Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 11 - Evidence - Morning meeting
EDMONTON, Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:02 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 call this meeting to order. Welcome all honourable senators and members of the public to these hearings.
We take great pleasure in this opportunity to hold our meetings here in Edmonton today. Although financial considerations require that we bring most of our witnesses to Ottawa, we always find that we gain special insight into the provinces and territories of the country when we are able to meet our witnesses on their own terrain. We have just come from a fact-finding mission in Saskatchewan where we learned a great deal, and we have no doubt that today's meeting will be just as productive.
My name is Gerry St. Germain, and I have the honour of chairing this committee. I am also a westerner originally from Manitoba but now from British Columbia and a senator from British Columbia.
Our committee is here today to gather information for the study we have undertaken concerning First Nations primary and secondary education. We are hoping to examine possible strategies for reform with a view to improving outcomes. Among other things, our study will focus on the following: tripartite education agreements and partnerships, governance and delivery structures, and possible legislative frameworks, if necessary. Thus far, we have held 10 meetings on the subject in Ottawa, and as I indicated, we are very pleased to be in Alberta for our eleventh meeting.
This morning we are very fortunate to have two panels of accomplished witnesses with expertise in the subject matter we are studying. From 9 a.m. until 10:30, we will hear from the Office of the Treaty Commissioner and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. From 10:45 until 12:15, our invited guests will be Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, the Treaty 7 Management Corporation and, as an individual, Ms. Vivian Ayoungman.
Before we hear from our witnesses, allow me to present the members of the committee present with us today. On my left is the committee's deputy chair, Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan, and next to her is Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island. Next to her is Senator Poirier from New Brunswick. On my right is Senator Nick Sibbeston, and next him is Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Members of the committee, please help me now in welcoming our first panel of witnesses: from the Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan, the Honourable Bill McKnight, and from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Chief Guy Lonechild.
Witnesses, I ask that you limit your presentation, to be as tight as possible, to five to seven minutes, which I know is next to impossible, so that there is time for a full exchange and so that senators and members can pose questions to you during the question and answer period.
I would also ask the senators to keep their questions tight so that we can get through this, because we have lot of information to deal with today.
I am the first who should take the lesson and learn to quit speaking, so without further ado, I welcome the Honourable Bill McKnight.
Hon. Bill McKnight, P.C., Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, and good morning. Some of you we had the opportunity to visit with on an informal basis in Saskatchewan, and some of you I have known for several years, more than I will identify publicly, Mr. Chair. With me today is Harry Lafond, the executive director of the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan.
We are very pleased to have this invitation and this opportunity, and we look forward to the dialogue that follows. We also fully understand that there is a time limitation, so I will make a brief opening statement, and hopefully there will be time for dialogue as we proceed.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am speaking here on behalf of the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, no one else. The Office of the Treaty Commissioner is an independent and neutral body created by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, FSIN, and the Government of Canada. Our mandate is to facilitate discussions on treaty implementation.
Education is an important treaty right, and we have undertaken extensive research and dialogue with the FSIN, with Canada and with Saskatchewan. The aim of this work is to improve the educational outcomes for First Nation children. Mr. Lafond and his colleagues on this file have extensive experience at all levels of First Nations and provincial education within the province of Saskatchewan.
Our key messages would be as follows: Collectively, we know what to do but we are not doing it. Our task collectively is to work together to bring about systemic change. To achieve the change that is required, it takes all parties at the table, First Nations, Canada and Saskatchewan.
Canada cannot and should not think that it can find or implement or support the changes alone. It is a return to the paternalistic past, that past that we are working hard to put behind us, and we have done that with some success.
In Saskatchewan at least, we have those parties at the Treaty Table of the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, and we need your support to continue this activity.
This is a treaty-based forum for collective action. The collective action must be focused on systemic change for education. We do not pretend to speak for all of Canada and in fact recommend different approaches for different regions. Saskatchewan is completely covered by treaty. Other regions of our country are not. Different solutions require different opportunities and a recognition of the different regions just as other activities of the Government of Canada recognize different regions.
In our brief, we make nine recommendations. The first is to build on the strengths that exist. Some of those strengths include a strong role for elders; the emergence and importance of language and cultural programs; the increasing amount of sharing and working together between First Nation educational authorities, such as tribal councils, to provide improved support services; and sharing between First Nations educational authorities and the provincial system.
The second recommendation is to enhance federal practices towards systemic change, including more support for institutional capacity and more support for institutional capacity building beyond the individual school level; increased use of block grants — that is, reduce project funding; the development of accountability systems that are accountable to First Nations people; and the establishment of expertise in the bureaucracy of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC.
The third recommendation is to foster identity building in First Nation communities and schools. This would include utilizing elders, supporting language and cultural development, and incorporating traditional ceremonies.
The fourth recommendation is to strengthen educational leadership development by establishing leadership development programs.
The fifth is to define and implement the characteristics of good government based on the following five criteria: stable institutions and policies, fair and effective dispute resolution, separation of politics from management, development of a competent bureaucracy, and cultural match.
Sixth, in service delivery, there should be support for a balanced approach to language and culture in education, and the educational research literature findings with respect to school effectiveness and educational improvements should be applied in First Nation schools.
Seventh, under legislative reform, accept the Assembly of First Nations' public call to establish a process aimed at replacing the Indian Act. Education would be a reasonable place for that initiative to start.
The eighth recommendation is that tripartite agreements should be pursued, but they should not be a requirement for funding.
Finally, the ninth recommendation is that the Crown and the First Nations engage in Treaty Table discussions within Saskatchewan aimed at collectively developing a strategic action plan for systemic change in the education of First Nations in Saskatchewan.
I know we have gone beyond the key questions that your committee asked with respect to service delivery legislation and tripartite agreements. Hopefully, you will find some merit in our comments. We are convinced that nothing short of sustained collective action aimed at systemic change in the education of First Nations children and youth will make the changes that are needed for the benefit of First Nations and all citizens of this country of ours.
I thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to the capacity to dialogue as we go along. When it comes to difficult questions, I will defer those to Mr. Harry Lafond, who is the executive director of my office.
The Chair: Well done. Thank you.
Chief Guy Lonechild, you will introduce Mr. Hurton, would you, please?
Guy Lonechild, Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations: Yes, I sure will.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all the senators that are here this morning, it is a real pleasure to see each and every one of you.
Joining me today is Gerry Hurton, our executive director of our education department at the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, FSIN.
I am the chief of the FSIN, representing Saskatchewan's 74 First Nations. We have a senate very similar to the Senate of Canada, a women's secretariat, a youth council, an elders council and of course many esteemed chiefs around the province who meet regularly in Saskatchewan.
First off, I would like to say good morning and express my appreciation to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I think it is absolutely necessary that you examine strategies for reforming First Nation primary and secondary school systems on a nationwide basis. The status quo has been failing our students, both on- and off- reserve, for a very long time.
The FSIN has stated in its written submission to your committee that First Nations in Saskatchewan have been working to reform First Nations kindergarten to Grade 12 education virtually since the treaties were first signed. Our outstanding issues were compiled and presented in 1970 and again in 1972, in the Indian Control of Indian Education policy document.
Fast forward to today, and not much has changed. Forty years later, and our First Nations students are still not completing Grade 12 at rates on par with the rest of Canadians. Why? What are the challenges? What are the successes we can build upon? This is the question of the day.
We need transformative change, we need true First Nations control of First Nations education, not a devolution of administrative control of someone else's vision of education for our students.
The first challenge is language and culture. We need to infuse the learning environment with First Nations language and culture; this is key in retaining our students and key to engaging our communities.
When our ancestors signed the treaties, there was no indication that our values, knowledge and language were not to be a part of the schooling. The vision that our First Nations leaders had when they signed treaties was not that First Nations language and culture would be replaced by the Western European ways of knowing. Our treaty forefathers envisioned education as having a dual purpose: One is to teach their children to read and write and two is to maintain their own traditional knowledge, and they were to have the best of both worlds. I think that is what our children deserve.
Today this means developing and securing funding for K to 12 language curriculum. The francophone schools have much the same mandate as First Nations schools in promoting a sense of cultural identity and belonging to the French Canadian community, strengthening children's pride in being francophone, helping children define themselves as part of the dynamic and diverse group and allowing children to grow by preparing them for an interdependent and evolving world.
If we look at the francophone school funding model and its levels, it is substantially higher than what First Nations schools receive.
We also need to engage First Nation elders in the classrooms. It means incorporating treaty into the curriculum. It also means designing an education system based on the treaty vision.
We have a very successful First Nation language program at Onion Lake First Nation and at Lac La Ronge First Nation that can be built upon. We have the curriculum that was begun through the Gift of Language program, which was a proposal program that lost its funding. We just need to build upon these examples. We need the financial support and the political will to make these things happen.
Language and culture is tied to a second challenge: comparable funding for First Nations schools. On average, First Nations schools have received 40 per cent less funding than provincial schools. Our schools need the funding to deliver enhanced curriculum and languages. Our schools need extra funding just to buy the textbooks to deliver provincial curriculum in their classrooms.
The province has introduced a new science curriculum for middle years. A great deal of effort was put forward by the ministry and First Nations to include First Nations knowledge and ways of knowing. We totalled the cost of the new texts and teacher in-service and presented it to INAC. The response was that there is no new money.
We are faced with increasing teacher salaries in the province of Saskatchewan. We are faced with poor connectivity to the Internet. If you truly want to improve education on-reserve, First Nations schools should have at least a level playing field with the province, which means comparable funding. Let us lift the arbitrary 2 per cent cap on education for First Nations set back in 1996, almost 15 years ago.
A third challenge is that our schools need proper second-level service provisions, and we need the ability to provide the support services to our schools. For example, the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council has a very good model for providing these services. This model should be replicated. The Prince Albert Grand Council has had a very successful special education regional management organization. Unfortunately they both suffer from unstable funding that is much less than what is received by provincial school divisions.
You will talk to one of our second-level service providers later today. The Northwest Nations Education Council will talk about the frustrations they face. I know people say that money alone is not the answer, but underfunding is a guarantee for continued failure.
It is often said why not just join the provincial system. Well, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the graduation rates and results are no better according to INAC information. In fact, they are worse. More important, First Nations in Saskatchewan are not starting from scratch. The Prince Albert First Nations offered limited support services to their schools in the early 1980s, including teacher evaluation and educational psychologist services. Nine tribal councils now deliver second-level services such as teacher supports, math and language arts curriculum supports, language supports, as well as special education services.
First Nations in Saskatchewan recognized the importance of special education funding long before there was a federal special education program. Money was taken from the school-based budgets to support special education. When the national special education program announced that money was locked into special education, the base funding for First Nations schools in Saskatchewan ended up being reduced by almost $16 million.
The First Nations educational organizations, which are not limited to tribal councils, are working to build partnerships with provincial school divisions and other partners. Provincial school divisions are funded at a higher rate, but they do not have excess funds lying around or excess staff that can be used to support First Nations schools.
Our second-level service providers need to be funded equitably to provincial jurisdictions. We do not have school divisions, but First Nations in Saskatchewan have long known the benefits of working collectively to improve education for our children.
Saskatchewan First Nations have other educational structures that you need to be aware of. Through the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, there is a regional directors of education table that meets four to six times a school year to deal with these educational issues. There is a regional post-secondary coordinator's table that meets on a regular basis to support post-secondary education programming.
These tables report to the FSIN education secretariat and to the chiefs of Saskatchewan through the Saskatchewan Indian Education and Training Commission. Three First Nations institutes — the First Nations University of Canada, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies and the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College — have all been formed through the cooperation of Saskatchewan's First Nations.
First Nations are working together also to try to preserve their languages. The Gift of Language is only one of the organizations supporting First Nations languages. The Nakota, Lakota and Dakota First Nations are another example of First Nations that joined forces to keep their language from extinction.
We are working hard to ensure processes are in place for a First Nations education system. We have developed a proposal called the Action Plan on Education in the Context of Treaty, which looks at the design of a First Nations education system. The initial phase held five regional dialogues with the elders in each language group to gather their views on what should be done about our education system. The next phase will involve discussions with tribal councils and First Nations educational organizations as to what a First Nations education system should look like.
There are a number of key questions: What is the role of the First Nation? What is the role of tribal councils or educational organizations? What is the role of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations? Also, what is the current role of INAC, and what is the role of the province?
We do not expect our system to mirror a provincial system, and why should we? We need a system that meets the needs of our students, not someone else's view of education. I am happy to report that we are working on agreements with the provincial and federal governments to do just that.
We are close to signing a bilateral memorandum of understanding with the Province of Saskatchewan to work together for the benefit of students in First Nation and provincial schools. We have a trilateral task force in the works that will look at the issues of language, curriculum, connectivity and funding.
Another issue concerning engaging our students is giving them some real hands-on skills training in the classroom. A lack of labour market attachment is a big issue for First Nations in Saskatchewan. Let us foster it in the classroom. The Aboriginal skills and training program being delivered in Regina is a very successful model. Let us build on it.
We can build on our structures and organizations that we have developed. First Nations just need the capacity and the resources to do the job.
Given the time frame for this presentation, I will end my presentation here. We would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses, for your excellent presentations.
I have one quick question to ask of you, Chief Lonechild. How many First Nations have you got in Saskatchewan, and how many tribal councils, and do they all buy in to what you are recommending here this morning?
Mr. Lonechild: At this point in time, we have met with our education and training commission. Of the 10 tribal councils that took part in yesterday's discussion on this particular approach, all but one supported these efforts moving forward — one abstention, recognizing the Prince Albert Grand Council and its many issues with educational delivery.
We represent the 74 First Nations more specifically in Saskatchewan. I would think we will be looking for that direction at the end of this month, whether they wish to proceed with this approach. Ultimately, I think more dialogue will happen with the cooperation of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. We have asked the minister for some capacity in doing just that.
The Chair: I have one quick question for Mr. McKnight. In my view, you were a very successful Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and you said that we should improve the expertise, and then you went on to say that we should remove education totally from INAC. Now, I may be wrong in what I am saying, but that is what I understood.
From your expertise, can you explain the best way to proceed with INAC, in a nutshell?
Mr. McKnight: I guess first of all, if I said that, I misspoke.
The Chair: I most likely misinterpreted.
Mr. McKnight: I believe, Mr. Chair, that the expertise within INAC has to be upgraded, but that does not mean putting more legislative restrictions on what is a treaty right.
As you are fully aware, the Indian Act was under consideration while treaties were still being signed in Saskatchewan, and that was not the understanding of the chiefs of the day and the councillors who accepted treaty.
I think education is an opportunity to get away from that European-dominated concept of an act that is used to provide what is considered under our Constitution an inherent right, and that is education. I believe firmly that there has to be support from Canada and there has to be expertise that allows Canada to work with the other partners like FSIN and like the Province of Saskatchewan, but I would not suggest that it be put under an act.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions?
Senator Poirier: Good morning, and thank you for the presentation. I just have a couple of questions at this point. There may be some more coming as the discussion continues.
You mentioned the francophone school model and how they were able to get funding matched, and you were looking at that model. Are there francophone schools in the province, and if so, have you met with these groups of people to see what they needed in order to get to where they are today? Have you discussed with them whether legislative changes needed to be made, and were they at the provincial level or at the federal level? I would not imagine it would be the federal level; I would imagine it was more the provincial level. How did that come about? Are there discussions ongoing about that?
Mr. Lonechild: The average spending is approximately $17,000 or almost $18,000 per student for francophone programming. We think we should be afforded the same type of resources, but currently we are at around in some cases $4,700 per student for First Nations students. There is a large disparity there.
Since approximately 1986, there was legislative change in the province of Saskatchewan to ensure that French schools had French immersion with the funding being accommodated. I will let Mr. Hurton expand upon that.
Gerry Hurton, Executive Director of Education, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations: What it really comes down to is how people interpret the Constitution, and the standard answer in Saskatchewan when we talk with the province is that it is a constitutional right for the French to have access to their language and culture in the schools, but that it does not speak to First Nations.
Now, we disagree with that statement, but I guess it goes back to whether people think the clause in the Constitution is empty or full with respect to First Nations' inherent rights.
We know that the setting up of the francophone school division is actually a fairly recent thing in the province. We have had discussions with the province, and at one point, several of the provincial school divisions said they thought that it would not be a great stretch for the province to use its existing framework to allow the instruction of First Nation languages in provincial schools, because right now you just need X number of parents to request it, and the provincial school divisions are saying it would not take a big change to allow First Nations, whether Dene, Cree, Saulteaux or Dakota or Lakota to do the same in the provincial school system.
Senator Poirier: What is missing? Is it the political will to do it?
Mr. Hurton: Yes, political will and the funding. Part of it is that we get caught in the jurisdictional battle, whether we are federal or provincial, and from our point of view, yes, to some degree we are under federal jurisdiction. We are also residents of Saskatchewan.
The transfer payments coming from the federal government count our people, and then the province arbitrarily makes things stop at the edge of the reserve.
Senator Poirier: Do you know what the percentages are of francophone students and First Nations students in the province?
Mr. Hurton: I could not give you the number for the francophone students, but we have approximately 20,000 First Nations students in the province. Roughly 16,000 are attending on-reserve schools, and approximately 4,000 are off- reserve.
Senator Poirier: If today the financial support and the political will were available, what would be the first action that you would take to start making this happen? Would you need legislation or regulation? If all of a sudden you had the financial support and the political will to do it, where would you go tomorrow morning?
Mr. Hurton: Well, part of it has to do with the legislation: The way we are governed, it is a very loose clause that we are to follow provincial curriculum, and INAC interprets what that actually means. We probably need some legislation to clearly define the governance structure that we will operate from. However, one of the primary things people need to understand and the reason we are doing the Action Plan on Education in the Context of Treaty, APECT, is that we need to decide what our system will look like. Therefore, that process would have to go ahead. We would have to get that done to develop the system, to have a good handle on how we want to do it.
Everybody has had ideas, but we have not been resourced, and when you design — I would not call it a system — but when you devolve control of education to some 70 bands, you cannot just snatch it back and say, ``Okay, well, we are going to use a new system.'' They have developments and things in place, and we have to go through that consultation process to start building from there.
Mr. Lonechild: There is an ever-widening gap of provincial standards, and we have learned that the federal government has funded full-time nursery — that is, federally funded full-day programs for provincial schools. There is an increasing gap in early childhood development.
We think it is especially important to put investments in those early years, so if we are at a continuing disadvantage, we would try to level the playing field of what provincial students are realizing in the school experience. That would be one of the gaps we would immediately look to close for sure.
Senator Poirier: Again, if the financial support and the political will were there, is there a will for all First Nations in the community to work together, or would each band or First Nation work on its own?
Mr. Lonechild: I believe that once we get into the dialogue with tribal councils on the types of services they could provide along with the governance structure, then we would be able to gauge whether they would be willing to work together.
There seem to be different geographical realities in Northern Saskatchewan and Southern Saskatchewan. There are best practice models in both, and I think we would build upon a business model that adheres to the principle of Indian control of Indian education, thus getting into the administrative and governance discussions on creating collaborations or amalgamations of First Nations schools.
Senator Poirier: In your view, if the new legislation on education were to be drafted, what do you feel would be required by the Government of Canada to respect the treaty commitments?
Mr. Lonechild: Again, I think if we were to establish our governance models and have K to 12 fully funded on an equal basis with provincial school systems, then we would expect that there would be federal participation on key issues where it seems relevant for us.
The school experience I think is moving towards ensuring that we have all the technological connections, the Internet, distance learning. In Saskatchewan we have Credenda, a virtual school where there is the on-line education experience. This would be an opportunity for us not only to get up to provincial standards but also to be forward- looking around what the educational experience looks like and forward-thinking about the sheer challenge we have before us. I want to mention that.
By 2016, one in every four people in the Province of Saskatchewan will be between the ages of 20 and 30. By the year 2045, 40 per cent or almost 50 per cent of the population will be in that age cohort, so we have to start now at each level with early childhood development, primary and secondary school.
Senator Poirier: With those numbers, you are not talking about only the population of First Nations; you are talking about all over Saskatchewan, are you?
Mr. Lonechild: Yes. I am talking about the demographic projections for what percentage of the provincial population would be comprised of First Nations and Metis people.
The Chair: Mr. Hurton referenced that at the present time you have 74 bands that in most cases are being funded individually through INAC for their educational programs. Is that correct?
Mr. Hurton: Yes.
The Chair: And some have combined their efforts and work as a tribal council on education?
Mr. Hurton: A majority of First Nations schools are part of a tribal council that delivers limited second-level services for education.
The Chair: That is a real challenge that you folks have to deal with. It is typical of the federal government. When they originally set up First Nation reserves, they just split everybody up into the smallest entities possible so that they could maintain control with dollars and handouts instead of hand-ups.
Harry Lafond, Executive Director, Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan: I wanted to make some additional comments in regards to Senator Poirier's question about legislation.
I think it is important to understand that any kind of legislation that would be put before Parliament to deal with education has to be legislation that enables a treaty implementation. We currently have a report, accepted by both parties, from the previous commissioner, Commissioner Arnot, on recommendations for treaty implementation.
The reason this becomes important is that we currently operate on a very prescriptive type of legislation, which is the Indian Act, and any kind of prescriptive legislation like the Indian Act attempts to hand down solutions from Ottawa to our communities.
What we need is legislation to allow recognition of existing institutions in our communities and for the First Nations communities to come alive and to be honoured for the work that they are responsible for in organizing education for our children, both on- and off-reserve. The type of legislation is critical here to ensure that we have a long-term systemic change or the transformative change to which the chief referred. Certainly, I think it is a necessary part of the picture that we are looking at in the long term.
The Chair: I think you will find that most members of this committee think along those lines: Let us start doing things for people instead of to them. Historically the Indian Act has done things to people as opposed to for them.
Senator Dyck: My question is actually related to what you just elaborated on, Mr. Lafond. To me, one of the key challenges is that although First Nations say we have the inherent right to education, INAC operates under the Indian Act and does not really recognize that right.
I think you were saying that if we had legislation that somehow put in place an act that recognized the structures you were talking about, Chief Lonechild, with APECT, they would be recognized in the same manner as the provincial systems; they would become legal entities. Is that kind of what we are getting at? You will have to forgive me: I do not have expertise in law or education. If they became sort of on the same level as the provincial bodies — not necessarily with the same structure but had the same sort of legally binding recognition and legal rights — you would have the legal authority to operate the structures, and maybe then you would have a better system of managing the money that goes towards First Nation education.
It sounds like right now the disparities are set by policy that is set by INAC as opposed to some new legally constituted bodies that would be recognized above the level of INAC.
Mr. Lafond: The situation as it exists today is that First Nations authorities that operate either as individual units or as tribal councils or even bigger units operate as administrative arms of a federal department under its policies. What we need is enabling legislation that raises the stature of these entities to a level that gives them a legal position from which to work with the province and with the federal government.
Right now, that does not exist, and that is part of the problem, a major part of the problem. We cannot operate truly as partners with the province because we are not operating as a recognized entity.
Senator Dyck: I am wondering if it is possible for someone to draw a diagram. I am the kind of person who always needs to see a diagram with names.
We see the governance structure you are talking about being removed from administrative to actually legally recognized independent bodies, so that it is moved away from INAC then. If you were able and willing to do that, maybe that could be submitted later.
Mr. McKnight: I thought we had a diagram. We had a wiring diagram that we presented at the Treaty Table education working group, and I thought I brought it, but I did not. I am sorry, senator, but I believe it can be quickly sent to the clerk and distributed to honourable senators.
The Chair: That would be great because as you pointed out so adeptly in your presentation, Mr. McKnight, we have other problems too as a committee to deal with because some areas have no treaties, and that is a huge challenge as well.
I think where treaties exist, and it is clearly interpreted by many that there is the obligation in treaty, it makes it a lot easier to start there. That could be a starting point for us, because for us to try and do everything in one fell swoop may be a little bit risky, and it would allow those who would like to evade or avoid the situation to be able to take actions that are not conducive to what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. McKnight: Mr. Chair, if I could I would like to build on that. Both Chief Lonechild and Mr. Lafond talked about what could be done with legislation. As long as the legislation is treaty-based, in my view, that recognizes the treaty right and transfers what is now INAC or Canada's authorities to the people who have the right and allows them to make the decisions as they go forward to educate and benefit their own nations, which benefits then all citizens of this country.
The Chair: Do you think if that were done the accountability factors could be instituted?
Mr. McKnight: Ask Chief Lonechild.
Mr. Lonechild: Thank you very much. As we see today, with 39 per cent and 44 per cent, we are all doing our students a disservice if we do not correct and improve the educational outcomes in terms of graduation rates. Therefore we are hoping to do this reciprocal accountability or reciprocity of accountability in terms of results. First Nations and provincial school systems need to do far better, but we also recognize that the federal government has a strong role to play in that too based on the lack of funding that is there.
I would hope to build upon exactly that — that a treaty-based approach would have the authorities and the legislative backing and certainty in terms of standards and maybe even some shared decision making down the road about how to improve educational outcomes for First Nations learners in provincial schools and also with the educational experience on-reserve. I think that was a key question there, and that is what we are asking for.
Mr. McKnight: There is just one other thing on accountability, and I will ask Mr. Lafond to talk about our small office and the process of being accountable.
First Nations multiply that, and so much of the administrative time is spent answering questions that are control questions, not partnership questions, that come from INAC to First Nations. Mr. Lafond does all that for me and he is going great.
The Chair: He still has hair. It cannot be that tough.
Mr. Lafond: I should be back home writing a report.
That is part of the unhealthy relationship that exists right now between INAC and the First Nations and specifically offices like ours where the accountability has become almost a hypersensitivity to and a distrust of the people who are being funded.
I did a quick calculation yesterday in response to INAC's new performance measurement strategy that is being implemented. They wanted know what it would cost our office to collect the data that we would report to INAC to show how well we are performing under our work plan. Using a rough calculation, annually we would spend close to $100,000 just gathering the data to report back to INAC, which is close to 10 per cent of our budget.
I was not playing around with numbers. I was polling people and asking them how much time they spend collecting this data so that I can have it in my quarterly report and then in my annual report and then in my audit report, which are all part of the requirements for the funding with INAC. It just tells you that we spend a lot of time reporting, and that reporting time could productively be more efficient in the carrying out of our mandate.
Mr. McKnight: This new evaluation program replaced one that we were working with two months ago called a logic model, which was neither a model nor logical; it has now disappeared after we found all the right boxes, and now we are into another evaluation mode.
If you multiply that by hundreds of times in the province of Saskatchewan with First Nation education, First Nation administration, First Nation institutes that are receiving funding, there is an awful lot of administrative time. It does not mean that accountability is not important, but accountability as a partner and accountability in a normal setting does not put — I have been involved in business, and Mr. Chair, you understand business. You do not tolerate that when you are responding to legislation and to accountability requests.
Senator Hubley: Welcome and thank you for your presentations this morning.
Mr. McKnight, you mentioned that you are calling for collective action aimed at systemic change in First Nations and in First Nations education, and you outlined a number of specific reforms. What would be your number one reform that you think should be tackled?
We have talked about a forum, and I am wondering whether that forum would be also the First Nations authorities and entities that Mr. Lafond spoke about. I just want to be clear. Is this one body that would be the authority for education and the delivery of education?
Would the role of that forum also take some of the responsibility for the amount of reporting that has to be done in each individual band?
Mr. McKnight: To answer your first question, what would our office view as a first step, our responsibility and our mandate is to facilitate and to bring a focus by the parties that signed treaty — Canada and the First Nations — along with the modern reality of the Province of Saskatchewan, who sits at the table as an observer, not a full partner.
The question of what the office would do is not our job. Our job is to bring the parties to the Treaty Table.
Up until 2007, the Treaty Table was called an exploratory table, and we changed the name. We had had 10 or 12 years of exploration, so we said let us make it a treaty table, so it is a treaty table. It brings the partners together.
At this time, we have Saskatchewan, FSIN and Canada in two working groups. One is the task force or working group on education, which sits at the table, and the other — when we said how are we going to go forward to bring these parties together, I asked the question of the table. What would education look like if it were treaty-based? That is where APECT came in, and FSIN now is taking APECT to the communities, going to the communities to get the information to communicate, so there is a ground up identity as to what education would look like under the treaty right.
We do not have a view. We have a view as to how to facilitate and how to bring people together. However, it is too much like doing something for somebody who has not really asked.
The Chair: Could I ask, what is APECT?
Mr. Hurton: Action Plan on Education in the Context of Treaty.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. McKnight: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: I hope everybody knew that.
Senator Hubley: We have heard from our witnesses generally the same issues, the same problems they are having. Funding and the delivery of funding seem to be up there. The present system seems to be taking time away from the objective of the educational system within the bands.
Can the group tackle that? If this information rises to the top, it becomes very obvious that the funding program is not working to the benefit of the Aboriginal schools. Is that something you can then take forward?
Mr. Lonechild: I am not sure I understood the question.
Senator Hubley: Just as an example, the fiscal year of government is not exactly the educational year, so you are getting funding for perhaps half a year and then reapplying and getting the next half, and that is onerous in administration.
If that came forward from a number of areas, and I am sure it will, would that be something you would have the authority to take forward and perhaps seek a solution to?
Mr. Lonechild: Again, I do not know whether we would be in a position to state whether that would be something we would be able to do. We would have to go back and ask the First Nations themselves.
Senator Hubley: If your body, the Treaty Table, was representative of the educational system in this area, would you not have the authority or some responsibility to take that forward?
Mr. McKnight: Well, to emphasize, the Treaty Table is made up of two parties and an observer. Saskatchewan in this example is sitting and discussing. Anything that would come from there, any agreement, even from the Government of Canada's agreeing, would have to come from their political masters.
To agree, Saskatchewan would need the support of its political masters. FSIN I assume would need the support of its collective chiefs through a resolution of assembly or however they wish to go forward, so it is not something that one could say, ``Yes, we can do this,'' until it has been presented to the political masters, to use that word.
It can always be reported back, and we expect the members of the table to report back to their constituencies, but it is not something they can agree to until they have polled their constituents.
Senator Hubley: Ultimately the political master would be INAC?
Mr. McKnight: For Canada it would be, but for FSIN it is the membership of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Senator Hubley: Okay, I will leave the questioning at that.
Mr. McKnight: Because of my past, I understand the difficulty that officials have in committing government to action, and that is one reason I believe that the Treaty Table should be made up of the political masters, which would be the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the Premier of Saskatchewan, if they wished to sit, because that would mean the decisions then would be made by those who have the capacity to agree, not by officials who are limited and have a difficult time soliciting from their political masters the opportunity to bring about change.
Mr. Lonechild: I would further state that the three key ministries in Saskatchewan are committed to this along with the premier. The premier and I would sit at this table, and we would have both advanced education and education and First Nations and Metis relations that would act as active task force members, and we would contemplate a composition of First Nations leaders who would sit on behalf of the FSIN.
I believe that the political will is being demonstrated by the province. We need to move that forward with the federal government to commit to these discussions.
The Chair: Did you say the Metis would be represented?
Mr. Lonechild: It is possible. We have not officially spoken to the Metis, but we know that there are a couple of schools, Ile-a-la-Crosse and Green Lake; Ile-a-la-Crosse is the main one. It is possible that the Metis would sit at this table.
Senator Dyck: Have other First Nation organizations in any other province undertaken the type of process that FSIN has initiated?
Mr. Hurton: One of the leaders at the forefront of this would be the MK group — Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey — in Nova Scotia. They have a very strong structure. Even with that structure and through their tripartite agreement and the fact that they have legislation, they still have issues when it comes to dealing with the federal government. However, they are probably one of the strongest models that we have seen.
Mr. McKnight: They have been in existence for 10 or more years with their educational authority that they developed between the province and Canada.
The Chair: Where do you think the federal government's head is at in regards to recognizing the implementation of treaties?
We might as well ask these questions. If we are going to get to the bottom of this thing, we have to ask the questions. I am here to serve the constituency, which is the Aboriginal community of Canada, and I would like to know from your perspective, if it is not putting you in an untenable position, where their heads are at in respecting treaty implementation in regards logically to education.
Mr. McKnight: May I just give you an example? In the treaty kit I had delivered here, which is a white box with ``Office of the Treaty Commissioner'' on it, there is a book written by my predecessor, Judge Arnot, called Treaty Implementation: Fulfilling the Covenant. That book identifies 20 or more treaty issues that need to be addressed.
That was written in 2006 and sent to the Government of Canada, and it is available if you want to read it. FSIN responded within a year as to how those 20 treaty issues could be addressed. Canada responded about six or seven months ago.
In that response, as to the federal government's view on treaty, the only comfort I got was that there was not a no. They said everything would be discussed and contemplated. You have to understand that when it comes to First Nations and treaties, the Government of Canada has probably 12 different government departments, plus the PCO — they have to consult.
However, in my view, a lot of progress could be made with treaties if treaty rights were implemented, and it is not too late. As a matter of fact, it is probably more important today than it was 100 years ago, because in my province, with the demographics that we have and the obligation that citizens of Canada have to implement the treaties and keep the treaties, it is a benefit to us all.
It does not help to have one part of the Government of Canada taking active measures to allow for job opportunities, for employment opportunities, for business opportunities for First Nations when the education system under which First Nations are taught is inadequate and does not provide them with the talents and the skills to accept the opportunities that are developed.
Where is Canada on treaties? It does not link treaties to real action. That is as kind as I can be.
The Chair: What about the provinces? I know they do not have a legal obligation, but do they recognize treaties, say in your province?
Mr. McKnight: I do not believe they do.
Mr. Hurton: I would like to add, from a technical point of view, that when dealing with INAC officials, treaty just goes right over their heads. Their main concern is management of their funds, and treaty does not fit in there.
The province gives lip service to it, but to be fair, I think the provincial view on treaty is that it is a federal responsibility.
Senator Poirier: I have another question or maybe two. If I understood correctly, currently the funding for First Nation education comes from INAC and is given to the First Nation band; then the band provides the education within the schools in the First Nation. Also, some of the band councils, especially the stronger ones, supplement the funding to offer other services within education.
However, I also think I heard, if I heard correctly, that if the band decides money is more needed in an area other than education, it has the authority to float that money from INAC education funding. Am I correct on that?
Mr. McKnight: Mr. Hurton, Mr. Lafond? I believe so.
Mr. Lafond: There are basically two types of funding agreements that the First Nations sign in Saskatchewan. The majority of them are comprehensive funding agreements, and the minority of them are flexible transfer agreements.
The flexible transfer agreement allows for something close to block funding, and the First Nation signs the agreement to receive the money and do the budgeting process internally. This is where money can be moved around according to the plans of the First Nation.
With comprehensive agreements, that does not exist. That money is targeted; if it is targeted to education, it is used in education. Those agreements are a lot less flexible than the flexible transfer agreements.
Senator Poirier: Moving forward, if there is extra funding available at the end of the day and if there is the political will to do this, would you highly recommend that that funding should come in a form that would ensure that it cannot be floated anywhere else, that it would be stable and just for education, to make sure that we are addressing the problems that need to be addressed?
Mr. Lafond: I think that is part of the development that needs to occur in the area of governance and accountability. As the situation sits today, the accountability reflects back to the federal government, and that is basically the only accountability. Any other accountability carried out — accountability to the First Nation community members — is usually at the development of the First Nations themselves. They want to do it.
When we talk about systemic change here, that is one of the items we need to address: What accountability structure will reflect the type of democracy we live under?
The Cree have a type of democracy that is dramatically different than the European democratic process. I think that is one of the areas most misunderstood between the government and First Nations communities. There is one way of looking at accountability from the First Nations' side and another way that the federal government sees it.
When we talk about governance development, we have to recognize that there will be a different way of expressing democratic processes in that development. Just as a concrete example, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is organized as an entity, and they meet in assembly. However, in actual fact, the power of the organization lies in the assembly of chiefs, not in the elected chief. The elected chief acts on behalf of those 74 chiefs who sit around that circle.
That is certainly not the same type of structure that you see within the provinces or in the federal systems. I sometimes think it is more reflective of some of the church organizations where the power is further down in the structure and the structure is more flat as opposed to a pyramid, which we see in the European style.
Senator Poirier: There could be quite a few different models of governance.
Mr. Lafond: Definitely, and I think it is absolutely necessary that we approach this with an open mind and with an understanding of the cultural and historical differences of the people we are working with. That is the only way this will work in the long term.
The Chair: I have a question on that. Do you think that if you instituted those First Nations processes they would ride out the court of public opinion in Canada as a whole, from an accountability factor? The thing is that we have to deal with the realities that are out there. If it does not pass the litmus test, we still have a problem.
In an ideal world, I would like to see something that reflects the culture and traditions of First Nations people but also passes, in the court of public opinion, the population as a whole. We can operate in isolation in certain areas, but there are other areas in which we have to operate as a nation.
Mr. Lafond: We have an example in Saskatchewan where a change has occurred that is significant, and it did not happen accidentally. Through our office, a concerted effort in public relations and public education over the last 15 years has dramatically changed the attitudes in the province, and this is measurable data that can be obtained.
If we are to go forward with any kind of systematic change, part and parcel of the process is public education and constant communication with the people with accurate information. If we try to do this without communicating effectively with our population groups and without having the people who make decisions really believe in the process and be able to take the risk to step forward and say ``Yes, this is the right way,'' we are set for failure. However, if we play it smart, we will use what has happened historically in this country where successes come because people have the right information.
Enough people in Saskatchewan have been standing up and saying, ``Why did not I know this before?'' These are old people. ``Why did not I know that residential schools existed? Why did not I know that treaties were not being implemented?'' That is a very common response in the public education sessions that we have across the province from just about all sectors of the population.
Mr. Hurton: I want to make one comment. I am not trying to be flippant, but 60,000 reports a year are not giving us the accountability people are expecting. There is a perception, and the reality is you can increase reports all you want, but that will not give you the idea of accountability.
The federal government to some degree likes to paint us as being unaccountable. There needs to be discussion about what we are actually doing.
The provinces do not fill out anywhere near half of the forms that we do, yet nobody talks to them about the accountability of provincial schools. That is not even a question on the horizon. Yet 40 per cent of our students are there.
I think we can come up with an accountability process. It may not look like everyone else's, but I think it will work. As Mr. Lafond says, education of that process needs to be done, but it is difficult to get the idea that we are accountable across when you have somebody in Ottawa standing there saying, ``Well, you are not.''
The Chair: I hear what you are saying, and I am certainly not an advocate of more reporting; I do not imagine half of them are read anyway because so many of them are required.
As we go forward with this, I would like it to become a reality that we will make a difference — not us but everybody as a group, all of us, First Nations, Canadians as a whole. I can see where things are done differently in First Nations country, and I think Mr. Lafond explained it —
Mr. Lafond: That is the way it used to be.
The Chair: That is the way it used to be before you came along.
There has got to be a strategy as to how this plays out, because the thing is many people in this country do not know what is happening. You are absolutely and unequivocally correct. They do not know that treaties have not been recognized; they do not know of the huge fraud that took place in regards to the land allocations for First Nations. That is why we have treaty land entitlement agreements. They do not know about the litany of situations that have really shortchanged our First Nations people right from the very beginning.
Mr. McKnight: Mr. Chair, in answer to your question, and not being flippant, I think there is as much opportunity to convince the population, which is the master of us all, of First Nation accountability as there has been to convince the population of Canada of the accountability of the Government of Canada. I do not think the population really believes — and I spent a lot of time there as you know — that the Government of Canada spends the money properly. I think there is as much opportunity to convince them that First Nations can spend the money properly as there is to convince them that the Government of Canada can.
The Chair: You brought something up this morning that is quite interesting in regards to French immersion and the francophone population. I think the more languages we in this country learn, the better. Most people from Germany speak English fluently. There is no reason why we should not be able to speak two or three languages.
How do we do this without damaging the efforts of the francophone community, and yet use it as a comparison? Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. McKnight: Exactly.
The Chair: I think if anybody has a right to their language, it should be the indigenous people of this country, or of any country.
I heard Chief Lonechild and Mr. Hurton say that this is a slippery slope in some ways, but how do we go about it constructively so that we are not sort of crying out and using somebody else as a whipping boy?
Mr. Lonechild: The Province of Manitoba recognized the first languages of Manitoba this past year or so, and recognizing official languages of provinces was a positive step forward. We need to do the same thing in Saskatchewan.
We also recognize that Michif and Metis rights exist as constitutionally protected rights. We just have not made that effort in implementing what those rights mean.
I think ultimately the short answer is that it does not compromise but it builds upon the standards, which we would have expected, that are afforded to the French-speaking population.
Senator Raine: I am finding this very interesting, but it also points out just how convoluted the whole system has become. We are dealing with federal jurisdiction and then provincial jurisdiction and then with treaties that cross provincial boundaries and First Nations that span two provinces, as we saw yesterday with Onion Lake. To relate to all of them is very complicated, yet I do not think there is anyone who does not want to see the outcomes change and who does not want to look through the eyes of the children to what they need.
I am also very aware that the federal government is under a mandate of fiscal restraint right now, and all the different ministries have been instructed to keep their budgets where they are. Therefore, we need to find inside INAC some economies and do things in a more efficient manner.
My personal opinion is that we have to figure out a way to get INAC out of the way of the First Nations and the educational organizations so that they can do the work more expeditiously.
The present government has talked about decreasing red tape as part of its mandate. Has there been any attempt actually to ask what red tape? Which reports are, in your opinion, irrelevant in terms of the outcomes?
Mr. Hurton: In education, it has gone the other way. They have almost doubled the reporting.
Senator Raine: That is what we are hearing. We could tackle that without legislation. Maybe that is the first small step.
Mr. McKnight: You cannot shuffle paper without people. I remember having a discussion with a senior politician, Mr. Stanfield, on the limitation of the public service. I asked him how he would you do it, and he said, ``At home, I just quit building offices for them.''
The people who look at the information that flows from our office and from FSIN — I am not denigrating their positions — are not senior people. They are lower or mid-management people. And where does it go from there? I have never been able to figure it out. I could not figure it out when I was minister.
Every Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should be the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan first, not second, because he or she will have a lot more knowledge of the job.
I cannot identify how to put efficiencies in place, except that like any huge organization, there are efficiencies that can be gained.
Senator Raine: In the private sector, efficiencies are forced because the profits are not there, the money is not there. We know there is a lot of money in the system, but it is not getting to where it is needed. I am interested in finding out how we can do that.
Mr. Lafond: In answer to your question, I think individual organizations and First Nations file regular complaints about the amount of work that happens in reporting. What we have not done, and I think we need to do this fairly quickly, is begin to translate all that work into dollars: What does it cost the 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan to deliver the reports required for economic development projects? Let us get a number on that. We can acquire that number.
We need to begin to identify that kind of data because that is what speaks in this country. When you spend a lot of money for nothing, people respond. People ask questions. We have not gone that route in Saskatchewan, but I think we need to go there in order to get the point across that we are wasting a lot of money here writing reports. Every time somebody like me writes a report that takes two or three days, that is a fair amount of cash.
Senator Raine: In preparation for our study, we know so many studies have been done already, and yet nothing changes. There is slow change, but that is the challenge.
Mr. Lafond: I have one remark that goes back to a question regarding what we have to work with. I think it is very important to understand a shift in thinking that needs to occur in Canada. The colonial direction that we have been taking over the last 200 years has led people to believe that First Nations are working with empty cups and that we need to fill those cups. I have been trying to make it understood that we have full cups and that that is what we have to work with.
Just as a concrete example, in Muskeg Lake, our council meets with its membership twice a year. That is far more often than the federal government ever meets its membership and its voters, and it is part and parcel of the democratic process that we operate under, which is that decisions are decisions of the people, and the council is there to act on that advice and that direction.
Those systems are already there within First Nations and sometimes within tribal councils. That is what we have to work with; we are not working with an empty cup here. We have quite a full cup. We just need the right legislation and the right environment to allow it to flourish and to become greater for Saskatchewan and Canada.
The Chair: Gentlemen, senators, either Chief Lonechild or Commissioner McKnight said that we have money going in all directions for economic development and for job training, yet we are not educating our people. We are throwing money out there, and yet these people do not have the education to deal with the challenges that come with economic development.
I want to thank all of you for taking time out to be here this morning.
Is there anything you would like to say to close, Commissioner McKnight?
Mr. McKnight: First of all, I want to say thank you for the opportunity. I happen to be one of those who believe the Senate of Canada will be around for a while, and it is also a body that has an opportunity to, in most cases, and I say most cases when it comes to national issues, function without partisanship.
We would hope that you are able to take from your examination of this very important issue that it is important not only to First Nations but also to every citizen of Canada because, first, there is an obligation under treaty and, second, the furtherance of working with the Government of Canada and working with First Nations is what treaty was about. It was designed to build a relationship so that we could function together for the benefit of all, and the two sides of the treaty originally each benefited. Over the last 135 years, that benefit has shifted. There has been an imbalance. As a newcomer, I got a lot more than my friends.
We will work together to make that happen. We rely on the Senate committee to make a report that would be concise, forcing the government to make a decision yes or no, and hopefully bringing about change.
I believe in the process of change with governments. It stems from those who have the capacity to influence, and those are both the electorate and those who are appointed. I wish you luck in your endeavours. Thank you again for the effort on behalf of the people of my province, and I look forward to seeing your report in its finality.
Mr. Lonechild: The Treaty Commissioner was joking with me at beginning, saying this is an historic time when the Treaty Commissioner and the Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations have sat side by side. I am inspired by the words of the Treaty Commissioner this morning. I can say with good faith that all that he has stated is accurate in terms of our longstanding point of view.
I believe the 1970s business model, if you will, of Indian control of Indian education is still relevant today, and in fact full implementation of that in our way forward will be a better business model for Canada and for Saskatchewan and most importantly for our First Nations people, who demand the respect that they fully deserve. I think our future is bright with a young, educated population in Saskatchewan.
I appreciate your consideration. This is probably the most important issue in the province. Thank you on behalf of our chiefs.
The Chair: On behalf of the senators, we certainly thank you. You have presented excellently, you and Mr. Lafond and Mr. Hurton, and I cannot say how pleased we are that you took the time to come here with us this morning. Let us work together and let us try to make something happen.
Senators, I will reiterate that our committee is here today to gather information for the study we have undertaken concerning First Nations primary and secondary education, and we are hoping to examine possible strategies for reform with a view to improving outcomes.
The panel we have before us, senators, includes Ms. Vivian Ayoungman, who is appearing as an individual, and from the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, we have Chief Rose Laboucan. I know that Ms. Laboucan is definitely from Treaty 8, and Eileen Lines is also from Treaty 8. We also have Sheena Jackson, from Treaty 7, and Evelyn Good Striker, from Treaty 7 as well. Thank you all for being with us.
Witnesses, some or all of you may have a presentation. We would like you to keep it as tight as possible, from five to seven minutes if at all possible.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that in our presence, we have the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, Shawn Atleo, with us.
Chief Atleo, welcome to the hearings; it is an honour to have you here. It is so important an issue that you have taken some of your quality and precious time to be with us. Hopefully, after these witnesses, I would like you to approach the microphone, if you would be so kind.
Let us carry on.
Vivian Ayoungman, as an individual: Bonjour, greetings.
[The witness spoke in her native language.]
I am very pleased to welcome you to our traditional territory to hear about the education successes and challenges in First Nations education.
On behalf of my fellow educators with whom I have had the privilege of working for four decades, I want to extend our appreciation for the opportunity to share the important role of adult and higher education in these endeavours. I know the topic is K to 12, but I hope to point out the importance of adult and higher education.
In the short time I have, I want to make specific reference to some of the actions raised in a document recently published by the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, on taking action for post-secondary education. You all have copies in front of you. I have both the English and the French versions.
I will not go through the whole document, but I want to make very specific reference to the post-secondary institutions, the Indian Studies Support Program, ISSP, portion of that document.
This document articulates the need for supporting post-secondary education and skills training for youth and adults, not only for them to meet their individual academic aspirations but also so that they may contribute to the capacity and nation building required to facilitate strong First Nations governance.
The government must endorse the actions to be taken and the recommendations. It is imperative that the government work with First Nations and not unilaterally. We keep getting messages of what might be coming down, and that is very disconcerting. This includes paying attention to the ISSP, which has been the only source of funds, however meager, for our First Nations institutions.
To work in isolation from First Nations and to continue to commission papers that lack the context will only perpetuate myths. Day after day after day, we read about these myths in the paper, in the media.
To focus only on K to 12 is not necessarily the answer. I recognized very quickly when I started teaching decades ago that thousands of adults in our communities have so much potential, and they need programs and support to fulfill their dreams. I have seen that happening over the many, many years.
Indigenous colleges should be near the top of the list of promising practices because of the important role that they have played in the communities lucky enough to have their own learning centres.
One important item that this AFN paper did not capture is that the ISSP portion of the post-secondary fund should be separate so that this fund does not have to compete with students. It should be separate and sustainable and adequate, and it would hopefully provide the resources necessary to continue the good work and also to provide monies for those communities that do not have a learning centre but wish to have one.
I think the funds should be extended because of the enormous success of these institutions. The enormousness of the successes has not been appreciated by INAC and has been misunderstood by academics and others from policy institutes who have developed papers for the government.
For example, the Mendelson paper that is often quoted mentions that there are major gaps in post-secondary attainment between First Nations and mainstream Canadians, and then it goes on to mention that in the one- and two- year programs, the gap is not as noticeable. However, that paper does not mention the contribution of our indigenous institutes to this very important statistic. Many who have succeeded in those areas are a direct result of our institutions.
The member institutions know that they have made immense contributions to their communities and beyond, but because we are strapped for resources, we have not been able to tell our story. It is important to take a closer look at the impacts; I have a whole list of these impacts, but I know that time is short so I will very quickly list some of them.
We facilitate the transition of students in a very major way. The mainstream institutions will tell you that the students they get who have been prepared in our institutions have a solid foundation, and it becomes a win-win for everybody. Because the students are strong, they do not drop out. They continue to maintain their high grade point averages. They go on to graduate school, and that is a success story that should never be overlooked.
There is capacity building for the First Nations communities. If you look at the communities, for example my own community of Siksika, you will find that many of the people employed in our various departments were educated or re- educated in our institution or have used Old Sun Community College as a stepping stone.
We have people who have attained doctorate degrees as a result of the facilitation of our institution. We have developed curriculum for teachers. In partnership with mainstream institutions, we have developed teacher training programs. We do teacher orientations very successfully. We have done a lot of important research because we have asked the research questions from our perspective. As a result of this very relevant research, we have been able to develop relevant courses that benefit not only our own communities but also the mainstream.
That is a list of the work we have done. Also, many of these institutions administer the Post-Secondary Student Support Program, and as a result have many, many promising practices that assist students. They have strong student support services programs; they have tutoring. Our colleges are part of the Alberta Advanced Education and Technology Lois Hole Campus Alberta Digital Library program, where we can access millions of on-line resources directly through our colleges.
Investing in First Nations education is not only a benefit to First Nations communities; it is a long-term and sustainable stimulus plan for Canada's economy. We are calling on the federal government to work hand in hand with our communities, with our First Nations, to ensure equitable funding and support for our post-secondary students.
In the papers that have been commissioned by government, you hear recommendations that this program be off- loaded to third parties. From our perspective, that would be disastrous because of the supports that are in place, and if people begin to work at arm's length with the students, then we think we will lose many of the successes.
One last thing: If the 2 per cent cap is not removed, then do the math. If we have declining enrollments in post- secondary education, it is a direct result of higher tuitions, higher costs of living. For our people who administer the programs, the number of students they can support will continue to diminish. If you do the math on the costs of going to post-secondary education, and I also happen to know that many, many students are being deferred, it is not a simple matter of handing it over to somebody else. That is not the answer.
I am pleased that I have had this opportunity to make a few comments, but I urge you to look at this document to get a better sense of what I am talking about.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ayoungman. Unfortunately, time is our greatest enemy in all these things, but we will not rush this study itself until we can come up with the recommendations we hope will take effect.
Now from Treaty 8, my good friend Ms. Rose Laboucan and Ms. Eileen Lines, you are together.
Rose Laboucan, Chief, Driftpile First Nation, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta: Thank you and good morning to everybody. I thank the Creator for allowing me to be here to see another beautiful day, and I also want to thank you for your time. I ask you for your understanding and your listening ears. I am a teacher by trade, so put on your listening ears.
First of all, not all of the $1.4 billion that goes to post-secondary and elementary education is used for that on First Nations. A lot of the money is diverted to paying tuition dollars to provincial schools. I want to make that very clear.
I want to make something else very clear — change. In the previous presentation, there was a question about change, and it was said nothing has changed. Well, I think that going from 50,000 children dying in residential school to 2003 with 30,000 graduates across this country is change, and I think that money was well invested. Those people are now employed and in leadership roles and are doing great things in this country. I want to note that as a change.
The other change I see, which is very slow, is the decolonization process and understanding it, because when our people begin to decolonize, change will happen a lot faster. I see that happening from my personal experience and what I have gone through in the process of decolonizing myself and understanding that there was a process, leaving it behind and moving forward, and that takes time. I think not only residential school healing but other things have to happen at the ground level to help our people understand that.
