Having a bit of ed background politically, all need to remember that elementary and secondary education is provincial responsibility so this voucher idea is a no go. Now as for FN education - FN either offer their own school system or the reserves contract with their local schools boards to provide education in their area.
Of course it's a provincial responsibility, but what does that have to do with anything?
As for FN languages, what if we're dealing with a FN community far from any reserve, but numerically large enough to warrant teaching their language at least as a second-language in school? Why would we force them to learn French when they could learn thri own second-language if they wanted too, their choice of course?
In Ontario, where there is reserves and where they contract with the school boards, those boards do provide their native language as their 2nd language option. Also, they provided various curriculum that is 1st nation centric.
Again, why should we restrict their culture to reserves and surrounding areas only?
Also this voucher idea is basically only relevant to urban centers as "choice" in rural is limited due to reduced population. Choice would be better focussed on "increased choice" in programming rather than focus on infrastructure. So in Ontario, we pay for 4 systems of education that all compete with one another, with half empty schools, and bussing kids that go by other schools. This is a huge waste fo resources - better spent in inhancing curriculum and programming needs of students - but that's politics.
Even if it were beneficial to urban areas only, it would still not hurt rural areas any, would it? And as mentioned above, if some kind of incentive system other than a voucher system could be worked out to create the same effect of encouraging schools to teach FN languages even if far away from any reserve, whenever numbers warrant, so as to avoid any stigma attached to the idea of vouchers, I'd be all for it.
So the more school systems one builds - vouchers for all - the more duplication one is creating and all the administration to go with it.
You could still have multiple systems without extra cost to the government. For example, a curriculum for Algonquin likely exists already at Kitigan Zibi. Under the system proposed, let's suppse that enough Algonquins in Ottawa, all living in the same geographical part of town, asked that their local school offered Algonquin as the language of instruction. That school could simply adopt Kitigan Zibi's curriculum,no more expensive than to adopt the English one since it would exist already anyway. Under a voucher system, of course schools would feel the pressure from parents requesting more Algonwuin content. Or if we want to avoid the stigma of thevoucher, the government could simply require any school receiving a petition from parents with so many signatures to teach that language. That could possibly be more combersome, as the governmnet would then have to guarantee teachers, etc. But from that standpoint, though it would be more expensive, it could likely lead to even more such schools than under a voucher system, granted, though I don't know how politically tenable it would be as some might complain of FNs getting more funding per person than other languages. But maybe some other system, similar to a voucher system, could achieve the same incentive.