Skip to main content

Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs is shown in Ottawa on Jan. 18, 2013.

PATRICK DOYLE/REUTERS

First Nations leaders from five provinces are joining forces to oppose the government's bill to reform on-reserve education – legislation that is supported by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and its National Chief Shawn Atleo.

Chiefs from Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan will make public on Monday their plan for forcing the government to significantly change or scrap what has been dubbed the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act.

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.

Story continues below advertisement

The bill was intended to give First Nations control over their own education. But the many chiefs who oppose it say there has not been adequate consultation on the bill, and that it imposes standards on First Nations while allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to intervene in on-reserve education through a council dominated by his appointees.

Pushing the legislation through without the support of First Nations across the country would be an act of "discrimination and racism," said Derek Nepinak, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

The leaders are directing extensive criticism at the AFN, which acts as their voice in Ottawa, and Mr. Atleo, who has endorsed the legislation as the best hope for transforming a system that sees nearly two out of three children living on reserves drop out before they graduate from high school.

An AFN analysis of the bill that was released to chiefs last week says the bill is 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."

Although the bill allocates $1.25-billion over three years in additional funding starting in 2016, some chiefs say it may ultimately be insufficient to meet the needs of a ballooning aboriginal population.

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.

Mr. Nepinak said Mr. Valcourt should recognize that the bill's impact will be felt at the community level, and consultation must be done with individual First Nations, not the AFN.

Story continues below advertisement

"I think what we've got to do is take a really critical review of the AFN's role in this process," said Mr. Nepinak. "I think there has to be fallout from this."

Mr. Atleo said in a statement on Friday that the AFN is working under the direction of chiefs from across the country and supports widespread assessment of the legislation. But Mr. Nepinak said he does not believe Mr. Atleo's support of the bill has the blessing even of the majority of the executive of the AFN.

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.

And 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.

"There's a high number of native children who live off the reserve. If they come back to the reserve, we really don't know what their needs are or how to cost services for them until they get here," said Mr. Maracle. "So the funding could be terrifically inadequate."

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies