Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of June 1, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues concerning First Nations education).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. They will be watching either on CPAC or on the web. I am Senator Gerry St. Germain. I am from British Columbia and have the honour and the privilege of chairing this committee.
The committee is undertaking a study of primary and secondary education of First Nations children living on reserve. This morning, the committee has invited witnesses from First Nation education authorities in Manitoba and Ontario. They will testify in one panel, beginning with the Northern Nishnawbe Education Council and the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre. They will be followed by the second panel, consisting of the Indigenous Education Coalition and the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association.
[Translation]
But before hearing from our witnesses, allow me to introduce the committee members that are here today.
[English]
Senator Lovelace Nicholas is from the province of New Brunswick. Senator Lillian Dyck, the deputy chair of the committee, is from Saskatchewan. Senator Bob Peterson is also from Saskatchewan. Senator Jacques Demers is from the province of Quebec. Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen is from New Brunswick and Senator Patrick Brazeau is from the province of Quebec. Senator Rose-May Poirier is from New Brunswick. Senator Vim Kochhar is from the province of Ontario.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses. They are, from Northern Nishnawbe Education Council, Barry McLoughlin, Director of Lifelong Learning, and, from the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, Gwen Merrick, Associate Executive Director. Also at the table, from the Indigenous Education Coalition, we have Bruce Stonefish, Executive Director, and from the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association, Cindy Fisher, President.
I will first call on Mr. McLoughlin and Ms. Merrick, and then Mr. Stonefish and Ms. Fisher. Members of the panel, welcome to the committee. Relax. This is not a formal setting, and we do not want you to be nervous because we are proud to have you here. With that, I call on Mr. McLoughlin to make his presentation.
Barry McLoughlin, Director of Lifelong Learning, Northern Nishnawbe Education Council: Good morning. I am Director of Lifelong Learning with the Northern Nishnawbe Education Council.
Northern Nishnawbe Education Council, NNEC, is based in Sioux Lookout, Ontario. If you have been watching the playoffs, Ryan Parent, from the Philadelphia Flyers, is from Sioux Lookout. If you drive north northwest for about 20 hours, you will be in Sioux Lookout. It is about an hour from Dryden, home of Chris Pronger of the Philadelphia Flyers.
Sioux Lookout is the hub for the Northern Nishnawbe Education Council. Northern Nishnawbe Education Council is a program of the chiefs, and this is important in terms of governance. It is owned and incorporated by the chiefs of 24 First Nations across the Sioux Lookout District, which is a 200,000-square-kilometre region of Northwest Ontario. In many ways, it is out of sight and out of mind to discussions that often go on about First Nations education.
This organization has been in place for over 25 years. It evolved as a response historically to the white paper of then Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien. The white paper was introduced that spawned a political movement right across this country. The theme of that movement was First Nations control of First Nations education. NNEC is a strong model of that movement.
In my capacity as Director of Lifelong Learning with NNEC, I am in senior management, and I am responsible for administration of post-secondary funds for 24 communities. In terms of governance, when I read the Usher report on post-secondary education, I was deeply concerned. There was no consultation with NNEC of any kind. One of the options proposed had to do with regional First Nations organizations administering post-secondary dollars. Alex Usher continued by pretty much writing that option off because, politically, can you imagine trying to bring chiefs together to agree on a common education policy? Well, we have it. We have had it in place for over 25 years.
We are looking at a 200,000-square-kilometre area of Northwest Ontario, 24 First Nation communities, one common education policy for post-secondary and one common intake procedure. Right now, we are working on intake for post- secondary, and roughly 500 students will be sponsored to go out. The majority of them go to Thunder Bay. We have two post-secondary counsellors there. About 150 will go to Thunder Bay to Confederation College or Lakehead University. I am deeply concerned about some of the assumptions about governance and education.
The other issue is professional capacity building. I had the privilege, in 1990, of sitting in a teacherage in Mishkeegogamang, or Osnaburgh First Nation, with Archbishop Desmond Tutu. There were three of us. We had a meal. He enjoyed his McCain chocolate cake. I think that was the highlight for him. He was shocked at that time, back in 1990. I have a major in history, graduated from the University of Toronto, but I did not learn my Canadian history until I went to teach in Big Trout Lake. The Oka crisis was going on at that time as well. Archbishop Tutu was shocked by conditions that existed in Mishkeegogamang in 1990. He explained to me he could not understand how Prime Minister Mulroney, who had done so much as a partner — the key word is partner — for equality for South Africa, with apartheid dismantling, could let these conditions exist in Canada. However, they did, and they do.
The suicide rates in our region are out of control. Young people need hope. Education is such a key to that hope. I apologize for speaking about post-secondary, but it connects to secondary and elementary, and the whole lifelong journey. The whole history of social policy, Government of Canada policy, concerning post-secondary education has to do with professional capacity-building first, not saving money in education accounts for individuals. It is about professional capacity-building in remote communities. That is critical. The nurses; we had 54 post-secondary graduates last year. One of the graduates graduated from Osgoode Hall and is now working in the legal area for First Nations.
This year we have projected 70 post-secondary graduates. One of them is our first medical doctor, who graduated through the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. These professionals are urgently needed. The key to their success is a strong elementary, secondary and post-secondary education.
I strongly contend that regional First Nations organizations in education are critical and should be respected as partners, not subordinates. NNEC operates three high schools and we provide intake for secondary. We operate Dennis Franklin Cromarty High School in Thunder Bay. We operate Pelican Falls First Nations High School, which is outside of Sioux Lookout, on traditional Lac Seul territory, and we operate Wahsa Distance Education Centre, which has been in place since the mid-1990s.
Right now, it has been critically reviewed by the department. Its funding may be in jeopardy. What saddens me is that Wahsa, when it was set up for 24 First Nations, was intended historically for students who had gone out, tried school, for whatever reason things did not work out — often social reasons, went back to their communities, had children and were working. Young mothers with children want to pursue post-secondary and they need a high school diploma. Wahsa was introduced to address that need. The program is crucial in northwest Ontario. Over 300 students have graduated through Wahsa Distance Education Centre. Those who graduate, if you look at post-secondary data, have done extremely well in post-secondary.
NNEC also needs to provide a boarding home program for students who come to Thunder Bay and Pelican Falls for high school. These programs are extremely expensive, but this is an extremely crucial issue.
NNEC also is a partner with Brock University in St. Catharines, and in my capacity I am responsible for the partnership with Brock. We administer a Bachelor of Education program for community members in those remote communities.
When I say remote communities, we have a couple of communities that we can drive to by highway. The rest are all fly-in communities. The district spans as far north as Fort Severn on the Hudson Bay coast.
Of deep concern to me now, if we move from governance to delivery, is that an organization like NNEC has structures in place for secondary level and for the training of local community members to become teachers in those communities and for the administration of post-secondary money.
What deeply concerns me across the board is that the Auditor General is looking for results, which is understandable. The system is now being assessed based on results, which is understandable. However, one critical issue is being overlooked. When we look at the trends of funding, for instance, a student who comes from a community such as Kasabonika First Nation and goes to a provincial high school, compared to a student who stays home and goes to the local First Nations high school, the disparity in funding formulas is absurd. This pattern exists across the country. The best analogy I have heard is that to go from Grade 9 to Grade 12, I need one tank of gas each year. It will take me four tanks of gas to go from Grade 9 to Grade 12 in a provincial school system. If I receive only two thirds of a tank of gas in unit funding per individual student per year, the only fair result to measure is in six years. It will take six fill-ups of two thirds of a tank to go where I want to go.
