AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 0910

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib)): Good morning. This morning, we are considering Bill C-30, an Act Respecting the Powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in Relation to Education.

This is our order of reference:

ORDERED—That Bill C-30, an Act Respecting the Powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in Relation to Education, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 of the bill is postponed. We will now go to clause 2.

Before hearing our first witnesses, I'd like to read a letter for you that we got from the premier of Nova Scotia, the honourable Russell McLellan. The letter is addressed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Dear Chair:

I am pleased to support to the Mi'kmaq Education Act, Bill C-30, introduced by your government. Nova Scotia is proud to be part of such an historic occasion which transfers legislative and administrative jurisdiction of education to nine Mi'kmaq bands in Nova Scotia.

I understand that this agreement is the first of its kind in Canada to transfer jurisdiction of education from the federal government to the Mi'kmaq nations on reserves in Nova Scotia.

I wish you every success with this new arrangement and the Nova Scotia government will also introduce legislation, the Mi'kmaq Education Act, as soon as possible in the legislature.

Yours truly,

And it's signed by the honourable Russell McLellan, premier of Nova Scotia.

With the consent of all members, I will table this letter as part of the record.

We have about nine groups appearing before us today. We will first hear a statement and I will then give five minutes to each group. When the last minute starts ticking, I'll give you an indication of when you have about 30 seconds left. We're here from 9:00 a.m. till noon. We know that the members from all parties are very busy today and have many meetings. We will then go to a 10- minute question period and each member will have one minute to put his or her question.

From Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we have before us the following officials: Mr. John Brown, director general for the Atlantic region; Mr. Joe McNeil, advisor, intergovernmental affairs, the Atlantic region; and Mr. Allan Cracower, legal counsel. Welcome. You have five minutes for your statements.

[English]

Thank you very much.

Mr. John Brown (Associate Regional Director General, Atlantic Region, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

Before you today is Bill C-30, an act respecting the the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

The purpose of the proposed Mi'kmaq Education Act is to enable nine communities to exercise jurisdiction in relation to education, as provided in the final agreement that was reached between the parties on February 14, 1997. The negotiation process began as early as 1991.

The final agreement is composed of several portions. There is a section that deals with governance in education, another that is a five-year funding arrangement. There's an implementation plan, and a tripartite agreement that was negotiated between the Mi'kmaq and Nova Scotia and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There are also the principles of community constitutions that are to be developed in accordance with the agreement, and there is a sample band council resolution demonstrating the ratification process.

The Mi'kmaq Education Act gives force and and effect to the agreement. While individual participants have changed over time on both negotiation teams, motivation has remained strong, and there is solid agreement between the parties.

The objective of the legislation is to accomplish the transfer of federal jurisdiction for education on-reserve in Nova Scotia to nine first nation communities, those being Eskasoni, Membertou, Chapel Island, Whycocomagh and Wagmatcook—all in Cape Breton—and Shubenacadie, Annapolis Valley, Acadia and Pictou Landing, which are bands on the mainland of Nova Scotia. These first nations were the signatories to the final agreement in 1997.

• 0915

The signing finalized the negotiations with informed discussions between the Province of Nova Scotia, DIAND and the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia back to 1992. The negotiation process focused heavily on community consultation and consent, and also on consultation with third parties such as the Nova Scotia Teachers Association and opinion leaders in education in Nova Scotia.

We are pleased to appear before you today, and we'll do our best to answer your questions in a straightforward manner. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, sir.

[English]

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you. Before I ask a question, I'd like to make the point that on a quite important bill such as this, this is a rather short time period for asking questions and making presentations. We're not able to get into any depth whatsoever here.

I'd like to ask you about consultation. Did you keep a record of the number of people who showed up? Do you know what the number is from the actual grassroots of the community who expressed their viewpoints on this bill?

Mr. John Brown: Yes, we did keep an extensive record of all of the consultation processes and the types of consultations. There were a series of community meetings in every community. The consultation process also involved public education through print media, etc.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What I'm wondering is how many actually came. You must have had a sheet at the door that people could sign. Do you know how many actually came? Were there five or ten to a meeting, or a hundred?

Mr. Joe McNeil (Intergovernmental Affairs Adviser, Atlantic Region, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Depending on the various communities, obviously there were different numbers that did arrive at these. Some communities had significant numbers, others had less. Because we went back several different times throughout the process for the framework agreement, the agreement in principle, and then the final agreement, we did have contact with a significant amount of the community members.

In addition to that, as Mr. Brown indicated, the Mi'kmaq conducted a door-to-door delivery of information on the objectives of the agreement. We published in partnership regular indications of what we were doing in the Micmac-Maliseet Nation News and other media that were used throughout the process.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In your meetings, did anybody ever suggest that someone other than the chiefs should be the members of the governing body? Was the election of a board ever considered seriously by DIAND?

Mr. John Brown: There was an active debate on education. The consultations resulted in the principle of jurisdiction being transferred to the communities, and not to a board of directors. While this act establishes a corporation for the purposes of assisting in the delivery of education services, there is no jurisdiction vested in that board. It's a board to assist the communities. The jurisdiction is vested with the communities.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I have before me the final agreement on education for the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq bands and I'm looking at clause 4.2 of the final agreement that states:

This agreement does not constitute a treaty under the 1982 Constitutional Act. A bit further on, there is mention of restrictions. Clause 4.4 states:

For more certainty, no provision in this agreement shall prevent the participating communities from coming to an agreement...

@ti46 4.4.2 of the treaties under clause 35 of the 1982 Constitutional Act on, more particularly, education.

• 0920

In this agreement, it seems very clear to me that the government of Canada is ready to delegate education powers but does not consider the agreement as a modern treaty under clause 35.

So I'd like to know, on the one hand, why the inherent right to education of Aboriginals, the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, is not being recognized. If your answer is that this is not a modern treaty, do you consider that the stage of this bill is a preliminary stage that might lead us to a treaty recognizing the inherent right of Aboriginals to education?

[English]

Mr. John Brown: You are correct in pointing out that the agreement is very clear that this is not a treaty and was not intended to be a treaty. The agreement is a negotiated document. The parties at the time agreed that they did not want to proceed to a treaty, but they may wish to do so in the future. So this agreement is a delegation of jurisdiction from the federal government, but the door is not closed in the future to negotiating a modern-day treaty on this subject.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: You say that the parties agreed to this, but was it at the request of one of the parties or of all three parties? As it can be considered that the Nova Scotia government is a party to the agreement, I would like to know which one of the parties requested it not be a treaty. Were the three parties agreed that it was not a treaty or was it a specific request made by any one of the three parties?

[English]

Mr. John Brown: The substantive agreement is between the Government of Canada and the Mi'kmaq. There is a schedule to the agreement, which involves the parties in Nova Scotia for those matters that were concerning them. So the main discussions about whether this would be a treaty will be between the Mi'kmaq and the Government of Canada. My understanding is that the Mi'kmaq did not want to proceed with the treaty at this time.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to say I'm supportive of this legislation. I think it's a very positive step for the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, and also it's good to see the tripartite arrangement where the Mi'kmaq people, the province and the federal government were able to work out something that is supported by nine out of thirteen first nations in Nova Scotia.

We recognize that usually with something that's new, one is never going to get 100% agreement, but I want to get a little feedback from you on the four first nations that abstained from signing the agreement. Did you get any indication from them as to what their concerns were around this particular piece of legislation?

Mr. John Brown: Yes, there were indications from those four communities as to why they're not signatories to the final agreement.

All thirteen communities were involved in the initial discussions. The Mi'kmaq community has presented a united front on this whole issue, and even today, those chiefs who are signatories to the agreement involve those other four communities in processes within the Mi'kmaq education corporation.

The four communities that are not involved had not reached consensus by the time the final agreement was signed; that is, inside the community, the chiefs and councils did not believe they had completed the discussion and had the consent of their communities to proceed. Those communities have said they respect the wishes of the nine communities that wish to go forward. They have indicated that they may join the other nine communities in the future and support those nine communities in their effort to move forward.

• 0925

Mr. Joe McNeil: Mr. Chairman, if I might add, we actually see the fact that four out of the thirteen bands chose not to be signatory to the agreement as an affirmation of the informed consent process in that the community, and the community members were given the opportunity to express their will and to give a mandate to the chief-in-council to actually participate in this legislation.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefond—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Brown, compared with 1978, how will this improve the education for the children? That's the mission and that's the goal we're looking at. How is this going to improve the education of the Mi'kmaq children, if we can compare?

Mr. John Brown: In about 1978, the department established a policy called “Indian control of Indian education” and began in earnest to devolve the administrative control of band-operated schools and administrative services to bands. Over that time period, our experience has been that with Indian control have come much higher participation rates in education, much more pride within the communities in their achievements in education. For example, in 1978, around that time, I believe there were only about a dozen Mi'kmaq students in Nova Scotia who were involved in post-secondary education, and I believe this year there are about 465 students, approaching 500, who are in attendance at post-secondary school.

It is dramatic. It has created a lot of role models for children, and the retention rates throughout the system have been similar: there are now between 110 and 120 grade 12 students out of a student population of 2,200.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Also, as my colleague Mr. Earle mentioned previously, in 1992 all the 13 first nations signed the preliminary agreement and now there are four that are not part of the agreement. What's the procedure for them if they want to join?

Mr. John Brown: Contained in the articles of the legislation and in the articles of the final agreement are provisions for bands to join. First, they need informed consent from their communities. When a chief-in-council believes, and through their process they've established, that they have informed consent, they would send the department a band council resolution confirming the process for informed consent and the fact that the community now wants to join. Then after ratification there would be an order in council passed, which would add them to the schedule in the act.

Mr. Bernard Patry: What's the length of the time in between their request and when they will be a part?

Mr. John Brown: I believe upon ratification they would become part of the final agreement, and then it will be just a matter of how long it takes to get the order in council.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

We'll now go to the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education group, represented by Chief Lindsay Marshall and Ms. Marjorie Gould, the executive director.

• 0930

[English]

Is Vice-Chief Rick Simon there?

[Translation]

There was a bit of a change. Vice-Chief Rick Simon from the First Nations Assembly will take the floor immediately. You have five minutes for your statement, after which we will go to questions.

[English]

You have a statement?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon (Assembly of First Nations): Good morning. My name is Rick Simon. I'm the regional vice-chief with the Assembly of First Nations for the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland region. As well, with the Assembly of First Nations I chair the portfolio on education. I was also involved over the last number of years directly with the organization in Nova Scotia in chairing their meetings, watching the chiefs come to some conclusion to this education framework we're talking about today.

I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. St-Julien, and the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for allowing the Assembly of First Nations the opportunity to voice our position with respect to Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq Education Act.

Through this act legislative and administrative jurisdiction for education is transferred to nine Nova Scotia first nations. We welcome opportunities like this to speak to officials from all levels of government and the private sector to address the importance of education. Education, after all, is the key to opening many doors of opportunities that have been closed to first nations people for far too long.

Let me begin by stating that the Assembly of First Nations views education a priority of utmost significance. We have maintained our position that education is an inherent treaty and aboriginal right. Our elders have always reminded us of this fact and it has been affirmed and recognized in the Canadian Constitution.

National Chief Phil Fontaine feels strongly that education is instrumental in our quest for self-determination and the preservation of our cultures and heritage.

The barriers and challenges encountered by first nations youth have created a state of false dependency that is unmatched by any other culture in Canada. It is our responsibility and that of future generations to be vigilant and stand strong against the injustices in this country. We have to revive our roots as sovereign peoples who are still the only true owners of this land. We must work to achieve a spirit of co-existence and partnership with the government so that we can work towards a better future.

As the regional vice-chief of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for the Assembly of First Nations, I feel that Bill C-30 is important, in that it signals a new relationship between the governments and the Nova Scotia first nations.

On January 7, 1998, the federal government made a clear commitment to strengthen aboriginal communities by investing in people. What better investment can we make than investing in the education of our youth? We hope that the Mi'kmaq Education Act is only the beginning of a strong nation-to-nation relationship between governments and first nations.

• 0935

The restoration of jurisdiction over education is a significant step in restoring Mi'kmaq governments. We support Bill C-30 because it places control over education where it belongs in the communities.

This historic agreement is the first of its kind to restore the jurisdiction of education to first nation communities. The federal government will transfer jurisdiction for education on reserve to the Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia, and the Province of Nova Scotia will affirm Mi'kmaq jurisdiction for education on reserve through provincial legislation.

One of the important aspects of this agreement is that education standards are portable between the Mi'kmaq First Nation and any other education system in the country. There have been concerns expressed regarding the possibility that this agreement will segregate or separate first nations from the rest of Canada. This is simply not true. In Canada there are many systems of education that are unique. For example, we have distance education, public and private schools, and many parents have chosen to educate their children at home rather than sending them to school.

Another important factor is that this agreement, as stated, does not intend to limit or define the concept of the inherent right to self-government or the future implementation of the inherent right to self-government.

We view education for our children as a fundamental tool in developing and strengthening our right to self-determination as a people. The quality of first nations education and the success of our students are contingent on that education being based on traditional values that retain and incorporate the principles of wholeness, order, balance and the respect for the spiritual and natural world.

The past attempts to assimilate first nations people through the residential school system has been well documented. We all know too well that this only resulted in robbing our people of their culture, history, dignity and heritage. They were torn away from their families and from their homes. Many did not have the privilege of being able to reach out to the elders or to their families for advice and guidance to provide the much-needed support they required. Instead, many felt lonely and unworthy.

The disastrous effects of these horribly misguided, cruel policies exist to this day. We need only look at the grim statistics in our communities: 50% of individuals do not reach grade 12; 27.9% of first nations have less than a grade nine education, compared to 13.9% of the Canadian population; 28% of first nations people living on reserve and 11% of first nations people living off reserve, aged between 15 and 49, have less than a grade nine education, compared to 6% of the Canadian population.

This bill sets to change the course of education in a significant way. Now is the time for change. The transfer of jurisdiction over education will allow the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia to preserve their past and participate fully in their future.

Bill C-30 also positively recognizes the capability of the first nations to take control over their lives. It gives control of the education system back to the Mi'kmaq people and to the parents. A final agreement outlines the nature and scope of the jurisdiction transferred, including primary, elementary and secondary education, and post-secondary education student support.

Bill C-30 provides for the establishment of the Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey Corporation, which will assist first nations in exercising their jurisdiction over education. It sets out powers, duties, functions and structures of the corporation. It also indicates that the participating band councils and the Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey must adopt constitutions to ensure a fair, open and transparent process for them to exercise their powers, duties and functions with respect to education.

The future of our communities depends on whether we can find the balance between our traditions and the requirements of modern society. The recognition and support for the diversity of people in society is necessary so that their origins, background, language, talents and social conditions are recognized. That is the challenge of today's leaders. We must be proud of who we are and we must be confident that we can make a contribution to our communities.

• 0940

This legislation will increase the accountability for the Mi'kmaq regarding their education system. Presently, band councils are not accountable to their members; instead they report to the federal government. Bill C-30 will increase community involvement and improve accountability.

Also, let us not forget the people who worked tirelessly over the last few years to put this agreement together. They worked on behalf on their people, and we congratulate them for their courage and their wisdom. In fact, a number of them are here today. Please do not let their work go unnoticed and unappreciated.

Thank you from the Assembly of First Nations, the executive and the national chief, Phil Fontaine, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Simon. You have made a good statement.

Mr. Konrad has a question.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you for your presentation as well.

I was struck by your comments. I hope that in the end we can see the numbers on the reserves, at 28% living on reserve, as compared to 11% living off reserve, equalized in a positive direction, however this comes about.

I have a question from page two of your brief. You were talking about the quest for self-determination and preservation of your cultures and heritage. Self-determination is one thing, the preservation of culture and heritage may be another. I presume you're not simply going to be keeping people on the reserve to accomplish all of their education. As a matter of fact, they're going to be immersed in other cultures as they go to other places in Canada to get the training they need, since all training is not provided in one locale. How do you see this bill accomplishing that goal?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: What you're talking about is a natural evolution that develops at a later stage in the life of any student. This bill gives the opportunity at the early stages, when children are more obviously becoming cloned to different areas. This bill gives the communities an opportunity to look at areas such as more cultural involvement in their curriculum in the communities, more language training so that it gives them a firmer base as they develop and try to move on to other circles of education.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Your communities are scattered throughout Nova Scotia. Do you plan on having one or two schools, or how is this going to...? Do you have plans that have gone that far? You have roughly 9,000 in total population. I don't know how many there would be in your actual student population, but how do you plan to manage that?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: There are some communities that see better results from having their children schooled directly in the communities. In fact, the chief sitting next to me here, Chief Marshall...his community is one of them, as is Chief Maloney's. That's the community I'm from, Shubenacadie. They have just put back a school in their community. I went to that school when I was a kid. I see that as being very positive. They're not reinventing the wheel. It has more or less given the community control and more say over the affairs of the children in their schooling.

• 0945

Other communities are more urban-based or too small to see something of that nature become a reality. Having control over the purse strings gives an opportunity that was never there before. Rather than collecting their money and saying thank you very much, we don't care what your drop-out rate is, the local school boards have to sit down and really talk to the leadership in the community. They have to ask, “How do we maintain your students in this school? What would you like to see in the curriculum that's more conducive to your culture and your heritage?”

In the past that never happened. The community of Pictou Landing had a drop-out rate of something like 75% to 80% after the tuition was paid. The school board didn't care one little bit about it because they were paid.

So I see a lot of pluses in relation to the communities taking more direct control over what they see as far as their development in the area of education is concerned.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Good morning. Two things in your presentation drew my attention. On page 2, second paragraph, you say

[English]

that you have maintained your position that education is an inherent treaty and aboriginal right.

[Translation]

And at the bottom of page 3, you state:

[English]

Another important factor is that this agreement as stated does not “intend to limit or define the concept of the inherent right to self-government or the future implementation of the inherent right to self-government.”

[Translation]

I would like to put the same question to you I put to the officials earlier. Clause 4.2 of the final agreement states that:

This agreement does not constitute a treaty under the 1982 Constitution Act.

The officials said they thought it was the Mi'kmaq who did not want this agreement to be considered as a treaty. I have problems understanding why the Mi'kmaq do not want an agreement that is so respectful of their needs to be protected by clause 35 of the 1982 Constitution, especially as, in your presentation, you said that you maintained your position which is that education should be

[English]

a treaty and an aboriginal right.

[Translation]

So why wouldn't this be considered as a treaty? Why don't you want this to be considered as a treaty? What is the Mi'kmaq strategy?

[English]

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: That's a very interesting question, Mr. Bachand. I'd like to speak to it from my perspective as the meeting chairman over the past number of years regarding this whole concept of treaty. At one point the discussions went in that direction to say this was the direction we should be going in as a modern-day treaty to education.

I just caught the last bit of the senior official's presentation this morning. You say that their indication was we did not want it to be a treaty. My recollection is different.

Mr. Claude Bachand: You don't share that view?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: No, I do not share that view. We did talk about the concept of a modern-day treaty to education with protection under section 35, but the federal government was not willing to go that far. In fact, we spent probably six months in discussion back and forth to the point of a treaty not being the route to go. That's why we ended up with what we have here today, a five-year agreement.

The treaty discussions were on the table at some point, but it was the federal government that pulled back. At that point the Nova Scotia first nations were faced with a couple of obvious questions. Do we want to move forward and do we want to try to make the system better? Do we want to try to take a more direct control over the direction we want to go in in relation to educating our own children, or do we retain the status quo?

• 0950

I often remember one of the chiefs who signed on to this in one of our closed-door sessions when we went around the table and asked whether each one was in or out. At that point, that was the long and short of it: it was either a yes or a no. One of the chiefs said yes, he was in. It wasn't everything they wanted, but it was more than they had, and it was progress.

So I guess I view that as how the majority of the chiefs looked at it, although I'm sure there are presentations coming behind me that'll speak against this. I'm sure one of the areas in which they'll speak against it will be because a couple of the chiefs felt very strongly that the discussions being pulled off the table by the federal government on those treaties were really not a requirement. We could have probably led to something of that nature at some point. But you have to remember these discussions went on over five or six years, so at some point we had to conclude.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you.

Normally, in major cases, the jury can ask to hear the witnesses again. Would it be possible for us, at the end of our deliberations, to hear the Indian Affairs officials again? I've just been told that there's a distinct contradiction between what was said by the department representatives and what was said by the Noca Scotia Mi'kmaq and the First Nations here today. The department stated the Mi'kmaqs are the ones who asked for it not to be a treaty while I'm now hearing that the contrary was the case. So would it be possible to hear the first witnesses again at the end of our discussions?

The Chairman: I had foreseen this possibility and that's why I asked the officials not to leave. I agree with you. What do the members of the committee think?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have no objections if time allows. We're here to fully understand the subtleties of the bill.

The Chairman: That was an excellent question, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Again, I want to thank you, Rick, for your presentation. You touched upon some very important points. Actually, I have more of a comment in support of one of the points you've made, and that's the question of whether this would separate or segregate first nations from the rest of Canada.

When I speaking on this in the House, I was presented with the same concern. I note that your wording is similar to my response in terms of the fact that I felt there are many systems of education presently in this country and this would not necessarily create any kind of segregation or separation.

In fact, it's my view that this bill really creates empowerment for aboriginal people in Nova Scotia. It moves aboriginal people much more into the mainstream of Canadian society by allowing them to be able to control their own destiny and their own educational system. So I'm glad to see that point has been raised. I'm really just underscoring that. I don't really have a question. I just wanted to make that point.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for arriving late, but I do have a number of concerns and questions. I met with a number of the committee members prior to this meeting, and we had a good discussion. I think the bill is a good bill. It's a step in the right direction.

Are you looking at your watch already? I'm only just warming up.

Mr. Bernard Patry: At the beginning, it was a one-minute question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's right, one minute.

The Chairman: And if you make just a comment, there's no question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I guess the question relates to the system of education that's being set up that will be controlled by local communities. Not that long ago in Nova Scotia we had a system of education that was controlled by the local communities. Certainly the school I went to in rural Nova Scotia had primary to grade six in one half and grades six to ten in the other. There were about fifty kids in the school. The next little country school down the road had the same set-up, and the next one had the same set-up.

They were all within one larger community, but there were five separate little school boards all with the members who were appointed by the community to that board.

• 0955

So we've gone completely in the opposite direction in education today. We have large regional boards throughout Nova Scotia without that hands-on community support.

So I applaud the initiative to bring that hands-on community direction to the local school. I think there are positive things in the bill, but will the mechanics of the act allow that hands-on community group to actually govern what goes on within the education inside the school, or will it be controlled simply by the band council and the chief? Are we going to have an elected board of trustees or elected school board members? That's a question that has come up before. I realize what's stated in the act, but I want your interpretation of that.

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

My understanding is that each community would have to set up a system that would be similar to a school board in non-native communities, but each community would be determining what system would work best for them. It would be at arm's length from the political leadership. I guess it would be very similar to what you see as school boards throughout the provinces, but it would be very specific to the needs, wants, and requirements of that community. I think you wouldn't see the same model in each of the nine communities. You might see different models, but it would be what that community would see as a system that would essentially work for them.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate your presentation, Chief. There are a lot of rather telling sentences and ideas in here. You say that education is the key to opening many doors of opportunity that have been closed to first nations people for far too long. Having spent 36 years in education, I certainly agree with you that it is an enlightening, broadening, and positive activity.

On page three—this follows a little bit on Mr. Keddy's question—you say:

One of the important aspects of this agreement is that education standards are portable between the Mi'Kmaq First Nation and any other education system in the country.

Now that's on the third paragraph on page three. Then you say:

There have been concerns expressed regarding the possibility that this agreement will segregate or separate...

And you say this is simply not true.

I'd like you to discuss the first statement a little bit. In my experience, I'm not sure that education standards are quite as portable as you and I might like to see. It used to be that you finished grade 12 in P.E.I., and if you wanted to go to a university in Quebec, Ontario, or B.C., maybe the standards were a little different. I know we have softened those lines and improved that situation over time, but how do you see this working? How do you see this becoming a fact?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

I guess when I said they were portable, I meant more along the lines of being transferable. It's just a word play, but it means the same thing.

A lot of the discussion with the political leadership in coming to a conclusion on this and a lot of the concerns that you raise were raised by the chiefs themselves. It's simply because this whole process was constantly going back to the communities, driving the community membership to ask: what's the final bill going to look like, and what's going to be in it for us that guarantees us as parents that our children will be no different, I guess, in the academic standards, but with more emphasis on some of the issues I spoke about earlier, such as language and culture?

• 1000

My understanding is that the requirements in the communities would be that if children were to transfer to any jurisdiction in Canada, they would be able to be up to par if not better. Because in many cases the children coming out of their communities, rather than being in a melting pot, which it has been in the past, would have a lot more self-confidence going into another system as well. They would realize that they do have the smarts about them to learn; it's just a matter of giving them a little bit more opportunity to see themselves flourish.

Mr. John Finlay: Well, there will have to be cooperation between the local systems and the provincial system and so on.

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Yes. In fact in Nova Scotia—I believe Sister Dorothy Moore is here, and she'll probably be speaking to this—I know one of the areas the Province of Nova Scotia changed this year was to allow for representation of first nations within the province on the provincial school boards. That's an area where those discussions would develop and transpire.

Mr. John Finlay: And the training of teachers and so on would lead to a broader knowledge and understanding of what's expected in other jurisdictions and what standards you'd have to have to make sure.

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Yes, and vice-versa.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

Our last intervener will be Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I came late, but I've been catching up here.

What happens if you don't have enough native teachers available who are sufficiently skilled to conduct the programs? Will you use non-native teachers on the reserves to carry out the programs?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Well, currently that's happening.

Mr. John Bryden: That is happening now?

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Yes. A number of communities do have non-native teachers.

If I remember correctly, probably 10 or 12 years ago there was a real push to put on a training program in Nova Scotia with a bachelor of education degree that was specific to Mi'kmaqs. In fact I think it was at the Nova Scotia Teachers College. A number of Mi'kmaq teachers throughout Nova Scotia graduated. I can't remember the numbers exactly. I think it was fairly high, in the range of 30 to 40.

But there aren't always enough. In some of our discussions over the last year or so I've heard exactly that train of thought: that maybe it's time we looked at the possibility of doing something of that nature again to have more native teachers being trained specifically geared towards the culture, etc.

But yes, there are a number of communities. I believe both the chiefs who are sitting here with me today can speak directly to that, because they do have communities that have a few non-native teachers in their schools. And if not, a number of them have gone through the transition and have had them.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden, a short question, please.

Mr. John Bryden: No, I'm just trying to clarify the point.

So I take it that in your collective minds, the quality of education on the reserves takes precedence over who actually teaches, as long as the cultural program is included.

Vice-Chief Rick Simon: Oh, yes, definitely.

Mr. John Bryden: That's the point I wanted to make. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Simon.

[Translation]

Before you leave, I would like to point out the excellent non- partisan work accomplished by all members and I would more specifically like to point out the work done by Messrs. Gordon Earle and Gerald Keddy who are members from your area. Have a nice trip back.

An Hon. Member: And how about us?

[English]

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: After.

Thank you very much.

• 1005

[Translation]

We'll now hear from the representatives of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education. Chief Lindsay Marshall is the President and Marjorie Gould, the Executive Director. They are accompanied by Chief Reginald Maloney.

[English]

Welcome. You have five minutes.

[Translation]

I'd ask you to give a summary of your brief. With the consent of all members present, we shall consider your full brief and it will be appended in its entirety to the minutes of today's proceedings.

[English]

Thank you.

Chief Lindsay Marshall (Chairman, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education):

[Witness speaks in his native language].

Good morning. I'd like to say thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee here.

I bring good tidings and greetings from the east, from the communities of Mi'kwa'ki and Unama'ki, from Cape Breton and Nova Scotia collectively, but there is a separation there. Cape Breton is Unama'ki and Nova Scotia is Mi'kwa'ki.

I have a lengthy brief here, and I'll read it as is if you will give me the time to present it, but if not, it's quite longwinded. Would you like to hear it or...?

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Good morning, distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and ladies and gentlemen.

I am here today to make a presentation on behalf of nine Mi'kmaq bands in Nova Scotia, participating communities to an agreement with respect to Mi'kmaq education in Nova Scotia, which was signed by us, the federal government, and the Province of Nova Scotia on February 14, 1997 in my community of Chapel Island.

Furthermore, I am here to support the passage into law of Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, which will provide the legal and administrative framework to implement the education agreement negotiated by the three parties.

I'm really proud to be here today, representing approximately 80% of the Mi'kmaq population of Nova Scotia, to support the passage of a historic Canadian law, the first in this country that will enable our Mi'kmaw people to make laws regarding the education of their children.

The ability to make laws is significant, as all of you can attest to. Our law-making processes will be transparent, accountable, and open to our community. With this important tool, the future is determined by us, the Mi'kmaq.

Jurisdiction of education is a basic right that is enjoyed by all Canadians and a right that our Mi'kmaw nation has not exercised since the time of colonization of this country, 500 years ago.

• 1010

As my predecessor, the late Chief Noel Doucette of Chapel Island, so eloquently stated: “This transfer of jurisdiction is taking place one hundred years too late”. The time is well overdue to put the law-making power over education into hands of our Mi'kmaq people, where it belongs.

Mr. Chairman, my purpose here today is to tell you why the passage into law of Bill C-30 is so important to the Mi'kmaq people, and to share with you our experience in the process and address concerns that were raised by the distinguished members of Parliament during the second reading of this bill in the House of Commons May 1, 1998.

Since 1973 the federal government policy for Indian education in Canada has been guided by the principles of local control and parental responsibility. In Nova Scotia, Mi'kmaq communities have exercised delegated administrative authority over education since the early eighties under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In the early nineties, the Mi'kmaq community and education leaders representing all Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia began a process to improve the quality of education for their communities and more particularly to find ways and means to revitalize and restore our dying language and culture through the education system.

In the process of these discussions it became apparent to our leaders that in order to reach our goals it was necessary to have jurisdiction for the education of our children while at the same time becoming more involved in the collaborative decision-making process at the public school board level. Our incredible journey to reach the goal of transfer of jurisdiction to our communities, which we are discussing today, has been guided by two major research studies funded by the federal government at enormous cost. These research studies are Tradition and Education, a Vision of our Future, and the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Gathering Strength. Both of these studies recommend as the number one priority more aboriginal control of education.

For many years everyone, except aboriginal people themselves, have been making decisions about aboriginal education. This decision-making process has had devastating effects in our communities. Some of these effects include social disintegration, loss of cultural identity and a lack of self-actualization. This proposed Bill C-30 will provide our leaders with the autonomy that is required to develop and implement culturally relevant curriculum that will promote the language, customs and traditions of the Mi'kmaq people.

The vision of our leaders is to develop an education system deeply rooted in our values and world-view. Our values and world-view, contained in our language, have contributed to our survival as Mi'kmaq against incredible odds. These facts are well documented in our history as colonized people.

This process has indeed been a lengthy and challenging journey from the signing of the framework agreement in 1992, the political accord in 1994, the agreement in principle in 1996, the final agreement in 1997, through to the stage where a consensus was reached by the nine participating communities in January 1998 to move forward with the proposed Bill C-30. These milestones were reached through an extensive consultation process, which drew on the expertise and knowledge of key technicians at the community level, including, but not limited to, education technicians, financial experts and lawyers, both native and non-native, all of whom provided the chiefs with valuable advice and recommendations regarding the process. The management of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey played a facilitating role through the process. Issues, concerns, and resolutions came from the grass roots up.

The negotiation process was governed through existing authorities, policies, regulations and terms of reference that are in place in the federal government. For the most part, negotiations were conducted within existing funding levels. For this reason, Bill C-30 is not a perfect law.

• 1015

Some of the outstanding issues that could not be addressed through this agreement are education jurisdiction over members attending school off reserve; the requirement for new school facilities on reserve; the need for stable funding for ongoing Mi'kmaq language curriculum development and long-term funding based on a treaty process. Although these outstanding issues were of a concern to all 13 communities, the participating communities opted to move forward with the proposed legislation because they consider this proposed legislation to be a step in the right direction and the means through which they can achieve their long-term goals in collaboration with the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, in reviewing the discussions during the second reading of proposed Bill C-30 in the House of Commons on May 1, 1998, some concerns were raised about the proposed Bill C-30, which I'd like to address at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the cornerstone policy of the Reform Party is “equal treatment for all Canadians”. There is concern that Bill C-30 will segregate the Mi'kmaq community from society. My response to this concern is that Bill C-30 will provide equal treatment to all Canadians, including Canada's aboriginal people. For the first time since colonization, aboriginal people will have the right to make laws regarding the education of their children along with the rest of Canadian society. Furthermore, with the passage of the proposed Bill C-30 our education leaders will continue to work in close collaboration with the Province of Nova Scotia to bridge the gaps that exist between first nations school and provincial school curriculum.

Significant milestones, which contributed in the bridging of the gaps, were achieved during the implementation period of this agreement. Among those milestones are: provincial legislation was passed for the establishment of a Mi'kmaq education council; Mi'kmaq representation on provincial school boards and the promotion of the Mi'kmaq language and culture in the public school programs for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students.

Another issue that was raised during the second reading of the Bill C-30 deals with the consultation process that led to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I assure you that a great deal of emphasis was placed on the importance of the consultation process. In fact, one of the key factors that contributed to the success of this journey is attributable to the extensive consultation process that took place among the first nation communities, the federal government, the provincial government and with the general public. A great deal of resources were devoted toward the community informed consent process.

During the first phase of this process a minimum of five information sessions were held in each of the thirteen first nation communities. During the second phase of this process several information sessions were held in several universities across Cape Breton and mainland Nova Scotia with aboriginal and non-aboriginal students, teachers, and administrators. Also, during the second phase of this process, an information session was held with school board representatives from across Nova Scotia. During the third ongoing phase of this process, several information sessions were held with key interest groups across Canada and the United States. These included the University of Alaska, the National Education Council, the First Nation Education Council of Quebec, the Treaty 37 Tribal Council in Alberta, the Innu Nation of Davis Inlet, and many more.

Furthermore, our public relations activities have been enhanced through the publishing of newsletters, the production of videos, media activities, and the existence of a web page, www.Kinu.ns.ca, where a link has been established to first nation communities in Nova Scotia. The success of our extensive consultation process is evidenced by the overwhelming number of letters of support received from various community stakeholders, such as universities, native leaders, church leaders, members of Parliament, our provincial MLAs, and MPs across Canada.

Mr. Chairman, another issue that was raised during the second reading is that proposed Bill C-30 concentrates too much power in the hands of one group, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. It is important to emphasize the fact that jurisdiction over education is at the community level and not at the central organization level of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. Furthermore, the agreement calls for the adoption by each participating community of an education constitution that incorporates the principles outlined in schedule D of the agreement. Our technical staff is currently working with the participating communities to assist them with the development of their community education constitutions. It is anticipated that these constitutions will be adopted by the participating communities by June 15, at which time it is hoped that Bill C-30 will become law.

• 1020

Under the present federal regime, the band councils are responsible and accountable to the federal government for the education program. Under the proposed legislation, the band councils will be responsible and accountable to their community members for the delivery of the education program. An annual report, including audited financial statements, must be provided to band members and the Government of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, the last concern, which was raised during the second reading, and which I will address in this presentation, deals with the ability of our aboriginal people to successfully administer their education system. As previously stated, Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia have been successfully managing their education programs for the past 20 years. Research studies such as the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have reported increased numbers of students graduating from high schools and universities in areas where there is local control of education.

In conclusion, honourable members, our jurisdiction in education will inadvertently save the lives of many of our children. In hindsight, all of us would have taken a different path if we'd known the long-term harm that residential schools would cause to the original peoples of this great land.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would welcome any questions that you may have.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, chief Lindsay Marshall, for your leadership and the work you've done in this important transfer of education to the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Konrad, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could extend the time at the end of the meeting by the amount that we went over five minutes here, so that everybody has an opportunity to make their presentation. We went fifteen minutes here, instead of five. That means somebody else is not going to have their opportunity.

Mr. Bernard Patry: We'll see when the time comes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad, that's a good point. As far as I'm concerned, there is no problem. If we have to stay here until midnight, I am ready to do so.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Chief Marshall, it's nice to see you again, and nice to see that you read my speech.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: I was watching what you're doing.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Just a quick clarification. On page nine, you said that you had a minimum of five information sessions, but your brief says two information sessions. Which was it—two or five?

Ms. Marjorie Gould (Executive Director, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education): Two. The answer is two.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Two.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

I'd just like to point out that we are not.... When we are talking about the equality of getting into this country, that certainly should make every native in this country happy, I would think.

I have a question about page ten, where you mention the question was raised about concentration of too much power in the hands of one group. Of course that would be the chiefs. You say that “they don't exercise any power in my office”; you said “it's because nobody listens to an elected board, so it has to be the chiefs”.

I see that the purpose of it is to support the delivery of educational programs and services. That means you do a lot of evaluating and making decisions about which way you're going to go, who you're going to support, which communities will get what funds, where schools will be developed, where programs will be established, and what students will be funded as they go to other places. That is a lot of power to exercise. The local communities are only really able to make presentations, I'm sure.

So I still ask you, would you be willing to support an amendment that gives an elected board sole responsibility for the support and delivery of educational programs and services under this act? The job of a chief is a very large job, and this is one more responsibility, which I think is large enough to require a job on its own.

• 1025

Chief Lindsay Marshall: The example I used in your office about the boards not being listened to by officials, be they provincial or federal, and the example I want to give is the Unama'ki Tribal Police.

When the Unama'ki Tribal Police Board of Commissioners was established, they were not chiefs. That group floundered, and was in danger of collapsing. This police organization that looks after native police in Cape Breton was in danger of floundering because the officials wouldn't pay heed to the concerns of non-chiefs. So when the chiefs came on board that whole process improved, relations became much better, and because of that we now have police stations on our reserve. We have additional resources and much better communication.

In Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey/Education the community always will be the driving force in what we're doing. The direction in education is always guided by our education specialists in our own communities who give us guidance and insight. We relay this to chiefs' assemblies, and that's where I see it working.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: You made the point in your remarks that one of the reasons you're divided by Bill C-30 is that it gives the Mi'kmaq an opportunity to develop their own cultural identity, and to preserve it.

Can I expect of you that if you take control of education, you will also try to develop and promote the Canadian identity, and to build up pride in being Canadian among the young people who will come under your charge. Can I expect that?

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Sure. I've served in the Armed Forces of Canada quite proudly, and a lot of us have this desire.

You're not leaving the country, and we're not kicking you out just yet—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: —so we think we have to get along. Wouldn't you agree?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: So yes, but the Canadian identity has been moulded onto us so badly that we have suffered. It's up to us to really take something good of all to make something really good.

So that's what I mean. Yes, it's important, and what's important also is the Mi'kmaq, the Mi'kmaq language, culture, traditions and history. What's also important is the Canadian identity, so I think there is common ground for all of us.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me clarify the context of my remarks so you know where I'm coming from and why your reply is very important to me.

I've often felt that one of the problems of national unity is the fact that many provinces and regions control education. Some provinces, notably the Province of Quebec, have put being Quebecker ahead of being Canadian. I don't think they tell the entire story of what it is to be a Canadian.

I would hope that if we give you, the Mi'kmaq, charge of our education system, you will do the rest of us Canadians the honour of telling the Canadian story to your children.

Thank you.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: And I'll just reply that it will be an honour for us to tell you the Mi'kmaq story also.

Mr. John Bryden: Perfect.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate Chief Marshall and Ms. Gould for the excellent work they've done. They've been very persevering. I know that a great deal of time was necessary to come to this agreement and we are all pleased with it. In any case, the Bloc Québécois is very pleased that we are finally able to adopt a bill allowing you to implement your own educational system. I think it's extremely important.

There may, however, be a few snags in the future. I'd like to know what the status of the negotiations is with the four communities who do not wish to join together with you. What are their major reasons for not going along with the agreement we have before us? I know that they may decide to join whenever they wish but why do they not want to do so now? What are their main grievances?

There is also another very important matter. You probably read the speech of the Bloc Québécois. I'd like to know if I'll still be welcome when I visit the Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia next summer.

• 1030

[English]

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Yes, you are welcome to come to Chapel Island as my guest. Just call ahead and make sure I'll be there.

The four communities that have not signed are still there, and we continue to provide information to them, as much as we can—on new developments in programs or anything that we can share with them. We give them every opportunity. We continue to meet with them and to provide information, and we get advice from them too. So there is real interest by the nine communities to include the four, but we are respecting their desires, and I hope that in the future they will come on board with this agreement.

In Nova Scotia we have had many milestones. In other organizations, be it Mi'kmaq Family and Children's Services or Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselling Association or Unama'ki Tribal Police or Micmac Association of Cultural Studies—all of these organizations started with a chief sitting around a table, and some of them were ready to go at a certain time and they proceeded. In Nova Scotia, not all of us get on at the same time, but at the end of the day we're always on the same train heading out. So I'm very confident and optimistic that eventually all of the communities will be on board.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

I want to go back to Mr. Konrad's statement about the chiefs controlling the boards. I guess that's how Derek put it. I just want to know your view one more time, Mr. Marshall, on the future of that process. Many of us have already stated our support for this bill or our intent to support this bill, but there are a number of things within the bill that I do have a problem with. One of them would be the flexibility of the bill to adapt to changing times. When we pass this bill—I assume it will be passed by the Parliament of Canada—it becomes the law of Canada, and the ability to go back and amend it and change it is not always as easy as one would think. It can be a very difficult process.

So I do have some concerns about the chiefs being the officials who will run the board from now until eternity. I don't have any problem with the process, as it exists now, for the chiefs to control the board at the present time, but is there an amendment in there to allow for that process to be open in the future? It's up to the communities to decide, but if it's not encouraged or it's not put into the act now, it will be difficult to amend the act and add it later.

Do you understand where I'm coming from there—to make it a more open process that would allow for elected boards in the future? To draw an analogy to what happened with our small local boards in Nova Scotia, from being community-run boards to being large regional boards, we're going back here to community boards, which I think is a very good idea, but you must have control by the community, and there must be some way we can guarantee it.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

I have such wonderful faith in the Parliament of Canada that I know that if I, as chairman of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, asked for amendments to this agreement, I'm sure the members of Parliament would be so accommodating. That's the type of trust I have in this system.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: A politician....

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We'd get around to it, Chief, but maybe not as fast as you'd like.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Not in your lifetime.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Earle.

• 1035

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before asking my question, I want to pick up on this trend of thought that's been going on here in terms of the control by the board or by the chiefs. My friend in the Reform and I had an interesting discussion about this during our trip northward, and we have a difference of opinion on it.

My view is that in non-aboriginal society we put a lot of emphasis on the ultimate responsibility resting with the political leadership, and I don't see why we should expect anything different from aboriginal society. If the communities have had input into this and they are supporting this, I'm quite comfortable with them having their designated leaders carry this forward. I haven't heard anything so far that indicates the leadership is at odds with what the community wants in this process.

So I'm quite supportive of that process at this point, recognizing of course that things can change—that's the way life works—but I don't think we should be taking our standards and trying to impose them on a community when the community itself has decided on the route it wants to go with this.

My question is with respect to page seven, where you mention there are some outstanding issues that could not be addressed through this agreement—education jurisdiction over members attending school off reserve, the requirements for new school facilities on reserve, the need for stable funding for ongoing Mi'kmaq language curriculum development and long-term funding based on a treaty process.

Do you anticipate that there will be ongoing discussions with governments on these topics once this bill is passed? Will you still continue to pick up and follow through with these matters?

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Yes. Many of our communities desire to have schools located on reserve, but due to financial restraints that's not possible. And because of our collective nine communities.... For example, in Chapel Island we're building a school. It will be completed this year, but the school funding will remain in the system to allow another community to come behind Chapel Island and build another school. We're not getting any more money, but we're using the resources that are already there to help communities that have a desire to build schools.

Jurisdiction for members attending school off reserve—we believe that our jurisdiction for our kids should follow them wherever they go, and that's a point of argument that we've had with the negotiators, the need to look at this.

We keep going back to chiefs and power and they are diabolical or whatever, but let me assure you that as an Indian Act chief, I'm elected every two years. This is a five-year funded agreement, so by the time it expires I will have been in office or elected two and a half times. I'll have two and and a half elections in five years. I have a two-year term. It's very simple in the community: if you do the work, you get elected, and if not, you don't get elected. It's not five years like we have here. In Nova Scotia it's different—it's two years. You either sink or swim, and we find out pretty fast. That's the way it is in Nova Scotia for me as a chief. I have an election coming up, and if I'm not producing for my community, I'm out of there.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you. That certainly clarifies the point. As I say, I'm very supportive of the process. I think it works, and I want to commend you. We talked in my office, but I want to commend you on the work you've done on this.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Thank you.

Mr. Gordon Earle: It's very good work. Keep it up.

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Lindsay Marshall, for the good work.

Marjorie Gould, thank you very much.

Chief Reginald Maloney, thank you very much.

[Translation]

I'd like to ask the representative of the Department of Education, Sister Dorothy Moore, to speak.

[English]

Sister Dorothy Moore, Acting Director, Mi'kmaq Services Division. Do you have a statement, une déclaration?

• 1040

Sister Dorothy Moore (Acting Director, Mi'kmaq Services Division, Department of Education and Culture of Nova Scotia): Yes, I do.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much. You can start.

Sister Dorothy Moore: Weli Eksitpu'k, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honourable members, friends, ladies and gentlemen. I am indeed honoured to be sitting here to give support to Bill C-30.

As an educator for the last 40 years, I would like to begin my presentation with a story. I know how to grab my students, so now I hope I grab your attention as well.

Some time ago I read a legend that for me contained a thought-provoking lesson, as an Indian legend is meant to do. According to an Indian legend, an Indian brave came upon an eagle's egg that had somehow fallen unbroken from an eagle's nest. Unable to find the nest, the brave put the egg in the nest of a prairie chicken, where it was hatched by the brooding mother hen.

The young eagle, with its judicial, strong eyes, saw the world for the first time. Looking at the prairie chickens, he did what they did. He cawed and scratched at the earth, pecked here and there for stray grain and husks, now and then rising in a flutter a few feet above the earth and then descending again. He accepted and imitated the daily routine of the earthbound prairie chickens, and he spent most of his life this way.

Then, as the story continues, one day an eagle flew over the brood of prairie chickens. The now aging eagle, who still thought he was a prairie chicken, looked up in awe and admiration at the great bird soaring through the skies. “What is that?” he gasped in astonishment. One of the old prairie chickens replied, “I have seen one before. That is the eagle, the proudest, the strongest, and the most magnificent of all the birds. But don't you ever dream that you could be like that. You are like the rest of us, and we are prairie chickens.”

Shackled by this belief, the eagle lived and died thinking he was a prairie chicken.

Each one of us at this gathering is born into this world with a God-given right to be who our Creator meant us to be—in race, in language, in culture, and in gender—and the right to enjoy all the freedoms associated with becoming the best we can possibly be culturally, linguistically, socially, spiritually, traditionally, and educationally. Likewise the lowly eagle in the legend. However, due to circumstances beyond its control, it never realized its potential to be able to soar high up in the sky.

Whenever pages of history are turned back, aboriginal people in Canada seldom have a cause for celebration. No matter how we view the past, the pain is always there because of the misrepresentation of how we were perceived as a people and the injustices resulting from colonization.

In a talk given in North Dakota by Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria in 1989, he said:

People alienated from their cultural roots are like a living plant which has been uprooted and thrown on the ground. As its roots shrivel and die, so does the plant.

• 1045

As well, Pope John Paul, in a papal visit to Canada, made an admission to the aboriginal people in his statement:

The early encounter between your traditions and the European way of life was an event of such significance and change that it profoundly influenced your collective life even today. The cultural oppression, the injustices, the destruction of your life, your traditional societies must be acknowledged.

To begin with, what needs to be acknowledged is the historical fact that Mi'kmaq education did not commence with the arrival of the European visitors on this continent. It had been going on for centuries. Education was the basis of survival for centuries for the Mi'kmaq people. In the 20th century, the countless formal educational techniques utilized to integrate and assimilate the Mi'kmaq students have met with failure, because these techniques having ignored the culture, the language, the history and philosophy of life of our people.

Personally, I am the product of the Indian day school system, the residential school system, and the integrated or public school system. Most of my experiences have been less than positive, especially in the residential school.

We are all aware that these educational systems have been very contentious. They have failed because aboriginal students experienced alienation, racism, and oftentimes the attitude of teachers that they were less intelligent and therefore less capable of being successful.

I personally can recall that I have been labelled as being stupid, as being the jackass, and that I would never amount to anything.

The percentage of aboriginal drop-out rates remains very high across the nation. What do you think is the underlying problem? Who better can answer this question than those most affected?

As we move toward the 21st century, we the Mi'kmaq people realize, more than ever before, that quality education for our children is the priority. In order for this to happen, Mi'kmaq people must take control of their own education. Bill C-30 can provide for the Mi'kmaq First Nations the right to govern their own educational authority. There is an old proverb that says “It is not where we are that counts. It is where we are going that matters.”

Speaking as a Mi'kmaq woman and on behalf of the Mi'kmaq people regarding education, we have come to realize that we no longer desire to be controlled like the lowly prairie chickens. Like the eagle, we need to soar higher and higher. But in order to do this, we need to be given the opportunity and the responsibility to provide to our children, our future generations, a quality and relevant education.

Ramifications of such a provision will mean better education, improved quality of life, self-sufficiency, and above all, acknowledgement and recognition that we indeed are capable of governing ourselves.

We do not wish to remain powerless and controlled. Bill C-30 will empower the Mi'kmaq people to practise their God-given right to govern their own education.

In closing, I would like to quote the words of one of the original promoters of this initiative, the late Chief Noel Doucette: “Taking control of education is not given to us. We are given back what was rightfully ours.”

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you for your statement, Sister Moore.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you for your presentation. I really don't have any questions. I would just say that I am in support of the direction of this legislation. I have simply a technical amendment to one section of it.

Thank you very much.

Sister Dorothy Moore: Thank you.

• 1050

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: As a comment, I'd like to say that the residential schools, as they are called, were indeed a blot on Canadian history. Can I ask you what you think of the Minister's statement, that is the apologies and the announcement of $350 million to be used for healing treatment, for a healing circle?

I liked your presentation and your reference to legend but what would happen if a chicken egg were put in an eagle's nest? I wonder whether it might not turn out to be something rather special?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Ms. Moore.

[English]

Sister Dorothy Moore: I never, ever thought it that way, but I doubt very much that someone could reach up to the eagle's nest to put the egg of the prairie chicken into it.

Regarding your first statement about the minister's contribution to compensate the residential school victims—I call them victims, I suppose, because many of us became victims, and some of us were able to go beyond—I suppose $350 million is a lot of money when you look at it, but how do you put a price tag on healing? I don't think that's possible.

However, to make such a commitment to the survivors of the residential school system I think is a step in the right direction, and maybe this is a very small step. As far as I'm concerned, this $350 million is like the eagle that just flutters above the ground and comes back down again.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no questions.

The Chairman: Monsieur Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend you on what I feel to be a very meaningful presentation. You certainly touched upon many very important points that I think are necessary to be touched upon.

For me, the line that sums it up is when you talk about the acknowledgement and recognition that aboriginal people are capable of governing themselves, because this is the point that I feel a large number of the public often miss. When they start to be critical about the things that are being done, it's because they have this fear that aboriginal people, for some reason, aren't capable of governing themselves. I think it's important that all of us who are in a position to do so drive home the message that aboriginal people, like any other peoples, are capable of governing themselves, and really, that has to follow if we're going to have any kind of unified country.

So I don't really have any questions, but I thank you for your presentation.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have no questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you, Sister Dorothy Moore. Your testimony gives us spiritual strength. We appreciate the work you do for all your people.

[English]

Sister Dorothy Moore: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll now hear Ms. Margaret Forbes, President of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association.

• 1055

Good morning, madam. You'll have five minutes for your statement and you may wish to sum it up.

[English]

After that, we will have questions for ten minutes.

Ms. Margaret Forbes (President, Nova Scotia School Boards Association): Thank you very much, honourable chairman, honourable members, first nations representatives and members of the Mi'kmaq communities who are represented here today.

As the chairman has said, I am chairman of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, which represents all of Nova Scotia. More specifically, I come from Lunenburg County. My own honourable member, Gerald Keddy, is present, and I'm pleased to see him here and in on this discussion.

Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education, is today before the federal Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On behalf of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, I am pleased to have been invited to participate in this hearing, and I would say I'm happy to endorse the bill before you. I am to understand that such legislation, if passed by the House of Commons, will signify a first for the first nations throughout Canada.

I believe the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia have a very strong devotion to their children. They wish to have their young people provided with a quality education, an education that will provide the tools to enable them to reach their full potential. Beyond that, a desire to achieve lifelong learning can support the Mi'kmaq community to achieve self-sufficiency and to strengthen the Mi'kmaq language and culture. Enabling the Mi'kmaq to be responsible and active participants in the education process should make it a very positive exercise for all.

I would like to add that as school board members who have lobbied over the past several years for maintaining local governance of schools, we can certainly relate to the Mi'kmaq's wish and desire for hands-on governance of their children's education.

In fact since 1991, Nova Scotia had had only elected school board members. Your first nations may wish to explore the merits of this, and I'm pleased to hear the discussion evolved in that direction this morning. If I'm to understand correctly, some people are suggesting an amendment that would enable that to happen down the road, if not presently—an amendment that would allow for elected representation other than or beyond the band chiefs. Is that correct?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That is correct.

Ms. Margaret Forbes: Thank you.

If this exercise is a first for first nations communities, it may be a model for other first nations communities in Canada. Others will be focusing their attention on you, and you will need to be diligent in the duties vested in you. I understand that our Nova Scotia government has matching legislation ready to present in the provincial legislature.

I am representing the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, which is made up of the six English school boards and one francophone school board in the province. The directors of our organization wish to offer your Mi'kmaq first nations our full support and to invite you to consider being affiliated with our association.

For the sake of time, I'm not going to address the goals of our association but they are on the paper, which I'm assuming everybody would have, and in particular the members of the Mi'kmaq who are going to be responsible for governance.

Our association also shares in many cost-saving initiatives. Some of those are listed as well—bulk purchasing, education policy and research, employee benefits, legal services, self-insurance, and labour relations, to name a few. By joining together with those services, we are hopefully able to put dollars back into the classroom.

Our association works closely with the Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture. Other education partners of course are the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, the Association of Nova Scotia Educational Administrators and the Nova Scotia Federation of Home and School Associations. I would hope all of those groups could collaborate with your people as well.

Just last week, three of your provincially appointed Mi'kmaq school board members received a special orientation to school board membership—our roles and responsibilities. They have told us that the exercise was most useful to them. Following that workshop, they participated in the 44th annual meeting and conference of the Nova Scotia School Boards Association in Sydney, Cape Breton.

• 1100

The reason they were oriented at a separate time was that when the rest of us were elected in the fall, those native Mi'kmaq school board members had not yet been appointed. So we had a special membership orientation for them.

All of us do need that orientation, the same way you, as members of Parliament, probably need an orientation when you first become a member.

We have found that professional development and ongoing professional development of our school board membership is an extremely important part of being a school board member. For the most part, they are leaders in their own communities, and undoubtedly the benefits will be reaped manyfold.

Of course, the networking and sharing of information are also further benefits of belonging to our association.

Our Nova Scotia School Boards Association is also a member of the Canadian School Boards Association. I am pleased to have had Marie Pierce, executive director of that body, with us. She had to leave for another engagement a few minutes ago. She had accompanied me here.

On a broader scale, we participate in the work of our national organization and share the benefits and responsibilities of that membership in a similar fashion to our Nova Scotia association. In this, a large step toward working toward your education governance, I wish to stress the importance of cooperation, partnership, and support, and we wish to extend the invitation to work with the first nations education authority.

I would like to address one question asked earlier about the portability of education from one community or one province to another. One initiative we continue to work on all the time with the Canadian School Boards Association is to try to bring a standard of education throughout Canada. As a matter of fact, the different regions of the country, and more specifically the Atlantic provinces, are working now on a standard of uniformity to some degree. The western provinces are doing the same thing, and central Canada is also doing that.

We would expect and hope that under the guidance and leadership of the Department of Education, that would certainly be a priority for the Mi'kmaq education as well, that they would have to adhere to standards, the same as the rest of us do, in public school education.

Thank you very much. I will attempt to answer any questions you might like to ask me.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much. It's nice to hear your comments.

On the idea of an elected board, I understood you to say that you think that's a good idea where a board be elected for the purpose of, as the bill puts it, supporting “the delivery of educational programs and services”.

It's a fairly large undertaking, I presume?

Ms. Margaret Forbes: It is a very large undertaking, and I would venture to say that I've probably spent just as many hours as you people do, if not more, because you have 24 hours in your day, the same as I do. Just because I'm the president doesn't mean other school board members do not spend a considerable amount of time, too. I would say it's approximately 30 hours a week for a regular school board member.

Yes, certainly from our perspective it is much healthier to have fully elected boards. But I also understand that the first nations communities have to start somewhere. Prior to 1991 in Nova Scotia we had one-third politically appointed, one-third municipally appointed, and one-third elected. That's not to say it wasn't a good process, but we felt we had evolved beyond that.

Since the municipalities pay quite a hefty percentage of the education bill in our province, I personally believe any elected representative is very foolish if they don't keep both common and courtesy reporting back to their municipality. In fact, I think one of the main roles of school boards in our country should be, and is fast becoming, the responsibility of creating a climate in the broader community.

I would suggest that down the road, if that could be worked on in the evolution of this governance, this would be a good thing.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have a question about study time. We've heard this morning that there be a large cultural component, or at least a cultural component. Would that have to add to the length of the student's day, or are there things you can take out and change, or what happens?

• 1105

Ms. Margaret Forbes: No, that's already there now. In fact, under Sister Dorothy Moore's guidance and extremely good leadership in the provincial ministry, Mi'kmaq courses have been developed for any student. In fact they are being piloted, three or four in my own region. They're already implemented into the regular curriculum so your children and my children could certainly take advantage of them. And many of them are doing that at the moment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Ms. Forbes, for your presentation.

It is often noted that what is taught in the Mi'kmaq school system could be transported somewhere else. When I talk about being transported somewhere else, I mean that the Mi'kmaq parents and children who are already part of the Mi'kmaq education system may be required for a number of reasons to move somewhere else in the province. In your opinion, how can the Mi'kmaq school system and your own, the Nova Scotia system, be reconciled? How do you see the two fitting together? Are you suggesting frequent meetings between the representatives of the Mi'kmaq education system and your own? Do you think that the present Mi'kmaq system will be able to promote in a significant manner Mi'kmaq culture? I am not familiar with the type of curriculum or courses in the Nova Scotia education system intended for the First Nations or the Mi'kmaq.

Whatever the case may be, once the bill is adopted, the Mi'kmaq will have their own education system and you will have yours. What will you do to make the two fit together? Will you have regular meetings with the Mi'kmaq representatives to ensure that the Mi'kmaq system and your own are perfectly compatible?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Forbes: If I understand correctly, the question is, first of all, how could the curriculum that is being taught in their system correlate with what's in the rest of the system? Secondly, could the students transfer back and forth from one to the other, which would also imply, I'm assuming, transferring from one province or another part of the country?

First of all, the curriculum is already including courses that other public school boards are implementing into their system. That is a growing thing, and I would expect that more courses would evolve. There are significant changes in that right now.

Secondly, we would hope that the standards, which will come under the jurisdiction, I believe, of the Province of Nova Scotia, would ensure that the quality of education that the children under the Mi'kmaq governments would be receiving would be comparable to the standard of education that other children would be receiving.

I would be the first to admit that school boards have not done all they should have and could have over the years for the Mi'kmaq children. However, I would also be very quick to add that they haven't done what they should have for any of the children in the country, and that hasn't been entirely the school boards' fault.

As you will recall, funding is sometimes withheld from either the federal government or the provincial government, and systems need the proper finances in order to be able to operate. For instance, the last four years have been very severe for Nova Scotian students. In fact, Nova Scotian students have been funded lower than any other province in Canada.

So we have made do with very little. I hope that by the time the legislature ends this spring or this summer we will see substantial changes in the funding. There should also be the possibility of a child from Nova Scotia being able to transfer to British Columbia, for instance, or Quebec and have that uniform standard.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the committee meeting, Ms. Forbes. It's good to see you here. I think the last time we spoke it was in a parking lot in Bridgewater.

The point you bring up that there's an availability of programs and an availability for joint purchasing projects that could be worked out between your board and the Mi'kmaq education board is an important point, and I'm glad to see you're extending that offer. That would take some work and some negotiation between your group and the Mi'kmaq education board.

• 1110

I'm just seeing if this would be possible. Maybe you're in discussion and intend to go into further discussion on this, but at least in the beginning, funding is going to be critical, and they'll certainly need all the access to funding they can get. I'm not sure you can offer them any more access to funding, but you can offer them a saving in purchasing. So that would be an advantage.

Ms. Margaret Forbes: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But the other thing is to make sure both groups are not working in isolation of each other. We certainly have room in the overall board.

When you read the textbooks available to the children in the classrooms today, they don't in any way compare to the textbooks that were available even 10 years ago, let alone 20, 25, or 30 years ago. There has to be an inter-transference of knowledge. Not only do we need to ensure that the standards in the Mi'kmaq schools are such that when they go into secondary or post-secondary education, they can flow smoothly into that other system, but also there's an important point to be made that we can do more—and I'd just like to ask you what we are doing now—in our own schools to educate our children on the Mi'kmaq-Mi'kmaw history, culture, and contributions they've given to this country over the years.

Ms. Margaret Forbes: Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, Mi'kmaq courses are being implemented presently at the high school level, so they do have that choice presently. Possibly every single school might not have that availability yet, but some of them do, and more of them will each year.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for your presentation as well. It's certainly good to see the endorsement and support that the School Boards Association is giving to this bill. Actually, I think I'm as excited about this bill as the Mi'kmaq people are themselves, because as I mentioned during my talk on this in the House, the importance of education was really brought home to me through my parents, who had a very healthy respect and acknowledgement of the importance of education and supported us, their children, in that direction. So I'm quite anxious to see this bill move ahead, and I don't want to see it get bogged down with too many amendments and so forth.

I want to follow up on the point some members have raised around the accountability and the elected school boards. As you rightly point out, the evolution of a fully elected school board in Nova Scotia was an evolutionary process. We didn't always have fully elected school boards, and as you rightly pointed out, things have to start somewhere.

I'm wondering if your association is comfortable with the fact that this bill the way it's currently structured provides a starting point and if you're comfortable with the bill proceeding along those lines, knowing that perhaps sometime in the future, if the community so desires and if the situation is so determined among aboriginal peoples themselves, they may want to move to another type of board. Are you comfortable with the legislation the way it is now, knowing there's been consultation with the community and the community is anxious to have this go ahead?

Ms. Margaret Forbes: Well, I would say, Mr. Chair, through you, the important thing is that the first nations people themselves are comfortable with it, because, as I would like to emphasize, it is a starting point, and as Chief Lindsay Marshall did point out, chiefs are up for re-election frequently, so I would hope the process would be evaluated in stages and that it would be an evolution.

I'd also like to just capitalize on one other thing I tried to say earlier, if I could, and that was on the ability to create a climate in the community, to encourage parents to be involved, as your parents were, Mr. Earle, and in fact all parents. Because certainly, with the number of both parents working in the families and with the economic situation we've seen in the Maritimes—and I think probably this happens everywhere—it has been an increasingly difficult problem to have parents vitally involved and in fact to have them take a vital interest in what is going on in the education of the children of our country.

• 1115

As I mentioned earlier, that's one of the most important roles and responsibilities we have as school boards in this country right now: to try to encourage that to happen and to try to look at the best way possible to make it happen. That's what we're trying to do.

[Translation]

The Chairman: No problem, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have another question on Gordon's comment that he didn't want to see the legislation get bogged down with too many amendments. I would like your opinion, as someone who has watched the process in Nova Scotia and understands the long process it took to arrive at elected boards from the old system, someone who has watched that evolvement. If amendments are made to the bill, it would only be to allow for elected boards, if so chosen in the future, to work like that, understanding that chiefs could be the board members now, or whatever is the legislation's exact wording. If that process is not in place, how difficult would you perceive making changes to the Education Act and making changes to, in this case, a federal bill? How difficult would you perceive that?

Ms. Margaret Forbes: I don't feel it would be difficult at all, because as this process has evolved, if I understand correctly, the province has worked along with it and I believe is supposed to be prepared for that eventuality. Again, it should be determined by an evaluation after a period of time, as I have said earlier. I would be happy with letting them decide how that should happen.

I'm not surprised and I'm not dismayed by the fact that only nine of the communities have chosen to enter this at first, because I believe the bill does allow for them to enter at a later time if they choose, and they probably would choose. The important thing is to see how it's going to evolve and for everybody to keep focused on the task at hand and try to get it in the best form they can possibly get it in presently.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, that answered my question.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

No further question? We would like to thank you for your presentation and wish you a good day. We greatly appreciated your comments.

[English]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Margaret Forbes: I do have other papers—annual reports and things like that—which would probably be more useful to the Mi'kmaw representatives here. Anybody else can have access to them if they wish, as well.

Just before I close, I would like to say to the honourable member from Quebec, I'm sorry I didn't bring any tourism brochures with me, and I hope our honourable members from Nova Scotia will make sure the rest of you do receive them. We were having just as good weather in Nova Scotia when I left last evening as you are here, and we certainly hope we're going to enjoy your friendship along our shores this summer.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, madam. You are good neighbours of Quebec.

[English]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We'll put that on the agenda for the next meeting.

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. I now invite Ms. Barbara Johnson, Assistant Professor, Education, Diverse Cultures and Mi'kmaq Language, to give her testimony as an individual.

[English]

Good morning. Do you have a statement?

Ms. Barbara Johnson (Individual Presentation): Yes, I do.

The Chairman: Okay, I will give you five to ten minutes.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Is it possible to have the same courtesy as everyone else and be able to read my entire presentation?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Certainly, madam.

[English]

Do it.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee on aboriginal affairs, for giving me the opportunity to make comments on Bill C-30.

I am here to express my concerns regarding Bill C-30, a legislative bill entitled the Mi'kmaq Education Act, which is proceeding to be enacted as law in the House of Commons.

• 1120

This act has the potential of having an immense impact on Mi'kmaq children for many generations to come. It is the children who will be affected by this legislation. It is important that an act which has so many ramifications for the Mi'kmaq children be done right. Any legislation pertaining to and affecting children, no matter how big or small it is, should not be dealt with lightly. This legislation is a very serious undertaking.

I'm speaking from several different voices. First, I'm speaking in the role of a professor at a university, although I'm not representing that university here today. Second, I'm speaking as the mother of children who have been unjustly denied funding by my band, Chapel Island. Third, I'm speaking as a PhD candidate at Dalhousie University. Fourth, I'm speaking as a student who has experience with both IAND and Chapel Island administrative realities of the education program. Fifth, I'm speaking as a voice for elders and community members from Chapel Island and for elders, members, and educators of other reserves. Sixth, I'm speaking as a researcher attempting to conduct a case study of a child from Chapel Island. As you can see, my concerns are manifold and are not mine alone.

To get into the substance of the proposed act itself, in order for this act to be fair and equitable it must have a provision for accountability, not only financially but also in terms of responsibility. As it stands right now, any program within the reserves is under the control of the chief, council, and employees. At least they seem to think so, and they sure exercise it. Accountability to band members is a definite must.

Clause 2 and quite possibly subclause 6(2) need the term “school” to be defined. Section 122 of the Indian Act has for over 100 years included a broad definition of “school”. Section 122 of the Indian Act as it relates to schools states:

“school” includes a day school, technical school, high school and residential school;

In subclause 6(2) of Bill C-30, “post-secondary education” needs definition, and it should include technical schools and community colleges.

Clause 5 of the act must state that “this act applies to every Mi'kmaq community”. None of the communities has put a constitution in place. Without rewording this clause, the act in fact applies to no community.

Clause 9 must be eliminated, for communities cannot make laws but they can put by-laws in place. Their by-laws have the potential of being oppressive and subjugative in nature. The Indian Act is already in existence. In fact, one can possibly render the other inoperative if it is challenged in court.

Subclause 9(5) is a major problem, for it has the potential of usurping both the Indian Act and the Mi'kmaq Education Act. Why is the Statutory Instruments Act being usurped? This act in itself will become a federal statute, and by enacting subclause 6(2) this most probably will in turn make the Mi'kmaq Education Act and Indian Act inoperative either immediately or at some time in the future, will it not?

Subclause 10(2) gives too much power to the chiefs, and it must be eliminated. Presently, there are already directors without such excessive powers, but that is not to say they do not try with all their might. Otherwise, there will never be any redress to complaints on the operation of the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey or community education processes.

Subclause 12(2) has no provision to revert to the IAN process. Extend the option to withdraw by any Mi'kmaq community from this act so that a reversion to the IAN process can be made, especially when requested by the majority of band members particularly when impropriety has occurred. The effective date must be ending on March 31 of each fiscal year so that quarterly funding will not jeopardize the withdrawing community.

Clause 13 has to be eliminated because it depends on subclause 10(2). As a professor at Saint Francis Xavier University, a fair number of students have come to me seeking my advice on how to deal with band education administrators who are denying them their rights. Many of them have reported to me that they are not receiving a full entitlement of funding and that tuition fees are not paid until the very last minute.

One case in point is a mother with two very small children. She was receiving the bare minimum of $675 a month, when she was entitled to more than $1,000. Another situation was when another reserve did not pay tuition fees until the last week of April 1997, when students were ready to graduate on May 4, 1997.

A fair number are also suffering from personal and financial problems due to a lack of support from their band personnel. This often puts them in jeopardy of graduation or being removed from the program without any fault of their own. Some are withdrawn because of it.

• 1135

As an educator, I'm concerned with the effects that this legislation may mean to the grassroots level of the Mi'kmaq people. Our concern as to who gets financial support from the powers that be is a major threat to a variety of people who get stigmatized, oppressed, subjugated, and marginalized by the Mi'kmaq band council and personnel.

They speak of the irregularities that occur within federal government departments, but that's nothing compared to the capriciousness of band councils. As a mother, two of my sons encountered difficulty after Chapel Island took over the administration of education. One of my sons was attending Nova Scotia Technical College in 1993. He wasn't even considered for funding, although he was a returning student. He was told that the band had no money. He appealed, but the appeal was heard without him or a representative present.

This academic year, another son was told he was going to receive help after numerous years of wrangling. The administrator of Chapel Island conveniently went on vacation at the first part of September and did not forward any letters either to him or the institution where he was supposed to receive his training. She filed them after she returned on September 24, 1997. This was a tad too late to proceed, let alone register, for a program that's situated in Calgary, Alberta. He did not have a letter of confirmation for funding or a letter of tuition support or a living and travel allowance to proceed to Calgary and register for a September 7, 1997 deadline.

