Minister Was Not Listening The problem was that Ottawa was not listening to First Nations. The Minister said the National Chief had spoken. There was nothing more to be said. When asked whether he would push the bill through Parliament without widespread support of the First Nations, Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt pointed to the AFN endorsement. I am pleased that the Assembly of First Nations has placed the needs of children first and confirmed that Bill C-33 is a constructive and necessary step forward, the minister said in an e-mail on Friday. "The introduction of this legislation comes after years of unprecedented dialogue and consultations with First Nations all over the country and the Assembly of First Nations, who identified a need for a better education system for First Nation children," Valcourt's office said in an emailed statement. However, Nepinak and the others take issue with the AFN negotiating with the federal government on behalf of First Nations. "I agree with the words of Shawn Atleo that the AFN is not a rights-bearing entity. I agree with his words when he says that," Nepinak said. "The challenge we face is we come up against a minister who says that the proponent for negotiating and consulting on this bill is the AFN. So clearly when our national chief sits with the minister, there is a clear misunderstanding about who's doing what and who's saying what." Meanwhile, Atleo is urging each First Nation to let Ottawa know what they think of the bill. "AFN continues to advocate as directed by chiefs from across the country, to achieve fairness and equity in education respectful of our languages and cultures," he said in a statement Monday. "This effort is built on a solid foundation of First Nations control of First Nations education and continues to be about the children our future educating them in their home territories and supporting their dreams and educational success anywhere they choose." Mr. Atleo had earlier said the AFN is working under the direction of chiefs from across the country and supports widespread assessment of the legislation. But Mr. Nepinak said at the time he does not believe Mr. Atleos support of the bill has the blessing even of the majority of the executive of the AFN. Chief Nepinak said Mr. Valcourt should recognize that the Bills impact will be felt at the community level, and consultation must be done with individual First Nations, not the AFN. I think what weve got to do is take a really critical 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 telling Canadians what the First Nations were saying about his Bill and what the First Nations were actually saying, there were rumbles about calling a meeting of the Confederacy of Nations. In fact, several prominent First Nation leaders <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-10- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition had asked the National Chief on May 2 to call such a meeting. Talk of impeachment was starting to be heard. Early on May 2, word got around that there would be a 4:30 p.m. conference call of the Executive Council the ten regional vice-chiefs. Later on May 2 came the sudden notice. Media Conference. National Chief. What could it possibly be about? The media gathered. Ten minutes late, the Conference opened by an official saying the National Chief would make a statement. Then he would leave. There would be no questions. Another official, Peter Dinsdale, AFNs CEO 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 lightning rod, he said. And obviously, no longer would he be used by the Minister as his principle advocate. Minutes after the resignation announcement, the Regional vice-chiefs joined their pre-planned conference call. They had just learned about the resignation at the same time as everyone else. Even before the surprise resignation, the call was out for a Confederacy of Nations meeting on May 14. Ottawa. The same day a massive manifestation will take place on Parliament Hill. Idle No More organizers say they will be there. The topic: Bill C-33. It was now a very different game than it had been on Monday. For all the players. What Happened? The more the Minister used Shawn Atleo as his shield, the greater was the volume of dissent of First Nations who wanted to be heard. The National Chief did not join the debate nor did he defend the Bill. Mostly he remained silent. And then seeing no other honourable way out, he abruptly announced he was resigning. And then he turned and left the stage. That leaves the author of the melodrama, the Minister. The script 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 for the First Nations of Canada, even though the near- unanimous wave of criticism of Bill C-33 was well known to it. His name was invoked over 30 times in the second reading debate on the Bill. Will the Minister resign? A Different Kind of National Chief Originally from Ahousaht, a community just north of Tofino, the most populous First Nations on western Vancouver Island, Atleo was first elected to the position of national chief in 2009, running on a platform of education reform. He was well-known in British Columbia, a hereditary chief and regional vice-chief, but little known on the national scene. Atleo won re-election in 2012, but faced criticism during the election for being too close to the federal government. But even from among his supporters, many could not <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-11- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition understand the National Chiefs acceptance of Bill C-33. J ody Wilson-Raybould, regional Vice-Chief for British Columbia, has been a close ally of Mr. Atleos on many issues. As she told Gloria Galloway of the