[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 19, 1995
.1011 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning.
[English]
Mr. Linklater, you'll make your presentation first. I would like to welcome you to the subcommittee hearings. I know that what you have to say is very important for our report and to our members here. You'll have roughly half an hour to make your presentation, and then we'll have a series of questions.
Mr. Alfred Linklater (Director, Education; and Senior Manager, Education Secretariat, Assembly of First Nations): There are a number of colleagues with me: Marjorie Gould, acting director of education for the Nova Scotia Mi'kMaq Education Authority; Barbara White, from the Nanaimo First Nations, a member of the steering committee on education for the British Columbia First Nations; Warren Tremblay, education director for the Union of New Brunswick Indians; Dr. Vivian Ayoungman, director of education for the Treaty 7 Tribal Council in Alberta; Dr. Rose-Alma McDonald, educational consultant for the Assembly of First Nations; and Chief Steven Point, from the British Columbia First Nations.
I have copies of our presentation for distribution.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Education of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I'm here to make this presentation on behalf of the Chiefs' Committee on Education and National Indian Educational Council on first nations education. We're pleased to have the opportunity to make our presentation and recommendations to the committee before its final report is submitted to the House of Commons.
I would like to begin this presentation with a number of observations on this committee's terms of reference. First, we note that the subcommittee's terms of reference are very limited in scope. Your review and subsequent recommendations, for example, are designed to concentrate on better support for primary schools located on reserves. This narrow scope assumes that first nations education rights are limited to residency and are not based on our position that first nations education is a treaty, aboriginal and portable right.
.1015
The reference to primary education on-reserve rejects and ignores the first nations view that education is a lifelong process. The reference you make to substantial financial resources also implies that these resources are adequate, when the real issue is the under-resourcing of first nations education. We disagree with these assumptions. As representatives of first nations, however, it is our responsibility to bring forth the following issues for your consideration.
We believe that education for first nations people is a matter of inherent aboriginal right. We believe the federal government has a responsibility to provide adequate resources for education pursuant to its fiduciary obligation in section 91.24 of the Constitution Act of 1867. Jurisdiction for education is an existing aboriginal self-government right provided under subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982. The federal government has a legal obligation through treaties to provide adequate resources and services for education.
First nations proclaim and affirm their inherent aboriginal rights to self-government and demand that their rights be respected and recognized by all levels of government in Canada. First nations cannot exercise jurisdiction over education or any other program without full fiscal and operational control. Jurisdiction is not derived from delegated authority from the federal government. Delegated authority is not acceptable as a substitute for aboriginal first nations jurisdiction as recognized and affirmed in the Constitution of Canada.
We view the education of our people as a fundamental tool in developing and strengthening self-government in our communities. Equality of access to educational lifelong learning is a fundamental right of all people, yet in our communities today 50% of first nations school-age children fail to reach grade 12. Of the 633 first nations communities in Canada, 283 do not have schools of any kind. First nations illiteracy rates range as high as 65% to 75% in some regions. Language use in 69% of first nations communities is declining, endangered or critical, and 66% of the first nations adult population has no post-secondary education, compared to half of Canada's population which has post-secondary education.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in 1988 a four-year, $6 million national review on first nations education was completed and released by the Education Secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations. The goals of the national review were in four parts: to examine the impact of the 1973 Indian control of Indian education policy; to synthesize the research already completed on local, provincial and territorial levels since 1972; to examine first nations jurisdiction over first nations education in light of current constitutional amendments; and to recommend improved educational policy and appropriate legislation that would establish a government-to-government relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada.
As we all know, the review was designed to analyse four aspects of first nations education: jurisdiction, quality of education for first nations, management of first nations education, and finally the resourcing of first nations education.
The primary conclusion of that review was that education is an inherent right that must be respected by all levels of government. In particular, first nations government must ensure that children, teachers and their children and community members understand fully that the concepts of self-government and self-sufficiency are related. The results also indicated that communities exercising a degree of jurisdiction over education of our children tend to rate statements of self-government philosophy higher than communities not involved in these processes. Given this trend, it is imperative that provincial and territorial schools serving first nations children include contemporary first nations issues in their curricula.
Although the federal government has indicated many times, and through presentations to this committee, that its current policy of transfer is guided by these recommendations, it is our view that this study and its recommendations have not been implemented to the satisfaction of first nations.
As a handout, I have a chart that indicates the kinds of things we feel the government has done or has not done to implement those 54 recommendations. I will hand this out as part of this presentation.
.1020
We also know, Mr. Chairman, that on July 26, 1995, the federal government released a document entitled Creating Opportunity: Progress on Commitments to Aboriginal Peoples. In the introduction to this document, the red book commitment to a comprehensive plan to renew the partnership between the Government of Canada and aboriginal peoples is reiterated.
The document further describes, and I quote:
- The Government's commitment is to build a new partnership with Aboriginal peoples based on
mutual respect, trust and participation in the decision-making process...
- Central to the new partnership is the recognition of the inherent right of self-government
for Aboriginal peoples. Within this context, the federal government is working with First
Nations to strengthen their communities and support their growing self-reliance.
We understand further, Mr. Chairman, that the mandate of the subcommittee is to submit a final report to the House of Commons with recommendations that focus on initiatives to permit Indian children and students to get the best possible education at elementary and secondary levels and to encourage students to stay in school and achieve standards that allow them to pursue post-secondary education and ultimately improve their competitive position in the workforce.
We also understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is your mandate to include in your report recommendations on how the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other departments and organizations can play a positive role in improving educational programs and services delivered by first nations, Inuit and provincial schools, education authorities and education institutions.
Of most concern to us is that within this review we are expected to make recommendations for education for first nations students that can be implemented within available fiscal and budgetary resources. I highlight this because that is also highlighted in your terms of reference. Mr. Chairman, our contention is that this is an impossible task since education for first nations students is already sadly under-resourced. You are asking that we assume responsibility for managing and driving the education system. That can be compared to a Volkswagen automobile when the rest of the country is cruising in a high-tech Lexus.
According to our review of trends in federal government expenditures on Indian programs and services from 1983-84 to 1993-94, a review completed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there appears to be a continued increase in spending on first nations education - I highlight that there appears to be a continued increase. This perceived increase in expenditures, however, merely allows first nations to barely keep up with the level of spending experienced by their counterparts in the provincial educational systems.
As we know, the existing Indian Affairs funding process was introduced by the federal government in the late 1980s without consultation with first nations people. First nations believe that this unilateral decision to impose a funding formula is contrary to the current legal requirement to consult with first nations on matters that affect their constitutional rights. We believe it further contravenes the requirements pursuant to the Sparrow decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
This imposed formula resulted in a strong outcry from first nations leadership at that time. The concern of first nations with that funding formula was that it was an exercise to legitimize the budget allocations of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This was also perceived as a measure to ensure that the department met its budget targets and was not in response to identified needs of first nations. This sentiment still prevails today, and many first nations have gone on record as opposing this initiative by the federal government.
Can we continue to call this approach a partnership based on mutual respect, trust and participation in decision-making, as is outlined in the progress made to date with respect to Creating Opportunity and allowing first nations to be part of the decision-making process, particularly when it affects them, as has been ordered by the Supreme Court?
There is little evidence that the basic elements of this formula are educationally appropriate. Many elements critical to a quality educational program are not covered by the current formula at all. We believe that ideally, any resourcing of first nations education should be based on clear educational goals and standards. It should reflect a strong commitment to educational program adequacy and have an explicit set of educational goals that funding can be seen to support.
.1025
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the educational problems of first nations communities are severely and deeply rooted. They cannot be solved with ordinary levels of financial support because the usual Canadian standards of educational services are inadequate to meet the needs of first nations communities. New approaches to education funding, as well as additional resources, are badly needed.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, we are prepared, then, to work together to come up with a funding policy that reflects the needs of first nations in terms of resourcing and the ability to manage education programs, ensure standards for quality education in terms of outcomes and include jurisdiction, responsibility and accountability in education programming. We believe this is an exercise long overdue and something that would be mutually acceptable to all parties, particularly given the mandate of this subcommittee.
We propose some of the following elements in any funding system that might be utilized in the resourcing of first nations education. These include and are not limited to the following: a funding and resourcing system to include improvement in pupil-teacher ratios; emphasis on aboriginal language and cultural programming as core programming; emphasis on aboriginal language and cultural programming, as I mentioned; cultural and curriculum development; significantly increased funding for special education - in the last number of years we've identified this as a severe need in first nations communities; counselling and library services; support for the development of first nation educational leadership; the incorporation of second- and third-level services; research and development financing; streamlining grants for capital expenditures; and first-nations-defined construction norms.
I highlight first-nations-defined construction norms here because these have been identified as being very limited with respect to the construction norms used by the department in developing facilities for first nations communities. We also see that part of this resourcing policy would include adequate resourcing of operations and maintenance and transportation programs.
We can't forget, of course, that we have to include first nations post-secondary institutions, the development and evolution of more post-secondary institutions by first nations, the bridging of the differences, the enhancement of post-secondary adult educational support systems, and post-secondary education in itself.
This proposed approach to identifying adequate resources for first nations education is based on clear standards for the provision of educational services. We believe it is intended to ensure educationally appropriate levels of funding to communities and to foster community decision-making about education goals, school programs and services, and the allocation of resources.
This proposed model places a major emphasis for the resourcing of first nation education on the premise of self-government, self-determination, sovereignty and jurisdiction. We believe this would return to first nations control over the way in which we live, the direction in which our communities develop and how we educate ourselves. This is our view of first nations jurisdiction over education.
Further, first nations agree that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. This, Mr. Chairman, was a declaration to which your government was a signatory. As part of this declaration, first nations expect and are entitled to adherence to the principles of equity, freedom and justice.
First nations people require that your educational systems incorporate the following rights with respect to education: a cultural environment in school that respects and reinforces a history and traditions of all aboriginal people; access to educational technologies, information systems and training on their effective use; and access to a lifelong educational system to enable students to reach their full potential and then pass on to others. We also believe there should be a safe school environment that challenges students to contribute to their communities. Finally, we believe there should be the right to inherit a world that is free from hostilities and is environmentally sound.
.1030
In conclusion, we want to say that the quality of education for first nations is based on traditional values that retain and incorporate the principles of wholeness, order, balance and respect for the spiritual and natural world. These values are contained in the definition of high quality first nations education.
The long-range planning for all levels of first nations education incorporates economic, social, political and cultural aspects of the community. Education contributes to the development of first nations self-sufficiency. The school is an extension and an integral part of the community, combining the services of elders and community members and traditional values in school programs.
We believe that first nations education authorities are not merely advisory parties. They have powers in program design and management, and they must be provided with the means to operate fully in this capacity. First nations management structures are not extensions of federal programs, but in fact limited funding means that long-range planning and forecasting by first nations education authorities are impossible.
First nations education authorities must exercise and be able to exercise meaningful authority at all levels, from preschool to post-secondary and adult education. The education authority should involve community members, including elders, in the development of education programs and policies. We also believe that evaluation of first nations education systems, including administrative systems, must be ongoing to ensure effective management and fulfilment of educational goals in first nations communities.
The implementation of first nations jurisdiction over education involves many changes in the current practice of first nations and the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Jurisdiction must be implemented through a developmental process in a planned, careful manner with full resource support to ensure the success of schools operating under local jurisdiction. This means recognition of the status of first nations and reform of federal policy and legislation; first nations forms of governments that are consistent with various cultures and the social organizations of the various first nations; the negotiation of support, adequate resources, consultation and assistance; local planning and need assessments; education program development; and training.
First nations recognize the importance of developing their own approaches and solutions to meet the specific education needs of their communities. The recognition and reflection of the inherent right to be and to remain distinct first nations and to exercise self-determination over educational programs through self-government are the reason we are here today. This is the central issue that is critical to all first nations. First nations have never given up their right to exist as individual first nations and to be self-governing peoples within Canada. The individual first nations do not want to be assimilated in any other society and culture, aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
As first nations, we insist that the Government of Canada, which has a moral and legal obligation to uphold the treaties negotiated between the first nations and the Crown, recognize fully the inherent aboriginal rights of first nations. Let us work together to implement the national review tradition of education along with the recommendations that will result from this subcommittee's deliberations.
I'm pleased to have appeared before you this morning, and my colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Linklater. We will now proceed to questions from the members.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I thank you for your presentation, Mr. Linklater. I'm pleased to see you here again.
I draw your attention on page 4 of your presentation. I will read in English. I would like you to elaborate on the last sentence of the second paragraph;
[English]
``Can we continue to call this approach a partnership based on mutual respect, trust and participation and decision making?''
[Translation]
The question ends by a question mark.
Do you consider that the current approach is respectful and based on a partnership? You raised the issue in the form of a question, and I would like to know how you answer that question.
Secondly, I would like you to elaborate on the participation of provinces in First Nations education.
.1035
I know that in Quebec, James Bay Convention is a model that we would like to modernize with the Cree. Actually, the government of Quebec already announced its intention to do so.
I would like you to tell us if some provinces are willing to help the First Nations to fund education at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels. The Subcommittee on aboriginal education did some travelling and found that in certain reserves there were no schools. The young are forced to leave their community in order to go to school. As far as I know, the provinces are hardly involved in the funding of First Nations education. In other words, the school boards that provide education to First Nations children bill the federal government for the service. That happens often.
Are there any province as generous as Quebec towards the First Nations?
[English]
Mr. Linklater: I think I can begin by indicating that the question speaks to the respectfulness of the imposition of a funding formula by the federal government in the early 1980s. We're saying that the continued implementation of that funding formula to provide educational resources for first nations was developed without consultation with first nations. We are saying now that the continued imposition of this funding formula is contrary to and contravenes the decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada, which said that if the government is going to continue to impose unilateral decisions without consulting first nations, then it's in contravention of the decision that was made that they ought to consult with us. We're saying that continuing to use the funding formula without any kind of review and without any kind of first nations consultation is in breach of that decision.
The question on the participation of provinces in aboriginal education is something that is currently being debated. Our position has always been that the federal Government of Canada has the authority for first nations education. We recognize that the provincial governments have authority under section 92 of the Constitution Act for non-aboriginal education. We feel that the recognition of first nations jurisdiction goes beyond the reserve boundaries, and that any kind of resourcing arrangements and financial arrangements that are made for our constituents off-reserve should be attached to agreements that are made between governments - whether federal or provincial - with first nations governments on-reserve.
I think I might allow my colleague, the chief from British Columbia, to provide you with a response to that as well.
Chief Steven Point (Chief's Representative, Sto:lo Nation, Assembly of First Nations): The question goes to the heart of the funding issue. The way I understand the funding formula in British Columbia, the federal government provides us with a base figure that it perceives to be comparable to what the province of British Columbia provides for its students in the public school system. In fact, the public schools get more funding from the provincial government or from other sources that are not available to first nations. Consequently, our schools on-reserve are not funded at the same level as schools outside the reserve, and we are forced to attempt to provide the same educational services on-reserve with less funding. That is, in fact, the problem.
.1040
The other problem I see is that it's the federal government that has the fiduciary responsibility, even though constitutionally the province has the responsibility for education on-reserve. Under our interpretation of the inherent right, which is protected by section 35, the federal government must maintain that right. It's our view that to provide a comfortable education service as is provided outside our communities, it's absolutely necessary and lawfully required that the federal government provide exactly the same funding as is available outside our communities.
We are undereducated. In some of our communities we have irreversible problems with our children that need attention. We've suffered from a long history of abuse with alcohol, resulting in children that need special attention. We have a long history of poverty in our communities as a result of the reservation system. As well, we have a long history of behavioural problems resulting from the imposition of the residential school system, which was funded and promoted through the religious institutions and funded by the federal government.
This means that our schools within our communities have different kinds of problems that require different solutions. All of those solutions mean more money. We need analysis by specialists. We need assessments. We need testing and counselling for the children. I would submit that even if we were to get exactly the same funding, which we're not getting, as the province of British Columbia, it still would not match the actual need that we have.
Your question is interesting. Are there other provinces that are as generous? I would say no, although in British Columbia they do provide some extra funding in the public school system for culture and language, but that funding is not available to the on-reserve schools. The outside-reserve schools have the municipalities to receive the additional tax base, but that's not available to the on-reserve schools. The off-reserve schools get funding for professional development for their teachers, but that's not available for our on-reserve schools.
So when we really examine the funding difference between the off-reserve and on-reserve schools, we see quite a disparity that must be made up by this federal government if we're going to tackle the long-term social problems that are the responsibility of the federal government and were caused by some of the original policies of the federal government.
Mr. Linklater: I just want to comment, Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Bachand's question with respect to Quebec being as generous as other provinces.
We have to point out that you perceive Quebec as being generous with respect to educational resources. There are elements of the resourcing for first nations in Quebec that are also different from other provinces. That still has to be reviewed to determine the needs and the kinds of special needs that Quebec has.
I must point out, Mr. Bachand, that the enhancement of aboriginal languages in Quebec is an area that I think is under-resourced. It is not resourced in the manner in which the French and English languages are funded in Quebec. For that reason I don't think that generosity is as great as you may think it is.
The Chairman: Mr. Bonin.
Mr. Bonin (Nickel Belt): I'd like to comment on a comment that you made on additional funding that is not available to communities.
.1045
In the provincial system, the public system, yes, there is additional funding. But in my jurisdiction, where my children go to school, I am taxed on my home; I am taxed $1,500 for education. The extra is not available to you - our community has decided we wanted to pay more to get more. That has to be said, because sometimes we leave the impression that the government is unfair with its funding. That's not the case. Basic funding in Ontario is probably less, but the local taxation of my home is $1,500 and of my cottage it's $550. It has to be said that in our public boards we pay extra for the extra. It's not government funding that does it. That's clear and there's no doubt about it.
Now, I'll throw a scenario at you and I'd like a reaction. Believe me, I mean well in my comments.
I believe there should be a standard cost of education for aboriginal communities across the country. From there, because there's one pot of money, we factor in all the things you talked about - special needs, special education, professional development, curriculum development - but we start with a base. There is a very good reason why in northern Ontario it might cost more per student than it would in southern Ontario. I believe we should go from the same base and factor in the differences. That means that to obtain a factor the community would have to go in front of one of your groups - not the government's groups, one of your associations of school, jurisdiction, whatever you want to call it - and justify why they should be factored for more funding. All of it comes from the same pot.
My concern is that there are some communities in which there's a lot of waste of money; it's not only in your communities, it's in ours, too. At least this way, to get the extra funding they would have to prove to you that they will deliver. I believe that's the way to look after the children. I'll ask for your reaction on that.
As well, you speak of individual first nations. I encourage you to do that and I support it, but what does whoever has the jurisdiction do with a community that is doing a lousy job? In our communities there are some boards doing a lousy job, but there's a government system that jumps in and forces them to do a good job. How do we protect the children in these few communities in which the chief and council are doing a terrible job? It's unfair to those children. They don't have the same opportunity. We are individual communities, so what mechanism do we have to make sure that we protect the children in the communities in which the job is not being done as well?
The questions are basic funding with factors, and ensuring adequate delivery of service for all children in Canada.
My third and last question will be this: in your view, who is responsible for culture and language? Is it the family and community, or is it the school? I'm from a French-Catholic community, and we've factored all these things into our education. Yes, we did suffer in our science and we did suffer in other things. I see some school jurisdictions putting an awful lot of emphasis on language and culture, which is very important. But if they put too much emphasis on that, the students will come out of either elementary or high school with insufficient tools to compete with our children when they go to university.
Believe me, I mean well and I really care about the kids. I'm not trying to put pressure on you, but I think those questions need to be answered.
.1050
Chief Point: I want to address your first and third questions. I'm going to let Mr. Linklater address the question on standard across Canada.
First of all, regarding your tax comment, I take objection and offence to that comment for two reasons. The first reason is this: yes, there is a mill rate and Canadians living outside the communities, as do aboriginal people living outside the communities, pay tax if they are property owners. You should know that 50% of our community members do live outside our reserves, but you should also know that in my community - and it's not unlike other aboriginal communities across this country - 80% of our peoples are living far below the poverty line. They would never own property because they wouldn't be able to afford it.
I don't know what the statistic is currently for Europeans, but there are a lot of European people, non-aboriginal people, living outside the community reserves. They also do not pay the mill rate because they're not property owners. It's those people who can own the property who pay this - and that's what I understand the tax regime is set up for in this country. It's to help share the wealth of this country, to help the haves share with the have-nots.
Mr. Bonin: What I said is that the extra is paid for locally by -
Chief Point: You said that you pay extra to get extra.
Mr. Bonin: That's right.
Chief Point: We were put on these reserves and these reserves are the property of the federal government, outside that tax regime. We pay provincial sales tax on goods we purchase outside the communities because we don't have an economic base in our communities. The tax issue is something that needs to be addressed; it must be resolved. I think it's going to be looked at in the future as we examine the devolution of the Indian Act responsibilities.
I take exception to your comment because I think it must be said that the tax regime in this country is in fact to transfer that wealth. Who has the wealth in this country? It isn't the aboriginal peoples.
In relation to your last two questions regarding what we should do about first nations not doing a very good job educating their community members, I have to point out to you, sir, that the track record of the government has not been admirable. What have we done about that? We said, give us an opportunity to educate our children and we'll do a better job. Naturally if there are first nations not living up to what we feel are the educational standards, something has to be done. I'm sure that is a minority. I think everyone is equally interested in the protection of the education of our children.
The third question was about who is responsible for culture and language. Without necessarily getting into the current debate on the French-English situation, I think it's everyone's responsibility. I don't think -
Mr. Bonin: There's not an easy answer now. The basic responsibility for education belongs to the parents.
Chief Point: That's your viewpoint. I honestly think, as far as aboriginal peoples are concerned, that what happened with us historically from a cultural language perspective is not the same as what happened to you when you came to this country. The responsibility for the loss of that culture and language, sir, happens to sit with those people who are responsible for the loss of that language and culture. Who put our community members in residential schools with the force of the RCMP? Who removed those people -
.1055
Mr. Bonin: If I may, we're trying to develop a report to help communities. You're giving us a course in history. Let's try to find solutions. That's all I'm trying to do.
Chief Point: Sir, your solution is that -
Mr. Bonin: I didn't give any answers. I asked the questions.
Chief Point: - the responsibility is with the family and the community. I don't think anyone will argue with that.
Mr. Bonin: So who is responsible for language? Who is basically responsible for language and culture? Is it the school or the family and community? I know what it is at home.
Dr. Vivian Ayoungman (Director of Education, Treaty 7 Tribal Council, Assembly of First Nations): Can I respond to that question as well?
I've been in education for a number of years. I got my degrees from the U of C. I have graduate degrees. I've never had the luxury of taking courses that really tell me about my background from my perspective or from the perspective of my people. My parents went to a boarding school. I went to a boarding school. But they ensured I spoke the language. I'm very proud to be Siksika. I was brought up with those values. I really felt sorry for all the students I taught because they never had the same opportunity I did. The point I'm making is that a lot of the history books are written through someone's coloured glasses, from their perspectives.
I don't want to take up too much time, but I want to give you a really quick example. James Willard Schultz is recognized as one who has written extensively about Blackfoot people, one of the authorities. I never really had an opportunity to read his works because I was not majoring in that area, but eventually I found out that he had visited my tribe and one of the people he had interviewed extensively was my great-grandfather. I really wanted to read his works when I found that out.
I went back to the books and read his interview with my great-grandparents, interpreted through his perspectives. As I read more of his works, I kept reading things that said they were a very superstitious people, but he pretended to go along with them so they would tell him things. The more I read the kind of stuff he was writing, it hurt. I was thinking, here's a fellow who has written about Blackfoot history, who is perceived to be an authority, and yet he writes with this real slant of people being superstitious and so on.
The more I thought about it, I thought we had been cheated, we had been robbed. We have never been given the opportunity to do the research on our own from those people who still know. So this is why. I don't know why I'm so - I guess because it comes from here.
This is why in my curriculum work I just wish we could get the curriculum dollars, the research dollars. We have the skills. We can still communicate with some of those older people and we can do it in our language. Yet the governments have money and give it to somebody else to do it for us. They're our research dollars; they're SSHRC; they're so and so. Yet when there are these kinds of moneys, they are given to the universities and to the governments to do the study, to develop the curriculum.
It seems as if we're never trusted, even though - if I may brag a little bit - I'm a distinguished alumnus of the U of C. I was given that award. I was Woman Educator of the Year in Calgary. The non-Indian community recognizes that I have these skills, yet we're still not trusted. We're still not considered credible to do some of this work. It's always someone else doing it for us.
That's the answer to the question you asked. Yes, it's a responsibility of our parents and so on. But what happens in the instance where it has really affected those people because they were cheated and they were robbed?
.1100
If you look at the text of the UN genocide convention, Canada is very guilty. They might not have gone out to shoot us, but they stripped away our language and so on. This UN convention was declared in 1949. I started school in 1954 and I got strapped for speaking my language. When I was reading that text, as I started to get into it, when I was looking at the residential schools, the report and the study on it, it made me so angry. I thought, here's a country pretending to look good in front of the world. They were involved in this UN genocide convention declaration. Yet it was 1954 and I was still getting strapped for speaking my language.
So when I look at the students I've taught, my heart really goes out to them because they were not brought up by their parents. When I did a study on the Siksika language, the profile of the language, the status of the language, it's really scary. For all kinds of reasons, there is a loss. We're trying to turn things around.
I say to my colleagues, in all countries of the world different nations have the luxury to be scholars on their nationhood, their literature, their history, their language, their philosophies. They can have the luxury. As first nations people of this country, we're robbed of that. My greatest longing is to concentrate just on my language, but I don't have the time. Who's going to pay me? I do have to eat as well.
Mr. Linklater: We have indicated in our presentation that we are prepared to work together to come up with a funding policy. I think it's long overdue. We recognize that the existing formula utilized by the department to finance first nations education is flawed. We're prepared and we're recommending to this committee that we work together, consult with each other and begin the new partnership we speak of.
I also think we would be able to incorporate into that new policy those kinds of standards you're talking about, but again from a first nations perspective. We would be all-inclusive with respect to cultural languages. We would ensure, of course, that any kind of funding and financing model meets the commitments that were made by your government with respect to new fiscal arrangements. I think that is something that ought to be considered in your recommendation.
When you talk about diverse first nations communities, we recognize that assuming and managing an already flawed system through the devolution process of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development compels us to make mistakes. I think we make those mistakes and we learn from them. Definitely, there is a move by first nations people to begin to evolve the kinds of policies that would ensure that those kinds of mistakes and errors are not made. We know that first nations communities recognize that children are a precious resource and that they would not allow the kinds of atrocities that have occurred in first nations education throughout our lives to reoccur.
That transfer process also brings forward a sense of ownership by first nations people. We believe that the final jurisdiction and recognized jurisdiction over education by our people will ultimately evolve the kind of policies that will circumvent the problems you speak of.
The beginning, as we have indicated here, is to sit down and determine a new financing and resourcing formula or model - I don't want to call it a formula; we call it a model all through - that will begin to give us the kind of ownership we ought to have with respect to education, and will go back to the kinds of elements we spoke of earlier to ensure that we incorporate and emphasize our languages and our culture. As well, it will take into consideration what the requirements might be with respect to contemporary education, and how we ought to position ourselves to ensure that we become what you want us to be in many instances - partners as well as contributors to this society.
.1105
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): There are three things I want to ask you.
First, I would like to tell you that in a number of places we went to, looking at schools in different provinces across this country, we ran into some very excellent examples of curriculum development taking place within the schools by native people there. This was along the lines of what you were saying earlier. There were excellent models.
To get a bit practical, one of the things that's discussed here a lot - and you just mentioned it again, Mr. Linklater - is the funding formula. Could you tell me some of the things that could make this work better, practically, from your perspective? We talk a lot about partnership between the government and first nations people around the development of education. What are some of the variables, if you will, on both sides that would make that partnership work better? When I say ``work better'', I mean to bring it down the funnel so that the kids get better educated, which is the reason we're all sitting around this room.
I would ask Ms Gould from Nova Scotia how she sees the partnership, or lack of partnership, working in Nova Scotia.
Ms Marjorie Gould (Acting Director, Nova Scotia Mi'kMaq Education Authority, National Indian Education Council, Assembly of First Nations): Maybe I can tell you a bit about what we're trying to do in Nova Scotia.
I guess you could say it's a result of the national review that took place in education. When we sat around the table and started discussing how we could implement some of these recommendations in the review, our leaders thought it important to organize a provincial structure whereby, rather than having 13 separate education systems that are managed individually, we as a province could begin to manage the whole system and take whatever programs the department is administering right now and distribute the funding to all the different bands.
About the issues that have been brought forward this morning regarding where we want to go as a province in developing our education system, funding is definitely an issue. For them, in taking over the jurisdiction, the responsibility and the authority of education, our leaders believe it is very, very important that the foundations of the education system be the culture and the language. This is an area that has been sorely neglected.
Basically, there is a spiritual element involved in that. Whereas the federal government did not think it was important in our development, we think it is very important. As was said around this table, there is no funding; there has never been any development. The question I'd like to ask is, who is responsible for this kind of development?
.1110
If people in a community like Montreal or Quebec City want to enhance their education systems, they tax their people, they do this, they do that. But when you look at the impoverished Maritimes region, let alone look at the reserves, where you have 95% unemployment, we cannot generate any kind of enhanced funding. So I guess we have to go somewhere.
Because we think this is very important, this is an area in which we are asking for the cooperation of the government. Otherwise there's really no point and the government might as well continue what it's doing, which nothing in terms of the things that would move our communities forward and use the knowledge base that is in our communities and has somehow miraculously made us survive this oppression for the last 500 years. Certainly our education system wasn't built on our own culture and language. It must be positive because it survived 500 years of oppression.
We think it's important to pick up on the base of our culture and our language. This is what is going to make us move forward. We have to respect that first, our own background language and culture, before we can begin to respect ourselves and others. That's the analysis.
The Chairman: Thank you. Very quickly, Mr. Linklater, on funding formulas....
Mr. Linklater: We talked about four elements in our national review. One is the resourcing element, where we're saying we're prepared to work together to try to build on what we feel is most appropriate at this time.
The other aspect of education is the ability to manage and administer programs. What we've done, as I mentioned earlier, is take over the responsibility that has been mismanaged and misadministered on the part of the department.
We're compelled to incorporate provincial educational standards that don't necessarily address our language and cultural needs. I think we ought to be provided with the wherewithal to change that, to be able to evolve the kinds of policies and the kind of direction that first nations people require to sustain an educational system that was taken away from them many years ago. It's difficult to do that in the 25 years we've presumably been given back the authority to do so.
In all of that, of course, is jurisdiction. In order for us to exercise our jurisdiction to the fullest extent of the word, and to the fullest extent that first nations have given to that definition, we have to be given the freedom. We can't be running up against provincial jurisdictions and established systems of education and established norms as being a measuring stick to develop what we feel is a system that is, again, in need of a great overhaul.
If this committee can give consideration to the recommendations we're making, I think it would be a beginning in turning that situation around.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Taylor for one quick question.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much. I realize that time is passing and we have other witnesses.
As a brief comment prior to my quick question, I had the good fortune a couple of weeks ago to attend the opening of a new school at Pelican Lake First Nation in northwest Saskatchewan, within my constituency. I toured part of that facility with Chief Blaine Favel of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Chief Favel expressed great delight when we walked into the cultural room that had been designed and constructed within the school. The cultural room is designed in a circle. The teepee poles are placed into the wall, rising to the sky. The centre of the room is designed to hold a smudge fire. Bench, but floor, seating is built into the room so that elders and young people can talk and think together.