The underfunding per unit per individual student rate is not news. There have been protests, sit-ins, and hunger strikes. I heard a tone on the radio the other day that disturbed me. I will not say who, but it was about a politician in the First Nations community. The comment was, "Oh, he is angry again." The tone was almost like, "Oh, he is always angry."
He has every right to be angry. There is a treaty right to an equitable education service. Students have the right to have an equitably resourced, funded school in their community. For some reason, it is not happening as it should. Yes, there is First Nations control of First Nation education but future funding will be based now on results. To have the results, we need a full tank of gas every year.
The Chair: Mr. McLoughlin, I have three presenters and we want to ask questions. It is not that I want to cut you off in any way, shape or form, but I think the clerk advised you that we want time for questions, sir.
Mr. McLoughlin: Absolutely; thank you.
The Chair: Continue if you want to wrap up, by all means.
Mr. McLoughlin: One final comment has to do with the relationship between the Government of Canada, First Nations and the province. That relationship already exists with NNEC. NNEC invites the ministry to come in and inspect the high schools for accreditation purposes, but curricula and administration are still First Nations-controlled. In regard to schools of hope, it is all about hope for young people, and I believe the treaty right to an equitable service is urgent, not only in our area but across the board.
Gwen Merrick, Associate Executive Director, Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre: Good morning. I first want to describe the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre. The centre was established in 1998 to provide coordinated education services to First Nations schools, education authorities and boards. We were established by the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Chiefs in Assembly, upon a recommendation by the education directors, to use the funding from education reform, Gathering Strength, to pool the money and create a service centre.
We serve all of Manitoba but we serve only First Nations-controlled schools. There are more than 49 First Nations in Manitoba, 57 schools and approximately 18,000 students from the 2008-09 nominal roll. We have 13 First Nations high schools offering a grade 12 program. There are five nations within Manitoba territory: Anishinabe, Ininew, Dakota, Oji- Cree and Dene.
Geographically, the First Nations we serve are spread from the far north, some of which are isolated, to the south. We serve all of Manitoba's First Nations.
We have a governance model, of course; we are incorporated, but we report to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. We have a board of directors. We report to the Executive Council of Chiefs, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who in turn report to the Chiefs in Assembly. The education directors who have met for over 30 years, since local control under the auspices of AMC, are our advisory group.
The processes and structures used are based on that model. Whenever a new decision must be made regarding programs or a slight change in our mandate, we use that process. When we were given the responsibility to access the funding through the First Nation Student Success Program, FNSSP, and the Education Partnerships Program, EPP — I do not know if you are familiar with those programs — we used that process.
We have a board. When we need to change something, we go to the education directors. At times, they convene a working group to work with us. Then, in turn, we go to the Executive Council of Chiefs who approve it, and to the Chiefs in Assembly where a resolution is considered to support whatever we want to do. The Chiefs in Assembly have supported us consistently and we are appreciative of that support.
That basic system works well. When the First Nation Student Success Program and the Education Partnership Program were parachuted in, we were not aware of them. There was a perception that the programs were imposed upon us, but they are good programs. The only problem people had was they felt the programs were imposed. We were already doing all the things that were recommended there, except assessment and performance measurement.
It is difficult for us to go through any kind of decision-making process. However, we were able to go through the whole process and arrive at resolutions from the Chiefs in Assembly in two months, respecting all the stakeholders.
That speaks to structures and governance that can be developed by First Nations. We have the basic parts of a system in Manitoba. Yes, the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre is only one small part of what a system would be, but processes have been developed and resolutions have been passed that can evolve into legislation, and authority can remain with First Nations. We have proven that approach can work and we have proven that working with people in an honest and open way, providing necessary information and respecting them, works.
However, there must be a belief that First Nations believe in education for their children. There is no First Nation parent who does not want a good education for their children. People have to believe that and act in that way.
Regarding partnerships with provinces, we have many partnerships but they are all based on the notion of mutual benefit and respect. We have many partnerships that fit that criterion. It is possible to do things in a way that is rooted in the First Nations philosophy — ways of knowing and ways of doing things — and be accountable at the same time.
Bruce Stonefish, Executive Director, Indigenous Education Coalition:
[Mr. Stonefish spoke in his native language.]
The language I spoke is from my community, the Delaware Nation. We moved to our current location in the late 1700s. Only one person spoke English at that time. We lost our last first language speaker four months ago. It has been a total reversal. That is telling of the type of education system legacy we faced in First Nations education.
I am the Executive Director for the Indigenous Education Coalition. We represent 13 First Nations in a couple of urban centres. We have seven band-operated schools. I am also somewhat unique in that I am also a First Nations trustee for the Lambton-Kent District School Board in southwestern Ontario. I see both sides of the provincial system and the First Nations or band-operated system.
Our organization is what we call a school support organization for First Nations schools. We are supposed to — I say "supposed to" — offer the type of services that public school boards offer their schools: curriculum development, teacher profession development, research, et cetera. We also offer different services that support classroom, teachers and administrators, but we do it under a budget that is not even comparable.
We are trying to define and realize what success is in First Nations schools. I am also a doctoral student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. I prepared a report that was a review of 35 years of First Nations education reports, starting with the 1972 Indian Control of Indian Education. One of the last papers I reviewed was a report card on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP.
The interesting thing to note is that, over that 35-year period, each report talked about four main components. The first was culturally appropriate curriculum; the second was culturally appropriate teaching practices; the third was language inclusion or instruction; and the fourth was jurisdiction.
All 35 years of reports said the exact same thing. The conclusion to my report for Harvard was that either our First Nations education or our purpose and vision of what success means in First Nations education is not understood, or it is being resisted in that there is an understanding of what our purpose and vision is for education but we simply do not want to fund it.
It is ironic that I am here again saying those same four things, which makes it 39 years that we are still talking about the same things. When I look at our schools and the supports in our organization, we try to provide professional development for teachers. We try to provide curriculum development, and we are biting off small pieces trying to support our schools. We have a great partnership with Lambton Kent, probably because I am there voicing my opinion as much as I can. We are starting to make inroads.
We work under two scenarios: We have band-operated schools and some of our students attend public schools. When we develop curricula for our First Nations, we have a little bit of leeway, but we do not have our own freedom and flexibility.
Within our funding from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, we are required to follow the provincial guidelines for curriculum and for teacher certification.
When I look at the provincial schools that our kids attend, they have a real problem with cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity and, in turn, student engagement.
The reason they have that problem is that everybody is a product of the same education system that has taught them nothing about First Nations education. We have come to realize the impact of, and make an apology for, the residential schools only a few years ago. Treaty education has been mandated through the Ipperwash Inquiry only a few years ago. These things are all pivotal to understanding First Nations communities, First Nations social realities and First Nations vision of our education system and what we want for the future of our students.
Nowhere in the Ontario College of Teachers is there certification to teach native studies. To teach math, primary kids or intermediate kids, they must take certifications and courses to teach in those areas. When it comes to native studies, there is no qualification. In Ontario, the only things they learn in native studies are about pioneers in Grade 3, a little in social studies in Grade 6 and a little in Grade 10, if they are lucky to fit it in. The reason I say if they are lucky in Grade 10 to fit it in is they have this saying: 16 by 16. Students need to have 16 compulsory courses by the time they reach age 16, and native studies is not one of those compulsory courses, so the whole education system in Ontario has taught us nothing about First Nations education.