Globe and Mail, she was disappointed with the loss of a respected leader who articulated clear priorities and a positive vision. But even she did not agree with his support of the education act and used her Twitter account before his resignation on Friday to say First Nations do not want a nanny state in our classrooms. As Tristen Hopper noted in the National Post, to non-aboriginal Canadians, Atleo became the chief spokesman of the view that healthy, well-educated First Nations communities were not just a matter of principle, but a matter of economic self-interest. The aboriginal population is the most youthful, burgeoning population of Canada, and that should be seen as a tremendous human-resources potential we should be tapping into, he told B.C. Business magazine in 2008. But what would most characterize his tenure and ultimately lead to his Friday downfall was Mr. Atleos close collaboration with the Tories. A statement issued by Prime Minister Stephen Harper after Mr. Atleos resignation illustrated the relationship: Together, we helped improve opportunities for greater participation by First Nations in the economy and standards of living and quality of life on reserve, including through the Crown-First Nations Gathering in 2012. We also shared a commitment to improving First Nation education and ensuring that students on reserve have the same education standards, supports and opportunities that most Canadians take for granted. Although there was no criticism of the Tories on the education bill, the National Chief had last year warned the Tories that they faced collaboration or collision if they failed to consult with First Nations on energy projects but the tack was bound to be politically risky, Hopper wrote. Atleo had been first elected to the position of national chief in 2009, running on a platform of education reform. He was 37 years old. He won again in 2012, but faced criticism at the time for being too close to the federal government. There were mumblings even from people who admired his commitment and energy that he did not seem to understand what many First Nations saw as the historic role of the National Chief or, really, the historic role of the AFN. Was the Assembly of Chiefs just an advocacy group? He had been a different kind of National Chief. As Tristen Hopper wrote in the National Post, He was young enough to have dodged the residential school era, he was a university chancellor with an Australian Masters degree in education, a breakdancer who could moonwalk on command and, in an organization composed largely of Treaty peoples, Mr. Atleo came from the untreatied lands of British Columbia. Before roomfuls of Toronto suits, he had no qualms declaring that First Nations were here to stay and were looking for partners. Were open for business, as he had told 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 and sadness. It expressed its pride in the National Chief for carring himself with dignity and honour, acting with respect and caring, and noting his service, sacrifice and commitment. Katie Hyslop of The Tyee.ca wrote of the Atleo resignation that Atleos support had been seen by the federal government as its best bargaining chip in Bill C- 33's passage. That view was advanced by Nathan Matthew, senior advisor and negotiator for the First Nations Education Steering Committee in B.C. But with Atleo's surprise resignation from the position, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has far less leverage in convincing 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 national chief," said Matthew. A lot of those regional chiefs in the executive have voiced their opposition to this bill." Instead, Matthew said the federal government "did not allow co-development" of the system with First Nations in drafting its bill. Other concerns include the positioning of the minister of Indian Affairs as the ultimate authority in First Nations education; mandatory instruction in English or French; and no commitment to funding on par with provincial funding in B.C. Despite their opposing views on the education bill, the relationship between Atleo and the committee was "very respectful," said Nathan Matthew. "He was very supportive of First Nations education; he's made it a <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-12- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition priority. He certainly supported what we're doing in B.C." The British Columbia First Nations Education Steering Committee has also spoken out against the bill. The organization acts as a de facto school board for the majority of First Nations' on-reserve schools in British Columbia. In J anuary 2012, it signed a tripartite agreement with the provincial and federal governments to deliver education on reserves, boosting annual funding for schools to bring them on par with public schools in the province. But the agreement expires in 2017, and the province's on-reserve schools would then be subjected to the proposed legislation, which Matthew described as too prescriptive in terms of how a First Nations school should be run. "[The tripartite agreement] is not perfect, but it's something that all of the First Nation schools negotiated," he said. "If the legislation recognized the continuation of that tripartite agreement and been flexible and respected regional diversity, then we probably would have been a lot more easy on the legislation." Matthew said the Bill did not respect the five conditions the Assembly of First Nations and national chiefs outlined at the Gatineau Assembly in December. Despite their opposing views on the education bill, the relationship between Atleo and the committee was "very respectful," said Matthew. "He was very supportive of First Nations