.1115
The room had an extremely spiritual quality to it. Chief Favel and Chief Edward Bill of the band council expressed feelings that the students would have great respect for the education they were receiving in the school itself because the cultural room was there.
I think, just from what I've heard today, that what you have been saying about the need to incorporate language and culture into education and the lack of additional funds to do so is shown in that example. The band will have difficulty - a challenge perhaps is a better way to put it now, because the room is built - maintaining the programming in that room, which has been designed specifically to meet some very specific needs at that school, within that band, and from what you're saying, within the Indian community across Canada. So I have seen why additional resources are necessary, and I support you in that request.
The other side of it - and this is where my question comes in - is that some time ago I was discussing the issue of education funding with band councillors, and there's a very practical problem out there. A number of bands within my constituency - and I know, from studies, across Canada - have found the band councils in a deficit position. Band councils, by and large, are responsible for funding the education system of the school through funding they receive through Indian Affairs.
When the band councils are in a deficit position and Indian Affairs walks in and puts a trustee in place to handle their funding, the trustee removes money from education, housing and social development, and the band council has no control. Therefore, because of problems with financing that the band council has incurred, the education system or the school is penalized. The students at the school are penalized by even further reductions in funding.
Have you thought about or addressed that issue? Is there a need for independent education funding? Or would the relationship between the school, the council, and INAC...? Can you give me some idea of what you think about that?
Mr. Linklater: In September of this year I had an opportunity to visit a school in Red Sucker Lake, Manitoba, that was just opened. It happens to be in your MP's riding as well - Elijah Harper. That school is nice, very modern, and very much something that is needed in that community.
However, because of the limited participation the council had - it did have some participation - in the final decision-making of the building of that school and the opening of that school, the space was already shy of its population requirements on the first day. So I think this is what we're talking about - financing to include first nation construction norms to determine what our needs are in the native communities.
With respect to the moneys and how we address that, the practice of the department has always been to meld funds together between education authorities and band councils. Initially, quite a while back, it indicated to us that funds for the education authority should be separate and distinct from the band councils. When band councils did comply with those requirements, the need for co-management to occur because of deficits from one part of the administration also spills over into the education part, where the co-management of first nations financial situations requires that everything be taken into consideration.
.1120
I think that has been detrimental, of course, to education programs. But I also feel that the problem is, again, rooted in the formulas that have been imposed on first nations communities: the formulas that have been used for infrastructural development, the formulas that have been used for the provision of social assistance in native communities, and the formulas that have been imposed with respect to housing needs. All are very much in need of review and reconsideration on the part of the government so that the educational situation is not hampered by other elements of government mismanagement in our native communities.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I just have a few questions of my own.
In your document that you presented to us this morning, you mentioned new approaches to education funding. Do you have any that you could list off the top of your head? Do you have anything now that you could mention to us, or are you saying that you would like to sit down with the department and come up with some new ones? When you wrote that, did you have something specific in mind?
Mr. Linklater: We have reports that have been provided to the department over the years, and one that comes to mind is the Manitoba education funding study. Recommendations were made there. It incorporated elements of a funding system that might be applicable on a national scale as well.
But again, as you know, every suggestion we've made to the department over the years has been met with indifference. At this time, we're saying there has to be a review of the current policy and the current financing, and let's work towards more of an overall fiscal framework for the financing of first nations education. I think many of the elements we point out here would be found in or will find their way into a model that can be worked out. But there would definitely need to be some very serious consultation on the part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the federal government when it comes to revamping what we have in existence today.
The Chairman: The other question I have relates to these recommendations you passed along to us. Have some of them been implemented, or is this just something you would like to see happen?
Mr. Linklater: I defer to my colleague.
Dr. Rose-Alma McDonald (Consultant, Education Secretariat, Assembly of First Nations): What we did was take all 54 of the recommendations - and I see that you have copies of Tradition and Education here - and we looked at them and decided which are the first nations' responsibility, which are the federal government's responsibility, which are long-term or short-term, and which ones are shared.
As you know, I was one of the ones responsible for this study when it was first done. We found that we still have a long way to go in terms of implementing these. I think a lot of them still haven't been done. So I would say that we still have.... There should be some partnership and some discussions with the department to start at least identifying - we've already said which ones are short-term - at least to see what we can do about addressing them.
I think that was the intent of this. We did it in such a way that it identifies each of the topic areas. A lot of them, like in terms of curriculum and learning styles and post-secondary, were addressed in our presentation today.
Does that answer your question?
The Chairman: Yes.
Thank you very much for your presentation. As I said at the beginning, it will be very valuable to us in writing up the final report. I would like to thank each and every one of you for participating this morning.
Yes, Mr. Linklater.
Mr. Linklater: I have one final question for you. With regard to the process of your report and how it's transmitted to the full standing committee and from there to the House of Commons, what are your expectations with respect to a response from the government?
The Chairman: As you know, we've been travelling quite a bit, and we visited quite a few places. The MPs who have participated in this process, like myself, have put in a lot of hours. I, for one, would definitely not like to see this report just taken and put on the shelf. We've put in a lot of time and effort. From having discussions with the minister, I'm sure the recommendations that will be coming from this report will be seriously looked at and acted upon.
.1125
Mr. Linklater: Do you have a time line in terms of when that will happen?
The Chairman: Do you mean for the presentation of the report?
Mr. Linklater: I understand you'll present it to the total standing committee, and the standing committee then transfers it to the House. There's a period when the House has to respond to your recommendations, if it responds to your recommendations.
The Chairman: We can include in our report that the government respond in 150 days. I think it would be a good idea to do that.
Mr. Linklater: Are they compelled to respond?
The Chairman: If we put it in the report, yes, they are.
.1126
PAUSE
.1131
The Chairman: Would the other witnesses sit down, please.
Ms Young, whenever you're ready we can start. We have roughly half an hour for your presentation and then a question period from all the MPs.
Would you start by identifying your colleague?
Ms Donna Young (Director, Indigenous Education Coalition): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. My name is Donna Young. I'm director of the Indigenous Education Coalition, which is located in London, Ontario. My colleague, John Peters, has accompanied me here today and we'll be speaking on behalf of the newly formed Indigenous Education Coalition. Thank you for inviting us.
During the past year a series of consultations was held in southern Ontario. This process was funded by Ontario and Canada as part of what was called the Declaration of Political Intent. The DPI project was jointly sponsored by two political associations: the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians and the London District Chiefs Council. In total, these groups represented fourteen first nation communities. In addition, two urban native centres were represented by the friendship centres. Also, a cultural centre was represented, and traditional representation from one of the communities was involved.
The purpose of this whole process was to be as inclusive as possible - I think that's reflected in the partnership - and to recognize that there were indeed many stakeholders in first nations education.
Those first nations in this process reflected a wide diversity in first nation education systems. Almost all the communities operate some form of education program, ranging in size from 40 students to 400. One school is a traditional school that offers total cultural and language programming. A couple of communities are beginning to offer alternative secondary programs. One offers services to northern students.
When we began the developmental process, we had to address several unique factors. These included the multicultural nature of the region, which is home to the Iroquois, Ojibway, Delaware and Potawatomi peoples; the educational mix of on- and off-territory; the provision of educational services in urban centres; and the challenge of establishing a full-service second-level service agency to address the needs of those communities.
Over the year we had eight full days of consultation with 35 representatives of the participant communities. Today we'd like to discuss some of the findings of the past year and some of the work that has evolved from that process.
John and I are here today to speak primarily about four areas. The first area is the first, second and third levels of first nation education, which I will be discussing. Then John will give a brief presentation on the language concerns of our member communities.
I'd like to add that the result of this process has been the formation of the Indigenous Education Coalition. We have twelve member communities, two of which are urban native centres.
.1135
One of the primary purposes of the consultation process was to look at common needs in the area of first nations education - at least five of the communities have schools - to see what had happened in the transfer process from federal to local control and to provide a forum for sharing information among the participants. It's been a positive process and we're happy to share it with you today.
