Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of June 15, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:31 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: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, and I chair the committee. The committee is undertaking a study to examine possible strategies for reform concerning First Nations primary and secondary education, with a view to improving outcomes. Among other things, the study will focus on tripartite education agreements; governance and delivery structures; and possible legislative frameworks.
This morning we are fortunate to have with us David Newhouse, Chair and Associate Professor of Indigenous Studies at Trent University and a member of the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board, and representatives from the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, Roberta Jamieson and Noella Steinhauer. The National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, NAAF, is a charitable organization with a mission to promote, support and celebrate the achievement of Canada's Aboriginal peoples in partnership with Aboriginal, private- and public-sector stakeholders.
Witnesses, I would ask you to limit your presentations to five to seven minutes. I know that is difficult, but we want to have time for a full exchange with senators. You bring a wealth of information, and we would like to focus on specific things.
I ask senators to keep their questions succinct. Also, we must reserve a few minutes at the end of the meeting to deal with other committee business.
Roberta Jamieson, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation: Good morning. We are in the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation, so I begin this morning by acknowledging and thanking them.
I wish to congratulate the committee for undertaking this study on this critical issue. My involvement with the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation includes First Nations people on- and off-reserve, Metis and Inuit. I was once a child living on-reserve and went through the entire system, and I am the mother of a child who went through that system, so I know why this study is necessary. From my experience, I know that dramatic and immediate change is essential.
I hope to encourage you to be bold and courageous in your work. No cause on the social agenda has greater merit than this. You will find the answers if you put the students first — do it not only for their sake but also for the sake of Canada.
NAAF is a charity that has, for more than 25 years, promoted, supported and celebrated the achievements of our young people in particular. It has a bold mandate to support them financially toward achieving their tremendous potential so that they can experience brighter futures.
To date, it has provided more than $37 million to almost 10,000 recipients — more than any other non- governmental organization, NGO, in Canada. In fact, $18.7 million of that was awarded over the last five years. It is regarded as a solid, credible organization by the public and private sectors alike and is highly regarded by Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Metis and Inuit people.
We are focusing our work more and more. We are known for the awards, and we do them well. Role models are a vital source of inspiration. We do our post-secondary education programming well; however, we are focusing on younger children because the fastest-growing demographic group in Canada, namely, our young people, is the least likely to complete high school.
We are working hard. We have rolled up our sleeves. We are holding dynamic motivational conferences with youth across Canada and in the North. We are using round tables and think tanks. With partners in industry, we are promoting careers in the classroom. We have produced quite a number of modules featuring our own people in careers in justice, transportation and broadcasting and health, and we connect employers with our young people for job recruitment.
We listen to the voice of Aboriginal youth in shaping our work. Under the guidance of Dr. Noella Steinhauer, we have held workshops with youth at risk both in urban areas and on-reserve. They are telling us what their issues are. Why are they not completing high school? Drugs, alcohol, bullying, gangs and poverty are the main reasons they are dropping out of school. They told us that mentoring and support are critical factors in successfully completing their high school education.
Therefore, we are designing a mentoring program to link our bursary recipients, of which we have almost 10,000, with entire classes of young Aboriginal youth in grades 7 and 8 so that they can be fostered.
With the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, we will be holding a summit later this year on closing the gap in educational attainment.
We have our bold, new Realizing Project that is a research initiative to identify, evaluate and link educators across Canada with school boards and principals. Those who are succeeding and making a difference in changing high school completion rates will be able to connect with those who need support, help, ideas and models. I am soliciting the support of several provinces. I have support in principle from the Government of Canada for this project. Private- sector partners are willing to be involved and to commit resources, provided the public sector takes the lead.
Senators, just as NAAF wants, you also want improvements to kindergarten-to-grade-12 education so that more First Nations children on-reserve graduate from high school. Then what happens? Please do not lose sight of the fact that most children who graduate will not be able to go on to post-secondary education.
We are struggling to support those who have achieved high school and post-secondary education. In health, we supported 524 recipients this year. They needed $11 million, and we were able to give them $3 million. We supported students who want to be nurses, PhD candidates, 129 who want to be doctors, and so on. Thousands of other First Nations students are qualified, ready, accepted and willing, but they cannot afford that education. I would like you to keep those students in your sight because if they graduate from high school, we cannot fail them. They are such a small percentage.
I believe we must act because change will not just happen. The Auditor General told us in 2004 that there was a 28- year gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in high school completion. It would take 28 years to close that gap. A few years later, in 2010, she told us that the situation is improving for non-Aboriginal students and improving for Aboriginal students; but, guess what? The gap is widening. The fact that we are not closing this gap means that Canada will pay dearly.
In 2009, I commend to the committee and researchers the report of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, which contains a hard-nosed economic business case. If we were to close the gap, we could save $115 billion in expenses and gain $410 billion to Canada's gross domestic product, GDP. The report is a call to action to invest in Aboriginal education.
I caution against any thinking by the public that Aboriginal peoples do not aspire to higher education. Environics Research Group did a study last year, which I commend to the committee. For the first time, they interviewed urban Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people. Many of our people live in urban settings, as you know. They found that the leading life aspiration for our people is higher education and training and that the greatest barrier to that is financial support.
There are three challenges: First, we have to graduate many more of our students from high school, both on- and off-reserve. Second, those who want to pursue post-secondary education must have access to it in terms of both finances and removal of the barriers that keep them away. Third, we need the infrastructure and a legislated mandate to make this happen.
I know that the committee has heard some discussion on organizational infrastructure, which I would like to talk more about in the question and answer session today. Whether there is a national school board, regional school boards, a national Indian education act, a First Nations education act or tripartite agreements, there is no single answer. There is no cookie cutter approach. If it works in British Columbia, it might not work in Southern Ontario or in the North. You have heard examples from witnesses of what will work for them. Please keep flexibility in mind.
For the matter of financial resource infrastructure, we have a single answer: We need a firm legislated mandate to ensure that the resources are in place. Parliament should pass legislation stating that every First Nations child on- reserve should have access to an equitable education that is funded at the same level as their non-Aboriginal neighbours. The committee has heard compelling hard facts in evidence, such as the example given by the witness from the Pic River First Nation, that show that that is simply not the case today. Aboriginal-language immersion studies should have the same level of funding as French immersion studies. The capital provided for First Nation schools should cover facilities equal to those of neighbouring schools.
Asking the committee to do this is the same as raising a point of order in Canada's political system, for me. The point of order of equitable funding should take precedence over all other business. The point of order to make equitable funding available now is not debatable. Should the provinces participate in the funding? I say, yes, because everyone has a role; but that is another debate.
We need to put the children first. Let us not wait until federal-provincial relations are resolved adequately to find the money. Following Jordan's Principle, we must provide the funding first and then have the federal-provincial debate over who pays for it.
One witness told the committee a couple of weeks ago that we have to stop making Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, the scapegoat. I like that comment because INAC cannot provide funds for First Nations education unless Parliament allocates it. This is Canada's problem, not INAC's problem. Let me be clear: Senators, I urge you to realize that you can make all the difference; and you must.
I hope this committee will make a commitment to seize this issue and not let it go until the goal has been reached of every First Nations child having access to an education as good as the neighbouring child has and that every student who wants post-secondary education has access to it. That is not too much to ask in Canada. When that happens, First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples will be able to, once again, contribute their full share to their communities, to Canada and to the world.
Nia:wen kowa for listening to my words. I look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jamieson. Mr. Newhouse, please proceed.
David Newhouse, Chair and Associate Professor, Indigenous Studies, Trent University, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me this morning and for undertaking the study. I agree with much of what has been said. Professors normally speak in 50-minute chunks, so speaking in a 5-minute chunk will be quite a challenge.
I do not want to start by arguing about the need for improvements in Aboriginal education, which is well documented in a vast amount of research literature and political documents that talk about the need for improving Aboriginal outcomes. They simply have to be part of our public policy agenda. They are important to the improvement of the quality of lives of Aboriginal people.
We have been following a policy of Indian control of Indian education for about three decades. It is important that we step back and look at what we have achieved and what we need to go forward if we are to begin to put that policy into full effect. Over the past 30 years, we have developed a form of infrastructure of Aboriginal schools; one Aboriginal university, which is having some difficulty these days; some Aboriginal post-secondary education institutions and Aboriginal-provincial education agreements. We have at least some of the basics in place.
Going forward, it is important that we establish a national Aboriginal institution, a national Aboriginal education council, that will guide all of these efforts. It will begin to be able to work with local school boards, with local First Nations, with local tribal colleges, with First Nations post-secondary education institutions and the provinces. That will bring the best thinking and best practices to the table and will commission research that will keep the pressure on.
I have been the chair of a university department now for close to 17 years and dealing with Aboriginal issues inside a university environment. I have discovered that, unless a senior official exists who has the responsibility of dealing with Aboriginal issues, then not much happens. Clearly, Aboriginal issues are only part of the issues with which Canadian politicians, Canadian parliamentarians and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada deal.
Unless someone deals with Aboriginal issues and has the responsibility for bringing issues forward in a variety of forums and keeping the pressure on, not a great deal will happen, and we will be in the same situation 28 years down the road. We will be commissioning the same studies and asking the same questions. We will ask what happened and why the gap is not being closed.
Efforts are under way in Australia that are beginning to come to fruition with the creation of a national Aboriginal education council. That sort of national attention and infrastructure is extremely important. If not, we will be in the same position 30 years down the road.
We, as a university, want the educational system to be able to produce students who have at least theses three Rs: reading, writing and research skills. They need to be able to read and write and also be able to conduct research. They need to be adept at creating knowledge and evaluating how knowledge is created. That is very different from what the system would have produced two or even one decade ago.
We also want the system to produce students who are culturally knowledgeable — students who understand their culture and understand what it means to be an Aboriginal person and can engage the world as an Aboriginal person, whether First Nations, Metis, Inuit, Onondaga, Mohawk or Cree. The system needs to have a component that helps people to identify and understand their culture in a positive way and to think about their culture in a contributory fashion.
It is important to focus, as part of the solution, not just on the infrastructure and organizational part but also on the attitudes that we bring to the table. It is extremely important that we begin to think of Aboriginal people as contributors and begin to think about Aboriginal cultural values, ethics and standards of learning as being important and fostering excellence.
Often we think of Aboriginal students in terms of survival. We gear our efforts toward survival. I keep coming back to a seminal incident in my own life as chair of a university department. At convocation at the end of the year, when we are beginning to think about academic awards — and we give the awards for proficiency in the Ojibway language at Trent — the winners of the awards were German-speaking students. None of our students who were proficient in the Ojibway language won the awards. They were mother-tongue speakers. This ought to have been easy for them.
As I began to think about it and watch what we were doing, we were talking about our students in terms of survival. We asked them to survive, and they were surviving. They were getting Cs. The students had performed to our expectations. We had to begin to change our rhetoric. We had to begin to talk about excellence. I began to talk about how we would do that. I began to talk about what it means to be an educated Iroquoian person.
My grandfather spoke five languages. My great-grandfather translated the Great Law of Peace into English and codified it. My father was a speaker in the longhouse. He was an educated person. We talk in terms of the idea of a good mind. We began to talk about excellence in cultural terms. I talked about the hoop nets as an excellent example of cultural excellence and the ability of an individual to aspire and achieve excellence. You cannot be a good hoop dancer unless you can do many things simultaneously. You have to be aware of the environment, your body and what your mind is doing. You have to know the connection between mind and body. If you are to be a good hoop dancer, you have to have a good mind. It is important for us to begin to think about the attitudes that we instill in the system of education that we create.
Finally, it is important that we not neglect the urban environment. About 54 per cent of the Aboriginal population lives in the urban environment. That will not change. The long-term historical studies suggest that percentage is increasing. Some movement back and forth to reserves has occurred, but, for the most part, Aboriginal people are part of the urban environment. That means that they begin to attend public schools and not just schools run by Aboriginal people. That is where they begin to encounter discrimination and prejudice. The Environics study talked about the prejudice and discrimination that Aboriginal people face.
Part of the effort that we must undertake is not only to focus upon Aboriginal education and infrastructure but also to work with the mainstream education and infrastructure to help them begin to understand Aboriginal issues and create a climate of excellence for Aboriginal students so that they do not continue to stream students but help them to achieve.
I know the rhetoric is out there — I have read the research reports. I see what people are trying to do. However, it needs the push of a national Aboriginal education council that begins to focus the attention and the effort. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, professor. I apologize to both of you. Time is our biggest enemy in these committees.
We did not just happen upon this. This evolved as part of something that began with Senator Sibbeston, who is from the Northwest Territories. We started on an economic development study, which Professor Newhouse is familiar with, and it evolved. We could see the linkages between economic development, good governance — which we have also gone into — and elections. We could see from the studies that we have been doing and the witnesses we have heard from right across the country that education was the key to unlocking all of this.
In my case, as a commercial pilot, we were in Thunder Bay, Ontario, at Wasaya Airways, which is owned by a First Nations group. I asked them how many First Nations pilots they had out of the 100-odd pilots. They told me they had one. I asked why to which they replied that they do not have the strengths in maths and science to meet the requirements. That is how we evolved.
I will not carry on at great length; I just wanted to give you an overview. On behalf of the people who have been on the committee for several years, it has been an evolutionary process that has brought us to this point.
We will start the questioning with Senator Stewart Olsen.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I have questions for both of you, starting with Mr. Newhouse. I do not want to be personal about this, but I think a huge part of what I see is the value of non-Aboriginal schools beginning to teach Aboriginal studies. I am proud of my home province, New Brunswick, which has announced they are doing just that.
It would be difficult to do a national Aboriginal study where it might be more important to do regional studies. For instance, we have Mi'kmaq and Maliseet. What is your advice on the curriculum?
Mr. Newhouse: The curriculum has to reflect the local cultures and local nations as well. The approach in Saskatchewan has been to focus on treaty matters. That is extremely important.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you so much.
Ms. Jamieson, these are informational questions for clarity. Do Aboriginal students who go to university have access to student loans in the same way that non-Aboriginal students do? You are saying that we need more financing. I thought — and this is probably my error — that Aboriginal students can go to university for free. Is that correct?
Ms. Jamieson: Thank you, senator, for the question. There is a common belief amongst Canadians that all Aboriginal people have a free ticket to university from birth to death, and that is simply not true. First, funds are available for First Nations to attend post-secondary education. It is very limited funding, not enough to send the students who are succeeding and want to go on to post-secondary education. That is a huge area of need. You will hear many First Nations chiefs talk about a 2 per cent cap, and that is what they are talking about.
On the other part of your question, yes, they do have access to student loans. Anyone in Canada can apply for a student loan.
Senator Stewart Olsen: What would be the ratio of, for example, Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal students being granted loans?
Ms. Jamieson: The numbers, for those applying for loans, would be very low. However, with many of our students who we support at NAAF, we assess need, marks, Aboriginal identity and whether they have planned their career. Many of them do have loans. Many of them have accessed whatever is available to them and simply do not have enough money to attend. Maybe it is $1,000 for day care, or maybe they have gone to their First Nation and their First Nation is all out of funds.
When I was chief at Six Nations for three years, one year stuck out in my mind: We had 400 students accepted to college and university who we could not support. It was incredible, and we were so proud, but we could not support them.
Yes, they have access to student loans. However, let us think for a moment. The part of your question that really struck me is ``the same access.'' They can apply. However, financial literacy is not present, by and large, amongst our people. Through generations of welfare and social assistance, you may be the only person in your whole family who has achieved high school completion. The thought of loans, of that whole process, the fact that you will have the wherewithal to pay back a loan is intimidating and foreign. There is a whole financial literacy piece there. I am not saying that our students should not apply for loans; they should. However, let us not assume that they are in the same place as non-Aboriginal students as they think about applying for loans.
Senator Poirier: My question has been partly answered because it was the same line of questioning as my colleague, the availability of applying for different programs for the post-secondary education. I understand when you say that the difficulty is that the programs are there, and, yes, they can apply, but sometimes the fear of applying is definitely different because of, as you said, all the social background behind it and being able to get there.
Does the band council have funding or programs to help the students? If the students' parents and grandparents and other siblings have never gone to university and the process looks overwhelming to them, do you have counselling through the band office to help them through the process? Is that available to help them through coaching? Can you coach them on what is available, the application process, where the different programs are and where they can apply for the same bursaries as non-Aboriginal students?
Ms. Jamieson: In some cases, yes. However, frankly, the funding available is woefully inadequate at the community level. This is an ongoing problem. You have heard the horror stories. We certainly hear the horror stories, where a community will receive X amount of dollars, and then the chief and council have to decide what the needs in the community are and what resources they have. The houses have mould and the water is contaminated with E. coli, for example. These challenges have to be dealt with. Where will the funds be invested?
You need to put it in that context, and that is real. I am not using a dramatic illustration. It is quite real. Having said that, that is one of the reasons why I say that students come first. We should be able to set aside the funds to make an investment in every Aboriginal child's education so that they are not in the position of being on the receiving end of that very tough decision making of where to allocate the funds. We should have those funds set aside and oblige government to set them aside and report.
I am a strong believer in outcomes. I was ombudsman in Ontario for 10 years, and I know the power of reporting in Parliament and at the legislature. We need an Indian education act or First Nations education act that sets aside X amount of dollars, with outcomes. Let us have the accountability strings; let us have a rope and transparency required; then let us annually require a report to be tabled on how we are doing at changing the landscape of high school completion; and let us have public scrutiny, the public eye. When I talk to the public, CEOs of corporations and members of the public, they tell me that they really do not know what to do. They feel helpless. They keep reading that $8 billion or $9 billion is allotted for Aboriginal people and the situation is not getting better but worse. They ask what they can do.
I am with you, Senator St. Germain, on the importance of education. That is why I am a lawyer; I was a chief; I was the ombudsman. I am at NAAF because that is where we will make a difference, with students first. Give them that entitlement to the education. They will change their family, their communities and this country.
Senator Poirier: In many of the presentations that we have had over the last weeks, the importance of culture and understanding one's culture has been stated by pretty well everyone.
You have the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet, and all the different tribes and nations. I assume each one has their own culture that is different from others. Can you give us an idea of how we could put something in place that could be taught not only in the First Nations schools to help them understand their culture but also in non-First Nation schools so that non-Aboriginal people also understand the culture? How can we do that when there are so many different cultures?
Ms. Jamieson: It absolutely can be done and must be done. I will ask Ms. Steinhauer to speak on this. She has been a teacher and a principal, and she has done this type of work on the ground. She is our director of education. You are quite right that our cultures are critical. The Environics study said that even if we are in an urban setting, we value it and are in touch with it and want to maintain and keep it.
Noella Steinhauer, Director of Education, National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation: This is a very important question. People talk about culture, and the meaning of culture is often misunderstood. It is a way of knowing and seeing the world. It is about perspective. When Aboriginal people talk about culture, that is what they are talking about. It is about honouring our ways of knowing.
Having worked with the provincial Ministry Of Education, the big issue was always how to teach other people about the culture. However, it is really about honouring and validating that other ways of knowing exists, not simply one way. Mr. Newhouse talked about the importance of cultural proficiency and the importance of ensuring that we honour all those cultures.
It seems much greater than it actually is, because it really needs to come from inside out rather than from top down. At the community level, the ways of doing that are much easier than we envision them to be. I have been a teacher for many years. We always find the greatest resistance with teachers because they think they must know absolutely everything about Aboriginal people before they can teach students about Aboriginal people or about this group of Maliseet or Cree kids or Mohawk kids. That is not the way. I have been a Cree woman all my life, and I still do not know everything about being a Cree woman or a Cree person.
It is really about honouring that knowledge at a community level but honouring, more than anything, that there are different ways of knowing. In terms of curriculum and outcomes, it is about validating other ways of knowing. The simplest place to start from is just acknowledging because we have so many cultures from other places in the world, and we acknowledge that. Many times we acknowledge those as the exotic other, yet we have so many exotic others in this country that we do not honour in the same way. That is the overarching way you would approach that. However, it is about the community level really. It is easier than it sounds.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you for your presentations. It is nice to see you again, Ms. Jamieson. You mentioned legislative frameworks. Aside from that, what policy measures could be pursued to improve education in First Nations for the learners on-reserve?
Ms. Jamieson: Thank you for the question, senator. It is nice to see you again as well.
The policy framework needs to encourage appropriate curriculum, and it will differ across the country. Common amongst Aboriginal people is our historical experience, our respect for the environment, for one another and for different ways of knowing. If we could teach that, it would be primary. We have much to bring to botany and plant life, and we could open the school doors to involve elders, teachers, keepers of our culture, as we call them. That would be marvellous, achievable, local and not expensive.
This is a wonderful dialogue that I would like to see expanded. The policy in place should encourage retention, preservation and evolution of our indigenous cultures because we are not under glass. We are evolving and changing people, similar to everyone else, and we should be able to change but be in charge of that cultural change and make space for that growth and development.
We could require access to Aboriginal languages throughout Canada, the same access as we provide for French immersion and French-language services, for example, even to the point of the employment setting, which we do not do at the moment. We do not validate first languages in this country in terms of employment and increase in pay, educational leave and so on, and that would be wonderful. It would be wonderful to tell our young people that if they pursue their language, look at what they can contribute to their own community and what they can offer to the greater public.
Those are some of the policy pieces that I would put in place. As well, the framework for ongoing monitoring and evaluation is absolutely essential. I would also encourage coaching. I would encourage the sharing of best practices because, as much as we are different from one another, we also can learn what techniques are working in Northern Saskatchewan or Northern Alberta, with the Sunchild E-Learning Community. There might be some lessons there that we would love to hear about in the Eastern Arctic, for example. Those things should be shared.
Policy support for a coaching environment and sharing are all pieces I would put in place. Underlying that has to be the acknowledgement that in this country, if we lose the indigenous culture and languages, they are gone from the face of the Earth. Therefore, they should be a number one Canadian priority because what makes Canada distinct from the rest of the world is the indigenous underpinning of the soul of Canada. The other cultures are welcomed and enjoyed today, and we have to get that into the psyche.
Look at New Zealand and the Maori culture and the validation of the Maori language. Every person in New Zealand is knowledgeable about the Maori. Every person in New Zealand can speak a few Maori words. It is there. I could go on, but those are some of the policy pieces that need to be understood and validated.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You mentioned that after getting their education, it would be nice for these people to go back into their communities to teach their people. It is good to have an education, but there is a ``but.'' Many of these places do not have the resources to bring these educated people back and provide jobs for them, so the sad part is that they have to go outside of their communities to find employment. It is a bad example for the youth in the communities. I am not saying that education is a bad example, but what is the use of going to university when they come back home and cannot get a job?
Ms. Jamieson: You make a very good point, senator. That is why the adequate funding for appropriate educational experts available to students needs to be within the community as well as without because to educate and then beggar the community just does not make any sense.
I was very interested to read the evidence given at this committee. I believe it was a witness from the Pic River First Nation who said that for special education planning and design, they received a total of $660,000 for 81 students. That is $8,000 and change for each student. If they were to go off-site, they would get $15,000 per student.
We need to look at the obvious disparity. Perhaps your researchers could choose 10 places in the country and validate that comparison for you. It is tough to get figures. I did some research to try to get figures to show you the disparity. People give anecdotal examples, but we do not have a good costing. We know it is chronically underfunded and that disparity exists, but no one is keeping track at the end of the day, and that is a concern of the Auditor General.
The Chair: I do not think there is any dispute about inadequate funding. We have undertaken this study in order to build a sound foundation. Both Mr. Newhouse and Ms. Jamieson have said that we should have legislation, and that is really the focus of this study. There is no dispute that funding is currently inadequate, but we need to put structures in place, which is why we have undertaken this study. I would like us to focus on how to build a foundation so that when we build the house of education, a solid foundation is in place and whatever we put onto it will not be wasted in any way.
Professor Newhouse, would you comment on Senator Poirier's question about the various cultures that exist? How do we take culture into consideration when building an infrastructure that will work?
Mr. Newhouse: First, on the issue of outcome, it is important that, when we build a structure, we have a sense of what we want the structure to do. In part, we want the structure to facilitate choice. We want students to be able to participate in the Canadian economy and Canadian and Aboriginal society. We want them to have the choice. We do not want to force people into communities where there are no jobs for them. That is a recipe for disaster. It leads to more and more despair, and people drop out. They need to come out of the system with a sense of choice and a set of skills that enables them to act upon those choices.
Second, in terms of culture, it is important to understand that culture is not just a set of practices. Culture is a way of engaging and understanding the world, and with it comes a set of skills and knowledge, and those skills and knowledge will be different in different parts of country. The skills and knowledge that one needs to live well in a West Coast culture are different from those that one needs to live on the Plains. The educational system that evolves has to respond to those different environments. We do not expect the educational system in British Columbia to be the same as the educational system in Ontario. We expect some common denominators and outcomes, but must we allow for regional variation. The British Columbian culture is very different from the Ontario culture; the Quebec culture is different from the Ontario culture; the Prince Edward Island culture is different from the Newfoundland culture.
We currently allow and encourage the system to be different, and we need to do the same with Aboriginal culture. When we talk about Nova Scotia, we will be talking about what the Mi'kmaq want to have expressed in their educational system. British Columbia is a more complex situation as there are more cultural groups there than in any other place in the country. Negotiating the political terrain will be difficult, although some commonalities exist.
The system must help people have a sense of self, a sense that they are an Aboriginal person who can engage the world and make a contribution to the world. It is extremely important that they can make a contribution as an Aboriginal person, that they understand their culture — not as a set of practices but as a way of seeing and living — and that they can help other people to understand it as well.
Senator Dyck: Welcome to the committee. It is a pleasure to have you all here today. I have interacted with all of you before. I have good memories of dealing with NAAF and of visiting Trent University about five years ago.
I remember that, at Trent University, you offered me a strawberry as part of the culture. That is not part of the Cree culture on the Prairies, so it was new to me. At the time, I was not sure what it meant, so I had to find out.
In our education study, we have chosen to focus on kindergarten to grade 12. Ms. Jamieson, you were talking about the need to ensure that funding is equitable between First Nations schools and other provincial schools. You suggested that that be done through a legislative mandate.
Professor Newhouse, you spoke about a national Aboriginal education council. Presumably the two would interact. What would you suggest that the legislative mandate look like?
Who would design the national council? Who would sit on it? Should it be funded? To whom would the senior person in charge of the council report? We do not think INAC should be the responsible body, so to whom would they report? Do we need a different government body? Should they report to the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada?
Mr. Newhouse: You are entering into the realm of politics, which is a difficult area. Being an academic, I would say that academics ought to design it, but I am not sure that is the answer you want.
From the perspective of public policy and management, if you want to achieve something, you need to have a senior official in charge of it. That is the simple premise upon which I am operating. In this case, this being a national priority, I would see an organization that reports to the Privy Council Office, PCO, or the Office of the Prime Minister, PMO, as it is that important. Perhaps it should even report to Parliament, since Parliament is higher than both the PCO and the PMO. The organization, this council, would need that level of attention because if it does not have it, we will be in the same situation in 30 years.
The design of the council requires some accord between the three national groups: the Assembly of First Nations, the community of Aboriginal people, and the Inuit organizations. It also requires the presence of the National Association of Friendship Centres, NAFC, or an organization that deals with and services Aboriginal urban populations. Those groups need to come together and put their attention to these issues. They have all spoken individually, and everyone says that it is important. We might be able to get some degree of consensus. We have done it on a First Nations governance centre and other issues as well. Its job is to do the monitoring and reporting function that Ms. Jamieson talks about.
It should be enshrined in legislation so that a requirement for an annual report is put in place. More than that, it begins to commission research, to assist and to be seen as a support institution. A great deal of support is required.
Improving educational outcomes for Aboriginal students is not the work of teachers only. It requires a whole series of other efforts. It requires attention to health, incomes, the cultural teachings of elders, tackling the attitudes of discrimination and other types of support mechanisms. It is a fairly complex undertaking. A national organization or council can begin to set out the program model and the efforts required, after which it can begin to cajole and advocate the commissioning of research and bring to bear the best of thinking. That is the important part of it.
Ms. Jamieson: Thank you for that question, Senator Dyck.
I will focus on the First Nations because I understand that it is the focus of the committee's study. You might want to have a peek back to the 1980s to the Report of the Special Committee of Parliament in Indian Self-Government, commonly referred to as the Penner report. I had the pleasure of being at that committee. The report was accepted unanimously by all parties. We advocated for the creation of a mechanism that was a federal-First Nations relations contact point not unlike one that is federal-provincial.
I am practical. I want to get funds out there to educate young people quickly. I do not think we should wait for the federal and provincial governments and national organizations to reach an accord. I was with the National Indian Brotherhood, NIB, at the federal cabinet committee in the 1970s. In the 1980s, I was at the constitutional meetings, and onward. I have seen these processes, which are important, but they tend to take on a life of their own, and our students are failing.
I would like the legislation to guarantee funds for every student. Our students are failing. Therefore, I would like to see this mechanism created whereby First Nations could elect from a number of choices, but they would all have strings of accountability, transparency and reporting attached. They could offer the education themselves, which many would do if they were adequately resourced. They could elect to have funds go to a tribal entity because some places in the country work extremely well at that level. They might elect to do a province-wide initiative or a tripartite arrangement with the provincial government. There should be a menu of options with all of them having some common features, such as curriculum and language. We have talked about those.
I would also like to see encouragement and support for the research capability and the sharing of best practices. NAAF's institute, which you will see in some of the materials that have been shared with you, should be among them. Not every First Nation will be able to do that. We need economy of scale and the sharing and incubation of good ideas. The beauty of this is leveraging. One thing that NAAF does well is leverage resources, matching federal, provincial and individual corporate entities, who all want to be part of this solution. Let us give them an opportunity to play.
Individual Canadians also want to contribute to educating our students. The more I hear about what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, TRC, is bringing out in Canada, the more I realize that Canadians will be either overwhelmed and not know what to do or will look for a way to contribute to a healthy future for all of us. What better way is there than to promote educating our young people so that we can all live together on the same playing field? There needs to be a role for charities such as NAAF that can leverage and have additional players.
It will take the public and private sectors and individual Canadians to change the picture. If we are to close that gap, we have to start tomorrow. Those are my thoughts. The education council is a great idea. It could inform the research, the broader level of thinking and move agendas forward while sharing with Inuit and Metis. That is what I would do in Parliament on First Nations education over the next six months.
Senator Hubley: Welcome. I take you to page 5 of your presentation on the bursary and scholarship program of 2009-10. Under the educational program, approximately 1,400 individuals requested funding. There were 65 requests under fine arts; 524 under health careers; and 722 under post-secondary education, which was the largest. What is the OGTT?
Ms. Steinhauer: OGTT stands for Oil & Gas Aboriginal Trades & Technology Bursary & Scholarship Awards Program. The initiative is exclusively in Alberta and was started by the private sector, which wanted to encourage Aboriginal people to enter the oil and gas trades. These are apprenticeship and training programs to encourage Aboriginal people to work in the oil and gas trades.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for the clarification. I compliment you on your work and the positive aspect of providing scholarships to students. When we looked at K-to-12 education, we heard witnesses tell us in many different ways that a hungry child will not learn or that a child from a dysfunctional family will have challenges and education often will fall by the wayside.
Our current education system is demanding. We, as a society, look to our educational system to solve many problems not related to the ABCs of life. In a national Aboriginal education council or a national strategy for education, how would we address those other social needs that must be part of that educational system if we are to begin to break the cycle?
For example, many schools have breakfast programs for those in need. Who would have thought? We ask our educational system to complement and support our lifestyle, which works. Most mothers and fathers work full time, and some of our young people get left behind or do not have their needs met to the fullest. We look to the educational system to fill that gap. Can you offer us any insight on that?
Ms. Steinhauer: Thank you for that question. It is a complex question and one that every public and First Nations school district would deal with in this country. I have been a principal both in the public school system and in a First Nations school. I have seen kids come to school hungry. I have seen all of those factors that lead to kids not learning.
However, both Ms. Jamieson and Mr. Newhouse alluded to the importance of looking at this complex issue. It took us a long time to get here, but it is also a multi-faceted, multi-layered issue that will take a multi-pronged approach. We need the involvement of elders. Some school districts are taking that on and seeing positive outcomes from having elders in the school as part of the community and creating a community environment in the school. Many other components could be taken on.
Unfortunately, we look to schools in this country to solve all of our problems, as a society in general. I have had parents who wanted me, as a school principal, to discipline their child because they could not control them at home. There are those issues. We look to schools more and more — not only First Nation communities but society in general — to teach kids values. The school system was never designed to do that, but our expectations of the entire system across the board are growing.
The issue becomes even greater when you compound that with the other issues that Aboriginal students bring to school. It is a complex issue. The statement that it takes a whole community to raise a child is really true when you think about it because that is what we expect our schools to do.
However, our communities have not stepped up in many ways. I am talking about a community on a large scale, but within our First Nations community the problem is even more acute. These are insular communities that can be recognized and set apart, especially for First Nations out there on their own. Those schools become more of an issue because no infrastructure or support exists for them. The English teacher has no one else to go to except herself.
Senator Hubley: I have heard of that scenario. However, if we are to put the student first and take that young, keen mind in kindergarten and ensure that that child will be able to move through each grade — and I will not say success, but however you want to classify it — then your school system must address that. The school system must come to the mark on that.
I know we will fall right back into funding here in the next two or three sentences. However, society is asking the school systems to solve many of the issues that perhaps, at another stage or in another time, would have been done within a family circle. Now, because of our lifestyles, that is no longer available.
If we are to put the student first, then we will have to look at that and say that we must have those support systems in place. That is a real challenge to an educational system that is stressed, too, to its financial limits.
That is more of a comment. I will not take any more of your time. Thank you for your answer.
Senator Raine: I am enjoying your comments. I have watched the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards for many years.
The award show itself is excellent, but I did not fully realize how involved you were in the bursary program and the percolating down of the inspiration from the top. Congratulations on that.
I am looking at the chart of bursary and scholarship allocations over the last five years. From where does your funding come? What portion is from federal, provincial and private sponsors? Is there a national campaign to raise money to be allocated through your programs?
Ms. Jamieson: Thank you for that question, senator. To give you some perspective, Canada has about 80,000 charities. Most charities receive 60 per cent of their funds from the public sector; we are below that. We are at about 55 per cent. Most charities receive 1 per cent to 2 per cent of their funding from the corporate sector. Ours is 30 per cent. The rest is from foundations and individuals and interest that we earn on an endowment that we received from the Government of Canada over time, as well as other endowments. We now manage $26 million in education endowments.
We encourage corporations as well as individuals to be involved in this picture. I am delighted — and I would be happy to send you our latest publication — with the range of private-sector corporations that are involved because they know we have to increase our number of students. They range from Citibank to Suncor Energy Inc. to CIBC to Fort McKay First Nation. We have Aboriginal corporations taking leadership now in supporting the work of the foundation, I am delighted to say, but much more needs to be done.
Senator Raine: What is your percentage of administration costs versus other types of charitable organizations?
Ms. Jamieson: That is a great question. We were just over 13 per cent the last time I answered that question, but I know we are under 15 per cent. Many charities are 20 per cent and above.
Senator Raine: Congratulations. Our study is focusing on kindergarten to grade 12. It is nice to know that when we have all our kids graduating, you will be there, hopefully expanding and growing. All university students, no matter where they come from, are struggling to pay for tuition. Education costs are increasing; it is a challenge for everyone.
In the First Nations communities that I have seen, a group of solid performers is at the top of the scale, with families who support them, and they are attaining education, graduation and going on to become super achievers. However, probably a bigger percentage of the spectrum is underachieving and really needs help in terms of special needs. That will also require a huge amount of investment. Knowing that you are all from the Six Nations of the Grand River, where your school system is delivered by INAC, they have done a good job with you folks.
Ms. Jamieson: That is right.
Senator Raine: Do you have any comment on why Grand River still has their education delivered directly by INAC? Is it a good model? Share with us some of that experience.
Ms. Jamieson: First, I would be remiss if I did not say that Dr. Steinhauer is from Saddle Lake and not from the Six Nations of the Grand River.
That question would need a whole other hearing. It is still controlled by INAC because of politics and history. It is woefully underfunded. It is woefully inadequate and does not have the diagnostic support that is needed for counselling and psychometrics. It shares with all First Nations in Canada the characteristics that I have outlined.
How is it that I came out of that system as a success? We do have successes. We are not saying that all is lost. I am not brilliant. I am not Einstein. I had a supportive family. I am one of eight brothers and sisters. I had a strong sense of culture, who I was, that was healthy and supported. That is what many of our kids do not have. Family and support are the most important elements to many of the young people who we are working with at K to 12 — with whom Dr. Steinhauer is doing round tables — and many of them are in care.
These 11 to14 year-old kids are dealing with bullying, drugs and prostitution, and they are taking their own lives. These are extraordinary circumstances unique to Aboriginal kids in Canada. Pockets in cities everywhere have those characteristics, but we have more of them than anyone in the country. Please take on board all the dimensions of that picture.
If you want to talk more about Six Nations, I would be delighted because I was a student, mother and chief there who tried to change the education system. I would love to tell you my story offline.
Senator Raine: Great. Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for your presentations this morning. Ms. Jamieson, certainly your presentation was compelling, and I agree with practically almost everything you have said. A few things stuck with me.
One was the issue of a legislated mandate. You said that you were a practical person and that there should be more accountability, transparency and results attached to the resources that are spent by the government for Aboriginal education, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. However, what struck me the most is that you said that students should be put first and thought of in that manner. You were talking about accountability. Unfortunately, that is not the system that we are currently under. INAC's own internal audit has confirmed this. They have also confirmed that funding is not necessarily being spent on Aboriginal education when it should be. There is also this issue of always demanding more funding.
While that may be true, what would your thoughts be if INAC were to tighten the nuts and bolts on their operations to ensure more results-oriented criteria based on the funding that is currently being provided, funding to ensure that students go to school, continue going to school and graduate, to ensure that the administrators of the funding, the band councils, spend the money that they receive for education on education? It is no great mystery that the education funding is one of the only pots of funding that band councils can use for paving their roads and debt reduction. Very little accountability is attached to that stream of funding.
Do you have any thoughts on the current system and the need for more accountability?
Ms. Jamieson: In addition to what I have already said, I would say that, yes, there needs to be greater accountability and transparency. However, this is not limited to INAC. As I said earlier, this is not an INAC problem. If you say to INAC, ``We know the need is $1. Here is 4 cents, now do a better job with 4 cents,'' knowing that you cannot possibly meet the needs but account more, what is the sense in that?
I used to have to do 200 reports a year to government in my First Nation. Do you know what that takes? With the number of Treasury Board directives that are out there now, I would like Parliament to get a hold of this and bring some simple, overarching framework to bear that has inherent in it accountability and transparency and that holds all to account; not just INAC and not just band councils or First Nations but the entire picture, and Parliament itself held to account to the Canadian public for the education of our First Nations children. That is what I would like to see.
I am not adverse, as you know, to accountability and evaluation; we build it into every program that we do. Should there be greater lengths? Yes. We collect statistics at NAAF that we openly share; everyone should, including the Government of Canada.
It is not just about INAC, though there are enough reports, and they would be the first to say, ``We know.''
Senator Brazeau: I agree with that, which leads me to my next question. We often talk about the federal government's responsibility for Aboriginal peoples and Aboriginal education. What about the administrators of the education funding, again, the band councils? What are their roles and responsibilities in all of this?
About three weeks ago, a First Nations woman from the North contacted me because she was in dire need of help and assistance in trying to access post-secondary education. I know our study is kindergarten to grade 12, but in any event, she cannot access post-secondary education funding because she does not live currently in the North; she lives in Alberta. The community is under a self-government agreement, so they have jurisdiction over how they administer their education funding. She was asking me for help. I told her to document the answers she was requesting, and she did that. The director of education in her community told her if she wanted to access post-secondary education funding, she needed to move back to the North for a year, and then they would consider her.
This is just one example that I have documented amongst many; this is happening. As I said, INAC admits that education funding delivered to the communities is not necessarily being spent on education.
When I hear you say that we should put students first — and I wholeheartedly agree with you — what about the role and responsibilities of those administering those funds who are shortchanging their own people?
Ms. Jamieson: I have a few questions to fill out that picture. What is the population of this community, and how many students are eligible for funding? How many students are going to post-secondary education, and what is the allocation that this community is receiving overall? It is easy to jump to the conclusion that this person is being disenfranchised.
Senator Brazeau: I have the answer to all those questions.
Ms. Jamieson: That is great because those are critical to round out the picture.
We are all accountable, and should be, to putting the students first. It is easy to go into the realm of Aboriginal politics, federal and provincial and First Nations and say, no it is your job; no, it is your job. No, it is all our jobs. We should really keep that student centred and first, and ensure that she has the right to call on resources to achieve her potential.
Should she be able to do it in her home community? Yes. If she cannot, should she have a place to go? Yes. Do these students have that place now? Not much. We need to come to terms and explore those anecdotes in rounding out a system that would put the student first.
I can give you many examples on the other side of the coin. I am just saying, ``Let us keep the students and what they have to contribute.'' I am mindful of what Senator St. Germain said earlier: The funding issue is important, but it is not the only issue. If we would expand the discussion to know what we are losing as a country by not supporting these young people to contribute and see it from that end of the telescope, I do not think we would have such a hard time with public policy because we are losing to the extent that we are not giving these people a chance to bring all that they have to this country that is theirs and that they love.
I do not know if that is helpful to you.
Senator Brazeau: I have a final, short question talking about the legislative mandate. Some progressive communities have entered into tripartite agreements to try to develop a framework that would work for them, and that should be applauded. You also mentioned that no cookie-cutter approach would apply for all. Again, perhaps a legislated mandate would be required or needed in many parts of the country; or maybe not. Having said that, what about the reality that many communities, or the leadership of those communities, oppose legislation that is created to either benefit them or affect them? How do we break through those barriers, especially when the provinces are involved?
Many First Nations communities are reluctant to involve the provinces. Again, we have this jurisdictional issue that no one wants to tackle, but it is there, and, in my opinion, it is a current barrier to moving forward. The federal government has jurisdiction for Indians living on-reserve, and the provinces have jurisdiction for education. How do we break through those issues that no one wants to tackle?
Ms. Jamieson: Senator Brazeau, you have asked many questions. Let me quickly skim the surface.
Many communities would regard themselves as progressive and are running their own immersion schools and maybe are not in tripartite agreements. There are many ways forward that may or may not be progressive.
We grappled with the question of prescriptive or facilitative on the committee on Indian self-government legislation. I think you will find that many First Nations are reluctant to see the Government of Canada legislating over them. However, there is a difference between legislating over them and legislation obliging Parliament to set aside adequate funds to provide support for students. That type of legislation that is available in other programs in the country would certainly not be condemned, I would suggest to you. It would not be prescriptive or obliging. It would not be empowering First Nations; it would instead facilitate supporting students to succeed and putting the requirement for resource allocation into legislation. I do not think you would run up against that problem.
Senator Demers: Thank you for the great presentation. I have been here for several months, and I have been taking notes. I will just make an observation, for which maybe an answer can be given. Whenever we come here, the first thing we talk about is money. My thinking is that we should talk about structure first. We could give you all the money in the world, but we need the structure first.
We talked about Aboriginal children going to school with no breakfast, but in Quebec, we have some non- Aboriginal children who also go to school with no breakfast. Do you sense that too many Aboriginal people are stereotyped and discrimination and many roadblocks occur? Senator St. Germain made an interesting point about all the pilots. He said that only one pilot was Aboriginal. They have to be smart. There many smart First Nations people. That really hit me.
Mr. Newhouse: The Environics study indicated that most Aboriginal people experience discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping in the urban environment, and it is probably the same in other environments as well. Certainly it is important to try to change the attitudes of individuals within the system.
I have been involved over the last year with the reform of Aboriginal education in Ontario and the new curriculum. It has been difficult to try to get a view of Aboriginal people as contemporary peoples into that system. They want to focus on history, which is important, but it has been difficult to get into the system the idea of Aboriginal people as contemporary peoples, looking forward, beginning to live good lives today and dealing with issues in a contemporary world. The cultural stereotypes of Aboriginal people still persist, and they are hard to change. Much effort goes into trying to change those. They are real, and they have effects. They cause some streaming of students within schools as well.
