Proces verbal du 5 avril eng - cepn-fnec.com · Special General Assembly Sheraton Laval April 5,...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda ..................................................... 3

Adoption of the minutes .................................................................................................. 3

Education Partnerships Program ..................................................................................... 3

Education Partnerships Program – Decision making ....................................................... 5

Panel of experts – National consultation ......................................................................... 7

The FNEC’s next steps ...................................................................................................... 7

Purchase of technological equipment ............................................................................. 8

Legal aspect of provincial tuition fees ............................................................................. 9

Special General Assembly

Sheraton Laval April 5, 2011

In attendance on April 5, 2011:

NAME COMMUNITY or ORGANIZATION

1. Raymond Lauzon, representative Kitcisakik

2. Lisette Petiquay, representative Opitciwan

3. Daniel Niquay, representative Manawan

4. Nathalie Cardin, representative Odanak

5. Marlène Jérôme, representative Lac Simon

6. Marie‐Josée Croteau, observer Pikogan

7. Marie‐Claude Gill, representative Mashteuiatsh

8. Richard Dussault, representative Wendake

9. Jules Papatie, representative Barriere Lake

10. Sakay Ottawa, Chief (by proxy) Manawan

11. Salomée McKenzie, Chief Lac Simon

12. Grand Chief Konrad Sioui Wendake

13. René Gros‐Louis, observer Wendake

14. Sandra Rankin, representative Pikogan

15. Alice Jérôme, Chief Pikogan

16. Anny Rioux, Chief (by proxy) Viger

17. Eva Ottawa, observer Manawan CNA

18. Regina Chachai, Chief Opitciwan

19. Adrienne Anichinapéo, Chief Kitcisakik

20. Marco Dery, Chief (by proxy) Wemotaci

21. Ghislain Picard, observer APNQL

22. Dean Vicaire, Chief (by proxy) Listuguj

23. Kahsennenhawe Sky‐Deer, Chief Kahnawa:ke

24. Gilbert Whiteduck, Chief Kitigan Zibi, Anishinabeg

25. Claude Jeannotte, Chief Gespeg

26. Sohenrise Nicholas, Chief Kanehsatake

27. Shelley Chief, Chief (by proxy) Timiskaming First Nation

28. Rick O’Bomsawin, Chief Odanak

29. Jimmy Constant, Chief Eagle Village First Nation

30. Chad Thusky, Chief (by proxy) Algonquins of Barriere Lake

31. Leonard Polson, Chief Long Point First Nation

32. Denys Bernard, Chief (by proxy) Wôlinak

33. Gordon Polson, observer Long Point First Nation

34. Henry Rodgers, representative (by proxy) Long Point First Nation

35. Lisa Jerome, representative Gesgapegiag

36. Jennifer Paul, representative Eagle Village First Nation ‐ Kipawa

37. Dave Bernard, representative Wôlinak

38. Arlene Chasle, representative Timiskaming

39. A. Briar Giroux, observer Timiskaming

40. Carrie Brisson, representative Kanehsatake

41. Anita Tenasco, representative Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg

42. Donna Wahienha:wi Lahache, representative Kahnawake

43. Clifford Moar, Chief Mashteuiatsh

44. Lise Bastien FNEC

45. Raymond Sioui FNEC

46. Nancy Doddridge FNEC

47. Philippe Lalancette FNEC

48. Tim Whiteduck FNEC

49. Igor Aleks FNEC

50. Thanissa Lainé FNEC

51. Barbara Gravel FNEC

52. Linda Sioui FNEC

53. Éric Cardinal Cardinal Communication

54. Linda Simon Simon Management

55. David Schulze Dionne Schulze

FNEC Special General Assembly Sheraton Laval April 5, 2011

First Nations Education Council 3

OPENING OF THE MEETING AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Special General Assembly was co‐chaired by Lise Bastien and Raymond Sioui. Lise Bastien invited

Kahsennenhawe Sky‐Deer, from the Community of Kahnawake, to lead the opening prayer.

Lise Bastien thanked the Chiefs for coming and asked participants to introduce themselves. Twenty Chiefs or Chiefs by proxy were in attendance at the Special General Assembly. Quorum was met. Lise Bastien presented the day's agenda.