education; he's made it a priority. He certainly 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 in Assembly, with an annual general assembly: 2014 Halifax, 2015 Winnipeg. That is where, supposedly, the Chiefs determine direction, policy, and give marching orders to the National Chief. The next national chief elections will take place during the Assembly's 2015 Annual General Meeting in Winnipeg. The Assembly of First Nations executive will take over the position of chief in the interim. The Charter stipulates that the Executive Committee steps in to take over the role and function of the National Chief. The Charter also stipulates that when the post of National Chief becomes vacant, it is up to the Chiefs in Assembly to make other arrangements. This means it is the Executive Committee, acting in the place of the National Chief, who would have to call a special meeting of the Chiefs in Assembly. Likely in the circumstances it would seek the concurrence of the resurrected Confederacy of Nations at its meeting on May 14. By the time an Assembly of Chiefs could be arranged for an proper notice given, it would be mid-J une, and the annual General Assembly has already been called for Halifax for the week of J uly 15. Chances are tthe Executive Committee will govern until then. At Halifax, several options of other arrangements are open to the Assembly. They could decide to continue with the Executive Committee in charge until the expiration of the current term of office in J uly 2015, when there will be a General Assembly and election in Winnipeg. They could also decide to call an election to take place in the interim. The election process of naming an electoral officer, doing nominations, holding the election would take a minimum of ten weeks, sometime after September 30. Since this is the first time in the 32 years of the Assemblys existence that there has been a resignation of National Chief, there is no precedent. Apparently an autumn election could be to fill the unexpired term of office, until J uly 2015, or a new three-year-term cycle could be started. The Return of the Confederacy of Nations When the Assembly of First Nations was created in 1982 and its Charter adopted in 1985, one of the organs of governance was a Confederacy of Nations to govern between Assemblies. It consisted of one delegate from each of the AFNs ten regions plus one delegate for every 10,000 First Nations membership. At that time, there were about 40 delegates. It met quarterly, special meetings could be called, and it was chaired by the National Chief. Today, with population increases, the Confederacy would have about 75 delegates, plus the ten members of the Executive Committee composed of the regional vice- chiefs. And one vacant chair which would have been occupied by the National Chief. In 2004 and years after, there were numerous special assemblies, and the Confederacy just sort of stopped meeting. There was no amendment to the Charter, there <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-13- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition was no decision not to meet. It just drifted into silence, and the obscurity, and now ten years later, there are many in the AFN who did not really know of its existence. Initially, the move of the Chiefs and organizations was to revitalize the Confederacy to take control of what they saw the Secretariat taking over the role of the Assembly of Chiefs. They also say the possibility of the Confederacy becoming the voice government would have to listen to, and in that way, prevent the National Chiefs office from being co-opted by the Minister. Now, particularly until a new National Chief is chosen perhaps as far away as late September or even J uly 2015, the Confederacy of Nations becomes the de facto governing body of an AFN without a National Chief.. The Charter calls for the Executive Committee to be just that an executive board of directors essentially. The AFNs governance is in the hands of the Confederacy between Assemblies and provided with strong powers. It interprets and implements resolutions, decisions and directions of the Chiefs Assemblies . The Confederacy oversees the National Chief and Executive Committee to ensure they conform with the mandates of the Chiefs-in-Assembly, taking corrective or remedial disciplinary measures when necessary. The Confederacy approves, allocates, monitors and controls the fiscal resources of the AFN. It develops short- and long-term plans and establishes priorities consistent with the directions of the Chiefs in Assembly. (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 extremely vulnerable to machinations of the government regarding Bill C-33. Very shortly, the government will make it known how it intends to deal with this whole new ballgame. Will it keep on pushing hard for Bill C-33 to be passed in the shortest possible time? The Governments timetable is to have the Bill have Royal Assent the first week in J une a month from now. That would then be the prelude for the Prime Ministers celebration of the J une 11 anniversary of the Apology on Residential Schools. But if there is still anger and outrage about the passage of Bill C-33, and no National Chief for the Prime Minister to hold up as a friendly voice, would that be rain on the Apology parade? May 14 on Parliament Hill will be a telling and th crystalizing event. Not only will there by the rally, but the Confederacy of Nations will also be taking a position, officially speaking for the Assembly of First Nations for the first time since the National Chiefs resignation. It will then be clear to Canadians and Mr. Valcourt what the position is of the AFN on Bill C-33. Among the strategies being considered are demonstrations