Regarding the purpose and vision of First Nations education, when it comes to curriculum development, purpose and vision are the following: teaching practices, language inclusion, the importance of language and our own jurisdiction. Regarding education for the board, we talk a great deal about literacy, numeracy and school safety. When we talk about First Nations, education is more of a healing process. We have parents that do not value education. We have grandparents that have horrible experiences from the education system. I have kids who stay home; the parent does not send them to school because they do not think that that education is of any value.
We have an outlook on education where it has to become a healing process. When we think about the Ontario curriculum, the curriculum builds students to become successful, contributing citizens of Ontario and Canada. We want the same thing for First Nations. We want our students to become successful, contributing citizens of our First Nations. We envision a great deal in social and economic development so that First Nations can become self-sufficient. That is our education vision. How does that vision translate to curriculum, teaching practices and our jurisdiction?
I know I am throwing a lot of information at you. I have specific things that I can go through, and maybe these things will come up in the questions about curriculum and teaching practices. I have spent a good 18 years in education. Seven minutes is not a lot of time to give my opinion about that experience, but that is a little bit of where I am coming from in First Nations education.
The Chair: We hope to expand on it through the questions process, Mr. Stonefish.
Now we go to Ms. Fisher who is the president of the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association. Go ahead, please, Ms. Fisher.
Cindy Fisher, President, Ontario Native Education Counselling Association: Thank you, good morning and bonjour.
[Ms. Fisher spoke in her native language.]
My Christian name is Cindy Fisher. I am the president of the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association, and I am the education director for the Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation. That is a position I hold now, and I have worked for the First Nation for the past 38 years, so I welcome this opportunity to tell you what it is like from the ground up, but that is later.
I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to speak to the members of the Senate this morning. I pray our dialogue will assist in providing a positive outcome in creating a meaningful future for our children. We are all aware of the Canadian pride felt during the Olympics. Now imagine that pride many times over. That is what we will feel when Aboriginal people take their rightful place in Canada.
We cannot separate, or address segments of, education. All areas are interconnected and must be addressed in lifelong learning. The teaching from cradle to grave is at the heart and soul of Aboriginal education.
The Ontario Native Education Counselling Association has been in existence for the past 25 years, and has been able to fulfill its mandate of providing training, professional development and support to First Nation counsellors. ONECA, with a current paid membership of 180 members, is a recognized representative for First Nation counsellors. We are unique in the sense that we have a specific mandate to First Nation education counsellors who are employed with First Nation communities, school boards and various agencies that support native youth through academic achievement.
We have been incorporated as a non-profit organization since 1985, and through our organizational structure, ONECA has maintained contact with the 133 First Nation communities in Ontario through our district representatives and our main office.
ONECA continues to support First Nation education counsellors and recognizes the pivotal role counsellors play within the education system. The work of counsellors at the grassroots level and the post-secondary level is the essential building block in the education system's foundation.
ONECA has established a service standard through the development of the native counsellor training program, which has been accredited by the education ministry and has been successful since its inception in 1977 with upwards of 450 graduates.
Counsellors are one of the key elements that promote, prepare and guide students to reach and achieve their goals. Counsellors' job descriptions and duties may vary depending on their place of employment, but they are all committed to ensuring student success and positive outcomes, and they are responsible for promoting and assisting students to achieve their educational goals.
The roles of the education counsellor are as follows: to provide social, mental and emotional counselling; to provide career and guidance academic planning; to plan and coordinate educational events; to plan and provide life skills and job readiness workshops; to provide cultural sensitivity and organize spiritual workshops; to monitor student achievement and progress; to coordinate academic and special needs services to students; to research and collate scholarship and bursary information; to access and locate funding or administer financial resources, including, for some of our counsellors, responsibility for administering the total First Nation education budget in their communities. The roles vary, so that some counsellors negotiate tuition agreements, and some look after bus transportation contracts. The roles are varied and they have a lot of responsibility.
Other roles of education counsellors are as follows: to motivate, encourage and communicate with students; to participate and contribute to student education plans; to collect data and provide reports to funding agencies; to maintain and submit budgets to their departments; to meet with educators to bridge transition programs, and transitions between levels; to communicate with institutions and students; to communicate with all stakeholders; to facilitate parental engagement; to locate resources for educators; to participate in committees and strategic planning sessions, et cetera.
First Nations in Ontario who have counsellors receive $36,000 per year to cover the salary, benefits, professional development and travel for the counsellors. Judging from the responsibility and the role of the counsellor, one can fairly say that these positions are not properly resourced, and that this role would equal more than one position in mainstream Canada. We expect our counsellors to do a tremendous lot of work; it is unreal what some of our counsellors face.
The main focus of the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association over the past two years has been on post- secondary education. The possibility of having this program removed by Canada is a serious threat. The Post- Secondary Student Support Program was created in the early 1970s and has funded what has become essentially the first generation of post-secondary graduates. Prior to that time, there were no First Nations schools. Residential schools were not focused on preparing First Nations for post-secondary education.
I want to say one thing about residential schools. If nothing is done now about education for our young people, it is our children Canada will be apologizing to in Parliament. It is unreal what Canada is doing to our children right now. You would not place your children in that position, and yet you expect us to do it.
Also note that the Indian Act required First Nations to enfranchise prior to 1951 if they were going to attend post- secondary. The post-secondary student program is probably one of INAC's most successful programs, and last year, it funded 27,000 First Nation learners. These numbers could have been higher, had the 2 per cent cap not been in place. It is estimated that between 2001 and 2006, 10,000 students were unable to access funding because it was not available. Each year, the number of wait-listed and deferred students continues to grow, so the gap between First Nations and mainstream attainment levels also continues to grow.
I am not a big fan of the Alex Usher report for the Educational Policy Institute, which was commissioned by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, but it said that if First Nations met the educational level of the rest of Canadians, it would mean an influx of billions of dollars to the economy by 2017. Education for First Nations is an investment, and Canada needs to begin looking at it as an investment. Counsellors play an integral role in facilitating the local and regional administration of post-secondary programs. The reporting guides are there. We had them ready to bring, as well as other material, but I found out that we cannot bring it here unless it is in two languages. Anyway, the guides are there. It is not that counselors are not reporting, which they are doing, but it is what is happening with the information. There has to be an investment in that program to collect the data and understand it.
In a recent paper commissioned by AFN, the economist, Bert Waslander from Informetrica, identified that we need at least 65,000 graduates today to achieve parity with mainstream Canada. To reach this target, we have a lot of work ahead.
We also forwarded a copy of the report, Walk in Our Moccasins: A Comprehensive Study Of Aboriginal Education Counselors In Ontario, which was prepared by Dr. Pamela Toulouse. I understand part of that report has been translated. We have that report with us. In the study, we found common factors and themes right across Manitoba at all levels of lifelong learning that contribute to Aboriginal student retention and graduation practices: parental, guardian and community involvement of education at all levels; full-time native education counsellors at home in their education locations; ethical spaces devoted to native students that have academic, human and physical resources that are culturally relevant; curriculum policies that are inclusive and honour native peoples; culturally competent education staff that are committed to equity; career pathway tools that are culturally meaningful and encourage the gifts of the individual; and financial support that facilitates full involvement in the school and well-being at home. Also, issues facing the native education counsellor, and student preparedness and wellness issues, which Mr. McLoughlin talked about: We cannot expect our students to be prepared when there are big gaps in moving from the elementary systems in First Nations to high school. As well, issues from the report are: underfunding and limited resources for students; systemic racism and ignorance; limited time, space and staff; parental engagement; and communications with First Nations.
There are key challenges. The roles and responsibilities of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have not been identified. INAC has not put in place many of the measures and systems that we would expect to see for monitoring educational progress. Therefore, INAC has difficulty measuring successes.
First Nation schools are not equitably funded, while they must deliver programs comparable to those of the provinces. As I said earlier, I am a First Nation education director. One thing that I am told when I talk to INAC about the level of funding is that we receive comparable funding. I took all the money we receive for council-operated schools — school operations and maintenance — and if we compare the rates per square foot between the provincial schools and the federal schools, we see a big difference. They were not comparable. An audit report prepared last year talked about the capital projects as well.
I also included enhanced teacher salary and low-cost special education planning and design. That gave us a total of $660,663. We have 81 students. To calculate the per-student rate, I used simple division and did not use any formulas. It works out to $8,156 per student. Of the 81 students, 58 are at the elementary level. If they were to go to Marathon High School, which is 15 to 20 minutes away, Canada would provide $15,211.53. We have 23 high school students. Canada will provide secondary education tuition fees of $17,131.88. If Canada can provide those dollars to a board to educate our kids, why can they not give it to us? What is the difference? We need to question that.
If we had that budget, we would receive a budget of $1,276,301 per year to run our schools. What is holding that money back? I seriously question that. Is it really Treasury Board guidelines? Is it the glass ceiling out there if we become too smart or too good? Who is feeling good by keeping us down? That is one thing. I question that.
We have to stop saying "INAC." I was thinking about that last night. INAC is becoming the scapegoat for Canada. Instead of Canada accepting its responsibility, INAC is the scapegoat. Canada is responsible. Everyone in this room is responsible. I cannot understand why this is happening. I am leaving my notes but I have to make one more point, and then that is it.
First Nations do not have secured funding to support capacity-building and provide third-level services. There is none. Look right across Canada. Where are the curriculum development units? Where is our ministry of education? Ontario spends well over $20 billion on education. Where is ours? Canada has to stop this.
Pic River First Nation, where I am from, is small. According to the audit, which I brought with me, between 2003 and 2009, we spent $1.5 million from our source revenue to keep our school running, and we are not even providing the available programming. The teachers in the school board nearest to us are trained by the world's leader in oral language. We are managing but the gap is becoming wider and wider. What will happen to our kids when they have to compete in the mainstream? Will they be at the same level? They have that disadvantage.
In essence, Pic River is bailing out Canada. Unfortunately, this cannot continue. Two weeks ago, there were major cuts. We had to cut our educational assistants. We have to cut a teacher. We have to cut all our support staff. Then last night, the final budget, again, there were big-time cuts. What will happen to our children?
I came home from the meeting about the first cuts and my grandchildren were playing outside. I looked at them and I thought, why are they not worth it? Come to our school and look at our kids. Go to any school in any First Nation and look at the kids and tell me why they are not worth it. Why are they not worth it? Why are our kids only worth one half the funding? Why are you allowing Canada to continue to devalue our kids? Yet, you expect them to grow and to be strong? A lot of things need to happen. Our students not only need to know who they are as Nishnawbe, they need to be confident in who they are. We all talk about self-esteem and how important self-esteem is, but it is more important to have self-control. Those are the things that we lost and we are just getting back.
Seven generations is not a long time. With these eyes, I have seen seven generations. I am a proud member of the Ojibway of the Pic River First Nation. I am a proud Nishnawbe woman. I love being Nishnawbe. I love it immensely. It is unbelievable, but, despite that love, I am not too proud to beg. I beg you: Please do something. If you have to walk bills through Parliament yourself, whatever it is — I do not understand the parliamentary process — then walk them through.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fisher.
Honourable senators, I have a list. The reason we have undertaken this study is because we know there is a need. There is an overall picture that we, as a committee, have been looking at from the time that Senator Sibbeston, who sits on my left, was chair of this committee. We looked at what was being studied at Harvard — which you raised, Mr. Stonefish — namely, the question of Steven Cornell's study on economic development, education and governance. We know there is a problem. We initiated this study to try to establish whether the structures were right. If the basic foundation of building a good educational system for First Nations children is not there, that is what we want to understand, in addition to how we can make recommendations.
I will ask one question of Mr. Stonefish. You stated that you are an off-reserve trustee in Lambton Kent, I believe. You obviously know both sides: The First Nations educational system that you work in and the non-First Nations school system. In addition to what I described, we initiated this study because there are so many tripartite agreements being entered into now in both Alberta and British Columbia on education with First Nations, the province and the federal government.
Can you tell us what you think must be done? You spoke about the vision of Aboriginal education not being understood by Aboriginal children. I can understand that, because, in previous studies we have undertaken, we have come in contact with First Nations. That said, the only way to establish a proper education system for First Nations children is to see the challenges through the eyes of the children. Since you sit on a non-First Nations school board and you are involved with First Nations, what would you say, in a nutshell, is the biggest challenge that faces the education of our First Nations children?
Mr. Stonefish: One of the first things the public school board did was to start a professional development initiative. We had to make our administrators, our principals, our superintendents, our director of education and our trustees understand what that vision is, or what that purpose of First Nations education is. We took each of the trustees, the superintendents and every principal out to the four First Nations within that board. They presented on their history, their experience in residential schools, their treaties, and their vision of education, economic development, and social development, so trustees, superintendents and principals could start to see what that First Nation was all about and they could start to see how to help their community. We then moved on to the teachers. It is that whole piece of professional development, that lack — I hate to use this word, but it is the ignorance; maybe that is a strong word — of knowledge and of understanding what our vision and purpose is.
When we talk about tripartite agreements, the politicians that I work with will start talking about treaty rights. They worry about offloading education to the province and signing high-level agreements that do away with treaty obligations and federal responsibility. How do tripartite agreements work? I think they can work, but we must start small. We have to start by looking at curriculum development. Let us work with Curriculum Services Canada and the branch of the ministry to develop curriculum guidelines and curriculum standards that work in both First Nations schools and public schools.
It is the same with teacher certification. We work with the Ontario College of Teachers, and with the ministry, to figure out smaller agreements. We are working on some of those areas because we have to build a foundation of trust. We have 500 years of mistrust. It blows my mind when I hear a teacher say certain things about First Nations or about First Nations culture. I used to get really mad when I was young, but I am understanding now that there is real misinformation. That foundation must be built before we can start talking about agreements, especially high-level tripartite agreements.
I have one story from my First Nation. They were taking the land from the Lenape, on the East Coast. They had two ways of deciding how much land they could have. One was that the Lenape could cover the land with 50 deer hides and that is how much land they would give them. The story goes that the Lenape cut the deer hides into skinny strands so they could extend the territory as far as they could. They then said that the Lenape could have as much land as they could walk in a day. The Lenape hired the best and the fastest runners, and a team of runners ran for 24 hours. That is how they decided on their land.
There is the whole concept of where we come from, what our world view is, and what the world view is of INAC or the ministry, federally or provincially. I have had huge dealings with them. I sat on the performance measurement experts group for INAC and AFN. Ms. Merrick was also on the committee. It is clear to me that INAC does not understand our purpose and vision. The data that they want to collect is about whether our kids go to school; is there a language program; and is there a cultural program. There is nothing about the effectiveness of those programs. All we can say is, yes, our kids go to school. The data does not say anything about how we measure success.
It is the same thing with the province and the Ipperwash curriculum. They want to approve all the curricula we have. We have a project on Ipperwash curriculum development, and the province wants final approval. However, I cannot give them final approval because I have the trust from my First Nations that I have to agree with; the First Nations have to approve the curriculum.
Understanding that sensitivity and those tripartite agreements is important, and there is a lot of work. It must start small before it can become bigger. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you all for your presentations. I am convinced that every one of you is deeply dedicated to moving forward. I and perhaps some of the members of the committee are struggling with the idea of success. I am not convinced that I understand success for First Nations in the same way that First Nations understand it.
I look at you, Mr. Stonefish, for example, and say you are a successful person. I look at some of our senators and say they are successful people. What is the difference? Do you consider yourself successful?
What were the differences in the opportunities? Perhaps, Mr. Stonefish can begin. How were the opportunities different that made your path different from what you are trying to do? I am not sure I am explaining it properly, but my conundrum is that word, "success."
Mr. Stonefish: Thank you for the question. I have a quick philosophy. I was taught that when we come into this world, we come into this world for a purpose. My teachings tell me that we come into this world and we pick the time and place we come. We pick the parents that we have when we come here because we come here for a specific purpose.
When we come into the world, we are given specific gifts. If we think about ourselves, there is something that we can do, something that our kids can do and there is something that Steve Yzerman can do that others cannot: something we are naturally good at it. Those are our gifts.
We have to nurture those gifts in education. When I think about myself and that philosophy, I had certain gifts and I had certain people who were in my life at certain times who helped me nurture those gifts.
There is another part of it, aside from having that nurturing and certain people like my uncles, elders and other people who were there at certain times. I did not live a great life. I lived in women's shelters. I moved out at 16 years of age. It is not as though I had extra opportunities. Certain things fit within our philosophy of holistic development and personal development that I have had the opportunity to have.
I knew I was treated differently my whole life. When I was little, I said, I am proud to be Delaware. We call ourselves Delaware Nation. I said that for 17 years until I met a Cree person who spoke their own language. I could not speak my language. I did not know where the Delaware people were from. It turns out it is not even Delaware. We are called Lenape.
Delaware comes from Lord De La Warr, who owned a piece of land on the East Coast. We were called the Delaware Indians. I did not know anything about myself, but society and schools taught me that I was different. I had to fight. From my father, I had the fight to overcome that.
I have worked at that, even though some people say I have been successful in education. I went to Harvard University so I could have those letters after my name, so when people looked at me, they could say he went to the number one school in America. However, the only thing that got me through Harvard and all my university was my cultural teachings: my elders and my ceremonies.
I do not want to say how many years I have been in university, but I spent many years in university trying to figure out what is wrong with education. How do we make education more applicable to us? Where can I build the bridge of our cultural knowledge? When we talk about personal purpose and gifts, we have individualized education plans, IEPs, today for special education plans for kids because they have deficiencies. Our traditional system said we have personal gifts and our education plan is developed on our gifts.
I have been trying to build those types of bridges. I will consider myself successful if I can make a change in education: if I can make people like you understand and start to broaden definitions, and become critical thinkers about our world view and how that, for us, translates into education.
Senator Brazeau: Mr. Stonefish, I am glad you mentioned that. You mentioned that you have been in school for a long time trying to find ways to improve the education system. Have you come up with any answers with respect to how we can improve the education system so it better motivates our students and keeps our kids in school, and so it is more reflective of some of the cultures, traditions and languages?
Some of the committee's work is to hear about the solutions we need to take us from point A to point B. This morning, all the panellists talked about problem definitions, and we know what those are. However, how do we move forward? We need to hear those solutions so we can consider them, and hopefully reflect them in recommendations in a report that will be tabled in Parliament.
We need to focus on the solutions. I want to hear if you have answered your own question, so to speak.
Mr. Stonefish: Again, thank you for the question. I love being asked these questions. That is why I say thank you for the question.
At IEC, where I work now, working with Ms. Merrick, we are starting in the four areas we talked about. The number one contributor for First Nations student success is that they see themselves in the curricula; they must see their lives in the curricula. When we talk about curriculum development, we have started that development. We took the Ontario curriculum guidelines and created one lesson plan for each grade. For example, I think in Grade 6 they study rocks in science. We added a lesson plan that talks about the Thunderbirds. Kettle Point, one of our First Nations, has one of the only Thunderbird nests in the world. The other is in New Zealand. We talk about our perception and world view of rocks. That is contributing to that view.
That project cost us $100,000. INAC said to do it in eight months when boards do it in two years.
We are making inroads and doing what we can. In terms of assessment, we have partnerships with Western University and Harvard University. We have brought together the First Nations Education Steering Committee, FNESC, the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, MFNERC, and other organizations from across Canada to sit down this September and talk about what is culturally appropriate assessment; what does that look like in special education, history, science, literacy and numeracy.
In terms of teaching practices, we have our own assessment. We sell the curriculum we develop. When someone buys it, they are also paying for the training. We have an onus to pay respect to the elders who contributed to our documents to ensure that our documents are not disrespected. When someone buys our curriculum, we train the teachers on how to use those documents. Even though we are talking about only eight lesson plans, at least they understand it. It is trying to meet halfway and do what we can.
I always tell our teachers when we sit down and have our networking sessions across the divisions, let us not sit here and talk about money because we have grumbled about it for so long. Let us start doing the little things that we can, whether it is curriculum, teaching, supports or community engagement.
It is all those things. It is not only about funding for First Nations education; we have a whole social legacy that our teachers and administrators have to understand; how have residential schools affected what is happening. We need to start doing those little things. I think a lot of best practices out there across the First Nations need a chance to be viewed.
When we look at true partnerships with provinces or institutions, then those things grow. We are making inroads and we have solutions. I hate to say this, but we do not have the funding to do the job we need to do.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My questions are on success rates and anyone is free to answer.
If there was federal legislation and the 2 per cent cap was lifted for government funding for education, do you think it would make a difference to the success rate?
Mr. McLoughlin: Are you referring to post-secondary in particular?
The Chair: We are talking mainly about K to 12.
Mr. McLoughlin: The lifting of the cap is a post-secondary education issue, or is it overall?
The Chair: It is global, I believe.
Ms. Fisher, do you want to comment on that? I ask everyone to keep their responses tight because I want to ensure everyone has a chance to ask questions.
Ms. Fisher: Definitely, it would make a difference; even if there was equal funding. I know we need more than equal funding. There are many things that education cannot do. It is difficult and we must remember that we are rebuilding a nation.
In regard to funding, I know funding in Pic River will allow us to bring in smart boards, will allow us to fund libraries, will allow us to bring in programming, will allow us to offer numeracy and literacy training, will allow us to offer full-day junior kindergarten, will allow us to operate full-day senior kindergarten, and will allow us to offer a lot of the programming that the school boards offer.
We are fortunate to work with the school board that we are working with, and that they try as much as possible to keep our staff on par by offering professional development, et cetera. Whatever development they have, such as workshops, et cetera, they invite our First Nation along. Our students fit into that system. It is those kinds of things.