Much more work has to be done at the ground level in the area of prevention, parenting and progress, because at the end of the day, education is about pedagogy, not about politics, and that is how we need to address it.
I also know that we need to fill the gap in the job markets by addressing the education gap itself. Much work needs to be done in the area of the pre-trades and the trades skills market. For example, my understanding is that by 2015 we will be looking for 8,000 workers here in Alberta. Who will fill those positions? What will that cost the government?
Why is it always the cost factor that is pointed to the First Nations people, and not what the cost factors are? There are cost factors too when you bring in immigrants. I do not have anything against immigrants, but no one talks about that cost factor. Why just pinpoint the First Nations?
Realistically, when you look at education, it should come from helping people move ahead to be who they want to be. There should be no obstacles.
Let me tell you, for the four terms I have served in my community as the chief, the biggest responsibility I have had is to teach responsibility, and that is not my fault. I did not dictate that someone up there thought they were smarter than us and had to tell us what to do, how do it and when it do it. That is not my policy.
In my preamble, I talk about how education for many of us, and unfortunately for technicians, is thought of in terms of kindergarten to Grade 12. As a result, we have a tendency to think of education as stages and confined to specific periods in one's life, but that is not how it is.
Traditionally, in our communities, our children were the focal point of our community, so when you steal those children out of their communities, who is parenting whom? It is not my fault that my people do not know how to parent. They have taken that skill trade away from them, and now we have a multi-generational issue here where parenting is still a big issue.
No child wants to go to school feeling that nobody cares for them. How are they going to learn? It is unheard of. Those children who have parents who back them up, who are there for them, who motivate them, who love them, those are the children who are succeeding. For some of those kids who swim upstream like the salmon, it is because they knew somebody cared for them at some point, and they may have lost their grandma or their grandpa, and so they persevere and they make it.
I have a band-operated school, and I cannot even offer quality programming. I cannot. I cannot afford it. People say, ``Well, you get $10,000 per child.'' Well, guess what? That is not all utilized for that. I have to pay the teacher; I have to pay maintenance of the building; I have to pay the power bill.
This year I hired a physical education teacher. That should be a common thing in a school — a phys. ed. teacher, for cripes sake. I do not care whether I go into a deficit. Then you guys can continue to point your fingers — not you guys, but I am just saying literally what is out there in the media, that chief and council are corrupt, that they are doing this and that. Garbage.
Some of us work really hard to make a difference, and if you want to know what my salary is, it is $45,000 a year. I have two degrees. I would like to see you work for that.
That is the reality for some of us. I am not saying there is not corruption out there, but definitely some of us want to make a real difference. I have dedicated my life in these last eight years to making a difference because I know at the end of the day it is not about me and it is not about you, but it is about the future of those children. They need an opportunity to be who they are.
I have to fight twice as hard to re-instill cultural language. They do not even want it; that is how assimilated they are. Let us be realistic here. When you are told that it is not good for you, that it is not healthy for you to be who you are, I have to work 10 times as hard to make sure that somebody loves that child and cares for that child. They have to feel wanted, no matter where they go, and that is how they are going to succeed.
No one can tell me that somebody did not love you and care for you. That is the chance I want for our children to have.
The 2 per cent cap that was put on us is ridiculous. The Auditor General did not point a finger at us. The Auditor General pointed a finger at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to pull up its socks and get some transparency. We do not even know where half of that money goes, of the billion dollars that goes to Aboriginal people in this country. We only know what we get, and we account for it.
In that context, I am speaking for myself here because my audit has gone through, and it has been good ever since I can remember for Driftpile First Nation.
When I speak to you, I ask you for your understanding, your patience, to make a really big difference for our children today. We can be a contributing society once again. I am tired of being the social ill of this country, and I do not want to see that for our children.
Together with mainstream society — and non-Aboriginal people understand that and want to see that difference too — we will succeed. It is a win-win situation if we can just pull up our socks and do the things we need to do.
Enough of this crying about who gets what and how much. Let us make sure that whatever we get, we work towards making a better future for our children, and doing it right this time, because it is time for change.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Laboucan.
Evelyn Good Striker, Education Researcher, Treaty 7 Management Corporation: Thank you for asking us to be present today. Welcome, senators, and good morning.
Treaty 7 Management Corporation works out of Calgary. Today our grand chief, Chief Charles Weasel Head, was going to be here but he could not. He sends his regrets. He is attending a community function, and he wanted to be there with the community.
In Treaty 7, we serve six First Nations. We serve approximately 2,500 students in 17 schools. Currently we are working toward improving our education systems. We took a look at where we were at. We have had many things ongoing for some years, working with the superintendents, the directors, all collaboratively, working together along with the principals. We have hosted an annual education conference for 25 years.
Because of our low literacy and low numeracy rates, we have been involved in the First Nation Student Success Program, which is funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC. We have been under this program for a year, and it has allowed us to take a look at our literacy and numeracy rates, to collect data and to utilize programs that will help us to improve the success rate of our students in that area.
Currently, we are working with the provincial government and the federal government on improving education outcomes for our students in this province.
I would like to turn it over to Sheena Jackson, who was very much instrumental in this Memorandum of Understanding for First Nations Education in Alberta.
Sheena Jackson, Education Director, Treaty 7 Management Corporation: Good morning. I am from the Piikani Nation, and I am currently employed with Treaty 7 Management Corporation as the education director.
Over the past two and a half years, we have been working on developing a partnership with the federal government and the provincial government. We are very proud to say that in February 2010, on the Tsuu T'ina Nation, we signed the final agreement for the Memorandum of Understanding for First Nations Education in Alberta, which brought together the three governments to work on truly identifying the needs for First Nations education in Alberta.
We sat down and had a good hard discussion and talked about the realities of what is stopping our children from being successful, and sometimes those were hard realities to face. Governments sometimes do not want to admit to what their policies are and how their policies stop us from becoming more successful. I think having those hard discussions and having leadership such as Chief Rose Laboucan and the chiefs of Alberta behind the First Nations supporting that initiative are what have helped us bring it forward.
We have had to look at education in the sense that yes, we need accountability on our part, but they need accountability on theirs as well. I think you have a copy of the memorandum of understanding. Within that MOU, we focus on nine commitments for improving education outcomes over a 10-year period.
The first commitment is an indigenous knowledge and wisdom centre that will focus on data collection, accountability and reporting, system improvement, curriculum and resource development, and First Nations language and indigenous knowledge.
The second commitment is resourcing improvement. We will look at areas such as resourcing and supports, a comparative funding analysis, education programs and services, review of legislation, tuition and education service agreements and the development of a long-term strategic plan.
The third commitment is accountability and performance management for measurement and monitoring, accountability and performance, program enhancement, and consistency with federal and provincial information privacy legislation.
Commitment number 4 is for strategic relationship building. We will have a strategic discussion on how we will go about strategizing our relationship and how we will develop our outcomes. Within that, with the provincial government, we have the collaborative framework.
Commitment number 5 focuses on First Nations children in care, special education and children not in school. In that area, we hope to engage federal and provincial agencies and to develop culturally appropriate, comprehensive and coordinated approaches for these children in this specific area.
Commitment number 6 is about parental and community engagement, to develop strategies to encourage and support engagement.
Commitment number 7 is the recruitment, retention and professional development of teachers, where we hope to develop strategies to improve recruitment and retention and professional development, increase the number of First Nations teachers, develop strategies for professional development of all teachers in Alberta and establish post- secondary partnerships.
Commitment number 8, treaty and culture awareness, is where we have school-based and provincial authority awareness, curriculum development, histories, treaties, culture and tradition.
Finally, the ninth commitment is to a holistic approach to education, where we focus on land-based and experiential education, excellence in the arts and sports, extracurricular opportunities and leadership preparation.
I have a chart here that can help you to see this. That is an overview of what is within the MOU.
The Chair: Would you mind tabling that with our clerk so that we can all get a copy, please?
Ms. Jackson: Okay. That is just a summary of the MOU, and if we had more time, I could go deeper into it, but I just wanted to make six quick points.
Chief Charles Weasel Head wanted to emphasize that change begins with attitudes about First Nations people and that if we do not have that change in attitude, from government down, we will never create the changes that we need for education. Canada truly needs to acknowledge First Nations' contributions.
We also need an acceptance of the recognition of indigenous peoples of Canada by the Canadian government so that we are recognized as members of our society and contributing members of our society. We can no longer be viewed as an economic burden; rather, we must be seen as a contributor to the larger society because we have given up our economic bases, our land. Through the treaties, those are our contributions that we made to Canada prior to today's existence, and it needs to be acknowledged, and those treaties do have substance in our living today.
In doing the research to develop the MOU, we did a cost analysis between the First Nations education systems and the provincial schools, and the cost analysis revealed that the accountability is not only for our First Nations; there needs to be accountability from the province as well. Why are their graduation rates no better than the First Nations jurisdiction graduation rates? In some places, the rates are lower, and we have higher success. Why is that? They are never held accountable for those things.
We also look at inconsistent tuition agreements. Some tuition agreements are charging outrageous tuition rates, up to in the area of $12,000 for one child, and yet we are given less than $10,000 per student, and that is the only thing that we get for First Nations through the full-time equivalents. There are many inconsistencies in the funding.
The graduation rates are not consistent either, so we need to develop a system where there is success on both sides and there is no more blaming. We must all take responsibility for the success of our children.
Most of all, we need to honour the MOU that we just developed and appropriate it with the funds that are required to make the necessary changes for the outcomes that we desire in 2020. We hope that our graduation rates in 10 years are double or triple, that our children are successful and that they are viewed as contributing members to our society.
We also need INAC to incorporate language and culture as part of our core funding. We give all kinds of funding for literacy to teach the English language, but our elders, our parents and our communities continue to emphasize that our First Nations language and culture is a priority for our communities and that we need the funding for our children so that we can carry on our languages and our cultures with our children, so that they know who they are and we reinforce our identity. We need to have the funding to be able to do that, and as it is right now, we do not. We seriously lack funding in that area. It is not even on the map. It needs to be incorporated as part of the core funding for our First Nations as a priority that INAC and the provincial government see First Nations culture and language as the key to our children's success.
The Chair: I want to thank all of you for being here and for your excellent presentations.
Before we go into the question period, I want to reinforce what Chief Laboucan said about the dysfunctionalism of families as a result of residential schools.
I do a lot of work with First Nations people outside the Senate, and I was asked to speak to a few people. I sat down with a woman who is a mother and a grandmother. I wanted to know her views on certain issues.
She said, ``Before I start, Gerry, I am going to tell you something that I have never, ever discussed with anybody.'' She said, ``Why I am dysfunctional as a mother and a grandmother, and I have addictions and problems, is because at four years old I was put in a residential school, and so were my sisters. We were not allowed to talk. We were punished if we spoke our language. I have never said anything to anybody, but I was sexually abused from the time I was four years old.'' She broke down in my arms and said, ``I do not know why I picked you to tell this story to.''