Also, a $3,000 deposit to hold his seat was not made in July. The education counsellor had been advised and was reminded on numerous occasions that the registration deadline was September 7, 1997 and a $3,000 deposit was required to hold the seat. With my meagre salary, and thanks to a band in northern Ontario that pays for his flight training fees, I was able to keep both of us in our respective programs.

The institution he is attending fits the definition of a technical school under section 122 of the Indian Act. Apparently it did not fit the education counsellor's choice of program. We appealed and we lost. During the appeal process, I was told that the program he was in did not qualify for assistance. Prior to this, two students from other reserves were funded for flight training.

At the April 28, 1998 Chapel Island public meeting, I disclosed to those present that if any of them wished to go to technical school there was a provision under the Indian Act to do so. Lo and behold, guess who was among the first group from Chapel Island to take flight training? It was Lindsay Marshall, chief of Chapel Island. Do we have different strokes for different folks?

Chief Lindsay Marshall: Excuse me. I'm sorry. With all due respect, this is becoming really ridiculous. I feel that even though she's addressing the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey and the legislation, my own financing and my own flight training for myself has nothing to do with this organization at all. I'm just dismayed and discouraged by what's going on here. I'm sorry.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: But it's the truth.

As a graduate student, I received better service from the Department of Indian Affairs. The receipt of funds was never a problem. Funding for tuition fees or other incidentals was never a problem. If it's dealt with professionally and with expedience, they will meet the institution's deadlines and understand the requirements.

As a graduate student under the auspices of Chapel Island, I see there have been irregularities in the disbursement of funding for students. I speak from experience. My tuition fees were paid very sporadically, inconsistently, and very incompetently. There have been numerous misdemeanours reported by my fellow band members with regard to their education.

Chapel Island is not alone. This act will legalize the inequity present within all Mi'kmaq communities. There is no social justice at the band administration level among a majority of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq reserves.

As a community member of Chapel Island, I have been concerned ever since Chapel Island took over the administration of education programs. As a Mi'kmaq women, family life educator, professor, and mother, I'm concerned with the lack of financial accountability in this bill by my home community of Chapel Island and Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. Further to this, this bill disturbs a fair number of my fellow community members and elders. Elders, members, and educators of other reserves expressed the same concerns.

After Chapel Island took over education administration, I had to appeal approximately every year to keep my funding in place. I was nearly removed from the PhD program at Dalhousie University due to the lack of payment of my tuition fees. The band manager advised me that there were cashflow problems. I then wrote to IAND and provided a copy of the letter that Dalhousie sent me expressing my predicament. If it were not for the intervention of IAND I would have been removed from the PhD program.

• 1130

Finally, they cut my funding off completely through no fault of my own, and I then took court action. Although this was a remedy for a moment, I had to find employment last year so that I could finish my PhD program. I'm still a student—no thanks to Chapel Island—at Dalhousie in the PhD program, but I have not received any financial assistance.

Since not all students are geared to or capable of academics, this is the emphasis of the universities and the present interpretation by band staff. The provision of technical schools and community colleges will allow those who are technically minded to learn skills that are not offered at universities.

Native communities have extremely high proportions of unemployment, so we need trades to fill the gap. The domain of technical schools needs to be explicated, for in prior years, both the Department of Indian Affairs and band councils have ignored this section of the Indian Act, to the detriment of students.

There should be freedom for students to choose their own school and program, and not the one dictated by the education director or counsellor. This is critical for having a proper definition for “school”, for they often force students to enroll in programs when there is no interest or academic background to ensure success. Consequently, a number withdraw or fail.

There are no dispute resolution processes built into this act, but there need to be. Community members must scrutinize who receives financial assistance for education, training, and the like.

At present, education directors and nepotistic committees have been put in place to determine who receives help. This can be achieved in a number of ways. Before the approval of funding is granted, a recommended nominal roll should be posted for all community members to scrutinize. This will prevent abuse by those dropping out and re-entering. Furthermore, it will prevent fraudulent actions taken by education directors and counsellors. This happened in Membertou, and it took a long time to verify and rectify. Subsequently, the education director was charged.

A “two strikes and you're out” clause must be inserted into the act. This will instil responsibility in students and would certainly lead them to question their actions during the process of schooling. Further to this, if a student has proven himself or herself beyond a doubt by obtaining a degree through their own merit, then considerations will be reviewed. At present, too many are using this vehicle for financial gain, not education gain.

Education directors and counsellors must have proper education, for they are not aware of education and training programs. Neither are they aware of requirements and guidelines of educational institutions. Furthermore, they do not have the ability to assess which potential students are capable. They also don't know how to provide an equitable appeal process.

A fair and equitable appeal process must be put in place whereby no band employees are appointed to appeal boards. This will also prevent a conflict of interest. If you are a sibling or a child of certain band staff, there seems to never be a problem to receive funding even if you have been dismissed from other universities. A fair amount of nepotism is occurring. Some supposed students who are related to education directors are often not actually attending any educational programs but they're receiving funding. There are cases where they are maintained off the reserve under the guise of education and there's a cover-up at the band level. Hence, frauds are probably occurring.

We, the Mi'kmaq, are not ready to bear the responsibility in the administration of education programs through an act such as the Mi'kmaq Education Act. The arm of the law will not prevent any further misappropriation. Proper action needs to be taken.

Legalizing it would only make it worse. What is going to happen when self-government is legalized, considering what is happening now? The chief, the council, and band employees are not to have the first right of educational training. This is to occur only after all others have been considered.

I strongly oppose this bill, not only as a member of Chapel Island and as a student, but also as an educator, professor, and mother. It will only serve those in power at the band and administration levels. There is no spirit of parental responsibility as put forth by the AFN, but there is a whole lot of local control.

I request that the above-noted items be included in Bill C-30 so that fairness and equity will ensue for all students. I implore you to either scuttle the bill or have it amended to include a financial accountability clause to band members and to the Receiver General for Canada. The above must be included in Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq Education Act, so those who wish to pursue further education can do so without political or vengeful interference.

• 1135

Furthermore, why was it labelled “secret” until it was introduced in Parliament? This is a Eurocentric way of conducting business. Mi'kmaq people operate under consensus, not under secrecy. Consent to this bill was not sought from my people.

Furthermore, the first consultative process was conducted improperly, because the majority of people who were present at those sessions were band employees. Absence does not mean consent. It is the opposite; it is rejection. If it were a good bill, all the Mi'kmaq chiefs would have given consensus and their signatures would have given their stamp of approval. Four chiefs withdrew from this, and that is a significant number; it is approximately one-third of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq chiefs.

Lastly, others have had input into this presentation, but they do not wish their names to appear on this paper at this time. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you for your statement. The system is never easy. We'll now have our question period.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Johnson. You were concerned that this was being rushed through without proper time being taken for amendments. Some of the members present have said that we need to hurry this through so that what's proposed becomes reality.

However, once it's set in legislative concrete, Parliament is not always able to bring in relatively minor legislation in a timely fashion, as we keep hearing in the House of Commons with regard to some of the legislation we hear about—and that's major legislation, not minor legislation.

So are you suggesting to this committee that we do a very thorough review? Are you suggesting that it not simply go from here to rapid royal assent, that we take a lot of time to consider the particular amendments you're proposing? And if they're not adopted, are you suggesting that we work towards its defeat?

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

What did you think of the consultation process on the reserves?

Ms. Barbara Johnson: I attended the one at Dalhousie. It was fairly well attended—by a few students—and the round table discussions were fairly good. I did speak to a member of the Indian Affairs department who was present at the time, Mr. Joe McNeil—and I believe he's still here—concerning the problems with regard to cutting off funding. At that time, he told me—I don't have the exact quote—that you can always refer back to Indian Affairs and lodge complaints about any problems. When I tried that, I was successful only once; I wasn't successful again.

Within the communities like Chapel Island the process was filled with band staff. I'll use that example because that's the meeting I attended. Only two people from the community at large who were not band employees were present, myself and my brother, who was also representing a newspaper. So when people go around saying it was a fairly good consultative process, I disagree with that. I felt it was pretty well loaded with band staff.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What do you see as the most important change that should be made?

Ms. Barbara Johnson: The most important change that should be made is to put in a definition of post-secondary education: “post-”, meaning after, “secondary”, meaning high school. And community colleges and technical schools should be included.

Chapel Island did a big leakage study last year on how much money was being spent off reserve. We weren't spending that much money on reserve, so we were buying a lot of services off reserve. But if we had our own tradespeople, a lot of what they call “financial leakage” would probably be.... It would help the reserves more to have community colleges and technical schools involved in part of the definition for secondary schooling. We need this.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Ms. Johnson, I'd like to commend you for your courage. I know that it's not always easy to come and express a different point of view, particularly when it is felt it goes against the majority. I know that it's hard to go against the current. But I feel obliged to say that I do not share many of the points of view you expressed, for example when you said:

• 1140

[English]

We, the Mi'kmaq, are not ready to bear the responsibility and the administration of education programs through an act such as the Mi'kmaq Education Act.

[Translation]

I must admit that this statement goes completely against my philosophy. In my view, the Aboriginal nations, including the Mi'kmaq, are able to assume a great many responsibilities. Having said that, the exercise that you are engaged in today is part of the democratic process where we must hear people from all backgrounds and all opinions. I find you to be extremely critical of your community. As a matter of fact, it's not the first time we've heard people say that the band councils are acting improperly, that the chief is a dictator, etc.

You also refer to the fact that four communities have preferred not to become involved in this process. I must say that this kind of dissent does sometimes occur anywhere in Canada with respect to certain bills we have passed, whether it be about land claims or self-government. The example of the Yukon comes to my mind. Only 8 of the 14 communities wished to take part but the 6 others were able to join in the process whenever they wished to. The same thing is happening to this particular bill we are studying today. The four communities that preferred to opt out at the present time can opt in whenever they wish to.

Democracy does have a number of requirements. It is not enough to denounce, one must also take part in the democratic process. There was one in your area. Did you take part in the democratic process in Chapel Island? Did you attempt to ensure that the people who did not agree showed up at the meeting and made their opposition known?

I'd also like your answer to the following question. If one is dissatisfied with a band council and a band chief, under a democratic system one has the choice of running against him. If you are not satisfied with the work done by the band council, it is your right to organize a band council and to run against the chief in the next election. It is not enough to denounce what is taking place, one must also participate in the democratic process and walk the extra mile. Do you intend to take a more active part in the democratic process by deciding to run in the next election, for example, because you think that the chief and the band council are not respecting the views of your community? Is that your intention?

[English]

Ms. Barbara Johnson: In response to the question about whether I will run in an election, as a professor of a university.... I've already initiated that process of having somebody else run against Mr. Marshall. Yes, there are definitely other people who are going to run. That is the democratic process.

But although there's a democratic process that you guys talks about in the European society, we in Mi'kmaq society, we in the first nations communities, also have consensus, and that's what we normally go by. We always use consensus. When you talk about democracy and a small approval number like 51%, I believe that's a European form of democracy. That's not the Mi'kmaq form of democracy. Our form of democracy is consensus.

The Chairman: Merci. Monsieur Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for coming here today. I appreciate the fact that you spoke very candidly about your opinions and gave us some direct thoughts on the bill.

Part of our process here as a committee.... I have found all too often that we only ever hear one point of view; we don't ever hear any divergent or different points of view. I think it's incumbent upon us to find the other points of view and then make an assessment—as best we can—of the information laid before us.

I do want to make it clear to everybody in the room that I think there are some very specific points made here that we should take a long hard look at and have some good discussion on now that they've been laid before us.

With regard to the other points, like the consultative process, which I can't speak on, I know from a very short political career that you can have a consultative process, but that doesn't mean you can force people to attend it—with respect to everybody in the room. It's not always easy, right?

• 1145

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sometimes it's most difficult to raise interest.

The one thing that I'm interested in is one comment you made: your specific amendment to include post-secondary education. You include community colleges and technical colleges, and I assume when you say that you mean community colleges or technical colleges anywhere in Canada.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Yes, where the programs are available.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, of course.

The Chairman: Monsieur Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like the other members have said, thank you for appearing before the committee and giving us your views. Obviously your views are quite critical of the bill and of the process. You've also been quite critical of your community. But having studied the bill, do you see anything positive in it? Is there anything in this legislation that you feel you can support?

Ms. Barbara Johnson: I'm not completely against the spirit of the bill or an act to allow us to have education per se. I just don't like this bill in its present form. And yes, I do recognize that we do....

I've gone through the education process. I went to a nearby Indian school, I went to a boarding school, and I went to university, which is integration into the white society. The only time I really had any problems was in the boarding school, where I went contrary to my own people. Any fights that I had in boarding school were fights with my own people, not with the French or the English or even with the nuns present in that boarding school.

My experiences have been different. One of my family told me that I am special because I have three birthdays. I said, “I can't help that. That's a mistake by the government.” I do have three birthdays.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you for your presentation, the essence of which seems to be that you have a deep complaint with the administration of the chiefs and the councils and so on and so forth, but I must say that I agree with Mr. Bachand. Ultimately, when we as a parliament accord power to another group, we have to accord it to the representatives of that group, and presumably they're democratically elected, but however they're elected, even by consensus or whatever, it really is up to that group to put in place the proper people to administer that group.

We as a parliament cannot dictate and cannot control so closely—even the provinces, for that matter. A provincial government operates with great independence and, we hope, with due diligence, and so it must be with band councils.

But I offer you a little bit of hope with respect to your concerns. The point that you complained about, subclause 10(2), was about giving too much power to the chiefs. That's the subclause that deals with requiring the chiefs to be a corporation that administers the act under the Canada Corporations Act. That act actually sets out certain duties and responsibilities of directors. While I'm the first to admit that the current Canada Corporations Act needs review—and I hope it will be reviewed and amended in the not too distant future to make directors of corporations even more accountable—the presence of this clause 10 does give a regime of accountability to the chiefs outside of their purely elected or representative office of the council itself.

Having said that, can I ask one question? I wasn't quite sure in your explanation about what the problem was with respect to technical schools. As I understand this legislation, it's only going to apply to elementary and secondary school education.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: No.

Mr. John Bryden: How does it work?

Ms. Barbara Johnson: It mentions post-secondary too, in clause 6, I believe.

Mr. John Bryden: I didn't see that.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Subclause 6(2) says “post-secondary”.

A voice: Just for funding.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: I see.

• 1150

Mr. Barbara Johnson: Just for funding, and there's no definition of post-secondary school.

Mr. John Bryden: Post secondary could be community colleges. That's still the situation.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: Yes, but no one is allowed to go to community college. They'll tell you it's not academic—

Mr. John Bryden: Oh, I see.

Ms. Barbara Johnson: —and you won't get a degree, so we can't fund you there. That was why my son was denied funding, because apparently it didn't fit the definition of post-secondary. Also for your information, post-secondary education funding is only supplied at the present time at the discretion of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It's not covered under the Indian Act.

Mr. John Bryden: So it's not that you want technical schools on the reserves run by the—

Ms. Barbara Johnson: No. It's access.

Mr. John Bryden: You want to make sure this act will define access to post-secondary institutions to include community colleges and technical schools.

Mr. Barbara Johnson: Right.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Johnson.

Next I call the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs, Mr. Don Julien, director.

Sir, do you have a statement?

Mr. Don Julien (Director, Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs):

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

Thank you for allowing me to come here. I'm here to represent four of my bands that haven't signed the agreement. I won't start right from the beginning of my paper. I'll start with specific areas of concern.

There are a number of specific areas of concern the bands have with the educational agreement and legislation. They all relate, however, to one central point. The educational agreement began, in the eyes of these bands, as a true self-government concept. They were hopeful at the end of the day the agreement would reflect the inherent right of the Micmac to have sole jurisdiction over education and cooperate as equal partners with the federal and provincial governments in exercising this jurisdiction.

It was the bands' understanding that this agreement would ultimately find expression as a treaty between the Micmac and the crown defining this unique jurisdictional relationship. Ultimately, Bill C-30 legislatively condones a mere delegation of federal authority and liability to be exercised by the signatory bands for the next five years.

There's no protection provided for a long-term future of educational leads of the communities or the right of self-determination for the Micmac and the education of our future generations. There is no commitment in an educational regime beyond the five-year term of the agreement.

Keeping this central point in mind, the next specific area of concern for these bands involves community consultations that took place prior to the signing of the educational agreement. Originally it was accepted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the band said full and open consultations were required with band members to approve the new agreement and any legislative changes the agreement would require. This would involve explaining these detailed changes to the community, as well as how these changes would be reviewed upon reaching the final goal of self-determination I spoke of earlier.

It became clear that this process would take more time and energy than the department or the educational authority was willing to give to the process. Participation at the consultations held in our communities was incredibly low and left a few members that did attend with more concerns and questions than answers.

• 1155

Instead of expanding the consultation process, which would have meant more time, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asked the educational authority to have the chiefs and council sign band council resolutions stating than an informed and effective consultation had taken place. In the view of the four bands, to enact such a resolution would have been illegal since it was untrue and was only designed to transfer the crown's unsatisfied fiduciary requirement for consultations to the bands.

In our view, consultation requirements inherent in the alteration of assisting provisions of the Indian Act, sections 114 to 122, and subsequent approval of the legislation such as Bill C-30 have not been met. To enact such legislation would violate the crown's fiduciary obligation. The obligation for full and responsible consultation never went away, but the resolve to spend the time and energy to do it right did.

The next specific area of concern involves all the unanswered questions that remain. These involve conflicts of jurisdiction between the education authority and the provincial systems.

The chiefs of Nova Scotia have maintained they represent the needs of all their band members, whether those members live on or off the reserve. The four non-signing bands reaffirm this commitment. The educational authority was originally intended to be an applicable forum for the educational needs of all Micmac of Nova Scotia, regardless of reserve residency.

As it now stands, the bands are restricted to offering new educational opportunities to only some of the total membership. This requirement is based solely on the department's arbitrary policy of restricting initiatives to within the boundaries of the reserve. To address this problem, details would have to be negotiated with the province. Instead of pushing through the legislation, this question was put on the shelf.

How can Bill C-30 be deemed prudent legislation when questions of constitutional conflict have been purposely ignored? The other side of the jurisdictional coin is the educational requirement of non-Micmac or non-band members who live on the reserve. The bands have indicated that the educational requirement of these individuals can be accommodated, but agreement must be reached with the province of Nova Scotia, which in our opinion maintains financial responsibility for these individuals. This question was once again put on the shelf.

These jurisdictional questions concern not only my four bands but all 13 bands, if they really want to admit it. In our opinion, these questions have to be settled before the federal government can, in good conscience, pass Bill C-30.

My bands are told they always have the ability to opt out of the legislation should they not be happy. What would they opt out to? It is less than comforting to be provided with an emergency exit that leads nowhere. How do you opt out of an agreement that increasingly seems to be the only game in town?

Finally, we are greatly concerned that issues of multi-jurisdictional conflicts are being addressed unilaterally by the federal legislation. It was our understanding that to manage the outstanding issues that have been identified as being put on the shelf, the province of Nova Scotia was required to enact companion legislation. Where is this legislation? How can we determine whether or not the federal legislation is satisfactory when the companion provincial statute has yet to be seen? Does the province of Nova Scotia still intend to enact this legislation?

Today the educational authority has provided my bands with draft correspondence regarding potential provincial legislation, but we cannot yet fully determine whether Bill C-30 will be sufficient or whether critical constitutional gaps will be created as a result of this legislation. For this reason alone, passing Bill C-30 would be dangerously premature.

In closing, I would repeat the central objections of the Afton, Bear River, Horton and Millbrook first nations with Bill C-30. We have an inherent right and responsibility to our children to provide education in an inclusive and responsible manner. We cannot condone legislation that defines this responsibility knowing there are important questions purposely left unanswered. We cannot condone legislation that defines the responsibility knowing that the consultations with our people were wholly unsatisfactory.

• 1200

Proper legislation cannot be responsibly enacted when such important concerns are not addressed. We ask the standing committee to consider whether by recommending Bill C-30 they can without hesitation say that the federal government has upheld its fiduciary obligation to the Micmac of Nova Scotia.

Thank you for your time. I'm ready to answer any questions you may have on my presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Julien.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Julien. When I had posed a question to DIAND officials regarding whether proper consultation had taken place, they said it had. When I asked them the numbers, they were unable to provide me with numbers.

Do you have any indication of the number of people who came out as opposed to those who stayed away? Can you give me a percentage or something like that?

Mr. Don Julien: I don't have a number either, but being a publisher of the Micmac-Maliseet Nations News, we had a couple of inserts in our newspaper for the educational authority. We know some of these were hand delivered to the people of the reserve, but when they went to consultations on the reserve with our people, very few showed up. I don't know if people are not interested or if they don't care, or figure that no matter what they say it won't matter anyway, but a very low percentage showed up.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You represent four reserves, or at least you're speaking for the four dissenting reserves, I understand.

Mr. Don Julien: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What would be the total membership of the four reserves? There are 9,306 listed on the maps we were handed.

Mr. Don Julien: I'd say probably less than 3,000.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So the mainland....

Mr. Don Julien: Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs? Is that what you're trying to say?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, the mainland are—

Mr. Don Julien: There shouldn't be any such thing as “mainland” or “Cape Breton”. I disagree with my friend, the chief. Unama'ki is only one of the districts in the Micmac government. Micmac is all our people, and Unama'ki is only one district.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Where are the four reserves you're speaking for?

Mr. Don Julien: One is in Antigonish County, one is in Colchester County, one is in Digby County, and the other one is between Kings and Hants.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It doesn't help me at all, being a Saskatchewanian.

Mr. Don Julien: Then I'll say the eastern portion of Nova Scotia, almost to Cape Breton Island, is the Afton Band. Millbrook is central Nova Scotia, Horton Indian Band is more in the Annapolis Valley, and Bear River is in the Digby County area, which is the western part of the province of Nova Scotia.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Spread right across the province, then.

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay.

So you think things are better left as they stand until many of these issues are dealt with.

Mr. Don Julien: I think, very seriously, the issues have to be dealt with before you pass Bill C-30. That's what my chiefs are telling me. One of my chiefs was supposed to appear in front of you. He figured that he's only one of four bands that are not in favour of it.

We're not totally against the whole thing. It's just that we have to carefully examine the whole thing before a very serious passing of a bill is introduced. We know the majority are saying, yes, go for it. Nine are saying yes, and four are saying, hey, let's look at it very carefully.

It's a very serious thing. Once you pass legislation, there's not a hell of a lot to turn it back. If you have amendments, you're going to have to wait quite awhile before amendments are put through.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You're right.

The Chairman: Merci.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'm having a little trouble understanding what you are the executive director of, Mr. Julien. Are you the executive director of the four communities that oppose the bill? No? Some of the mainland Mi'kmaq communities agree with the bill?

Mr. Don Julien: Oui.

Mr. Claude Bachand: In your comments, you said the bill we are studying is not considered a treaty.

• 1205

I have already mentioned this issue to the officials. Would you like the bill to provide that negotiations be started for considering education agreements as treaties? That is not the case at the moment. I also hear people say that they are afraid that this might be requested through an amendment, which would mean that we would be back to square one and would have to renegotiate the whole bill.

What would you say to an amendment that would provide that within a certain period of time, for example in the fourth year, the parties would have to announce their intention to begin negotiations to consider the agreement and the bill as a treaty? Could that take care of the first part of your questions or recriminations?

[English]

Mr. Don Julien: Okay, let me start then.

The Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs is a tribal council representing six mainland bands of Nova Scotia. We have Pictou Landing Band and Annapolis Valley Band that did sign on to the agreement. The former chief of Annapolis Valley Band was going to drop out of the signing, but there were re-elections, and I'm not sure exactly of the views of this new chief, whether he's staying on or whether he was enticed to stay on because he's also the vice-president of it.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Is that Lawrence Leo Toney?

Mr. Don Julien: Yes, he got defeated. Allan Toney is now chief of the Annapolis Valley Band.

So we represent four bands that are dissenting. Their biggest concern is consultation. One of my biggest bands, the Millbrook First Nation and Chief Lawrence Paul, always wanted this agreement to be in a treaty situation, and he argued that. I don't know how many countless times he argued about going to negotiations. The Department of Indian Affairs said they had to take it back to see if it was possible. When they finally came back after several months, they said no, it wasn't possible, and we had to take it or leave it. He wasn't very happy with the idea that it wasn't a treaty, because it's of significance, this Mi'kmaq Education Authority. It's the first in our country. So why not go into a treaty situation?

The sad part of the whole thing is about a year or two later, the federal government came to us and said let's start talking about treaty negotiations. That's a little bit too late. Sure it's nice to sit down and talk about treaty negotiations now, but each one of these things—education, social, and economic development—should be all put under a modern-day treaty so we know the Government of Canada is very serious with that.

Personally—and maybe I'm not talking for the bands at this time—we don't really trust the Government of Canada, especially the Department of Indian Affairs. They at times speak with forked tongues. I've been in the process with the Auditor General of Canada studying the Department of Indian Affairs. We came up with an awful lot of recommendations about accountability, transparency, and redress. A lot of that stuff they have to follow. How the hell are we supposed to know what's going on behind closed doors, even in the regional office of Nova Scotia or the Maritimes? There has to be more transparency. But that's leading myself away from my thing.

You mentioned putting something in the legislation about a future treaty. I'd have to go back and discuss it with my four bands, but I think they would be a little bit more receptive to the idea if there were going to be a treaty situation in the future with respect to education. One of my head chiefs, Lawrence Paul, keeps stressing that in order for us to enter into any type of really serious negotiation, we have to sit down with the Government of Canada and go into a treaty.

I know treaties have not been honoured in Canada as well as in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes, but it's about time we enter into a treaty where people will be forced to honour these things.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Just a supplementary question for Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I just want to make a clarification. You're the executive director of the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs.

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. Bernard Patry: If I understand properly, there are six nations in that confederation.

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Four are not part and two are part.

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's correct?

• 1210

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming in today, Mr. Julien.

As a committee, we're faced here with a piece of legislation that I think most of us are in support of. We understand that it may need some revisions. At least it certainly needs some discussion and a long, hard, cold look at it in the light of day. At the same time, I don't think anyone here wants to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water and lose the entire thing. Whether or not it's a treaty or would be a treaty may change some of us in our support of it, actually. That's a different concept altogether, as I see it, from this education act. However, I think most of us do believe it's a step in the right direction.

I hate to repeat the words “accountability” and “sustainability”, because it's almost become a mantra now with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—all the good “ability” words. It sounds good on paper and it looks good, but if we don't back that up, they don't mean a thing.

However, with all of that said and understanding what you said, I think there's still support for the bill here. Specifically, you have the ability to opt in at a later date if you so decide. I think there's provision in the bill for bands to opt out if they so decide. So allowing that and understanding that we're not going to reach a consensus on this being a treaty—that's not going to happen—and understanding that you can't drag people to a political process....

You can announce a meeting. I don't know what kind of job the government did in announcing the meetings and whether or not it was really advertised as much as it could have been. I'm not about to make a decision on that or even bring that into the discussion. I'm not aware of it. But do you see this at least as a step in the right direction? My worry is the same as yours: it's difficult to add provisions at a later date or to change it or to amend it. But at least do you see that? Would you agree that far?

Mr. Don Julien: The lady from the Nova Scotia School Boards Association, Marg Forbes, mentioned that the Nova Scotia government has a companion legislation.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Don Julien: We haven't seen it. If we could see it, maybe we could compare it with your legislation to see if there's any serious doubt in our chiefs' minds.

I guess I'm just trying to tell the committee to be very careful, when you're passing such a serious bill as Bill C-30, to make sure all the unanswered questions are looked at.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And I appreciate very much that comment.

Mr. Don Julien: That's what my chiefs are telling me: make sure the unanswered questions are adhered to and that at least somebody has looked at them. If they don't think they're worth even mentioning or discussing, I guess we're stuck with it. There is the majority rule, as you say. If nine out of 13 agree and there are only four dissenting, that's a majority, right?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Don Julien: So there's nothing we can do about that.

If the Mi'kmaq Education Authority is handled properly and with a lot of diligence, it could be a positive thing. But what I'm hearing through the grapevine—and I hope I don't upset anyone—is that everything is run in Unama'ki. That's where I agree with the chief.

In Cape Breton Island you have the bigger bands, sure, and you have all the bands that have schools, except for Membertou, so they have a vested interest in the whole Micmac educational system. They have one in Indian Brook that is beginning their school again.

• 1215

There were a lot of promises in the beginning by the Mi'kmaq Education Authority. Before these people got involved, there was another director involved and he was running around the province of Nova Scotia to even the smaller bands, which I represent, and was promising, look, if you join us, if you want a school on your reserve, we'll find you one. Even though we may have to look at a fancy or weird way of getting the funding, maybe you won't have the funding from the educational department to build a school, but we can have some creative accounting as to how to build schools.

We're also very concerned with respect to the Micmac language. This is only a rumour, and I hope somebody can straighten me out, but I hear that most of the funds with respect to language, if there is Micmac legislation, are going to go to Cape Breton. Most of the Cape Breton bands speak very fluent Micmac. It's the mainland bands that are suffering, especially the ones that I represent: Bear River, Annapolis Valley, Horton, and Millbrook itself. Less than 50% of our people speak the language. I think there has to be more concentration on the people who don't speak it than the people who do speak it. There are a lot of fundamental issues that have to be dealt with within our house, I guess you'd call it.

I shouldn't be concerning you people here about that. We should be able to have a meeting and hammer it out amongst ourselves and come to some kind of a consensus.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Actually, I want to make a comment on that last point, because a lot of internal politics have been brought up today, and that's difficult for this committee. I don't think this committee would wish to address that.

Mr. Don Julien: I don't think it's the place for it either.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Exactly, and that's something we can't confuse with the wording and language that's in the bill. That's a separate issue altogether.

However, there have been several recommendations made for specific changes to the bill, and I think that's something we can take out of here and take the time to look at. Whether we will approve it or disapprove it, I don't know, but we need to look at it.

Mr. Don Julien: I have one more point. I think one thing that has to be very seriously considered is the jurisdiction of non-native people living on our reserves.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I took note of that.

Mr. Don Julien: That's one thing that was put on the shelf. There's only a limited amount of funds that the Mi'kmaq Education Authority are going to be receiving. When we have other people draining our resources it's something that's very serious and has to be looked at before Bill C-30 is introduced. Maybe the companion legislation from the province will address it. I don't know.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Julien, for your presentation.

As a member of a minority group myself, and having been involved for many years in human rights, I know very well many of the problems that come and the internal politics involved in working within one's group as well as working with the larger society. As my colleague has indicated, that aspect of it we can't allow to influence too much the task we are faced with in terms of the legislation itself.

But one thing I did hear you say, and it came across pretty strongly, was the lack of trust the four bands that have opted out have with respect to the federal government. I can understand historically why that would be, but I think for me the reality is that if we're ever going to move ahead in human rights and any kind of improved relationships with one another, there has to come a point where we find ourselves starting to trust each other and work together. We have to start at that point somewhere or else we'll never get anywhere.

I'm hoping the people appearing before this committee will have some degree of trust that the members around this table are sincere in their efforts in wanting to do what's best for the Micmac people and for Nova Scotia in general; that they will have some basic trust in that concept regardless of what the end product turns out to be.

In a democracy, as we all know, we're not going to be able to satisfy everybody, and usually it's majority rule, but with the thought in mind that the majority must respect the rights of the minority and make sure the minority are not suffering unduly once the decision is made.

• 1220

Looking at this legislation, we have nine out of 13 bands who have signed on, so the majority are supportive, but we've recognized the concerns you've brought forward.

The main point, and the question I want to get to is this. You seem to feel that a treaty would give you more cause to trust the federal government than an act, or is it just that you feel there'd be more legal recourse under a treaty should things go wrong? I'm not sure why there is the primary emphasis on the treaty with respect to the education act itself.

Mr. Don Julien: I think there would be more of a legal recourse if things don't turn about in the proper fashion.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I don't see a treaty or an act changing the element of trust. I think you have to somewhere, at some point in time, take that element of trust and move ahead with it, and then whether it's a treaty or an act depends on other factors.

I just want to raise that point, because in number 3 in your presentation you talk about the agreement beginning in the eyes of those bands as a true self-government concept and being hopeful that at the end of the day the agreement would reflect the inherent rights of the Micmac to have sole jurisdiction over education and cooperate as equal partners with federal and provincial governments in exercising that jurisdiction.

I still see that as a goal inherent in this particular piece of legislation. I don't see where the legislation has deviated from that. The presentations I heard today seem to enforce that as well, with the Nova Scotia School Boards Association indicating their support and cooperation, the provincial government intending to pass legislation, and so forth.

So I just want to be clear in my own mind as to whether you disagree with the entire concept or whether it's just those technicalities that you raised in terms of what you'd like to see addressed.

Mr. Don Julien: I don't think we disagree totally on the whole concept of the Mi'kmaq Education Authority on jurisdictional issues. It's just that the four bands I represent seem to be left out of a lot of the everyday politics going on within the province of Nova Scotia with respect to Micmac people. Sure, they've been included in the paperwork and so on, but—and I hate like hell to burden you with this, but I'm going to have to say it anyway—it doesn't matter.

Nine of the chiefs did agree with the Mi'kmaq Education Authority; four of ours didn't. I think it would only be fair that the four who didn't would not be left out of a lot of the processes that are going on. Don't use that against us is the warning I'm giving to the Mi'kmaq Education Authority in front of you. Don't say to my four bands that because they didn't sign, they're not going to get anything or are going to get very little, because you're just going to create one hell of a war, and we wouldn't want to see that.

Our chiefs definitely agree with a lot of things in the Mi'kmaq Education Authority...but it's just that it's being pushed too hard and too fast, and we want people to sit and clearly look at that before you pass Bill C-30. That's what my chiefs' concern is, that it's being pushed too fast.

Mr. Gordon Earle: As a final comment, I find it interesting too that considering Nova Scotia and the original disparities from one part of the province to the other, in the non-aboriginal society the feeling is that the mainland gets everything and Cape Breton's left out. You've presented a picture of the aboriginal societies where Cape Breton is getting everything and the mainland is being left out.

Mr. Don Julien: That's an old rivalry that hopefully we can put to bed someday.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your comments, Mr. Julien, and I appreciate the questions of my colleagues across the table. I'll try not to repeat them.

It seems to me, Mr. Julien, you have a problem of representation. I read in part 2 here that the Confederacy of Mainland Micmacs represents six first nations.

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. John Finlay: And then in your next paragraph you say “We are here today representing the views of four of the non-signing member bands”. I presume the accurate language there would be that you are here today representing the views of the four non-signing member bands.

Mr. Don Julien: Right.

Mr. John Finlay: You're not representing the views, ostensibly then, although that's your title, of the other two bands.

Mr. Don Julien: No. The other two bands do know we're here, because it was explained to them that the four bands have concerns and they wanted them addressed before Bill C-30 is introduced and given final reading.

Mr. John Finlay: And that's what we're doing and that's why we're listening.

• 1225

Nevertheless, you talked about majority, and I go back to a previous presenter who said the Micmac are not ready to bear the responsibility in the administration of education programs through an act such as the Mi'kmaq Education Act. I want to know when you think the Micmac will be ready. I've heard this for the last two years—

Mr. Don Julien: I guess you're answering your own question by saying nine have said yes.

Mr. John Finlay: That's right, and therefore—

Mr. Don Julien: We're just making sure, from the four, that you're aware there are some unanswered questions that should be looked at before you take this seriousness in hand.

