Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 13 - Evidence - November 2, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues concerning First Nations education).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. They will be watching either on CPAC or on the web.
I am Gerry St. Germain, from British Columbia, formerly born and raised in Manitoba. I have the honour of chairing this committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. Given this mandate, the committee has undertaken a study to examine possible strategies for reform concerning First Nations primary and secondary education, with a view to improving outcomes. Among other things, the study will focus on the following: tripartite and partnership education agreements; governance and delivery structures; and possible legislative frameworks. I said "possible."
This morning we will hear from two witnesses, both of whom join us from the great province of Saskatchewan. Senator Peterson, you look excited.
Dr. Sheila Carr-Stewart is a professor of educational administration at the University of Saskatchewan. Her research interests include Aboriginal education, treaty rights, comparative education, community involvement, effective schools, youth gangs, educational governance and administrative and financial systems. Dr. Carr-Stewart has written extensively in these areas. Her published works include First Nations Educational Governance: A Fractured Mirror; A Treaty Right to Education; and First Nations Education: Financial Accountability and Educational Attainment.
Our second witness, Dr. Marie Battiste, is a Mi'kmaq educator from Potlo'tek First Nation. She is a full professor in the College of Education, and coordinator — of the Indian and Northern Education programs — within educational foundations at the University of Saskatchewan. She is also acting director of the humanities research unit there.
She has worked actively with First Nations schools and communities as an administrator, teacher, consultant and curriculum developer, advancing Aboriginal epistemology, languages, pedagogy and research. She has published widely, included the edited collection, Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision, a special edition of the Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, May 2005, and as a senior editor for First Nations Education in Canada: The Circle Unfolds.
Colleagues, we have with us two distinguished professors. Their works are followed by many, and we are attempting to follow some of their works.
[Translation]
Before we go to our witnesses, I would like to introduce to you the committee members in attendance.
[English]
Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas is from the province of New Brunswick. Next to her is Senator Nancy Greene Raine, from British Columbia; Senator Bob Peterson, from Saskatchewan; Senator Joyce Fairbairn, from Alberta; Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, from New Brunswick; and Senator Patrick Brazeau, from the province of Quebec.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from the University of Saskatchewan.
I believe Dr. Battiste will go first. Make sure you leave us enough time, ladies, so that we can ask you questions because that is an important part of this exercise, as you well know.
You have the floor.
Marie Battiste, Professor and Director, Aboriginal Education Research Centre, University of Saskatchewan:
[Ms. Battiste spoke in her native language.]
Good morning. I want to thank the committee for allowing me to be here today to testify before you on the issues of First Nations educational reform.
As you have heard, I am a Mi'kmaq woman from the Potlo'tek First Nation of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, a descendent of the peace and friendship treaties of 1752. The description you have is a little old, but it is mostly correct in that I am a professor at the University of Saskatchewan in the Department of Educational Foundations. I am also currently the director of the Aboriginal Education Research Centre.
I am sorry I did not have time to prepare a paper in the dual languages, although I do have a paper that I will submit for consideration by the committee at the conclusion of my presentation today. The key issues that I raised in the paper are the need for constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples to education. These Aboriginal and treaty rights have been affirmed in 1982 and need to be developed into a coherent system of education based on those Aboriginal and treaty rights.
I also assert the need for this education to be made consistent throughout Canada in provincial and territorial laws, and the need for First Nations communities to be provided with adequate funds, supports and systems that will support their goals, their students' needs and the community aspirations for their own distinctive continuity, based on principles of holistic life-long learning. I also urge the need for reconciliation to Aboriginal knowledge and languages in their education.
The issue of the lack of constitutional reconciliation of Canada's legislation, policy and regulations arises from the government's agents of Canada developing a system built on eroding and replacing the existing Aboriginal people's life-long learning systems with forced assimilation into British and French ways of life. The consequence of this forced assimilative educational system has been traumatic for First Nations peoples, and reconciliation to Aboriginal knowledge within their contexts and place should be a restorative feature of education for the future of First Nations.
The constitutional role of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is to assist the First Nations in implementing their vision of a holistic, life-long learning system that includes conventional educational practices throughout their Aboriginal and treaty boundaries. At present, federal and provincial legislation is inconsistent with the constitutional right to education of First Nations by their dismissal of Aboriginal and treaty rights in their legislation.