that could last for multiple days, blockades of resource industries, constitutional challenges, and an appeal to the international community through the United Nations. But it could also be the opening curtain on an election campaign to fill the vacancy, one candidate attempting to outdo another. That would leave it for the government to come up through the middle and just pass the Bill. The Confederacy of Nations could consider a Compact of leadership and potential candidates to declare a moratorium on election activity, to delay any announcements of candidacy, any electioneering at least until Parliament has prorogued for the summer. In the meantime, the Standing House Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will get the Bill in the evening of Monday, May 5. It will likely open hearings the next day. The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples is already into hearings on the subject matter of the Bill, a government move which opens the door for the government to push the Bill through the Senate like greased lightning. Both Committees are being deluged with requests to appear to present views on the Bill. Some opposition members are moving to have regional hearings on the Bill, but the government is likely to want the Bill passed before the summer recess. Of the AFNs ten regions, B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec are firmly opposed. Alberta is consulting on it and is also likely to be opposed. The NWT, Yukon, and Nova Scotia are yet to be heard from. That leaves Roger Augustine from New Brunswick/PEI alone on a limb as the only regional chief offering support at this moment. . It is not known if the Executive Committee or the <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-14- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition Confederacy of Nations will also seek to appear before the Committees to put their respective official view on record. It is also not known what they or other First Nation leadership will have to say about Minister Bernard Valcourts role in his ambition to get Bill C-33 passed through Parliament at any costs. Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs was critical of Valcourt, understanding of Atleo. He praised the National Chief for doing the right thing by stepping down. He said Atleo had been put in a difficult position. "Shawn Atleo came into leadership in a very difficult time," Nepinak told CBC News in an interview. "He came into leadership at a time when we knew that the Conservative government was going to be pressing us from many different directions. He came at a time when a lot of people are starting to wake up to the recognition of self-determination." Grand Chief Nepinak blamed the federal government for "cornering" Atleo. The federal government has disrespected our national leader." "It's put him in a place where he had very little choice but to make the decision that he did. His integrity was called into question. I think he brought back some integrity today in 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 control over education. He said it was an illusion: because the government was enticing support by selling the Bill as First Nations control, while in reality maintained the unfettered discretion of the minister, granting him or her with sweeping power and control over a variety of educational matters. At the same time, he said, it was perpetuating the denial and the existence of inherent and treaty rights of indigenous peoples and their jurisdiction over the education of their children." "I'm just as shocked and surprised as you all are," said FSIN Chief Perry Bellegarde after hearing of Atleos resignation. Bellegarde, who ran against Atleo in the most recent AFN leadership contest, said his differences with Atleo were never personal. "Anytime you see a leader resign it's a sad day, because it's a difficult job," he said. As far as Bill C-33 was concerned. Chief Bellegarde wanted to be counted with those who opposed it. "It's a flawed bill," Bellegarde insisted Friday. "It needs to be withdrawn and a proper consultation process with all First Nations leaders across Canada needs to be undertaken pretty quick." photo by Angela J ohnston, CBC News Grand 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-p ragmatist-couldn-t-reconcile-opposing-first-nation s-styles-1.2630621 <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-15- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition 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 Special Chiefs Assembly, Gatineau, Quebec December 9, 2013 <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-16- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition 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 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. 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 our most 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 advocate to 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 a conversation grounded in recognition, respect and ultimately reconciliation, and to reach a realization that stronger First Nations 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 time spent with kids, their dedicated teachers the parents and the grandparents that has both inspired me and created a steely resolve and determination. I think of the late Shannen Koostachin, young boys and girls in remote northern communities like young J ayden 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. Todays conversation began over 40 years ago with the remarkable leadership of the late George Manuel and many others. Indian control of Indian education in 1972 a policy statement crafted by our own educators including Verna Kirkness remains a powerful