Questions and comments

No questions were asked and no comments were made.

Dean Vicaire, from Listuguj, motioned to adopt the agenda, which was seconded by Chief René Gros‐Louis,

from Wendake. The agenda was unanimously adopted.

ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

The minutes for the Special General Assembly held on July 8, 2010, was presented to participants. Lise Bastien suggested that the participants take a few minutes to read over the minutes and she invited them to ask questions as they made their way through the document.

Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky‐Deer, from Kahnawake, motioned to adopt the minutes from the previous Special General Assembly held on July 8, 2010, which was seconded by Chief Claude Jeannotte, from Gespeg. The minutes were unanimously adopted.

Lise Bastien also presented the minutes from the Special General Assembly held on January 26, 2011, at Plaza Québec. Since quorum had not been met, the minutes were not adopted.

EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Background and progress made

An information sheet that had already been presented to the Chiefs on two other occasions had been updated in light of the latest developments to assist Raymond Sioui as he went over the key actions carried out as part of the tripartite agreement negotiation efforts. The presentation highlighted the importance attached to the communities' input into the joint action plan and to the Chiefs' support throughout the negotiation process.

Flowchart

Nancy Doddridge presented a flowchart to the assembly to illustrate the different ways the Chiefs could vote as well as the associated implications. The purpose of this chart was to help the Chiefs make a decision.



Questions addressed to INAC

Raymond Sioui explained that the FNEC had still not received any answers to the questions the INAC regional office representatives had asked to have addressed to them in writing during the January 26 Special General Assembly as they had not been able to answer the questions themselves at the time. The person in charge of the Education Partnerships Program (EPP) at INAC headquarters had expressed his intent to answer the Chiefs' questions in person, but was forced to renege at the last minute when elections were called. Raymond Sioui stated that during the January 26 meeting, the only INAC representatives present were from the regional office since all the representatives from headquarters had cancelled at the last minute without offering any explanations.

Joint action plan

Nancy Doddridge presented the joint action plan (document included in the information kit) to give the Chiefs a good idea of the activities that would be offered to communities through this plan. The presentation also referred to the FNEC's request for funding, submitted in December 2010, and the possible implications it could have on communities in the event where the FNEC received a positive response.

Revised version of the agreement

Éric Cardinal presented the most recent version of the tripartite agreement on which the Chiefs would have to take a stand.

Background of the current version of the agreement:

Version 9.1 of the proposed agreement, which was drafted on March 22, 2011, was presented to the political representatives of FNEC member communities at the Special General Assembly. A few modifications were made to version 9 following official talks between the members negotiating the tripartite agreement. Consensus had more or less been reached on version 9, with the exception of a few sections that had been removed or modified so that the Chiefs could vote on a document that was more likely to obtain the approbation of all parties. The preamble paragraph pertaining to Canada's endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the paragraph on Québec's jurisdiction in education were removed. Section 16 on the scope of the agreement was also modified following a recommendation from the Québec government and the legal advice sought by the FNEC.

For purposes of transparency, version 9.1 had been handed over to the other parties and their comments—to add a paragraph in the preamble regarding Québec's jurisdiction in education1 and the words "from the government of Canada" in section 9 on the funding of the tripartite agreement to make it more specific—were mentioned verbally and added to the agreement during the presentation.

Presentation of the proposed agreement:

The proposed agreement and its three appendices were sent to the Chiefs before the Special General Assembly. It was then presented point by point, emphasizing the elements that had been modified or that were more likely to invite questions.

At the end of the presentation of the proposed agreement, political representatives asked relatively few questions. Several political representatives came forth to state their position regarding the context and the scope of the tripartite agreement.