The federal Crown, by its agents, has imposed its political will over Aboriginal families, and has failed to be accountable to the families for the destruction of their communities, their lands, their lives, their languages and the educational outcomes of their systems. As a result, Aboriginal peoples in Canada have been subjected to persistent, chronic and systemic discrimination, violence and racism.
Canada needs a coherent and consensual agreement on restorative and transformative education for all Aboriginal peoples. Constitutional reconciliation on education can confront the systemic discrimination in education at the level of affirming the constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples, rights they hold as collective peoples, derived from pre- existing sovereignty, knowledge systems and treaties.
The Canadian government continues to use the Indian Act as its guidepost for its actions, rather than Aboriginal and treaty rights. This use means that other peoples' values — Canadian politicians or bureaucrats from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs — are being enforced still on Aboriginal peoples. Canada needs to reconcile Aboriginal and treaty rights to education with existing legislation for First Nations peoples and within the complementary rights of education at the federal, provincial and territorial levels.
Since constitutional reform of 1982, the Indian Act is inconsistent with Aboriginal and treaty rights to education. Discussions of changes to the act should be changed to, how does Canada reconcile its laws to the provisions of the Constitution, and what does that reconciliation mean under section 35(1)?
Legislation framed outside of Aboriginal peoples' concerns and considerations cannot do justice to them and to their education. Like the Indian Act, the legislation can be interpreted in a manner that serves agents and systems, not needs and goals and community accountabilities. What is needed is a system of supports for First Nations, a system of accountabilities and levels of funds that are connected to their communities and their goals, not those developed outside of them.
The current arrangement, such as the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey First Nations legislation, has greater potential for First Nations as this arrangement is one in which the First Nations communities, working in conjunction with both the federal and provincial governments, can arrive at consensual agreement on their education, specific to their place. They can negotiate with, and support, provinces and territories to attend to their constitutional responsibilities as well.
Above all, education systems need to be built on relationships, respect, responsibility and reciprocity within their indigenous knowledge systems that can serve as the dynamic field for each student's learning spirit to be shaped, formed and directed. They should be built on the contexts, lands and places of the First Nations in the treaty area, not based on provincial boundaries.
Finally, as identified in the work of the Canadian Council on Learning and the Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre, for which I was the co-director for some years before it was concluded, First Nations education needs to be holistic, life-long, communal, spiritual, experiential and rooted in Aboriginal languages and cultures. It also needs to integrate Western and indigenous knowledge systems.
I want to use those points as a beginning to the discussion. I look forward to our conversation.
Sheila Carr-Stewart, Professor, Department Head and Graduate Chair, Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan: Good morning and thank you very much for inviting me today to give this presentation. I admire your determination to address the issues surrounding First Nations education.
My presentation is entitled, "First Nations Education: The Future is Now." I will highlight a few areas contained therein, for example, First Nations education from conflict to change, and the fact that we have two systems of education in Canada. I will also look at constitutional and treaty right to education. There are successes in the post- secondary area that I believe elementary and secondary education will learn from. Finally, I will look at a call to action.
First Nations people have both a constitutional and a treaty right to education. I argue in this presentation that Canada has lacked foresight and failed to create a system of education that supports the continuing educational advancement of First Nations people. Despite Canada's intent to provide a comparable system of education with the provinces, First Nations education is a fractured image of the provincial system and does not build on indigenous education practices, culture and languages, nor does it provide educational support mechanisms similar to the provincial system.
Education is a process by which communities transmit knowledge, values, language, culture and skills from one generation to the next. It is also a process of learning that enables individuals and communities to pursue choices and opportunities. At the time of contact, First Nations communities, each with their own language, culture, and socio- economic systems, lived and prospered on this land, adapted to changing environments and trade patterns, and evolved and grew within the spiritual traditions given to them by the Creator. Education was a community endeavour and a study of many things.
Vine Deloria, writing primarily about the American Indian situation, said that, "from the beginning of contact with European culture until the present education has been a major area of conflict and concern." That statement applies to Canada also.
As early as 1839, Lord Durham, in his report on the affairs of British North America, wrote that the provision of education for Indians in Canada was not "creditable" to Britain. The Auditor General's report in 2000 is not much different. The Auditor General noted that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada "cannot demonstrate that it meets its stated objective to assist First Nations students living on reserves in achieving their educational needs and aspirations."
In Canada, we have two systems of education. The constitution created both a provincial and a federal system. The provinces have clear responsibility for education. That responsibility has enabled the provinces to fashion their open systems within their own beliefs and culture. Each province has created an education act, ministries of education, curriculum requirements and guidelines, professional requirements, elected boards and divisions, legal requirements for parental involvement, rights of all students, established budgets based on educational priorities and student needs, and a system focussed on education and effective schools for all students.