Structure is important, but we have to ask what we want the structure to do, and then we can ask how much funding is required to achieve that. Then we can begin to ask the question around equity. The equity question is extremely important, but we ought not to limit ourselves only to equity. We need a system that will, at least in the short term, do more. It needs more funding than the mainstream systems if we want to begin to close this gap. The question of equity is important, but it may have to be more than equitable over the next short while. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples talked about that concept as well. They talked about the need for funding for catch-up over, in this case, a 15-year period. However, there was not much support for it. Hopefully, this environment will have some support for it.
Senator Sibbeston: I think you are all brilliant and smart, and I am glad you are here.
It is so important for parents to inspire their children and also to make the point that nothing can happen in a vacuum. Some development must happen to inspire the kids. I will tell you a story about my mother.
When I was young, my mother used to say to me, ``Some day, you will wear a white collar or white shirt.'' The background and the way of making a living in our area was hunting and trapping, and she recognized that it was a pretty hard life. The only people she saw in town were the priests, who had white collars, and the teachers. I have to say that I failed her badly in not becoming a priest; I was not even close. As for becoming a teacher, I went to university, and, in my first three years, I took education. However, I flunked out and eventually became a lawyer.
I make the point that it is so important for children to be inspired and encouraged and to see something that they can do. I will use the example of the Dogrib people in the Northwest Territories. They are the most traditional group of people with respect to hunting, fishing, and living off the land. However, since the diamond mines have come into the area, there has been great movement to getting jobs with the diamond mines. They have gone from a traditional life to an industrial life in just decades, and their children are doing so well. They have students taking training. From the money they receive from the mines, they are subsidizing them so that they can go as families.
You alluded to corporations and industry. Could you say something about this? While our focus, when we are dealing with education, is governments and that governments need to spend more money, et cetera, do you feel that the role of industry and private enterprise in this country is becoming more important in the education of Aboriginal people? Do they have a responsibility and obligation, as it were?
Ms. Jamieson: I would say, yes, they do, and they wish to, for the reasons that Mr. Newhouse just cited about the fact that equity is important. However, a major investment needs to be made to even get on the playing field with respect to our young people. We have an aging population in Canada. Our labour shortage is well known, and our available labour, Aboriginal youth, are not getting out of high school. We should be able to put this picture together. Industry sees that.
The corporate CEOs to whom I speak see that and are willing to contribute and increase the number of employees. However, they want and are entitled to see government take the lead role, make the lion's share of the investment up front and lead the change, which must be transformational. It cannot be a little more, more of the same or tighter rules. We need transformational change in educating our young people.
Our young people also need to see that there is a future for them. That is one of the biggest challenges we face. When we do career events for high school students and go into classrooms with role models, either on video or in person, they are powerful. Students tell us that they are life-changing experiences because for the first time they can see that it is possible, that they are worthy, that they can dream and realize their dreams. They can see that someone cares about them and will support them, that there is a world for them if they stay with it. Sadly, many of our young people do not believe that. They need to see the job down the road; they need to see that it is possible and within reach. That is why role models are so important.
Everyone will play a role. Diavik Diamond Mines Inc., now the Rio Tinto Group, is one of our supporters at the post-secondary level, but they want government to play the lead in our communities for the much younger students. They will top up and do breakfast programs, but they want to see leadership from the Government of Canada, in particular, as well as from provincial governments and First Nations governments.
The Chair: We have tripartite agreements and a large amount of infrastructure at the provincial level. I would never suggest that the federal government should abdicate its fiduciary responsibility to First Nations. However, the provinces have infrastructure now, and the cultures are similar in many provinces. In Manitoba, there are Ojibwa and Cree.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but you have not really focused on this aspect. We have to be practical. The provinces would benefit greatly from an educated workforce in our Aboriginal communities. It would be a huge socio-economic benefit. It is ridiculous how many First Nations people occupy our prisons.
Is there a danger, from your perspective, in working aggressively with the provinces? The federal government will try to support you. However, as we develop this legislated structure, should the provinces be first and foremost in the minds of those who will design this vehicle?
Ms. Jamieson: I am not anti-tripartite agreements. If you got that impression, please let me dispel it.
The Chair: It is not that I got that impression; it is just that we had not talked about it much.
Ms. Jamieson: I am saying that we do not have a cookie-cutter approach. If it works for the communities in the area, we should go for it because if they are invested, it will succeed. It will not work everywhere. I would avoid limiting the flow of funds in one direction. Choice should be available.
Some communities have their own system that works in an immersion setting not at all connected with the provincial system. If it is producing successful outcomes, that is terrific. Others are in tripartite agreements. If they are successful, that is terrific. We should do whatever works that will bring positive results.
I want to underline what Mr. Newhouse said about outcomes. We want success. Let us take a hard look at what is working and why it is working. Let us evaluate it and share the features that are working. That is what we want to do through the NAAF institute that we are building. We also want to run pilot projects around issues that you raised earlier, such as having no breakfast. In some areas, it is about the parental responsibility for getting the kids to school in the first place. We have a community that wants to work with us on a pilot project on how to change that.
There is room for all of those aspects, and there must be because, as we have said before, we are very different across the country.
I have not spent much time on tripartite agreements. However, I know they are working in some places, namely, B.C., and the communities are behind them. That is wonderful, but let us maintain flexibility for other approaches in other places as long as they produce the result that we seek.
Senator Raine: You have given us much to think about. Thank you very much.
The Chair: That is right.
Senator Sibbeston exhibited the honesty and straightforwardness that exists in this committee, although I am not sure that failing education and going into law is necessarily the standard.
Colleagues, we will, unfortunately, lose someone who has contributed greatly to this committee over the past few years. I have been on this committee for about 17 years, and I have seen the good work that people do, including our reporters, our translators and our clerks. We also have our researchers from the Library of Parliament.
I must advise you that we are losing one of our key people. Tonina Simeone, our researcher, is choosing to go elsewhere, for which I do not blame her. She has produced incredible work for us. Our reports are crafted by the researchers with a great deal of input from us, but they are the artists. The legislation on specific claims virtually mirrored our report, which was drafted by Ms. Simeone and others.
Thank you, Tonina, for everything you have done for us. May God bless you in your journey forward. You are always welcome to come back.
Senator Dyck: I would like to thank Tonina as well. Her work is of exceptional quality. I spent many years at university in graduate studies, and I know that her work is exceptional. All committee members will affirm that.
The Chair: Thank you. We will proceed in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)