1 WHEREAS the ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport exercises jurisdiction over education for the province of Quebec via the Quebec school network namely through its mission and activities;



Only one Chief suggested a modification be made to the text, which was discussed and then unanimously accepted. The proposed modification was to add the following paragraph to the preamble: "WHEREAS the First Nations members of the First Nations Education Council are nations and officially and mutually recognize themselves as being empowered to conclude between them formal agreements concerning cultural, educational, economic, political or other sectors;"

Before voting on the proposed agreement, it was explained that the FNEC wished to have a vote on two issues:

1) Whether or not communities intended to adhere to the agreement and the joint action plan. 2) Whether or not communities intended to support the signing of the proposed agreement by the

AFNQL Chief, who had the power to sign the agreement on behalf of the FNEC. The proposed agreement had to be signed by the FNEC before communities could be given the opportunity to adhere to the agreement on a voluntary basis.

EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM – DECISION MAKING

The communities' decision on whether or not to adhere to the agreement

After deliberating, the FNEC went around the table to determine the number of communities that wanted to adhere to the agreement and the action plan: eight communities expressed their intent to adhere to the agreement and the action plan; six communities were against the adherence; three communities, one of which was absent, were not eligible because they did not have reserve status (Gespeg, Viger and Wolf Lake); four communities said they would defer their decision and one community was absent (Gesgapegiag).

To summarize, of the 20 communities in attendance, 18 were eligible for funding and, of these 18, eight expressed their intent to adhere to the above, six were against the adherence and four said they would defer their decision.



Summary table:

Name Community Intent to adhere

1 Adrienne Anichinapéo Kitcisakik Yes

2 Sakay Ottawa (by proxy) Manawan Yes

3 Régina Chachai Opitciwan Yes

4 Alice Jérome Pikogan Yes

5 Marco Dery (by proxy) Wemotaci Yes

6 Konrad Sioui Wendake Yes

7 Denys Bernard (by proxy) Wôlinak Yes

8 Dean Vicaire (by proxy) Listuguj Yes

1 Clifford Moar Mashteuiatsh No

2 Chad Thusky (by proxy) Barriere Lake No

3 Jimmy Constant Eagle Village No

4 Sohenrise Nicholas Kanesatake No

5 Gilbert Whiteduck Kitigan Zibi No

6 Shelley Chief (by proxy) Timiskaming No (Ontario)

1 Salomée McKenzie Lac Simon Very likely

2 Rick O’Bomsawin Odanak Very likely

3 Kahsennenhawe Sky‐Deer Kahnawake Must consult the council

4 Leonard Polson Winneway Not sure

1 Absent Gesgapegiag Very likely

1 Claude Jeannotte Gespeg Not eligible

2 Anny Rioux (by proxy) Viger Not eligible

3 Absent Wolf Lake Not eligible

Decision regarding the FNEC's signing of the agreement in its capacity as regional organization

The FNEC went around the table again to determine which Chiefs supported the Regional Chief's signing of the agreement on behalf of the FNEC, a precondition for giving eligible communities the opportunity to adhere to the agreement on a voluntary basis. In all, 14 Chiefs were in favour, none were against, and the following six Chiefs abstained:

1 Barriere Lake Consultant Chad Thusky (proxy)

2 Kahnawake Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky‐Deer

3 Kanehsatake Chief Sohenrise Nicholas

4 Kitigan Zibi Chief Gilbert Whiteduck

5 Mashteuiatsh Chief Clifford Moar

6 Winneway Chief Leonard Polson



A copy of the proposed agreement containing the changes requested by the Chiefs (version 10, adopted by the Special General Assembly) would be officially remitted to representatives from the Québec and Canadian governments. The FNEC would also inform the government representatives that the majority of the Chiefs supported the FNEC's signing of the agreement and that it expected the following steps to take place:

1) The version of the agreement presented to the Chiefs will be accepted by all parties.

2) The communities will confirm their adherence by adopting a resolution.

3) The agreement will be officially signed during a public event covered by the media.

PANEL OF EXPERTS – NATIONAL CONSULTATION

Raymond Sioui delivered a PowerPoint presentation on the background of the National Panel, whose mandate was to lead a consultation on elementary and secondary school and then present the results to the National Chief and INAC. At the end of the presentation, Raymond Sioui gave the floor to the AFNQL Chief, who added certain clarifications, then to Chief Gilbert Whiteduck, who had been closely monitoring the developments in this dossier, to trace the history of the panel and provide further explanations.