Canada has the Indian Act, and only sections 114 to 122 apply to education. Canada has limited policies and guidelines. First Nations schools are, I would argue, in limbo. For a while we called them band operated; now the term is "band managed" because, in the Indian Act, there is no recognition for band-managed schools. Bands simply manage on behalf of the minister.
A variety of flexible arrangements allow money to be transferred from the federal government to First Nations to manage their schools, but in those agreements First Nations have to provide only minimum standards. I would argue that you and I would not want our students to attend schools that have to maintain only minimum standards.
The other criterion is transferability to provincial schools. We all know that provincial schools simply accept all those children that apply. The lack of continuum and focus on education is critical to First Nations schools, but limited funding does not give First Nations the opportunities to be selective and to choose new areas to focus on. First Nations receive only short-term budgeting and often funding only for limited projects. Many students of First Nations schools transfer back and forth to provincial and band-operated or band-managed schools. Today, provinces are focussing on First Nations education. Provinces are pursuing drastic measures to address an issue that may not be their responsibility but frequently, they have First Nations students in their schools.
In Alberta, the Minister of Education dismissed a school board for poor quality of education and poor performance of Aboriginal students. The province has created an educational program referred to as First Nations, Metis and Inuit, FNMI, which is focused on language programs, teacher resources for language and culture, and policies to meet the needs of First Nations students. They have also established additional funding in provincial schools to provide programming for First Nations students.
Saskatchewan, in an in-depth look at its own education system, has revealed all its warts in its document called, Saskatchewan Education Indicators: Pre-kindergarten to Grade 12. The report is a comprehensive picture of the education system. It addresses social, economic and demographic influences on education. Students in northern Saskatchewan have high school marks below urban and rural students in all subjects. The high school completion rate for Aboriginal students is 30 per cent versus 70 per cent to 80 per cent for non-Aboriginal students. The government has created a provincial tracking system for student mobility. It has established a community focus, including health and social welfare, to address issues of poverty, and is implementing education services and programs.
If we look at the reality of the federal scene, there are 496 First Nation-managed schools in Canada. Furthermore, 2003-04 is the latest year we can access information from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada relating to education. At that time, 60 per cent of all First Nations students were educated on the reserve in First Nations schools.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs claims that high school graduate numbers fluctuated slightly. If we delve into the information, we find that, from 1996-97 to 2002-03, the number of high school graduates has decreased. The ratio of enrolment and graduation in their final year in 1997 was 33.3 per cent, and in 2002-03 it was 29 per cent.
I want to focus now on the federal responsibility for education as a treaty right. There have been a number of court cases in Canada relating to treaties, but none on education. However, in their rulings, the cases on treaties also apply to education. In R. v. Badger, it is noted that a treaty represents an exchange of solemn promises between the Crown and various Indian nations. The Crown always intends to fulfill its promises.
In Western Canada, when First Nations negotiated or agreed to treaties with the Crown, there was an understanding of what western education was. The treaty members of Treaty 1 to Treaty 7 signed their treaties between 1871 and 1877. There was already an established contact and relationship between First Nations people, explorers, fur traders and missionaries that provided First Nations people with an understanding of the practices and purposes of formal western education. First Nations people guided explorers, shared their food and teepees, and observed the western practice of writing accounts of these trips. First Nations people delivered mail on horseback between Hudson's Bay, posts and forts. They exchanged goods at the Hudson Bay post. If we go to the archives in Winnipeg, each transaction was recorded, so the individuals stood there while their furs were recorded and documented. Schools dotted the Prairies. Education gatherings held by missionaries took place in the camps. Missionaries taught lessons, I agree, obviously, on the Bible, but in so doing, they taught reading and writing, and they held English school for adults and children. They supported life- long learning and Western education. Chief Mistawasis said, at the time of the signing of Treaty 6, "I for one think that the Great White Queen Mother has offered us a way of life when the buffalo are no more."
In exchange for the use of their land, First Nations were promised The Queen's "bounty and benevolence," which included education. The treaty commissioner stated that education was "a future of promise, based upon the foundations of instruction." Education would enable First Nations "to live in comfort" so "you can live, and prosper and provide." The Queen "will establish a school whenever any bands ask for them, so that your children may have the learning of the white man." They were also promised, "Your children will be taught and they will be as well able to take care of themselves as the whites around them;" Western education "will not deter" from indigenous ways; and the system will be "equal to the whites."
