Analysis as to Whether The Conditions Set By The Chiefs Assembly

Were Met By Bill C-33

1. Does Bill C-33 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?
No. The Bill makes no mention of inherent and Treaty rights nor First
Nation jurisdiction at all, much less as an overriding, paramount
principle. The Bill contains numerous unilateral impositions upon
rights, interests, and jurisdictions.
2. Does the Bill recognize its obligations and provide a statutory guarantee for
funding of First Nations education that is sustainable and reflects actual costs?
No. The Bill contains no recognition of the Crowns obligations. There is
no statutory guarantee for funding at all, much less funding which is
sustainable and reflecting actual costs. The Minister has unilateral
authority to set the total amount of funding in any amount he wishes.
3. Does the Bill support full immersion and grounding of all education in
Indigenous languages and cultures?
No. To the contrary, the Bill prohibits full immersion by making
English or French the language of instruction. Any use of Indigenous
languages and cultures is subject to regulations imposed unilaterally by
the Minister.
4. Does the Bill fully respect and enable diversity of First Nation choices in the
advancing of First Nation Control of education?
No. The Minister may unilaterally impose provincial education
regulations on the operation of First Nation education, as well as
numerous other regulations.
5. Does the Bill set out 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?
No. The Bill does not mention Treaty relationships nor the UN
Declaration nor First Nations jurisdiction over education. It does not
offer or permit partnership. To the contrary, it sets out numerous
significant unilateral impositions which are contrary to both Treaty
relationships and the UN Declaration, and would make anything
resembling a partnership impossible to attain.
6. Were there negotiations leading to Bill C-33 advancing the AFN 2010 Policy
Framework?
No. There were no such negotiations. Further, the Bill falls far short of
the 2010 AFN Policy Framework.
7. Does Bill C-33 meet Condition No. 1 regarding respect and recognition of
inherent rights and title, Treaty rights, and jurisdiction over education and
permitting First Nations to retain all options to advance their education and are all
such agreements must be fully respected, enabled and supported?
No. Bill C-33 falls far short of meeting any part of Condition No. 1. In
most instances, there is no evidence that the Bill even attempts to meet
this condition. It does not permit First Nations to exercise all options.
It overrides agreements already made.
8. Does Bill C-33 meet Condition No. 2 by providing a statutory guarantee for
funding of First Nations education as a precondition that is sustainable and reflects
needs-based costs consistent with Canadas obligation?
No. As mentioned above, Bill C-33 does not meet Condition No. 2.
Rather it provides for the Minister to set any limit he wishes for total
funding of First Nation education. The Bill makes no provision for
needs-based costs, and makes no mention that Canada has any
obligations whatsoever.
9. Does Bill C-33 meet Condition No, 3 by enabling and supportiny systems to
provide full immersion and grounding of all education in Indigenous languages and
cultures?
No. As mentioned above, Bill C-33 prohibits full immersion and
grounding of all education in Indigenous languages and cultures.
Further, it permits the Minister to set unilateral regulations that will
dictate how Indigenous languages and cultures to be taught. Thus Bill
C-33 does not meet Condition No. 3.
10. Does Bill C-33 meet Condition No. 4 by developing mechanisms to oversee and
evaluate for reciprocal accountability and to ensure there not be unilateral federal
oversight and authority?
No. To the contrary, Bill C-33 contains measures which protect the
federal government from having accountability of any kind, and
instead provides for unilateral federal oversight and authority,
Condition No. 4 is not only not met, but worsens the current unilateral
exercise of federal authority.
11. Does Bill C-33 fulfil Condition No. 5 by ensuring a meaningfully-supported
process to address these five conditions through a commitment to working together
through co-development, fully reflective of First Nations rights and jurisdiction?
No. Bill C-33 evidences no meaningfully-supported process whatsoever
to address these five conditions. While there seemed to have been a
commitment to work together and to have co-development, there is
no evidence anywhere of the commitment being met or of any co-
development of the Bill. There is no reflection of First Nations rights
and jurisdiction anywhere in the Bill. Condition No. 5 was not met.
Were The Conditions Set By The Chiefs Assembly Met By Bill C-33?
No. None of the conditions were met.