Dean Vicaire indicated that Chief Allison Metallic, who he was representing, had asked him to say that his position was to support the consultation process led by the National Panel. All the other Chiefs, following a deliberation period, supported the motion made by Chief René Gros‐Louis from Wendake:

"Whereas, in the framework of the consultation led by the National Panel on First Nations Elementary and Secondary Education, the FNEC presents a parallel report to the National Chief." [translation]

One of the concerns expressed by the Chiefs during discussions was the importance of making a positive contribution to this process, which sought to determine priority actions. They felt that, because of the numerous consultation reports or studies available to the FNEC on this issue which had for the large part obtained the consensus of First Nations, the best way to bring about this positive contribution was to present a parallel report to the National Chief. The Chiefs remarked that the option selected to better reflect their position and contribute to the consultation process would moreover illustrate the unity of spirit among all First Nations in Canada. They also asked the FNEC to study the possibility of presenting a joint parallel report together with the regions of Ontario and Saskatchewan.

THE FNEC’S NEXT STEPS

Raymond Sioui said that one more point had to be covered before addressing the issue of tuition fees, that is, mobilizing communities and planning the FNEC's next representation efforts.

Lise Bastien gave a quick overview of the different campaigns and actions led by the FNEC on the national and international scenes to resolve the underfunding of schools, enlist support and put pressure on the government. She said that the FNEC was planning to carry out a strategic analysis to determine its next steps and would draw on its experience to draw up a list of actions that promised to be the most effective. All that would remain would be to determine the level of commitment required of communities to follow through on these plans. To illustrate the importance of mobilization, she referred to the special education dossier that required a sustained effort on the part of communities over a period of ten years in order to get a pilot project off the ground, which then led to a permanent project for all First Nations communities in Canada.

Arlene Chasle stressed that a great deal of work had indeed been required to stir up sympathy for this issue. Chief Gilbert Whiteduck then asked that the efforts to denounce underfunding be returned to the agenda.



Lise Bastien said that an awareness‐building campaign could be quite expensive and reminded the assembly that the underfunding of First Nations education was not an easy case to make to Canadians. She said that even the grave insult of inequitable funding for First Nations schools did not win very much sympathy from most Canadians. She suggested the possibility of changing their discourse and noted that they had to be more strategic on this issue.

Raymond Sioui talked about the three‐hour meeting that took place at the FNEC in November 2010 with representatives from the Office of the Auditor General (OAG). This meeting allowed the FNEC to present to the OAG representatives several examples of inconsistencies observed in INAC's handling of the education dossier. In the last few years, the FNEC had been meeting with OAG representatives at least once per year, which had evidently had a major impact on the reports published by the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. Raymond Sioui said that the Auditor General's latest report on First Nations education would be published shortly since her mandate was coming to an end and she had made it perfectly clear during the AFN's last General Assembly, which she attended in December 2010, that she was very dissatisfied with the lack of progress made in the way INAC handled First Nations files.

Raymond Sioui also mentioned that it would be even more difficult to carry out actions to disturb the government while working with the National Panel because the politicians questioned would simply have to refer to the National Panel's process. However, he strongly encouraged the Chiefs to support the initiative "Shannen's Dream" espoused by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada (FNCFCSC), and said that a national day of action was being organized for April 27, 2011, as part of this initiative. The FNCFCSC, in collaboration with the AFN, had submitted a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding the underfunding of certain social services. The Government of Canada had failed on two occasions to have the complaint dismissed, but it unfortunately succeeded during its third recent attempt. He said, however, that the FNCFCSC intended to contest this decision, and, should it succeed, the government would have no recourse to further contest this decision and the case would have to be heard. The outcome of this case was very important because the FNEC was participating in a national working group that wanted to submit a similar case relating to the education sector.

Anita Tenasco said it was also important not to lose sight of the post‐secondary education dossier.

Lise Bastien said she feared that the pressure exerted had little impact on a government that did as it pleased, without being held accountable, particularly with respect to this dossier. She also feared that certain communities wanted to change how the program's funds were managed.

Anita Tenasco recommended filling out the access to information form, which would force the government to increase accountability.