I'd just like to mention the mission statements. Education for first nations people is an inherent aboriginal right. The Government of Canada is obligated both morally and legally to honour all its treaty commitments and trust responsibilities, including education. Subsequently, the federal government is responsible for the resourcing of quality education programming, services, programs and facilities based on need. It will also require control based on the first nations education coalition model, which establishes a holistic framework for self-determination in the field of education.
The first area I'd like to deal with is what we call the first level of education. This is the direct classroom programming. It relates very closely to the presentation of the Assembly of First Nations this morning with regard to the funding formulas because we have some very real concerns in that area. As we are located primarily in southern Ontario, most of the formula we're addressing here is based on the Ontario allocation.
The system of formula funding, as mentioned earlier by the AFN, was developed approximately in 1988. This system was developed according to the average costs of level 5 teacher categories. It was not developed by looking at the long-term scenario, such as the costs when the teachers reach the top of salary grids.
The system does not work for most of our schools. Although some of the costs may be lower, the first nation boards are often in competition with provincial boards, which are able to offer greater benefits and higher salaries. This sometimes results in a ``brain drain'', especially for language teachers, who are often actively recruited.
The formula funding dollars at the first level are intended to provide first-level services such as teachers' salaries, administration costs, instructional supplies, etc. This lack of funding often places pressure on first nations education authorities in terms of staffing, curriculum and programs.
It was mentioned previously about the formula funding. The example included in the handout we supplied notes that the current formula for the southern Ontario schools is just a little over $4,000 per student. That is inadequate. We have first nations that send first nations students to neighbouring provincial boards of education. Those boards of education charge the first nations anywhere from $6,000 to $17,000. There is quite a variance. That would be for students with special needs or technical programs. But I believe there is a very big difference and it results in inequity of funding. The formula definitely works against our communities.
The chart regarding the formula funding of north, central and southern schools simply illustrates the variance in funding within the province of Ontario. The northern communities do have additional costs to run their communities. We want to make it clear that we think all of the communities are underfunded, whether they be north, central or southern schools. Some studies should be undertaken with regard to comparison costs with provincial boards of education and what they feel is needed to deliver their systems.
In the transfer from federal to first nation control of education systems, many services have been lost. These services include professional development dollars, classroom support in terms of specialists and consultants in areas such as special education, and language support. The result is that the education authorities at the first nation level are often left to make many difficult decisions. In order to retain staff, which usually accounts for approximately 80% of any education budget, they're often forced to cut programs.
.1140
These types of services are what we refer to as second-level services, the supporting services for those first levels. You can see from the inadequate amount of the formula funding dollars that this is from where the first nation education authorities are forced to take those second-level dollars.
We have been involved with the coalition in the process of determining and documenting the need for second-level services and have a small amount of money to deliver second-level services to the member communities. The amount, however, is inadequate and will not nearly meet the needs that have been identified. The result is that students may not have access to some services and resources, such as computer technology programs and curriculum support, that students may have in provincial systems. What we've been hearing about time and time again are curriculum and language resources for the classroom teacher. It puts a great deal of strain on the communities.
In summary, I've suggested that the formula funding amount is inadequate to cover the costs of operating the schools. I would certainly support the request from the Assembly of First Nations that the formula funding system be reviewed and that it be based on need rather than on the existing allocation of funds.
Formula funding calculations for the large southern area schools do not consider any factors you need, such as the close proximity to larger provincial school boards. This means that our teachers are in competition with the provincial boards that can offer higher levels of salary. As I mentioned, this often results in a brain drain, particularly for the language teachers. Often native language program and teacher costs must come from the formula amount.
Factors such as devolution and downsizing by INAC need to be addressed within the context of education. It is extremely difficult to determine the applicable person-years, etc., as these positions and services decline. They should be transferred to first nations and not become lost in the process of transfer. It seems that in the past there has been almost a smoke-and-mirrors approach in the transfer to local control from federal systems.
As a former education director in a first nation community, I've found that it has created a great deal of strain at the local level and that many hard decisions have to be made regarding which programs have to be cut to maintain which teachers or programs. Even capital costs are coming out of those dollars in some cases. It has created unnecessary hardship. Many of these dollars are also subject to negotiation with local INAC offices and are not based on need, which also creates inequity in education funding.
The third area I would like to mention is the third level of first nation education funding, which relates to a need for research and development, or what we term visionary development in the first nations communities. Earlier, it was also mentioned briefly by the Assembly of First Nations.
We feel there's a need to support both first and second levels through some type of institute. We're suggesting that the federal government establish a national indigenous educational institute that would support the first nation education system across the country, and that this institute be responsive to community needs. It isn't a new idea. The idea that we need some kind of institute has been around for some time.
The AFN study on tradition and education has several recommendations that could be carried out through a national indigenous education institute. This is very much at a conceptual stage and should be developed according to the needs of the first nation communities.
.1145
It has also been mentioned in the MacPherson report, a response to the AFN study by Mr. James MacPherson, that such an institute is needed to serve as a focal point for long-range research and planning, teacher and administrator training, curriculum development, and other matters. These are some of the things local or provincial boards of education may have built in or the provincial ministry of education may deal with.
At this time we really don't have any kind of process to facilitate that type of long-term planning. We'd be looking at things such as first nation languages, policy analysis and development, learning styles and teaching methodologies, human resources development - there's a great need for policy development in that area - special education, post-secondary issues, and institutional relations.
A lot of things are happening, for example, in Ontario with the recently released task force report For the Love of Learning, which also includes some recommendations with regard to first nation education. One mentions a review of the formula funding system.
We'd be also looking at innovative programming for things such as cultural survival schools, communications through primarily electronic communications, and curriculum development.
We believe a national indigenous education institute would meet many of the needs across the country. We also refer to the red book commitment of the Liberal Party of Canada, which mentions that a Liberal government would establish, with the participation of aboriginal peoples, an aboriginal education institute that would specialize in curriculum development for aboriginal and non-aboriginal schools, teacher orientation, distance education, standards development, languages, literacy, and program development for the cultural survival of youth.
In summary, we believe it would be important to establish such an institute. We feel it must meet community needs and be flexible in design and delivery. We would like to see the federal Liberal government encouraged to implement this promised initiative as soon as possible, because the need is there.
At this point, I would like to turn the presentation over to John Peters, who will address language.
Mr. John Peters (Service Coordinator, Indigenous Education Coalition): Good morning. Thank you for having us today.
I'm here to talk about language. Language is the conduit through which culture is passed from one generation to the next. First nation languages and cultures are no exception to this concept. For generations elders have passed down stories and legends to the young first nations people through their languages. Unfortunately - and a little bit of history lesson here - active measures were taken by the federal government in the past to break this connection of language and culture. This was accomplished mainly through the government's assimilation policy and more specifically through the residential school systems.
We have data based on our research in southern Ontario, but the problem of language impacts on a national scale. First nation people across this country have suffered similar types of experiences regarding their languages. As a result, our peoples, our languages, and our cultures have suffered. The Assembly of First Nations has examined this issue in detail and produced a report entitled Towards Linguistic Justice for First Nations, which clearly documents the need for language and retention support.
I would specifically refer to the information that was sent out in your package, which was gathered from 16 participant communities in the Sweetgrass First Nations Language Council, incorporated as of March 1994. As you can see, the total population for those communities is approximately 43,747. Out of that population, only 1,415 people, or 3%, were fluent at that time.
.1150
In addition to this already disastrous situation, because a lot of our fluent speakers are older members of our society, we're losing these speakers every day as they pass from this life. So we're losing our national treasures.
The education system, which is largely responsible for this deplorable situation of first nation languages, can now serve as a vehicle for language revitalization and retention.
First nations education systems may now be providing some of those language classes or immersion programs, but there is no funding identified for these types of programs and there are no resources to get more, as was discussed earlier. So the first nations must stretch the already inadequate formula funding dollars even further if they choose to implement a language program. As Donna mentioned, there are difficult choices that first nations have to make as they are allocating those limited resources.
In contrast to this funding situation, provincial school boards can access dollars in addition to the already sometimes inflated tuition fees paid by first nation communities to the provincial boards. The Ministry of Education, at least in Ontario, will fund boards on a per-capita basis if they're offering a native program as a second language program.