affirmation of our resilience and our determination to achieve change and justice for our children through education. Smashing the status quo means ending the glacial pace of change for our people and providing full support for growth and 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 work ahead. The inspiration behind the creation of the Assembly of First Nations was to serve as an advocacy body bringing together the Nations and supporting one another. I have encouraged reflection on our processes and approach within the Assembly to reflect a sense of re-building our Nations. <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-17- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition Smashing the status quo means that everyone has a role to play. The status quo should NOT be acceptable to any political party the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives. This status quo should also never be acceptable to our Chiefs and leaders. This work is a challenge for all Parliamentarians and it is a challenge for our Nations. Everyone knows the recent history here 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 this change. I am very proud of the work accomplished very proud of our collective efforts to overcome the status quo on this issue and others. Weve been through important and sincere efforts before in constitutional negotiation, a Royal Commission, and other more recent important efforts such as Kelowna taken forward by former Prime Minister Paul Martin. The current proposal on education is the latest attempt and a sincere, constructive effort on the part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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 a call 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 an obstacle to it or a lightening rod distracting from the kids and their potential. I am therefore, today resigning as National Chief. I have carried out my actions based on principle and integrity. Personally, I believe this work must happen. It can and should happen in parallel to other efforts addressing fundamental questions of how we do this work. Now the work started so many years ago must continue. It must continue in every community and it must continue within Parliament. I challenge every party and every First Nation to carry forward this work. Failure is simply not an option. Fighting for the status 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 and increasing 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 worked for education and for our kids. While people do not hear or see them today YOU will emerge as the heroes of this work in the future. Shawn A-in-Chut Atleo <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-18- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition Charter of the Assembly of First Nations (Excerpts Relating to the Confederacy of Nations) . . . PRINCIPLES ARTICLE 2 . . . The purpose, authority, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Assembly of First Nations shall be derivative in nature and scope. All actions or initiatives in excess of the delegation from First Nations shall be null and void and of no force or effect. All delegated power, mandates or responsibility derive from the sovereignty of First Nations; and the persons or institutions entrusted to exercise such delegation have a sacred trust and duty, in performance, to comply strictly with 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 and survival of First Nations, may be undertaken as a national or international matter provided the First Nations-in-Assembly have reached a consensus to grant delegated power, mandate or responsibility to the Assembly of First Nations. . . ROLE AND FUNCTION ARTICLE 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 to remain subordinate in strength power and resources to the First Nations jurisdiction for which it is established to serve.
d) To perform and adhere strictly, as a sacred trust and duty, to the nature, scope and extent of the delegation granted from time to time by First Nations. . . . ORGANS ARTICLE 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; and The Executive Committee; The National Youth Council The Secretariat (also known as the National Indian Brotherhood; . . . <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-19- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition THE CONFEDERACY OF NATIONS COMPOSITION ARTICLE 11 The Confederacy of Nations shall be composed of First Nations representatives of each region on the basis of one 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 First Nations 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 POWERS ARTICLE 12 1. The Confederacy of Nations exists and functions as the governing body between assemblies of the First Nations-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 where ambiguity or conflict arises in the interpretation of resolutions, decisions.
c) To ensure that the Secretariat and Executive Committee (including the National Chief) conform to, and implement, 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 or Executive 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 individual First Nation or collectively of First Nations between meetings of the First Nations-in-Assembly provided that the response and action undertaken is within the scope of existing delegated mandates of the First Nations-in-Assembly, and provided resources that may be required are available and within the budget of the organization, and further provided that the matter dealt with does not have a detrimental effect on the rights and interests of all First Nations.