Mr. John Finlay: How do you interpret, Mr. Julien, the clause in the bill that gives a commitment for five years? What do you think will happen at the end of five years? I think it says we would review the situation at the end of five years.

Mr. Don Julien: Hopefully, they will.

Mr. John Finlay: That's exactly what it sets out to do.

I find your wording strange when you say:

Unfortunately, Bill C-30 legislatively condones a mere delegation of federal authority and liability to be exercised by the signatory bands for the next five years.

I don't think we consider it “mere” anything. We consider it to be very important. We consider it to be a step along the way to achieving what the Aboriginal Peoples' Commission talks about—recognition, respect, sharing, and responsibility.

You see, I've heard this argument a number of times before: we're not ready, we don't trust you, we can't go this far. The whole ball of wax has to be wrapped up all at once and then we'll kick it around.

In January 1991, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs approached DIAND and proposed that a Micmac education authority be established to assume total program control of first nation education in Nova Scotia. It's now eight or nine years after that.

Mr. Don Julien: Eight years.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes. Now, I presume, under consensus, the way you view it, it may take 99 more years if we're going to get everybody—

Mr. Don Julien: No, I think you're getting it wrong—

Mr. John Finlay: No. I'm telling you we have to walk before we run, and we're going to run with this for five years and then we're going to improve it, if necessary.

Mr. Don Julien: Hopefully.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr.—

Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'd like to follow on Mr. Finlay's remarks, but in a different way.

When you're determining the future of your people, would you trust the courts, judges, and lawyers more than you would trust elected representatives? What's your choice? Would you rather deal with people like us or the courts?

Mr. Don Julien: I think we'd rather deal with—and I hate to say this—you. I don't trust either one of you. The elected representatives I trust are my own chiefs. I have a lot of respect for members of Parliament, but I don't trust you because you can only take your words as far as you can throw them, and you can't throw words very far.

Mr. John Bryden: I regret that you say that, actually, because—

Mr. Don Julien: Well, I don't regret it because it's the truth. I'm just answering your question—

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Julien, I am just as much a person as you are, and I don't accept insults because I've chosen to serve my country as an elected representative.

Mr. Don Julien: I just received some insults myself—

Mr. John Bryden: I would not throw the insult to you, Mr. Julien, as a chief, or to any chief in this room, that you just delivered to me. That being said, I would like to point out to you that in fact you do have a misunderstanding. It is that your elected representatives, who are accountable to the people and try to serve the people, can change acts of Parliament very promptly and very quickly, far faster than the treaty can be changed.

I side with Mr. Finlay in that what we have before you with Bill C-30 is an experiment. If it fails, you will find that if you make applications to your local MPs and to your Parliament, and if it has genuinely failed, Parliament can change it and scrap it entirely. I hope you will give it at least a trial period of five years, as is proposed in the act, because if you go with a treaty, you will have put the cart before the horse. It's very difficult to change a treaty. You might start out with a treaty that has provisions that are incorrect. Why not try this as an experiment, with great respect, and perhaps a treaty afterwards?

Thank you.

Mr. Don Julien: I have no problem with your comment. I'm just saying to be very careful before you pass Bill C-30 that all the unanswered questions are looked at.

• 1230

If I offended you, I am sorry.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, you should be.

Mr. Don Julien: I still don't trust a lot of people. That's just my personal opinion, not anybody else's.

I guess we should just leave it at that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Julien. I respect you and thank you for your testimony.

[English]

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

[Translation]

I would now invite the representative of the Membertou First Nation, Mr. Darin Googoo, the Director of Education, and Chief Reginald Maloney to come forward. After we hear from Messrs. Googoo and Maloney, I will ask the officials to come back and answer committee members' questions.

[English]

Do you have a statement?

Mr. Darren Googoo (Director of Education, Membertou Band Council): Yes, and everyone has a copy.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Darren Googoo: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the chief and council of the Membertou Band, I wish to express our appreciation to the standing committee for this opportunity to express our concerns regarding Bill C-30, otherwise known as the Mi'kmaq Education Act.

Before I outline our main concerns about the act, I would like to give you a brief background about our community. I believe this will assist the committee members in better understanding our unique situation.

Our community of Membertou has its beginnings as an urban settlement. Membertou was formed as a result of the economic and employment opportunities offered by the city of Sydney in the late 1800s. Mi'kmaq tradesmen and labourers migrated from different parts of Cape Breton Island to work in Sydney, which was experiencing an economic boom at the turn of the century from its steel and coal industries. By 1915 there were approximately 120 Mi'kmaq living on the reserve, which was known as the King's Road Reserve, with about 27 houses plus our own school.

Despite the economic prosperity of our community, local residents organized a campaign to have our people removed from the area. The campaign was led by Mr. Joseph A. Gillis, a local MP and owner of some property located next to the reserve, directly adjacent. Mr. Gillis was successful in seeking an amendment to the Indian Act permitting the Exchequer Court of Canada to order the removal of Indians from a municipality.

In 1915 the court heard the case, and in the following year it ordered the removal of our community from the King's Road Reserve. It's interesting to note that this is the only case in Canadian history where this provision of the Indian Act was invoked to remove an Indian community from a municipality.

Our community was relocated in 1925 to a 65-acre parcel of land on the outskirts of the city. This is where the community of Membertou is currently located. Our school was rebuilt, and continued as a one-room school until 1964. By this time, the city of Sydney had grown to a point where it almost completely enclosed Membertou. Indian agents at the time proposed the closing down of our school and the transferring of our children to a nearby elementary school in the city.

The proposed move raised a great deal of controversy in our community. Some saw the benefits of an integrated education while others feared for the loss of our language and our culture. However, our school was closed in 1964, and since that time our children have attended elementary and secondary schools within the city of Sydney.

The results have been mixed. I think it is safe to say that Membertou has one of the highest levels of education of any Mi'kmaq community in Atlantic Canada. Yet it came at a very tremendous cost. Almost 100% of our children who attended city schools lost their most important gift from the Creator, our language. Almost everyone under the age of 40 in our community today cannot speak or understand Mi'kmaq. This coincides with the closing of our school 35 years ago. Five-year-olds would have just begun their elementary education the same year our school closed.

• 1235

The purpose of giving you this background is to highlight the urban nature of our community. Membertou is an island within the city of Sydney. Our latest population statistics reveal that 31% of our band membership, 273 people from a band of approximately 900, live off the reserve, many of them within the nearby municipality. For many of our off-reserve residents, this is not by choice.

Membertou has been experiencing a rapid growth in its membership. Since 1980, our population has doubled. It went from 438 to 887 persons, and we expect it will double again within 10 more years. That is a reality. This growth has outstripped our council's ability to provide enough new housing units to keep up with the rising demand. As a result, many of our families find accommodations in the surrounding area. This is why I say many of our off-reserve members do not live outside of our communities by choice. There is simply no place to put them in our community.

But even though they live in the municipality, they are still considered an important part of our community. Many have family, relatives, friends, and jobs within the community of Membertou. Many live less than one kilometre from our community. Our off-reserve members are a distinct part of our community. They always have been and they always will be.

That brings us to why we were asked to appear before this standing committee. Yes, the Membertou band is one of the nine signatories of the Mi'kmaq education agreement that was signed on February 14, 1997, and yes, we are listed in the schedule of the bill that is before us today. Our chief, Terrance Paul, and our officials have repeatedly voiced our objections over the exclusion of our off-reserve band members from the provisions of the agreement and the bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 of the bill restrict our community's powers to enact legislation and to provide services and programs “to residents of its reserve”. These provisions violate our traditional view of our community and artificially divide our members on the basis of residence. Are these provisions discriminatory? Why are we not allowed to provide Mi'kmaq programs and services to our families who live less than a kilometre away from our reserve boundary line?

Our community is now in the process of taking over the education of our grade 1s and 2s for next September. The previous September we re-established our school in our community and took over the primary grade from the local authority.

Will we be forced to tell our off-reserve parents that they cannot bring their children to the school because they live on the wrong side of a boundary line? Won't they say this is discrimination? Will we be able to provide them school supplies, school transportation, tutoring services, counselling services, and all those other services that are necessary to ensure their success in education if they cannot attend our school on the reserve? What will their family and friends say who now live on the reserve? Won't they say this act is discriminatory? Won't they ask why our council ever agreed to such an agreement and to such an act that divides our community in such a way?

It is our hope that by raising this issue with the standing committee today we can exert some influence in amending clauses 6 and 7 of this bill. We understand we have the right to withdraw from the agreement if our community so chooses. We do not wish to oppose the eight other bands who signed this agreement or the outstanding work done by the staff of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, but we cannot avoid expressing our concerns about the discriminatory nature of certain provisions of the act and the agreement.

• 1240

We trust that you can now better understand the urban nature of our community and why this act threatens to divide our community into two halves: one half of those who live on the reserve and one half of those who live off the reserve.

At this time I'd be happy to answer any questions this committee may have.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Googoo.

Mr. Maloney, you have a statement?

Chief Reginald Maloney (Indian Brook First Nation): I don't have a prepared statement, sir. I just want to say that I support the act. I know it's not perfect for us, but it is a step forward as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe we can do worse than what the department has been doing for us in handling our education. I think we will have the involvement at the grassroots level to address any concerns we have as far as our education program goes.

On my reserve we had an agreement with the local school board for 30 years. About a year or so ago there was a big fight in our school and all of our students were bused out of the situation. At first I think there were about 19 or 20 students who didn't want to return to that school. The parents came to the chief and council and said, what can we do? We held meetings on our reserve and a lot of parents came out. The main thing was that they wanted us to have a school on our reserve so our children would have an alternative to the amalgamated school board high school where our children were being bused to.

So we started in makeshift trailers at first, and in September we opened our community centre to be converted into a school for our students. Under the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey this would be recognized as a school for us.

I don't think we can do any worse. I think we can do a lot better ourselves with the authority for educating our children in our school. They have to learn to be proud. They have to learn in an environment where they're not put down because of their Indianness, how they dress, how they wear their hair, or whatever. I think they can be proud of who they are and they can learn much there.

About the consultation process, we went through this on our reserve. The turnout wasn't that great both times, but they were very well publicized. Flyers went to every house. The whole act was put out in newspaper supplements. Everybody was aware of it.

Lots of times people on our reserves don't come out. If you call a meeting for something they'll say, “Well, you are our elected leaders, why do you ask us? We put you there to make these decisions for us and we hope you'll make the right decisions for us. If you don't, you won't be around too long.”

Mr. John Finlay: That's the democratic process.

Chief Reginald Maloney: That's right.

I've been here since 1990, and this education program has been talked about and circulated throughout our community for that length of time. There has been no strong opposition against it. Like I said, when we had our meeting concerning the school on our reserve, a lot of people came out and supported the idea that we have our own school and our own education program for our children.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Maloney.

[Translation]

We will now move to the questioning. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. Well, I guess the maxim is true that says if you don't take part in the government of your country, you'll be governed by those who do.

• 1245

Mr. Googoo, as you were reading through your release, I was reminded of a statistic that I think was from Chief Marshall's presentation. He said that there is 28% unemployment on some of the reserves and that it's much lower for non-reserve residents.

While everybody wants to retain their language and their culture and some of those things, the more immediate concerns are always whether you're going to be able to put food on the table, whether you're going to be able to send your children to any kind of school at all, and whether your health is up or down. It is after you've looked after those issues that culture, language, and those things become important.

What's the level of unemployment amongst the members of the Membertou reserve, both on and off? If you have specific statistics for those who live on or off, I'd be interested in hearing them because of the fact that your school was closed in 1964—by consensus, I hope. What has the net result been?

Mr. Darren Googoo: I don't have employment figures for our community. What I can tell you.... If I'm hearing you correctly, you want to know what our experience has been since 1964 in terms of employability and in terms of—like someone said earlier—citizenship.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: And participation in the economy.

Mr. Darren Googoo: Our participation has been low, it's true. When our band office or our band council first started in the early seventies, there were two employees. Currently our band administration employs 37 people. We have experienced some job growth. In our community we have a police station, a health services office, a band office, an economic development office, a gas station, a pizza shop, and several contractors who are self-employed. So I would say that right now we have the basis of a strong economic base for continued success in our community.

However, I would like to address my other concern. One of the reasons this growth has been possible, why we've been able to achieve some level of economic growth, is that we began to believe in ourselves. When our businesses first formed, they were formed because the Mi'kmaq supported and believed in themselves. That was why those things were able to happen.

I don't believe that culture and language are separate and apart from building a strong economic base in the community. In fact, I think they are necessary ingredients. Part of the problem we've had in our Mi'kmaq communities is that we have been continually defined as Mi'kmaq people, from the outside. Our control of education, the ability to decide the destiny of education for our children.... For me, as a parent, to be able to say I'm going to give my daughter the best possible education, it has to be, it must be, it will be within the context of her culture and her language.

By doing that, we're ensuring that our children grow up with a positive self-image and a strong sense of duty about who they are as Mi'kmaq. And that will also translate into a strong sense of duty about who they are as Canadians.

As a result, we will be better off in the future, because our children will feel better about themselves. Our children will feel more confident in their abilities. They will go on to achieve better and greater things than my generation ever can.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I didn't mean to get into a long discussion.

You mentioned employment opportunities on the reserve. What I was sort of looking for, too, is what's happening. Are your people working in pizza shops off the reserve or are they working in barber shops? Are they in steel? Whatever....

Mr. Darren Googoo: In terms of our people, prior to this year, within the city of Sydney, we had 22 high school graduates over 10 years. This year, we've seen a slight surge. This year we have, potentially, nine high school graduates, and we graduated nine people from university, which represents about 1% of our population for high school and 1% for post-secondary programs. That's a lot of progress for our community, and I think those numbers will be enhanced in the future.

• 1250

When we look at the employability of our people today, yes, they do work off reserve, and yes, they do live off reserve. It's not by choice.

The person who runs our pizza shop in my community I know very well. It's owned by my family. And the person who runs it lives off reserve, not by choice. If he had his choice, he would live on the reserve. He would live with his family in the context of Mi'kmaq living. However, there's no place for him to live. He doesn't have a house. When he quit university, my parents told him that if he wasn't going to go to school, he wasn't going to live there. He is being forced to live off the reserve until such time as he gets a house, and when he does he will return.

As it presently stands, we have a lot of people—almost 300 people out of a community of 900—who live off the reserve, and it's not by choice, it's by necessity.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I know that Aboriginals living off-reserve are always a problem, not only in your area, but throughout Canada. Statistics show that up to 40 or 50 per cent of Aboriginals with status at the moment are living off-reserve. You answered one of my questions about Membertou when you said that 300 Aboriginals of 837 were living off-reserve. Mr. Maloney, out of a population of 1,874, how many Indian Brook Aboriginals are living off-reserve?

[English]

Chief Reginald Maloney: There are probably about 700, but that's spread out right from California to Nova Scotia to Shubenacadie. They're all over the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I see. I certainly understand that we could amend clauses 6 and 7 to allow funds to be used to cover services for Aboriginals off-reserve as well. At the moment, the bill before us provides for a transfer of approximately $140 million. In your view, if the government or the Department of Indian Affairs does not want to include Aboriginals off-reserve, is that because of the cost involved, that is an increase of some 30 per cent, which should bring the figure to $200 million for the agreement? Do you think it is just because of the additional cost that would be involved if the bill were to include Aboriginals living off-reserve?

[English]

Chief Reginald Maloney: I think that's the only reason. It's because of the money, you know. But it's going to cost money now to change our situation. If our life is to improve in the future, it's going to cost right now. If it doesn't improve, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more down the road.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Merci, chef. Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I want to commend the presenters for a very good presentation. On page 3, when you were talking about the history of the community and the removal of the aboriginal people from their original location in the Sydney area to the Membertou reserve, I couldn't help but note the similarity with what happened to the Africville community, the black community in Nova Scotia, where people were uprooted from their homes and dispersed from their original location. And I also found it interesting that the person who spearheaded this removal was a local member of Parliament—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gordon Earle: —which would then give some support to why Mr. Julien—

Mr. John Bryden: Ninety years ago.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, right. I'm coming to that.

• 1255

It would give some support to why he has to distrust politicians. But I still firmly believe that even with that, a lot of time has passed. We have to move beyond dwelling upon the sins of the past and hopefully move ahead on a positive note in the future. It does give reason for concern, though.

Mr. Bachand already covered the question I was going to ask, which was basically about the on-reserve and the off-reserve.... I wanted to get a feeling from you as to why you may have felt the legislation moved in the direction it did, but you did answer, by saying that it was primarily cost. Were there any actual discussions around that issue during the discussions with government on that particular subject?

Chief Reginald Maloney: Oh, yes. We discussed Indians off the reserve. And Chief Paul was a strong advocate for including the members who are off the reserve.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Was there an estimate or any kind of indication of what the cost factor would be if off-reserve residents were included in the legislation? Did any figures in terms of the actual costs come forward for discussion?

Chief Reginald Maloney: No, I guess not.

Mr. Darren Googoo: I believe the technical staff at MK would be best suited to answer that question.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Marjorie Gould: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to answer Gordon Earle's question.

The Chairman: Please.

Ms. Marjorie Gould: Would you please repeat the question?

Mr. Gordon Earle: I was wondering if any figures were actually brought forward around the costs that would be involved if off-reserve residents were to be included in the legislation.

Ms. Marjorie Gould: I would like to begin by going back to Chief Lindsay Marshall's speech this morning, with regard to the basis of our negotiations with the government. At the very beginning, the basis of negotiations was that the Government of Canada could negotiate only those things for which it had authority under the existing laws, authorities, and policies. At the time, the Government of Canada did not have any authority to provide services to members living off the reserve, but we were not negotiating such an issue; we were negotiating jurisdiction.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Monsieur Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm going to follow right up on that, because I think the “for residents” requirement in subclause 7(1) doesn't have to be there, in fact. Its very presence restricts the act only to residents of the reserve and it will tie up any opportunity to do an arrangement with the province whereby students off the reserve in schools nearby could actually be schooled on the reserve, at the province's expense or however you like.