Senator Dyck: Thank you to the panel for your presentations this morning. They were extremely good, heartfelt and passionate. There were times when I was almost moved to tears by the presentations, particularly yours, Ms. Fisher. You spoke passionately about education for First Nations children and I especially like what you said about rebuilding a nation. What you are trying to do is rebuild a First Nation through education, and designing the education so it is appropriate to the First Nations children.
I have two questions. Any member of the panel can answer. One is with regard to the intergenerational impact of residential schools. I am convinced that this issue is a serious one. What can be done within the elementary and secondary school systems to overcome that impact? For instance, are the parents and the grandparents involved within the curriculum or in some way within the schools?
Second, we all know that the First Nation population is a young population. There is a big peak up to 17 years of age — about 50 per cent of the First Nation population is under the age of 25, and the peak probably occurs at age 17. If we are rebuilding a nation, we have an opportunity or a crisis, depending on what we do, because we have the numbers in that age group to rebuild that nation. What should we do? If we want to impact that population, where should we put our energies? How do we overcome the residential schools and where do we put the energies to rebuild?
Ms. Merrick: The residential schools, of course, were disasters and they were disasters because they were developed in isolation from First Nations for First Nations. The government of the time believed that what they were doing was best for us. That mentality still exists. If we want to make a difference, we fund language immersion — First Nations language immersion. We have one in Manitoba — Opaskwayak Cree Nation — and they are gradually implementing language immersion, beginning with nursery, kindergarten, and adding a grade every year.
In three years, using the provincial assessment in English, they have surpassed the students that are in the English- language program. That program is in its third year. You are asking about solutions. Those are the solutions, but will the programs be funded? That is the next question.
Perhaps raising the cap, getting rid of that cap, will help, and allowing us to provide a basic quality program will help, certainly. However, we need an enhanced program, enhanced with First Nations knowledge; First Nations language, First Nations culture, and First Nations elders, teachers and citizens working together to develop curricula and elders authenticating the curriculum.
We have elders in Manitoba who are trained curriculum developers, because they have been part of a program where they work with the teachers to develop a language curriculum. They hear all the professional dialogue and they are becoming knowledgeable, and are knowledgeable in curriculum development and design. That is what is possible when we follow the First Nations belief that everyone is good, that everyone has a gift, and that everyone has knowledge —when that thinking enters the hearts and minds of mainstream society and First Nations societies because we were also colonized as a result of those residential schools. They have devastated our people.
The one program that is excellent is the post-secondary program. At MFNERC, 85 per cent of our staff is First Nation. In 2009, there were 21 of 57 staff with master's degrees, two have a doctorate, four members of the staff are doctoral students, and the rest have a minimum of a five-year Bachelor of Education degree with more than five years experience. Those are our standards. Therefore we benefited from that post-secondary program.
There are first- and second-generation professionals in our organization. However, I do not often see anyone coming and asking us what we think. A lot of work must be done. Yes, we come with solutions, but we need more than seven minutes to provide those solutions.
Mr. McLoughlin: I have one comment on that. As a clear example of a solution, the emphasis of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, as Mr. Stonefish stated, is on culturally appropriate curriculum, language, instruction and jurisdiction. The Northern Nishnawbe Education Council, as mentioned, is a partner with Brock University's Tecumseh Centre for Aboriginal research. We are running a Bachelor of Education program into 24 remote communities, primarily for teacher assistants who work in those schools and who want to become qualified teachers. This program is accredited by the Ontario College of Teachers, and it is built on those four pillars of culturally appropriate curriculum, language, instruction and jurisdiction. It is under the jurisdiction of Northern Nishnawbe Education Council and Brock University in terms of governance. It is a partnership. We share an executive council. This is a real and concrete response to RCAP.
The intent of the residential schools was to assimilate. I feel when the province becomes over-engaged in First Nations education, there is an effort to assimilate. I think the goal should be primarily one of integration.
Even Native Studies in the provincial schools to me is not quite right. It should be offered across the curriculum. Most Ontario students take the standard history course. Who takes the Native Studies course: First Nations students. Who needs to learn the most that we are treaty people? It is usually the non-native students. That is an example.
The Chair: We apologize for the seven minutes, Ms. Merrick. You also have an opportunity to submit your solutions in writing to the clerk of our committee. That opportunity is open to any of you. We will take any representation over and above these hearings as evidence in trying to create a proper report.
Ms. Merrick: Thank you very much.
Mr. Stonefish: The whole thing about what to do to reach the 17-year-olds, traditionally, when we think about development, education and our traditional child rearing, by the time they were 14 years old and had entered puberty, they started to go for their vision quest. By that time, they were supposed to have learned values, identity, community commitment and all those different things that govern the way they interact or interrelate to society and creation.
When our kids hit that age now, they are leaving our First Nation schools and going into secondary schools. I went through a lack of identity myself. Our schools have not taught us what our identity is.
There is this area that traditionally, when they start to take their place in society, we throw them in without identity or any connection to their community. I went through that experience. They wonder why the graduation rate is age 23 for First Nations students; if these students can make it through and pick themselves up by the time they are 19 or 20 years old, then maybe in the next three years they will get their secondary education. It adds up. That is a little bit of insight into our vision and purpose of education.
Senator Kochhar: I admire the whole panel's passion, emotion and commitment. I can relate to your problems. I come from a minority country that was colonized for 200 years by the British. We have broken the thread and we have come out of it. One thing I learned in life is that if we are underprivileged or discriminated against, we have to work two or three times harder to overcome those problems.
I have been hearing about your passion, commitment and emotions. However, I have not heard, as Senator Brazeau said, any solutions. I think each one of you should sit down and write out solutions.
The morality of each generation is different. A long time ago, slavery was acceptable in the United States; women could not vote; we had Japanese internment, for example; all these things whereby there are problems from the previous generation, the morality of that generation. We are living in 2010 now, and we want to know the problems of 2010, and find solutions to those problems.
I urge all four of you to provide a written solution, emphasizing what your dreams are and the money you need. You may not receive it all in one shot, but you will learn to live with what you receive and do the best that you can. You must identify your problems. I have listened for the past half hour to an hour, and I have not identified a solution to any of the problems you have presented. How can we overcome that situation?
Ms. Merrick: In Manitoba for the past 30 to 35 years, since Wabung, the position paper by the Manitoba chiefs, we developed numerous studies and action plans, and they are available. We also work in concert with the AFN to develop many action plans and many studies that review solutions.
One of the areas we looked at was principals, for example. We have talked about staff turnover. Perhaps the principal changes every year because we cannot afford to pay proper salaries. Perhaps teacherages are not adequate or the infrastructure is not amenable to teaching and not comparable to the provincial infrastructure. Gyms, labs, language labs, science labs, functioning computer systems — all the necessary infrastructure to teach a basic program in a provincial school — are not available in First Nation schools.
When we have a constant turnover of principals and we are implementing a school improvement initiative, it is difficult. It takes five years for a school improvement initiative to take hold; and it takes 10 years for that school improvement initiative to become entrenched. All the literature related to education reform tells us that. With respect to the challenges in mainstream society they talk about in that literature, such as the literature by Michael Fullan or Ben Levin, the challenges are tenfold in First Nation schools. Many challenges relate to budget or lack thereof.
I can go into all the things we have talked about. With respect to resources and our needs assessment in 1998, there were limited resources and libraries. A library in a First Nations school can be a shelf as wide as a table. It would be nice to have functioning libraries, materials to support language immersion.
We are doing all this work. We have school planning — 88 per cent of our schools have general school plans. That is a solution, the school planning process. We have an 85 per cent success rate on offering training, accredited professional development, accrediting our own people and increasing capacity development.
We are having a great deal of success, and I prefer to look at that success. I do not think I have talked about problems. There are success stories and we need to build on those success stories that are out there. There are people within the communities, within these various organizations across the country, doing wonderful things, but we do not have time to promote ourselves. As First Nations, we are not necessarily self-promoting, so we are in a cultural conundrum. We are trying now to promote ourselves more. We are uncomfortable with that promotion, but we will do that.
I know there is talk of a national system. However, when we look at the precedents set by the provincial governments — education is provincial — they have different views about assessment, for example, from B.C. to right across the country. Because they have different views and different philosophies does not mean anyone is better than anyone else. Each province has a different government. They have different philosophies; they have different world views.
The same is true for First Nations. Nationally, what is good for B.C. is good for B.C. What is good for Manitoba is good for Manitoba. We do not compare each other. We try to help each other and we work together, but we do not impose our views on each other.
We need to look at building from the ground up, and I understood we were to talk about governance and structure. We need to look at building on what is working, success, and to look at that success realistically.
Strategic planning is important. If the government wants to improve First Nations education, they need to develop a strategic plan that will not change with every government. We know money is finite. We understand that; we are not children.
How do they fund a functioning system in First Nations education over a period of time? They do it in partnership with First Nations. We have a basic letter of understanding with the province, and I agree with everything the panel says. We have always worked in partnership with the province. The letter of understanding we have is basic to First Nations, First Nation Student Success Program, FNSSP, and Education Partnerships Program, EPP. That is how we prefer to work together. I am sure the province does not mind.
We work together. Our executive director meets with the deputy minister regularly. He meets with the Frontier superintendent regularly. I meet with directors. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, AMC, negotiates a letter of agreement. AMC is our lawmakers. The chiefs will decide. I cannot talk about provincial agreements.
Protocols are in place within our region. All that is a way of looking at a First Nation education system.
The Chair: Colleagues, one thing was the possibility of legislation governing education. You said you wanted continuity when the government changes — that the continuity must be maintained.
Senator Demers: This is not really about me, although what I will say may sound like that. Mr. Stonefish, I have a tremendous amount of respect for what you accomplished. You deserve a lot of credit. I lived 21 years in the States. When you talk about Harvard, not just anybody walks through that door.
To tell you how I listened, you did not beg, Ms. Fisher. You seemed to think you were. You brought up unbelievably great points. It was said passionately and I could see your heart speaking.
What I heard from Mr. Stonefish is chance. I heard hope and guidance. I am probably the best example of that because, like Mr. Stonefish, I went through a tremendous amount of difficulties, but we overcome it.
We are talking about hope, chance and guidance. I took a bunch of young Aboriginal kids outside of Montreal — Caughnawaga, which today is Kanesatake. They were running the streets. They were in bars, they were fighting and they were not even supposed to be in bars.
I became the junior coach there, and we brought those kids together. God, they caused me problems, but I did not want to give up on them. We put them together on the ice, but it could be hockey or anything in life. You give them a chance.
They had no discipline whatsoever. It is understandable — father incest, father not there, mother on drugs — whatever could happen to chase those kids from their possible dreams. We put them together and gave them discipline and guidance.
These kids brought me to professional hockey. We started winning. We were not losing. We beat every possible team. We went to provincial championships and all that. One of them, Bobby Simpson, became a player in the National Hockey League. Some became pharmacists. Some became well-respected police officers. One even went to Princeton and became a teacher.
I am saying we have to give hope. You said, Ms. Merrick, that we do not talk about money, but it all boils down to the fact that you need money to keep your teachers; to keep the bright principals or the good teachers.
A few years ago, I went to Kelowna. All these kids want to be loved and given hope. I went with B. C. Education Minister Shirley Bonds at the time to a school in Kelowna — I am sure Senator St. Germain will know her. There were a few Aboriginal kids, and they were in the back. I saw that, so I brought one kid over. He knew who I was, and from what the teacher had told me, he was an absolute disaster in school.
I said to that kid in front of all the other ones: Come and take a picture with me; I want to talk to you. You could see he was shy, but you have to give them that opportunity, because they are good kids. There are a lot of young girls too, but unfortunately, I did not coach young girls. However, they want to be given hope.
What you are talking about today, it is all about guidance — the right people to give them an opportunity; to have a chance. I said to that kid after we took a picture, I want the teacher to give me your number or I will call the teacher and I want you to do better in school. This is a true story. I said from now on, no more in the back; you come to the front like everyone else.
I went to Sudbury a few years ago and spoke to some kids, not at a level of grown-ups but at a level of young kids. An Aboriginal girl stood up and said: You know, coach, I listened to you carefully and I understand what you are saying. I have no hope. I live with my grandmother. I do not even know where my parents are.
I said: From now on, you will have hope and we will ensure that you have hope.
We could continue with this story, but a bunch of Aboriginal kids made me what I was. I believed in them, and when we believe in people, they do not let us down.
I know Senator Brazeau will know what I am talking about. Everyone in Chateauguay despised those kids and thought they were bums and losers. They were not bums and losers. They became good, solid citizens.
As senators, we are not forced to be here. We are here because we want to be here. If we want to be here, under the guidance of Senator St. Germain, it is because we want to help. When you say four areas and 39 years, that is a little shocking. It is not too late. We are in the year 2010, but we have to ensure we do something about the issue. A 14-year-old will be 14 and a half, then 15, and we will lose that young woman or young man if we do not do anything.
Mr. McLoughlin: Everyone remembers their favourite teacher, and it is usually the one who genuinely cared, and we knew it as a student. Many teachers who come into our district genuinely care, but they cannot stay too long.
When I taught, I had a student in one community tell me: I really like you, Mr. McLoughlin, but I do not want to perform for you because I know you are just going to leave us anyway. It boiled down to simple things like family and salary.
Where we are in Sioux Lookout, we have a First Nations high school that we administer 20 minutes away from Sioux Lookout. Sioux Lookout has a high school called Queen Elizabeth District High School. Some of the best teachers that taught in our First Nations high school now teach in the provincial high school. Some of them have told me that they have a family to raise. There are disparities in terms of pension plans and salaries in the provincial school system versus the First Nations school system. Teachers feel guilty for leaving and they would come back in a heartbeat, but there are the realities of their family lives. These disparities should not exist.
At that time, Robert Nault, from Kenora, was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When he was minister, he pushed hard to ensure that salaries for teachers in First Nation schools matched salaries in the provincial schools, with the teacher retention fund. There are teacher retention fund dollars there, but they are not even close to the funds needed because the disparities keep widening. Those kinds of issues are critical to student success.
The Chair: Maybe that is why tripartite might work.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I apologize for being a bit late, but fortunately during the question period, I have had a chance to hear from all the panellists. In this committee, we sympathize with the issues facing First Nations education in Canada and we hope to offer recommendations that might create change.
We have tripartite agreements in place in some areas in Canada, and letters of understanding, and I think there is a will to work together with the provincial ministries of education, with First Nations education being driven by its own objectives but working alongside and together with other ministries. However, as Mr. McLoughlin has said, it is impossible if they cannot keep their teachers.