That just reinforces what Rose Laboucan just said here today. It is a horror story. Governments may know about it, but all Canadians should know about this. Every living, breathing Canadian should understand how horrific this is for these people who are unable to deal with their own children and grandchildren because of the horror stories that were imposed on them by governments.
I do not want any of you to think that we take this lightly. We take it seriously. I sat here for a considerable period of time before I came forward with this, because she shared this with me in confidence. Until we as Canadians recognize that horrific state that we have created as a country, and as past governments, I do not think we will solve this, and that is part of this whole educational process.
Senator Sibbeston: In the last couple of days, we have had the privilege of travelling to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and also yesterday to the Onion Lake area, and we had an opportunity to see some pretty good schools. In these cases, it is bands and Aboriginal people that have strong economic bases and so are funding the schools and funding the cultural and language programs that they feel are necessary, and so it is a pretty good situation.
What we are hearing today is probably more typical of the First Nations education situation where you are basically struggling just to keep the door open, and educating your children is a struggle.
We are getting evidence that the language and culture are critical for education. You cannot educate and raise strong children without knowledge of their culture and language. It is essential to being a whole person. Otherwise you are just a brown person who does not know your culture or language, and there is nothing worse in the world than to see people like that as a result of residential schools.
I think while we are at it, we need to hear what needs to be done. What would you say are the one, two or three things that are necessary to provide the basis, the good foundation and basis of Aboriginal education, which will include culture and language in the program? I appreciate that you need money, and as Chief Laboucan said, you also have to convince your people.
I remember up in the North in Fort Simpson where I lived, in the early 1970s, when we were dealing with the issue of getting languages and culture in the school, we had a public meeting in town. Fort Simpson is about 60 per cent Aboriginal people, and when we raised the notion of teaching language in the school, I remember some of the non- native people in particular said, ``If my child utters a native word, I am going to wash the child's mouth with soap.'' You know, that was kind of the reaction of some non-native people to the notion of their children learning any Aboriginal language.
Aboriginal people were not as resistant, but still, because of residential schools and because of the struggle just to get up on their feet, many Aboriginal people do not want their children taking Aboriginal languages in the school because they already know the language — this is the case in the North — and the essence of education is to get a job, to know English and to be able to get a job. That is the essence of what they see education is for.
We are fortunate in the North where the languages are still strong in some of the smaller communities, but in the South, I suspect that the language and the culture are not as evident. Children do not come to school already knowing their Aboriginal languages.
What would you say are the one, two or three things that really need to be done so that we can write our report and make recommendations that will identify and speak to that?
Ms. Ayoungman: May I respond to that question? As I mentioned in my statement, one of the most overlooked aspects is the First Nations institutions and the potential of what they can offer.
Grounding our people in who we are and the decolonization work that needs to be done is all happening at these institutions. Masses of adults out there who fell through the cracks then come back, often very reluctantly, because ironically many of our institutions are in old residential boarding schools, and it is a major trauma for those people just to set foot in the door.
However, once they get in there, because of the language and culture programming that we do, which is rooted in who we are, they become very strong, and then they begin to see colonization for what it is. They start to become decolonized and become very strong students. As they transfer, they become very strong students in the mainstream system. That is one thing that is very successful.
There is a myth that the answers are out there, that those mainstream institutions are going to be the answer for us, that they understand us and that they know us. I have spoken with Indian professors who work in these institutions who say we are only scratching the surface there. What we need are a whole team of our people with the in-depth knowledge who can then teach people, and this is what we see happening day after day in our institutions. They are really overlooked — very little attention is paid to them — but I think it is time people took a serious look at these institutions.
I have grown so much personally by working with these First Nations adult and higher education institutions. I was teaching with the people, with our elders, learning from place. We visited many places. It is a very moving experience to learn from place, and to have our students say, ``Imagine this wheel here; imagine all these rocks. An ancestor of mine placed a stone there for seven generations ahead praying that I would have a good life. Imagine that.''
Can you see things like that happening in the mainstream? We become a number. It is not the same.
I have been to many, many graduations of adult students who get up and cry, who say, ``I never, ever thought I could climb out of this rut, but here I am. I have finished my upgrading, I have been accepted in college. Who would ever have believed that I could be in college?''
For many, many reasons, the supports that we offer mean that students who never would even think of moving to a city start their education locally. They become very strong students and move, and when they are in the city and their kids begin to experience discrimination of all sorts in their schools, I hear those same students say, ``You know, I am in my last year now, and if I did not see that light at the end of the tunnel, I would pack up and go home.''
The tie, the link back to the grounding that we do, has got to be recognized. It has been voiced over and over again in countless reports, and I hope you take a serious look at this post-secondary discussion paper.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development did some work on post-secondary education and wrote a report entitled No Higher Priority: Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education in Canada. What happened to it? The government shelves its own documents that come up with good recommendations. I really hope and pray that something comes of this, that someone out there will listen.
I just wanted to say one more thing on the residential schools about when the apology was made by the government. I have three graduate degrees: two master's degrees and a doctorate. I was an honours student; I sailed through that, so everybody would think, oh, she made it. Here is someone who is together, that kind of thing.
When I listened to that apology, I cried all day I was so upset because I did not hear ``Because we have beaten the Indian out of the child, we will now provide major funding so that First Nations can plan from their perspectives, can work on their language and culture.'' I did not hear that, and I have yet to hear it. It is still being glossed over. We are still looking at someone else's measures for success. The minute we begin to succeed, the rug is pulled out from under us.
I was co-director of the Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre of the Canadian Council on Learning, and in that very short time, we developed a holistic learning model that First Nations can use to plan and strategize on their education systems. We went to Onion Lake, to the Yukon, and to Nipissing, and we had these dialogues where the communities did some planning. It was very exciting. The aura of excitement was just astounding.
In that very short time, we developed these frameworks. They were not mere rhetoric; they were actual frameworks that people can use. However, it got yanked. So what happens now? People are still running around trying to find solutions when the solutions are right under their noses. You look to the indigenous institutes and colleges and recognize them for the potential of curriculum development, for research, for counselling, for decolonization, for teacher training.
As you can see, I have a passion for the work I am involved in.
The Chair: There is no question about that, Ms. Ayoungman.
Ms. Ayoungman: I believe in adult education, so I will stand up for it all the time, and I believe in all our kids.
The Chair: For clarification, we are not disbelievers in adult education. The only thing is we have undertaken this study as a first step, and we are trying to keep it concise, precise and focused, and that is why we have gone with K to 12. Maybe down the road, our next step will be —
Ms. Ayoungman: I want to make a closing comment, and then I will be nice and listen.
The Chair: I have to let Ms. Laboucan speak.
Ms. Ayoungman: Yes. There is a myth that our adult learning centres are a little piece of the pie. These adult learning centres are holistic and ascribe to lifelong learning. They are intimately involved in developing early childhood programs. They are intimately involved in ensuring that there are good day care centres because they have to look after the needs of their adult students, and they are intimately involved in the need for teacher training, teacher orientation and curriculum development.
Because we take a holistic lifelong-learning approach, it is not one little piece of the pie. It is very intimately intertwined with the whole.
The Chair: We will take your wise counsel seriously.
Chief Laboucan, you wanted to respond to Senator Sibbeston?
Ms. Laboucan: I think developing a long-term sustainable funding framework is absolutely critical in improving the education outcomes, but specific to language and culture, there are zero dollars for endangered languages right now, yet significant money is invested in French immersion in Alberta and Quebec and the rest of Canada.
There are zero dollars for principals, directors and curriculum development. About $215 per student is there to address some of the emerging bilingual schools for language, but Alberta, for example, provides $2,261 per child for French first-language instruction as a well-rounded education.
That reinvestment has to be looked at. I also believe that not only in the education system itself should we build in a process for the continuum of the language and the culture, but specific to the community itself, I would like to see something done in the area of education circles, for example.
A team could be put together that would go not only to the school, which would save cost on the language instruction, but also to the community, to the parents, because it is not just the child. We cannot just teach the child the language. We have to also teach the parents here.
We need something that is more holistic and an open-minded process that will address that issue. We cannot just say we want language and culture for the children when nobody will be speaking to them in the future.
Much of our traditional knowledge has been lost out there. I call it the traditional knowledge genocide. We need to record that somehow now because our children will never have that information, and I think that is very critical, because our language is connected to the land. Our language is connected to our way of life. It is such a beautiful language.
I wish we could share some more realistic examples of how you would say a particular Aboriginal word with a hand gesture that is kind, gentle. ``Come here'' — that is scary. But some of those even very trivial ways that we address our children are lost in the process.
Those are just some points I wanted to make. There are more as the report goes on. I think you also need to put together a team from across this country to assist in arranging what this might look like, with some hard facts and numbers, because you know the hard facts of our presence. We do not want that anymore.
I just wrote a letter to the premier specific to the area of the languages and making it mandatory for the curriculum to be taught in our province, and he said to me: ``Once again, thank you for your support in finding ways to improve educational successes for First Nations students in this province. My government and I are committed to this goal and look forward to working with you to achieve it.''
The partnership in the MOU, which I gave you each a copy of, is a tripartite partnership, and we must keep it that way. Regardless of how we look at it, just because a child does not want to be educated in a band-operated school does not mean he or she cannot have access to those same opportunities that I might be able to give if everything was to work right and I had a quality program in my community, for example.
The Chair: Once these reports are translated, they will become part of the official record of the committee.
You were talking about adults learning the language. Senators Sibbeston, Hubley, Dyck and I had the privilege of travelling to the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona. The first thing that really stood out was how many parents were going in to Navajo immersion who had lost their language and were learning it with their children. I think this is a critical component. This is not only about small children; it is about all of us.
Senator Sibbeston: Do you see your involvement with the province or provincial school boards as essential to enhancing Aboriginal education?
Ms. Laboucan: Yes, I think we need to be involved regardless of how we look at it. At the same time, a key component that is not talked about and that needs to be addressed long term and in a very gentle manner in my opinion is the racism. It is a key component in the successful outcomes that may happen with our intentions to have a great increase in the numbers of graduates that we have.
Ms. Jackson: That is what we are saying, that off the bat, there needs to be a change in attitude. It is sad that in this day and age, if you walked down the streets of Calgary and asked any common people what they know about First Nations people, the first thing they will reflect on is the negatives, but they do not know anything about how many First Nations are in Alberta alone, and they do not know what our lifestyle is like. They do not know anything about us.
It perpetuates racism when you do not know those things, so that needs to be addressed in a positive way.
Ms. Ayoungman: I have a concrete example addressing the lack of knowledge of other people out there.