When a school or community is fortunate enough to have access to a language program, often the insufficient financial resources are not the only stumbling block. The need for research and development and coordination of language services is paramount. First nation communities need access to support services in order to make their language programs successful.
Through our consultations, as Donna mentioned, over the past year with the 14 communities, language has been identified as one of the highest priorities in all of those communities. But we need to put in place support for those communities and to assist them in their struggle for linguistic and cultural survival.
An investment, I guess you could call it, in the first nation children is the commitment we're looking for from the federal government. Language and cultural survival, retention of those values that are passed through the language, will instil in our children the pride that was once felt by their grandfathers. It will restore the confidence that once belonged to all first nations people. So it's time that we take a serious look at allocating sufficient resources to sustain an effective language revitalization initiative. I think the rippling effect of such a positive endeavour would be far-reaching.
Where will the resources come from? As mentioned in your terms, we're to make recommendations that can be implemented within existing fiscal and budgetary resources, so we bring attention to a language budget, which could be redirected to first nation languages. I refer to the bilingualism bonus that is offered to federal employees. I'm not only bringing you a problem, I'm also bringing you a solution.
The 1993 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages states:
- This year approximately $50 million was once again spent without any assurance that the
payment of such a sum was necessary to ensure Canadians of the availability of quality services
in the official language of their choice.
This program has been funded annually, for how many years I don't know - that report was in 1993 - and as far as I know the program still exists. It was funded at a cost of $50 million.
How much has been spent on first nation languages? I don't have a figure for you, but we would argue that the amount spent doesn't near this $50 million mark. When this $50 million is reallocated to first nation people for language programming, it will offer cultural and linguistic survival to first nations people.
.1155
A recommendation that has come out of our findings with regard to language is that the federal government fund first nation language programs in order to carry out research and development, provide archiving services, and support community language revitalization and retention initiatives.
Time is limited and we could probably talk to you all afternoon about our findings and things we spoke with our first nation communities about in southern Ontario. But as Donna has shown in her overview of the process and some of the results, language is a primary concern for all of our first nation communities.
That ends our presentation. We are open to questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.
We will now go to question period. I will start off with Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy: Thank you for your presentation.
Let me come back to something I asked the previous group - and I think our chairman asked the same question: I'm having difficulty getting a handle on the funding formula. I know what it is now, but what practical things would you suggest for changes to that formula?
Ms Young: At the very least I would suggest that we follow up on the AFN suggestion that some kind of discussion begin to look at the formula. In the beginning the formula was arrived at far too quickly, it was mentioned, in the late 1980s, and it was based on what's called level 5 of the teacher salary grade. I believe it goes up to level 8 or level 7 under the formula of the federal system, which had at that time said, let's reallocate these existing resources. Times have changed significantly since then and the formula amount has not really gone up. It was never really based on need, and a good, hard look has never been taken at what the communities need in the transfer of education to the control of first nations.
I would suggest that some kind of consultation process begin. We don't want to mirror provincial systems, but perhaps that consultation process could include a look at the provincial funding allocations on a per-student allocation. That would address the issue of equity in education and our first nation students having the same opportunities as the other students in the province. They leave the first nations schools and go into the provincial system in many cases, and they should be prepared for that transition as well. Our system should be equal or superior to the provincial systems. I think the whole formula has to be looked at right from the beginning - how it was developed and why it was developed and what can be changed.
I don't have any alternative formula to give you at this time, but I think that of all the components, where it works against us in Ontario is the way everyone starts out the same. Everyone starts out with a base amount, but then other factors come into play like the administrative system allocation, the $20,000 for all the boards of education to manage that. There are also things like adjustment factors and geographical location - if you're in one area you get a little more - or the English as a second language factor. Those kinds of things are the variables involved in the final per-student allocation amount.
I think it's something that is going to take some time to look at, to see what else could meet the needs, because obviously this is not working right now.
The Chairman: Mr. Bonin.
Mr. Bonin: I'll try to be more brief this time. I've asked the question many times about the cost per student. It's very difficult to make a comparison because it seems each jurisdiction includes different things in that cost, so I won't spend much time on it. I don't like to compare apples to oranges. We can never validate the comparison because it's different everywhere.
.1200
You mentioned that the difference between the aboriginal community schools and the public system is paid by the aboriginal communities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought DIAND paid the difference.
Ms Young: I'm sure you're aware that under the tuition agreements, the first nation communities purchase those services for their students who attend school off-territory, whether it be generally because there is no school located in that community or for another reason. In most of our communities those dollars are now handled through the first nation community.
I see that you're saying that INAC is where the dollars come from. But to echo the comments of the chief from B.C. this morning, we believe education is an inherent aboriginal right and that the Government of Canada is obligated to honour the treaty commitments and trust responsibilities, including education. That is where the premise of the funding of tuition agreements comes from.
Mr. Bonin: I asked the question to get it on record. The impression was given that the additional cost to purchase services was taken from the local pool, but it's not. It's subsidized.
Ms Young: No. The tuition agreements are a separate funding item. They are not under formula funding.
Mr. Bonin: That's right, so it's not correct to say they're paid for by the aboriginal community.
Ms Young: That is a point as well, because the department will pay whatever the local provincial board of education is asking if they go up year to year for those students' education. But if I'm at the first nation community level and my costs go up year to year - my teachers' salaries go up on a grid, gas is more expensive or whatever in my community school - I'm not getting any significant increase because of the limitations of the formula funding system.
Mr. Bonin: I understand that.
What is your pupil-teacher ratio and who does that include? Here again, we have different answers all the time. Is the psychologist included in it? Is the principal included in it? In our boards everybody is included.
Ms Young: It's a very complex question. It also varies from provincial board of education to provincial board of education, just as it varies from first nation board of education to first nation board of education.
Generally speaking, when we determine the pupil-to-teacher ratios, we would include the full-time teaching staff in that component, the ones who are available for the students. I would not include the consultants, which most of the schools don't have anyway, or the administrators, because they don't have the direct, one-to-one contact with the students. At this point the pupil-teacher ratio varies maybe from 1:18 to 1:30, depending on how it's calculated.
Mr. Bonin: Are you talking numbers of students in a class, or is it pupil-teacher ratio?
Ms Young: Pupil-teacher ratio.
Mr. Bonin: Is it 30?
Ms Young: Yes.
Mr. Bonin: I have a final question. I've been trying...and we're nearing the end of our witnesses and I'd like some help. When I ask this question, I get a course on history. I've heard it many times and I agree with everything that was said before. The fact remains that because we missed a generation of language in your communities - whether it's the federal government's fault or not, I'm not disputing - we're trying to recuperate that and it's very important that we do. It's mandatory that we do.
But more time spent in the schools trying to recuperate language and culture, which I agree with - how do we balance this with giving the students the proper tools so that when they go to the public grade 9, they have a chance to compete with others? If you spend more time on language and culture, what are you doing with the sciences?
I'm looking at practical solutions. What do we do? Do we add 30 minutes to the school day? Let's try to find a solution for this, because it's a real problem. I think the students, while they are regaining their language and culture, are not educated fairly in the other subjects. Please help us out so we can get a recommendation.
Ms Young: The basic premise that's been put forth is that the language and culture are separate from the regular school program. We ascertain that it isn't. We see it as being the need for a holistic approach to first nation systems. There's no reason why the language and the culture cannot be incorporated into the day-to-day curriculum, integrated throughout the curriculum.
.1205
You mentioned science. What we need to do is develop curriculum - environmental studies or science programs - based in the first nation communities, while at the same time incorporating maybe some of the basic components of the education system...while meeting those curriculum requirements, to go on. That's part of the challenge we have, but there's no reason why we can't do that. If our teachers are trained in that, there's no reason they can't build it into their day-to-day program.
I think that's a major reason for the transfer, for the takeover of education of the communities - to be able to incorporate the language and culture of those first nation communities into the school system.
Mr. Peters: I have one comment. I guess by your question you're inferring that first nations schools have so much language and cultural content that we're not providing them with the basic skills they need to get a basic education. I would ask you, where is this occurring?