f) To address any emergency in matters of a fundamental nature affecting one or more First Nations. The Confederacy of Nations shall consider, first, whether that matter is of a fundamental , second, whether an emergency exists before any decision or action is taken on that matter. Any decision made shall be referred to 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 and decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly.
i) To ensure that quarterly written reports are submitted directly to the Chiefs of the First Nations. <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-20- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition ACCOUNTABILITY ARTICLE 13 The Confederacy of Nations shall be accountable to, shall report to and take direction from the First Nations-in-Assembly. The Confederacy of Nations representatives may be elected or appointed and removed by the Chiefs of each region at a meeting convened for that purpose. MEETINGS ARTICLE 14 The Confederacy of Nations shall meet in regular quarterly sessions and in such special sessions as occasion may require. Special sessions may be convened by the National Chief on his (or her) own initiative, or at the request of a quorum for the duly selected members of the Confederacy of Nations or at the request of the Executive Committee. QUORUM ARTICLE 15 Fifty percent of participating representatives and fifty percent of the participating regions shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Confederacy of Nations. PROCEDURE ARTICLE 16 The Confederacy of Nations shall adopt its own Rules of Procedure. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE . . . FUNCTIONS AND POWERS ARTICLE 18 . . . The Executive Committee shall bring to the attention of First Nations, the First Nations-in-Assembly and the Confederacy 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 obtain the approval of the budgets by the Confederacy of Nations. In implementing the decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly and the Confederacy of Nations, the Executive Committee shall comply in all cases with the true spirit and intent of the delegation granted from time to time. In performing their duties or responsibilities, the Executive Committee may establish portfolios and deploy resources as deemed necessary, subject to the approval of the Confederacy of Nations and to the nature of the delegation granted by the First Nations-in-Assembly. Members of the Executive Committee may participate in Confederacy of Nations meetings with voting privileges. <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-21- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition ACCOUNTABILITY ARTICLE 19 The Executive Committee shall be accountable to, shall report to and take direction from the Confederacy of Nations and the First Nations-in-Assembly. NATIONAL CHIEF ROLE AND FUNCTION ARTICLE 20 . . . The National Chief shall take direction from the Executive Committee as a unit, and, with the Executive Committee, 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 Executive Committee, 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 the Executive 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 the Confederacy of Nations. AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARTICLE 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 from time to time by the First Nations-in-Assembly. As a leader who exercises delegated mandates, authority, responsibilities and duties, the National Chief has a sacred political trust to comply in every respect with the direction given by the First Nations-in-Assembly, the Confederacy of Nations and the Executive Committee. . . . ELECTION AND TERM ARTICLE 22 . . . The National Chief shall be elected for a three-year term and be eligible for re-election but may be removed by a majority of 60% of the registered representatives of First Nations at a Special Assembly. convened by the Confederacy of Nations for that purpose. <e-notes> Valcourts Tired Game of Using Shawn Atleo Shield Ends As National Chief Makes Honourable Resignation :-22- an informative <e-note> by fourarrows@rogers.com 4 May 2014 Edition ROLE AND FUNCTION COUNCIL OF ELDERS ARTICLE 24 The Council of Elders may discuss any question or any matter within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, may make recommendations to the Executive Committee, the Confederacy of Nations, the First Nations-in-Assembly or to 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 of any subsidiary organ The Chairperson of the Council of Elders may participate in meetings of the Executive Committee in an advisory capacity. COUNCIL OF WOMEN ARTICLE 24.A The Council of Women may discuss any question or any matter within the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and make recommendations to the Executive Committee, the Confederacy of Nations, the First Nations-in-Assembly or to 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 or of the Confederacy of Nations or of any subsidiary organ. NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL ARTICLE 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) . . . FUNCTIONS ARTICLE 26 The Secretariat (NIB) shall function in accordance with its By-laws but so as to ensure the implementation of the decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly and those of the Confederacy of Nations consistent with the decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly. The Secretariat shall provide administrative, technical and support services to the Assembly of First Nations. The Secretariat shall receive, administer and distribute monies and transact business and engage in such activities as are ancillary to, or necessary for, the realization of the decisions of the First Nations-in-Assembly, the Confederacy of Nations and the Executive Committee.