Dean Vicaire noted that the National Chief had mentioned that it was time to turn the page on how certain things were done and that he would announce in Moncton his support for the new direction the Conservative government intended to take in the First Nations post‐secondary education dossier. Dean Vicaire added that the National Chief had a great deal of support in Canada and mentioned that the information shared during the Special General Assembly would be disseminated during the AFN's Annual General Assembly in Moncton in July 2011. He invited people to attend this assembly.

PURCHASE OF TECHNOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT

Philippe Lalancette delivered a PowerPoint presentation to explain the advantages of purchasing technological equipment by employing economies of scale. This presentation served to present the most recent offer made by ProContact, a company based in Quebec City. The offer consisted of Hewlett Packard (HP) products including printer/fax machines, computers and servers. Prices were provided.



Philippe Lalancette also said that communities could hire ProContact to complete a free comprehensive assessment of their technologies (i.e. networks, workstations, servers). He continued to explain that the FNEC would share this information with the representatives, and technicians in interested communities, and advised communities to contact the FNEC for more information on this matter.


Marc Dery asked Philippe Lalancette if the prices for the computers as shown included the shipping costs. Philippe initially responded yes, but said he would confirm the shipping costs with the supplier and then advise everyone accordingly.

LEGAL ASPECT OF PROVINCIAL TUITION FEES

LEGAL ASPECT OF PROVINCIAL TUITION FEES (DAVID SCHULZE)

The presentation emphasized that most reserves were currently located inside municipal boundaries or inside school board territory. David Schulze explained that in such cases, the municipality was obligated to add reserve residents to their list of electors in order to recognize their right to vote and to present themselves as candidates for municipal elections. The municipality was, however, allowed to impose taxes on the land rights (lease, easement) enjoyed by non‐Native people living on the reserve.

In terms of education, he said that when a reserve was considered as being a part of a school board's territory, the school board then became obligated to offer free educational services to the residents of the said reserve. More specifically, it meant that the school board could not deny services to the youth of that community nor bill fees to their parents for services that were offered free of charge to the other parents in its territory.

Raymond Sioui mentioned that INAC had signed agreements with First Nations communities which required them to offer education services. If the relevant services were offered in the community, the regional office considered that this obligation had been met and consequently recognized the community's right to adopt a policy whereby they would not have to pay tuition fees to allow its young people to attend a provincial school. However, if the services were not offered in the community, the regional office considered that the community had to pay the provincial tuition fees in order to meet its obligation.

Lise Bastien specified that in the case of communities with multiyear agreements, adopting a policy of non‐payment could be advantageous in terms of funding. However, this advantage did not exist for communities with yearly agreements. Similarly, it remained to be seen whether communities could maintain the advantage achieved with their multiyear agreements when the time came to renegotiate their agreements.

Raymond Sioui said that the FNEC proposed to complete a more comprehensive analysis on the issue of provincial tuition fees; this analysis would also take into account the challenges faced by border communities who were required to pay tuition fees that greatly exceeded the amounts allocated to First Nations schools so their young people could attend schools in another province.


Marie‐Claude Gill said that given the MELS' response regarding the school boards' obligation to offer free education services, she did not at the moment see the need to sit down with MELS to discuss the situation in which her community in particular had found itself.



The Special General Assembly was adjourned.

SPECIAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY – APRIL 5, 2011

SUBJECT RECOMMENDATIONS

Panel of experts – National consultation

Whereas, in the framework of the consultation led by the National Panel on First Nations Elementary and Secondary Education, the FNEC presents a parallel report to the National Chief.

Study the possibility of presenting a parallel report together with the regions of Ontario and Saskatchewan.

The FNEC’s next steps The FNEC will carry out a strategic analysis to determine its next steps and will draw on its experience to draw up a list of actions that promise to be effective.

Legal aspect of provincial tuition fees

The FNEC proposes to analyze the issue of provincial tuition fees, while including the challenges faced by border communities.



Date post:	21-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vukhanh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Proces verbal du 5 avril eng - cepn-fnec.com · Special General Assembly Sheraton Laval April 5,...

Documents