I want to hear from each of you on this question. If you were to write a legislative framework to ensure that responsibility for First Nations education was taken seriously by the federal government, what would you put in place in terms of core funding for First Nations education systems; not directly to the bands but to the tripartite groups that have already negotiated something? We seem to set standards but then not provide the resources to reach those standards.
Perhaps we can start with Mr. Stonefish.
Mr. Stonefish: This is a different way to attack this issue, but let us start this way. To create a framework looking at core funding, I have talked about four issues repeatedly.
First, what is being taught? That issue needs to be addressed and funded. There are ways of bringing culture in, but we have to understand the framework of that purpose and vision within curricula.
Second, how is the curriculum being taught and who is teaching it? We must have funding that addresses our purpose and vision of how the curricula are taught.
The third and key component is our language. Our language is the world view, the foundation and core of our existence and of who we are, and why we fought so hard to have our own First Nations schools. If we wanted to run our schools like the Shiiwaanuk, the man who came from the salty water, then we would let others run the schools, but we have our own vision and purpose.
The fourth area is jurisdiction; the partnerships and the tripartite agreements that you are talking about. There has to be true partnership and consultation in the sense that we are sitting at the table as an even partner in what we are creating.
I went to the performance measurements group and I was not a true partner there. When I asked if I could see what they submitted to Treasury Board in terms of what we need, they replied that they cannot do that, that it is a secret. That is not true partnership. If INAC will not tell me what they submit to Treasury Board, in terms of what is good for education for us, then that is not a partnership.
Those are the four areas, which we have been repeating for 39 years: what is taught; who is teaching it; language is core to our education; and we need to have partnerships and jurisdiction, alongside whoever else, in whatever capacity or scenario comes up.
There are many solutions. My doctorate is on curriculum development. If you want solutions, I can number them, but writing them down is difficult. I recently reviewed 35 years' worth of reports that have not gotten us anywhere.
Senator Brazeau: I do not disagree with you with respect to curriculum development and having more input. However, if you look at the demographics, the majority of Aboriginal people in Canada now live off reserve, in our urban centres. How do you propose that scheme would work?
Let us say we have an urban school in downtown Montreal, where we can have Mohawk, Algonquin, Cree and Ojibway kids, and perhaps even a significant number of Aboriginal kids from the West Coast, who all attend this school. How do we introduce all the languages, cultures and traditions into curriculum development in our urban settings?
Mr. Stonefish: That is where the province has to come to the table. The province has to sit as an equal partner with us to try to figure out that solution. There are over ten First Nations in Ontario.
Senator Brazeau: Having said that, how do you respond to First Nations leaders and others who do not want to deal with the provincial government because they claim that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over Aboriginal people in Canada?
Mr. Stonefish: I sit on the Aboriginal committee at the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, so I can say that First Nations have representation in the provincial system. They are looking for partnerships. Chiefs of Ontario is trying to work with the Ontario College of Teachers and the Aboriginal Education Office of the ministry of education. We are trying to create those partnerships.
You speak of diversity. To create curriculum costs $200,000 for two weeks of lessons. Multiplying that amount by 40 weeks and eight grades comes to about $500 million. There have to be smaller solutions. We have to start with first steps.
I had a huge argument with the deputy minister of education about curriculum. I sit on the Minister of Education's curriculum technical team as well on an advisory group for training of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I do not know what the proper term is, but I would say that a lot of Mickey Mouse things are going on that are not addressing the problem.
Mr. McLoughlin: In terms of core funding, there is currently a case in the Treaty 3 area where a First Nation is in the courts asking that very question. First Nations schools receive much less funding. Why do we receive only two thirds of a tank of gas per student each year?
In Fort Severn, the dialects in our schools are Ojibway and Oji-Cree and Cree. There is a different dynamic in terms of language development and it is much easier to develop a curriculum here than in urban centres.
There are many differences between remote communities and urban communities for which we need to find solutions. We offer native language programming in our schools, but the primary dialect taught is Oji-Cree because that is the dialect in the centre of our district. However, in Lac Seul the dialect is Ojibway and on Hudson Bay it is Swampy Cree.
The area is complex, but we have the expertise to develop this curriculum. These courses exist and have been accredited by the ministry of education, without the tripartite agreement.
Senator Poirier: Mr. Stonefish, there have been tripartite agreements in B.C. and Nova Scotia for a number of years. Do you believe that they are succeeding in building bridges and addressing your four points of what they are taught, how they are taught, language being the core and equal partnership? If so, are those tripartite agreements being looked at in other provinces?
Mr. Stonefish: I have not studied those agreements extensively, but the context is different. Nova Scotia has one language and 12 schools, which is manageable. Ontario has great political and geographic diversity. There are so many political organizations that it is difficult to pull them together. This is not through our own fault. It is the way that we have been dealt with in Ontario. We have been put into certain treaty areas. Treaty responsibilities and treaty relationships with the government are all different in Ontario.
The Educational Partnerships Program of the federal government is to look at tripartite agreements. In Ontario, the Union of Ontario Indians was already trying to negotiate its own school board, and then the tripartite agreement came in. When it came in, the union broke up and divided up the partnership dollars. The communities I work with are split. In the Indigenous Education Coalition, I have independents, the Union of Ontario Indians and the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. This situation is all political and I am trying to pull the groups together.
In the first year I had to talk them into sitting down to talk about this tripartite agreement. Now I cannot even say that we can move into the second year, because I do not know what the tripartite agreement means across the treaty areas and the political alliances.
B.C. has one that runs education in that province. Nova Scotia has the same thing, but some of their First Nations are not happy with that agreement.
In Ontario, the situation is a huge mess. I cannot speak for the other provinces, but we are currently trying to figure out whether it can work for us the way it works for them.
Ms. Fisher: You cannot legislate parental responsibility and accountability, and that is a key issue. However, how do we begin to heal and to build? We first build a strong individual. A strong individual builds a strong family. A strong family builds a strong community, and a strong community builds a strong nation. We have to start with the individual.
I do not know how to begin even to pick up the pieces from the residential schools. As a grandmother, I can say that if someone had the power to take my grandchildren, my heart would never recover. It would break into a thousand pieces. You cannot tell me how to teach my children to become good parents after that, so there are intergenerational effects.
Detachment disorder is an extreme problem in our First Nation communities. There are those kinds of issues that are not educational. Language is important, because language says who we are and how we should govern ourselves. However, where does the responsibility fall? Is that the responsibility of education or is it my responsibility to ensure it happens. I think it is my responsibility to ensure that my children and grandchildren go to ceremony. That is not the responsibility of education. In the medicine wheel we have the emotional, the mental, the physical and the spiritual, and we need to look at that. We cannot mix the spiritual with the mental or the emotional. When we start to mix, we run into trouble.
With regard to legislation, treat us as equals. I will send you a letter, and I hope you will answer me.
The Chair: Unless you write, you will not know whether there will be a response.
The complexity of the situation has been clearly defined here today. When we began this study, we knew of the complexities and the diversity that exist across the country with our First Nations people.
Thank you all for the passion, sincerity and commitment you have put into your presentation. Time is our greatest enemy. We would all like to have had more time, but we have restrictions.
Thank you for coming today. This committee previously undertook a study that resulted in legislation that virtually mirrored our report, and I am confident that our report on this study will not be ignored.
(The committee adjourned.)