Mr. Bonin: This is the problem we're having. You may be familiar with your system and you may be doing a heck of a good job. If that's true, you don't need this committee. We don't need this committee for the jurisdictions where it's going well. We're trying to help those we visited. When I ask these questions, it's not to help you if you're doing it well; it's to use your expertise to help the others. Your answer is good - professional development, curriculum development. There's none there. So we have a real dilemma for those boards.
I'll repeat myself. In regard to the good ones, the ones that are performing well, offering a good service to the students, that's not why we established this committee. We're not helping people who don't need help; we're asking you to help us help the others. So our questions sometimes may frustrate you, but we've seen these things. How do we help them?
Ms Young: I think all of the communities we deal with have identified a need for support in the area of language and cultural programming at the school level. Of course, there are varying degrees of that, but we haven't had any community say they're perfectly happy with the way this is running now. That's partly why the Indigenous Education Coalition exists, to help support them in their efforts.
Mr. Peters: Just for clarification, are there schools that are providing so much language and curriculum that they're not getting the regular...?
Mr. Bonin: In my view, definitely yes, and not just a few.
Mr. Peters: You don't have specific examples of systems?
Mr. Bonin: [Inaudible] system, but it will be part of our discussion in our report.
Mr. Peters: It will be in your report.
Mr. Bonin: What I would like to hear is, if you have professional development and curriculum development, how you can share with the others who don't, because they don't have the ability to develop it themselves. Somebody is going to have to come around and say, here, we're going to help these guys, or at least we'll make it available.
Mr. Peters: I think your question speaks to the direct need for the national institute that Donna spoke of.
Mr. Bonin: Donna has been speaking of that since we got together, and you're the first one I can recall to put it in your presentation. That's excellent.
Mr. Peters: We'll pick up the cheque on our way out.
Mr. Bonin: But it will bounce.
Mr. Peters: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: The briefing documents prepared for us by the Library of Parliament refer to a declaration of Political Intent that was apparently signed in 1986. It says in your presentation or perhaps in those briefing documents - I don't really remember where I saw that - that the first subject to be dealt with is precisely education. Can you tell me whether anything else was dealt with apart from education? That declaration has been signed for almost 10 years now. Has only education been dealt with? Where are things at? Are we now at the presentation that you made today?
My second question is with regard to brokerage. I saw in your papers that you use various brokerage service providers. Are these service providers aboriginal people and could you give us a few examples of the services you provide to members of your Coalition?
.1210
Finally, you mention the National Indigenous Education Institute, which was promised in the Red Book, but you also talk about a language institute. Couldn't the National Indigenous Education Institute have a language division or do you think that they have to be separate?
[English]
Ms Young: You have three elements. First, you question the declaration of political intent process, and I am referring specifically to Ontario. The Indigenous Education Coalition is a technical group; we're non-political. I'm not really comfortable addressing that question because that's a political initiative within the province of Ontario, but my understanding is that it is ten years old, was a result of the statement of political intent that was signed by Ontario, Canada, and the first nations of Ontario to have an equal working relationship on behalf of first nations people.
One of the initiatives that resulted from that statement of political intent was this declaration of political intent process, which did recognize education as being one of the major issues that had to be dealt with in Ontario. That is why it was the number one priority, and I think has been probably up to this time.
That is where our project was funded from, and that's why it's referred to. We were equally funded by Canada and Ontario to do the developmental work in regard to the coalition. That process has now ended, but the DPI process, as I understand it, also dealt with some justice issues, the education issue, and it may have dealt with one or two issues of which I am not aware at this point.
That's my understanding of the DPI process. With the new government in Ontario, I am unclear as to its present situation. Was that sufficient?
Mr. Bachand: Yes.
Ms Young: The second question you had was in regard to brokering. We feel that our coalition is unique in that we've received direction from the participants that brokering may be a good way to go with this. The reason for that is to keep the administrative costs as low as possible and to be able to access the expertise that's already out there.
We now have more people with expertise in various areas; however, it's still limited. We certainly don't want to be accessing or trying to get staff that are already existing and working at the community level. So we're hoping just to work with consultants in various areas, because our community needs vary so much. One community school may have a need for a special education consultant in a specific area, whereas the school a few miles away may really want to have a series of professional development workshops. What we would do is contact the professionals or the people the community has identified to us - and hopefully there are community people from that first nation to provide that service - and coordinate that service delivery. That's what John is involved in.
We think it's a good concept. We're just starting out but I think it's workable, and we're able to access a variety of resource people and materials. We are also coordinating existing materials and resources rather than reinventing all the time, trying to see what's here and what's there, to bring it to one central location and to make it accessible to our member communities.
Some of the areas we work in specifically are special education support, coordination of language, curriculum support, and institutional support, which is primarily working with the boards of education. There's been a need for things like looking at some of the tuition agreements or just policy development, those types of things.
.1215
The third issue of the national institute - we also had mentioned the need for a language institute. Certainly there's a need in both areas. I know that the AFN studies have consistently called for the language institute as well. In regard to what we've said previously, that the language and the culture are intertwined, that the language carries the culture, I think there would be a possibility of looking into merging the two, subject to input from first nations across the country.
The Chairman: Mr. Taylor, did you have a quick question?
Mr. Taylor: Yes. I'm not completely certain of the application of some of this stuff through the provinces. I'm just looking for some clarification of whether the Ontario and some of the Saskatchewan models that I am aware of are similar.
I've just returned from meetings with some of the bands in my constituency. One of them is the Witchekan Lake Band, north of Spiritwood in northwest Saskatchewan. That band relies on the provincial school system to educate its students. They have to bus their students into the town of Spiritwood. These are just details for information purposes, not useful for the general discussion.
They rely on the provincial system to provide the education of their students. The band indicates that this year they have about 100 students in the system who are transferred from the reserve into the provincial school system. They've been anxious for the provincial school system to provide a Cree language education program for their students. The division board refuses to provide the Cree language education for those students unless the band pays 100% of the costs for that program. The band obviously doesn't have the special funding necessary to pay the additional cost, despite the fact that there is a tuition agreement between the band and the school board.
I assume that situation is not much different from any other place in the country, but I'm wondering about your experience. What obligation is there on the part of the federal government to work with provincial units, where they're the only education body available, to ensure that language or cultural training is available for students of bands dependent upon them?
Ms Young: We can really only speak from the perspective of Ontario. What we have in that province is the native as a second language program that was brought in under the previous government. It states that if you have 15 or more students in the provincial school system who want to take the native as a second language program, the board is obligated to provide that program. I don't know if any other provinces or territories have that program.
The problems that come into play are lack of language teachers, lack of curriculum support for those language teachers and for those programs at the provincial level. There are not that many examples of the program being implemented. I don't think at this point that the province is obligated in any way to allocate special dollars to provide those services.
The only tool we have at this point is the tuition agreements. If you have a first nation paying x number of dollars, say a million dollars, to the neighbouring provincial board of education to provide that service for the first nation students, in the negotiation process you might write that into the legal tuition agreement - that they will provide a language teacher or a language program or other services for the students. But it's subject to the negotiation process, unless the province or territory has specific legislation or Orders in Council in regard to those services.
The Chairman: We were advised by DIAND that approximately $8.2 million a year was spent on cultural and education centres, and that part of their mandate is language development. Do these cultural centres link up with the first nations educational authorities, and if not, what mechanism needs to be put in place for them to do so?
.1220
Ms Young: The $8.2 million is the total funding allocation to the cultural and education centres. From our experience - and again, we can only speak for the southern Ontario region - there has been a language consultants program in place that is underfunded and has yet to meet the challenges of a number of first nation languages. That's the only program I'm aware of and I'm not sure if it's even still operational, but it is definitely insignificant with regard to the needs that have been identified at the first nation level. There is a great need for a language support system.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I would just like to say, regarding the educational institute, that I am 300% in favour of it.
Thank you very much for coming before us this morning. We appreciate your presentation and I'm sure it will help us in writing our report.
The meeting is adjourned.