What I would suggest to you is that I am very sympathetic to your point, because I don't see any reason why you cannot provide your cultural opportunities if your school that's on the reserve is of the same quality as adjacent schools off the reserve. It should be possible subsequent to the passage of this legislation to negotiate with the province to make this arrangement.

The problem with the legislation as it exists now is that the legislation denies that opportunity, because it defines that the legislation is applicable only for residents who are on reserve.

I would suggest that you do make a very strong point, and certainly I for one on this committee will be taking it to the staff and asking them very closely why they feel they must have the word “residents” here, because it does not extend the Government of Canada's jurisdiction at all. What it does is restrict the reach of the provinces in taking part in this. It's really the onus of the provinces, because they're in charge of education and they ultimately determine whether or not it is permissible for a student that has been trained off the reserve to go on reserve. There's a per capita cost there. The cost is being borne by the province anyway.

• 1300

Let me ask you one quick question, though. How many students would be in the school on the reserve if the bill passes as it stands now and it's confined only to residents of the reserve?

Mr. Darren Googoo: As it currently stands in our community, we have a school—somebody thought we didn't, but we do have a school—and currently there are 13 students in that school. We had some desire expressed by two other parents to put their children in, so our numbers this year could have been 15 students. However, we weren't able to accommodate the parents at this time, given the current structure in Indian Affairs for those students to come into our school. Next year, we're anticipating numbers as high as 55 for us to go from primary 1 and 2.

Mr. John Bryden: I come from a village, and small numbers make it very difficult to have a viable school. In my village, we have grades 1 to 6—it's a village of about 500—and we're very keen to retain that school, but its viability is...because there are so few students.

So there could be a case made for a more viable school if you had a larger drawing area.

Mr. Darren Googoo: One of the things our community is currently exploring is the possibility of building a school on the reserve, with the province, to be co-administered by the province and the band, or the local school board and the band, that would include students from both areas of society and allow them to have a much richer educational experience, because it will include Mi'kmaq as a component.

Mr. John Bryden: You anticipated my next question. If I may—

The Chairman: This is your last question.

Mr. John Bryden: You have no objection—as a matter of fact, you see it as a positive thing—to having a school on the reserve that's not only open to Mi'kmaq children but also to any child of any parent in the area who was within reasonable reach of busing and would like to see their child trained at that school, provided that the school meets standards.

Mr. Darren Googoo: As to one of the things we're looking at in our reserve, in our community, with the help of the Department of Education, we had a copy of their curriculum guidelines, and one of the unique things about curriculum guidelines in Atlantic Canada is that they're outcome based. They are not knowledge based. They are not skill based. They are outcome based. We can teach all of those outcomes. We can have children meet all of those outcomes within the context of Mi'kmaq language and culture, and that's something we're going to work towards.

I heard earlier about the quality of education and the quality of expertise and how that might be lacking in the community. I don't think it is. In our community alone we have 12 certified teachers from our community: one at the doctoral level and two at the masters' level. Most of them are in very nice positions of power and influence, and they have been helping us develop our curriculum.

We've taken the provincial curriculum and said, this is a baseline for what we want to do as a Mi'kmaq community. We've taken that curriculum and translated it into Mi'kmaq, to get our own flavour for it, our own feel for it, and once we are done, we will re-translate it back into English. We believe we can use the provincial curriculum as a minimum guideline to set our own standards.

Mr. John Bryden: But I must be clear on my question, though, and repeat it. It would be appropriate in your mind for non-Mi'kmaq children to actually go to school on your reserve if your school is sufficiently developed. You have no problem with that.

Mr. Darren Googoo: At this point, our chief and council are exploring that possibility, yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I make the observation that in clause 7, the words “for residents” makes it impossible for them to carry out that objective. So I think the staff and this committee should consider very carefully whether these two words should be retained in that clause.

• 1305

Mr. Darren Googoo: Part of the reason I'm here today is that our community, our chief and our council, is putting its faith and its trust in this committee to do the right thing by native people and allow us to have full control over the lives of our Mi'kmaq children, whether they live on reserve or off reserve, because they are our children.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You bring a very interesting point, Mr. Bryden. Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you very much for your statement and thank you for the answers.

[Translation]

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I will now ask the officials, Messrs. McNeil, Brown and Cracower to please come forward.

Mr. Bachand will lead off, because he had some questions for them.

Mr. Claude Bachand: My question is very simple. Why did the officials from the Department of Indian Affairs tell us that the Mi'kmaq wanted nothing to do with a treaty, whereas we have just heard the opposite—namely that the government was the party that wanted nothing to do with it? Who is right, the Mi'kmaq or the Department?

[English]

Mr. John Brown: I believe both are right.

A fuller explanation of my response would be that the transfer of jurisdiction was a first-nation-driven initiative, and lengthy negotiations, as we all understand, have proceeded. In fact, government policy on matters of this nature permits us to use instruments such as memorandums of understanding, final agreements, legislation, or a treaty.

As Rick Simon said, consideration was given to entering into a solemn and enduring treaty. In that regard, one of the principles stressed by several Mi'kmaq chiefs was the desire to have financial support addressed in the treaty in a substantive and enduring way. DIAND recognized the national implications of doing so in the treaty, and in fact as a rule does not bind successors with financial arrangements that cannot be negotiated.

After further consideration, the Mi'kmaq concluded that they did not want to then proceed if an agreement on finances could not be included in the treaty and would this put them in a position where they could not, if they did not agree that the financing was substantive enough to carry out the tasks, renegotiate.

In the process, treaties were raised several times. There was some discussion early. The substantive discussion was in about August of 1995. The political accord was signed by all 13 first nations, as was the agreement in principle.

There were other auxiliary debates going on at the time. One was whether the chiefs agreed with the federal government's policy on inherent right. Again, there were several chiefs who did not agree with that. Their legal advisers advised at the time not to proceed on the basis of an inherent right or to agree to the policy.

• 1310

DIAND would have had to seek a mandate for treaty negotiations at that time. However, given the conditions of policy at the time, they did not. Should it wish to enter into a treaty process, the final agreement section 4.4.2 under “No Restrictions” reads in its entirety:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Agreement restricts the participating communities from entering into:

4.4.2 Treaties within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with respect to any matter, including education.

That provision was put in there in recognition that at this time there are no treaty discussions, but this does not exclude them in the future.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to know whether the provisions of section 4.4.2 of the Agreement could allow us to change the bill before us. If the bill were passed as it is currently drafted, could we, toward the end of the five-year period, give chiefs that have had an opportunity to implement the legislation for five years, the option, if they choose, to automatically make the Agreement into a treaty, making a few changes if required? Could that be done?

[English]

Mr. John Brown: I believe the wishes of the Mi'kmaq are to proceed and discuss, with the experience they will have over the next number of years. They do wish to conclude a treaty. We have, as one of the chiefs pointed out, agreed to enter into discussions about treaties and their treaties of peace and friendship. There's a long chain and covenant of treaties that they hold sacred. They are very careful of modifications to those treaties, but then nothing would preclude a treaty being entered into, and that treaty and the provisions of the treaty could supersede the law in the final agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to drag out the discussion unduly, but I do think that it is important that we continue.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, I think Mr. Brown's answers are very interesting.

Mr. Claude Bachand: So do I. I believe you were saying that a treaty does not normally include provisions about financing. Could a treaty not include a provision for annual financing for many years? I think I have seen treaties that included compensation or some financial provisions. Is that possible?

[English]

Mr. John Brown: Yes, you are correct. Many of the numbered treaties in the western provinces have provisions for a financial allowance. Once those financial allowances are in the agreements they're somewhat final. Many treaty payments out west are made in a ceremonial way, but the amount is say, $5 to each band member, and that has not changed since the treaty was introduced.

It's very difficult to build into a treaty the notion that you can anticipate what will happen well into the future in a financial way, which direction education will go, what will be important, and how much that will cost. Those are the guarantees that some chiefs sought from us, and we thought we had a duty to say we did not think those provisions could be built into a modern-day treaty.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: It's good to have you back. There was some discussion a bit earlier about clauses 6 and 7 of the bill and the question of provision of services to people, whether they're on reserve or off reserve. From the department's point of view, what was the rationale for not including off-reserve members under the provisions of this act?

• 1315

Mr. John Brown: The bill is about the transference of jurisdiction. There is a recognition that the Department of Indian Affairs has jurisdiction for on-reserve Indians. It has some express programs that cover off-reserve residents. For example, the post-secondary program is for both on and off reserve.

When speaking about jurisdiction and where this stuff would go, the discussion centred around the on-reserve situation at first. Again, section 4.4 would not prohibit first nations from entering into other agreements or prohibit Canada from entering into agreements with Nova Scotia with respect to matters including education.

In the minds of the Mi'kmaq it is an unresolved issue. It is an issue that they would like to resolve in the future, but again, it is a very complex matter. It is one thing to have control of the funding for a student who is within 10 miles of your community; another is to have funding for a student who is in another jurisdiction—perhaps another country, in another province, living on another first nation—who believes they have jurisdiction.

This decision is a very complex one to take. We do recognize that in many instances, over time, we will be able to resolve these issues.

I'll give the example of child and family services. Many child and family service agencies who take care of child welfare began addressing the issue of problems with children on reserve and their families. They've reached an accord with the Province of Nova Scotia where they consult each other on cases, and often an on-reserve case worker will do the prevention and even the intervention in difficult cases off reserve.

It is a very complicated issue. I think the chiefs recognize this and understand that at this time they can move forward.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I guess the point I'm wondering about is this. The way the legislation is written now, if it's passed this way it would not prevent future agreements whereby off-reserve people could access the services that are provided. Is that correct?

Mr. John Brown: That is correct. It would not prevent....

Mr. Gordon Earle: This is a point that I think we have to clear up.

Mr. John Bryden: That's not right. Clause 7 says the opposite. It confines it to residents on reserve; it doesn't limit it. That's precisely the point that was coming out in testimony. I would want a legal opinion there, because it does restrict the opportunity to form agreements with the provinces if you are stipulating that the schools on the reserve are for residents of the reserve only.

Mr. Allan Cracower: I'll be pleased to speak to that.

With respect to clause 7, as indicated by the title, “Powers and Duties of Communities”—and I emphasize duties of the communities in this context—the understanding at the time was to ensure that anyone who resides on the first nation land would have the opportunity to be educated at a school on the reserve. Consequently, we are dealing not necessarily exclusively with members but also with non-members residing on reserve.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. I understand that.

Mr. Allan Cracower: So in effect, subclause 7(1) says they “shall, to the extent provided by the Agreement”, and the agreement essentially sets out the conditions—financial conditions, for example—where the first nation would have this obligation imposed upon it to provide educational services and programs of that nature to residents, both members and non-members.

Mr. John Bryden: I've got you.

Mr. Allan Cracower: However, it doesn't address the issue of non-members or members residing off reserve in that section.

Mr. John Bryden: This is very important. I'm very keen on this. I take it from what you're saying that clause 7 does not exclude a community running its school and inviting pupils from off reserve, provided that funding can be found for them.

Mr. Allan Cracower: That's correct.

Mr. John Bryden: So it is clear. I don't have to worry there.

Mr. Allan Cracower: No. In fact, your point is very well taken. It was considered at length during our negotiations. As John Brown indicated earlier, it's expressed specifically in section 4.4 of the agreement.

Mr. John Bryden: I see. I don't have that before me.

• 1320

Mr. Allan Cracower: That says other agreements may be entered into with Canada and the province with respect to education generally, in terms of tuition agreements, agreements of that nature.

Mr. John Bryden: To make sure, for the benefit of the previous witness who appeared before this committee, his concern and the concern of his community is unwarranted and he will be able to open his school on his reserve or expand the school on reserve and invite pupils from his band who happen to live off the reserve. Is that correct?

Mr. Allan Cracower: That's correct, in accordance with the agreement.

Mr. John Bryden: And in accordance with this bill?

Mr. Allan Cracower: In accordance with the bill and the agreement.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I want to make sure I understand it, though, because we're talking about for residents of the community's reserve. So we're talking about residents, people who actually live on the reserve, in the bill.

Mr. Allan Cracower: That's correct.

Mr. Gordon Earle: In regard to a member of that community, let's say a band member of Membertou who is not living on the reserve—they're not a resident on the reserve—does the bill still compel the service to be provided for that individual?

Mr. Allan Cracower: No, the bill doesn't compel the services or programs to be provided to a member who does not reside on the reserve, but I emphasize, it doesn't preclude that possibility.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: It's not exclusion; it doesn't say you can't get the service. It says you must do this.

Mr. John Bryden: I stand corrected; I'm delighted.

Mr. Allan Cracower: I might add, if I may, that section 5.6.4 of the final agreement says specifically:

5.6.4 For greater certainty, the participating communities have no obligation to provide education in relation to:

5.6.4.1 Members not resident on reserve....

Mr. John Bryden: I need a quote of that and probably to look at the actual agreement. I find it a great disadvantage when I don't have a copy. Unfortunately, it's occasionally thought the members of these committees don't really like to look at the original material, but we do.

So where are we?

Mr. Allan Cracower: I was referring to section 5.6.4.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, we're with you now.

Mr. Allan Cracower: If you'd care to read section 5.6.4.1....

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. I'm sorry to belabour the point, but I'm very interested in it.

What it says, in effect, is you can have a situation whereby, if the Province of Nova Scotia so chooses, it can provide a per capita grant for a student to be educated at one of these schools on the reserve, so it's not an obligation on the federal government, which is putting up a certain amount of money.

That's all I'm keen about. These schools could be a centre. The school in Sydney could be there and it could be serving the whole community and offering all kinds of opportunities.

Mr. John Brown: Absolutely, and we do have situations in the Atlantic region where children from the neighbouring community attend on-reserve schools, and in that case the province pays tuition to them.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, great. So that was a problem worthy of discussion.

Mr. John Finlay: They simply don't have an obligation to do it, but they may do it.

Mr. John Brown: Absolutely.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I have one question also.

The Chairman: Mr. Earle is first.

A voice: He's on his cell phone.

The Chairman: He's probably checking on the game!

Mr. Gordon Earle: Sorry, our meeting was supposed to be over long ago.

The Chairman: No, that's okay.

[Translation]

That is not serious. The issues we're discussing here are very important. Our witnesses have come from far away. I am very patient. My role is to ensure that everyone understands the system. Some people have come from the other end of the country, and we should not give them just 15 minutes. It is better to take the time to clarify this bill and to find solutions. In any case, that is my task. I am in no hurry; as I said, I am prepared to stay here until midnight.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I'm going to ask a question, but I think it has already been answered.

Section 5.6.4.1 says, other than with respect to the provision of post-secondary student support, non-resident members of the community do get that support, which is one of the questions that was raised earlier, about how it's administered and so on.

• 1325

But what's the definition, then, of “post-secondary”? I would assume it was university, college, or technical school, such as Ryerson originally, let's say, or whatever. Is there any definition of it, or do we simply understand the general statement?

Mr. John Brown: There is a definition in the final agreement, and the definition in the final agreement reads—

Mr. John Finlay: Where is it?

Mr. John Brown: It's under the definitions section at the front of the agreement, on page 5.

It says post-secondary student support—and that's the federal government program—means:

the program administered on reserve to provide student financial support with respect to education assistance including counselling provided by Mi'kmaq Bands to members attending post-secondary institutions.

The application of that by the federal government has been twofold. One is, if an institution in a province is deemed to be a post-secondary institution by the board of higher education or whatever the institution is in the province, then it's eligible for post-secondary school. It usually includes all programs of more than a year where there's a degree or certificate granted.

There are grey areas.

Mr. John Finlay: Right, of course.

Mr. John Brown: There is another federal program through Human Resources Canada that deals with occupational training, and often the line between those two is very grey as to which program would be responsible.

With this step in the Mi'kmaq Education Act, bands hope to also negotiate with Human Resources Canada and be able to bring a full package where they can clarify the areas between occupational skills training and post-secondary institutions.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

I have one last question. I didn't believe this when I read it and was told it, and it is on the last page of Ms. Johnson's presentation: “Why was it labelled SECRET until it got introduced at Parliament?”

Mr. John Bryden: That's just normal.

Mr. John Finlay: I don't know what that's referring to.

Mr. John Bryden: All documents are secret before they go for first reading. It's House of Commons procedure.

Mr. Allan Cracower: That's correct. Until it was tabled, it wasn't a public document, and consequently it was labelled secret.

Mr. John Bryden: That's normal House of Commons procedure.

Mr. John Brown: However, both the federal act and the provincial act were discussed extensively, as were their drafts, with the negotiating team and with chiefs and their technicians. There was an undertaking—while that's not necessarily normal—in the final agreement to do so, and both the federal and provincial governments respected that.

So as the various drafts of the act were proceeding, there was full disclosure, there were discussions, there were many debates about the wording, etc. It's just that process where it goes to final print until it's introduced in the House; that's when it may have been labelled secret. But those documents were widely available in draft form.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just clarify that point thoroughly, because it should be clarified for the Hansard, the rough draft of any legislation, including private members' bills, before it actually is tabled in Parliament for first reading, is always secret, even though the contents of course are generally known. It is merely the rough draft version that is secret, to give the sponsor of the bill an opportunity to make any adjustments before it's actually read into the record at first reading. It's a normal procedure.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden and Mr. Finlay.

Do you have a final question?

Mr. Gordon Earle: No, I have no further questions. Thank you.

The Chairman: I would like to thank everyone, our friends the Mi'kmaq chiefs, the other witnesses and the officials. This has been an excellent meeting, and one that was very interesting for all of us. Thank you for being here today.

• 1330

I would like to thank you because we have discovered a beautiful part of the country and great people. Keep watching us. You can come back and see us.

Thank you very much everybody. Have a good day.

The meeting stands adjourned.