Some joint work that we do as the First Nations colleges is that we partner with each other. We also have many partnerships with mainstream institutions, but we are developing some courses jointly that we hope to offer online because of that very concern of people not understanding us.
We are hoping that ultimately all post-secondary students will be required to take these courses that are of this land and that having taken them, hopefully they will all gain a better understanding.
Senator Dyck: Thank you all for your excellent presentations. It is clear that not only do you understand the issues but also you are all very passionate about them.
I was very excited to hear that there is a memorandum of understanding between Treaties 6, 7 and 8 with the provincial Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. I have two questions with regard to that. First, we heard earlier from the people from Saskatchewan about the importance of treaties and the inherent right to education through our treaties. How were treaty rights implemented in your memorandum of understanding, or were they? Was it part of the negotiation?
Second, are there some key lessons or tips for success that you might want to share with other First Nation organizations, let us say in Saskatchewan or in Manitoba, that would help them move their MOUs further in a more timely fashion or a more efficient way?
Ms. Jackson: When we started developing the memorandum of understanding, all three parties, all three governments decided that we would talk about educating the child and that in order to meet that, we had to put aside — not put aside and not that we do not acknowledge it — but we had to look at educating the children.
However, in the document itself, in the preamble, the very first clause speaks to the treaty right. It says:
Whereas, the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights of First Nations people are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Treaties are a fundamental part of the relationship between First Nations, Canada and Alberta . . .
It is acknowledged, and in the scope of the MOU, the first clause says:
None of the existing Treaty or Aboriginal rights, as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, are derogated or abrogated by this MOU.
Senator Dyck: Yes, thank you. I thought it was important to have that clear and on the record.
Ms. Laboucan: We cannot say education is a treaty right if we do not practice it, so we know that by educating all our people, we are fulfilling our ancestors' promises that were made in Treaty 8 at least and Treaties 6 and 7.
The Chair: Senators, we have a witness, Mr. Quintine Kootenay. He is the grand chief liaison of the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations. Unfortunately we are restricted for time, but if you have a short presentation, then if we have any time left we will definitely take some questions.
Quintine Kootenay, Grand Chief Liaison Officer, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations: Good morning, senators, chiefs, national chief, technicians, elders. On behalf of our grand chief from the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, I would like to welcome you into our territory. Excuse me for coming in. We figured that it would be a separate sitting.
Seeing the representation at the table here, I am quite confident that they have presented not only the views of their treaty territories but also those of Alberta as well.
With the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, we do believe that our message is the same, and I think we have made many efforts at a regional and a national level to come together on the issue of education and to present a united front.
Probably the only additional point I could make at this time is that the First Nation chiefs within Alberta strongly believe that we need to do this collectively. Also, more important, we need to have a more comprehensive discussion, a more inclusive discussion, that reflects all parties involved. It does not help to have the issue of education go forward with an absent party.
There is an MOU in the works here within Alberta, but in that spirit and intent, that is how we within Alberta in the treaty areas approach things collectively, so I do reaffirm, because I have heard many times what the chief and the technicians have said here, that we are of like mind. We are also reaching out to those who can help us, to the AFN, to our local MPs or MLAs as well to bring light to this issue. More important for us is to somehow take it beyond policy discussion and make it a legal rights discussion.
What will it take to get it there? It will take the government recognizing that this is a treaty right, and that should be our starting point. It is not one of policy development implementation or all the bureaucratic stuff that somehow overshadows or distracts from the real issue that this is a treaty right.
The Chair: We thank you for allowing us to be in your territory as a committee, and we are honoured to be here. I thank you for your precise and concise presentation.
Have we any other questioners at this time?
I do not see anybody with any questions. I think you have presented your case so well that you have overwhelmed these senators from Ottawa, and you have done it with such a passion, I think they are fearful — not fearful, but they are quite apprehensive because you know your subject so well and you have done such a great job at it.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize a good, close personal friend of mine and a man I have grown to admire day after day in the work that he is doing for First Nations people. I as a Metis person admire greatly Grand Chief Shawn Atleo.
Chief Atleo, would you approach the desk? I would like you people to stay where you are, if you would be so kind, and if you would approach, Chief Atleo, we would love to have a few comments from you. I know you have to go at noon, but just grab a seat beside Senator Greene Raine, if you would be so kind. Thank you for being here, sir.
Mr. Kootenay: Shawn Atleo's title is national chief, not grand chief.
The Chair: I apologize.
Shawn Atleo, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: In the presence of Chief Laboucan, it is nephew. She is my adopted auntie.
The words just spoken so eloquently — I share that sentiment, and as well for yourself, senator, in reflecting the passion of the presentation, the brilliance, the genius, as has always been there amongst our people, and we see it displayed here today.
I do not think there is much more that really can be said about the specifics. I am really pleased to be here as well in these Treaty 6 territories with my colleague, regional chief for Saskatchewan as well as FSIN chief, Guy Lonechild, a man that I appreciate and admire and respect for his leadership representing the First Nations of Saskatchewan. He has been driving very hard and placing the students and the learners out front where they rightfully belong.
I think about the testimony you have just heard and your kind attention and leadership as senators. A moment has arrived in this country. Somewhere in the past, a group sat down and decided on a policy that for 100 years created the kind of turmoil that has been reflected on ever so briefly here, and now we have a moment in time where a group of senators have chosen an area of focus and a topic that can have an equally tremendous change.
There has been change the likes of which Chief Laboucan described, going from tens of thousands of young people dying in these schools and many graves unmarked and families not notified to over 30,000 graduates at higher levels of education, many of whom are sitting here today.
It is really an unexpected, great privilege to spend a few minutes with you here today sharing some thoughts. We have arrived at a real moment here that this committee can grasp to maintain the momentum and demonstrate leadership for this country, and it is not an easy task.
I think examples like the MOU here in Alberta show tremendous leadership by the chiefs and the grand chiefs to look to reconcile the relationships between jurisdictions, but to do so as was just said based on a respect and recognition of the treaty relationship. This is an opportunity to uphold and give effect to that which the ancestors had suggested so strongly.
When the new Governor General was installed, His Excellency Mr. Johnston reflected on a book that I just happened to be reading, so just like Teacher Laboucan, Teacher Johnston, I felt really good because he talked about a book called Champlain's Dream and put into place a correction about the early relationships that existed in this country. Champlain was credited as being a founder of New France, and this book suggests that the early relationship was one of mutual respect, was one of mutual recognition and of coexistence, and that has not been the experience.
I do not think you could describe it any better than has been done here, whether it is the shortfalls in the area of phys. ed. or in language. We have an opportunity to reverse the 100 years of injury of the residential schools, and you have the opportunity to lead the way.
I think our next challenge, Mr. Chair, is to arrive together at a finish line that will really launch us into a newer era of change where the rate and pace begin to move skywards.
Like you, I have been spending time in schools in the last few days. The Sunchild E-Learning Community — what an incredible testimony. It is a private school connected with a band school, and it is innovation. They are using online technologies. I was sitting there with the kids and I could see how excited they were.
I got an online master's degree, and I know that it allows you to stay within your context, stay at home, stay with your people, not be removed from it, but then get world-class learning at the same time, and it is working for them.
I see that expanding. I was talking to the regional chief and FSIN chief about this, and they are doing this work in Saskatchewan as well.
The approaches that have been described here, sustainable systems being required, build on excellent work like the one happening in Alberta with the MOU and allow each jurisdiction to see one another so that children have an opportunity for academic success grounded in their culture.
Language is a must. When I hear about and witness first-hand examples like Onion Lake, it stirs me because I see children learning their languages. Up until I think Grade 4 in that school system there is complete immersion.
We know the academic research suggests that if you learn more than one language, it only supports academic success and career success over the long run, and of course our young people will learn English because it is a dominant language; they will learn French because it is a dominant language in this country, and so they should. We can be multilingual. That is what we have inherited. The Metis peoples have shown the way to be able to stand in more than one context successfully.
I want to commend you for having taken First Nations, Metis and Inuit education as an area of focus. We will walk with you and keep encouraging you along the way, and together we will see the kind of change that we dream of for our young people. That is what drives all of us, after all.
Mr. Chair, senators, thank you very much for your important leadership.
The Chair: Thank you. You have been a good friend, and we will walk hand in hand and we will work together to make certain that we come up with the recommendations that nobody in this country can ignore.
I just want to point out one thing. I was so proud of you when you made your presentation at the installation of the new Governor General. As an Aboriginal person, you made many of us proud, and I think you made everybody in Canada proud of the way you handled yourself, sir. Thank you again for being with us. Let us give him a round of applause.
Has anything else arisen in the last few minutes? We have about five minutes left.
Senator Raine: We were very impressed seeing the Cree immersion school in Onion Lake, and at the end of our stay, we had an opportunity to talk to a parent of one of the children. She pointed out a concern, although she was hopeful that moving forward it would correct itself.
There are two elementary schools on the reserve, one immersion, one non-immersion. The majority of the parents still prefer to send their children to the non-immersion school, and it appeared to me that they did not really understand what they are missing out on. Then when children came together in the middle school, there were problems, and the kids who had learned such a beautiful grounding in their traditions were quickly overwhelmed by the other side, if you like.
I just wanted to say that I see a huge potential in engaging not only the children but also the adults in the community in the development of the immersion programs. That is why I am very happy that you are here talking about post- secondary education, although it is not our mandate for this particular study. The involvement of adult education and ongoing learning is critical to the success of the whole program, so thank you for being here.
Ms. Ayoungman: I circulated another document to you, the one with the green cover, and that is the updated version of the old Indian control of Indian education document spearheaded by the chiefs' committee on education. I wanted to comment about that document that the First Nations colleges are practising a lot of what is in those documents, and yet we feel like we are marginalized. We are even treated with disdain and scorn, if I may say so.
We are being chastised, and yet we are following our dream of what we envision true local control is all about. I am really hoping that at some point, people will get decolonized and understand what it is we talk about.
In terms of immersion, our colleges also spearhead a lot of language programming for our communities. They train the language teachers who will be going into the schools. We do a lot of training on the use of technology. We just hosted a DSi XL Nintendo game, and I am currently developing curriculum where kids can play the DSi XL and be able to learn language as they are playing it.
We are trying to take innovative approaches, and I emulate our brothers and sisters globally who are involved in this work. I met a lady from New Zealand, a Maori woman, about two years ago. She started in a language nest. She went to an immersion school. She is now doing a doctorate degree in geophysics in Maori.
The Chair: I would like to thank all of you on behalf of the senators. I cannot say how enlightening it has been, and I just realized how much we have to learn. I guess we will never stop learning.
I offer to each of you, if you have some further submission that you wish to have part of the record or have the committee have at their disposal, you can submit it to the clerk of the committee, Marcy Zlotnick here on my left. With that, we thank you again.
(The committee adjourned.)