The numbered treaties established both the treaty right, to and the policy context for the provision of, educational services when First Nations requested them.
We can learn from post-secondary institutions about the images of success. First Nations students step out of high school, but they later return to technical institutions, community colleges and universities and, in so doing, become role models. Their success is a partnership between students, communities and post-secondary institutions. Post-secondary institutions pursue new delivery models and refocus their curriculum.
Examples of institutional program change are found at Trent University in their indigenous studies program; University of British Columbia in their indigenous education program; Cape Breton College with its Mi'kmaq studies and a Master of Business Administration geared toward First Nations; and the University of Saskatchewan with the Aboriginal Education Research Centre.
Statistics from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada show that in First Nation tertiary enrolment, the funded students have decreased from the high of 27,000 in 1995 to 25,000 in 2002, but that number does not include students who fund themselves at university, take out loans for university or are successful in obtaining scholarships.
Increased participation of Aboriginal students is common to many institutions across Canada. If we look at my own institution, the University of Saskatchewan, in 2010, self-declared Aboriginal students numbered 1,722. This number is an increase of 5.7 per cent in the undergraduate program, and 5.99 per cent in the graduate program. In programs such as the Master of Education program, which is often referred to as the land-based program, which is in Professor Battiste's Department of Educational Foundations, in the fall and winter terms indigenous students take their courses on-line, and in spring and summer, the community of scholars comes together on land and in reserves across Western Canada.
I therefore have a call to action for change. We must recognize education as a treaty right. We need legislative recognition of First Nations education, an education act. We need organizational options. We have the success of the Mi'kmaq agreements involving the province of Nova Scotia, the federal government and the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia. As other examples, we could create organizations based on treaty lines or within large tribal councils. We need an accountability framework for First Nations education. We particularly need focused and long-term funding for First Nations education. We need language and cultural education, development support for materials, training, and instruction. Canada has an outstanding record of providing research and language training for bi-cultural and bilingual programs in elementary and secondary schools. We have no such record for First Nations languages.
We need consistent availability of second level services for all First Nations students so that we can have individual student planning and programming. We need to look at alternative schools and classes, and we need professional education for all school staff if we are to ensure that First Nations move forward in education, and we are not still stuck with the same ideas we had in the 1839 Lord Durham report, or in the Auditor General's statement from 2000 and 2004.
The Chair: I thank both of you for excellent presentations. I will ask a quick question. I believe Dr. Battiste made mention of provincial involvement. I believe there is a huge apprehension out there in the First Nations community. The First Nations fear that if we go to a provincial system, then the federal government will abdicate their constitutional and treaty responsibility for education. The departments of education in the provinces are apprehensive about meeting with us on this subject as well. Yet, the Province of Saskatchewan is engaged in good work based on a tripartite partnership involving First Nations, INAC and the province. Have you any suggestions about how we can approach that issue? The provinces have such a huge amount of infrastructure and resources that could help. Would you like to comment on that.
Ms. Battiste: Yes, thank you. As my introductory comments noted, the Aboriginal and treaty rights affirmations in 1982 have not been addressed subsequently in any of the provincial legislation. There have been no changes to education in any of those provinces that address the issues of Aboriginal and treaty rights. Yet, all legislation must be consistent with the Constitution.
We need to urge the federal government, in terms of revising its work around the Indian Act, to refocus on an indigenous accord that is built around treaty boundaries or treaty areas, as Ms. Carr-Stewart spoke about. That refocus might be an opportunity for multiple provinces to work together; for example, Treaty 6 crosses into Alberta as well as Saskatchewan. This work would be an opportunity to avoid duplication of effort and begin to work toward an accord, a kind of collaboration and a consensual agreement.
The First Nations are concerned about the abdication of the fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government. All Canadians need to see themselves as treaty recipients; and within those treaties, they have rights, obligations and responsibilities under those arrangements. From that view, one would be able to arrive at a consensual agreement that combines the federal, provincial and First Nations in a collaborative consensual agreement, much in the same way as the one we spoke about in terms of Mi'kmaw-Kina'matnewey, where they crossed boundaries. It was not a one-size-fits-all model, but it was conducive to the needs of those groups in that place.
A problem that might need to be resolved is that this one-size-fits-all model cannot be achieved by any kind of legislation across Canada. We need to be able to work with each of those groups. When you attend to the Aboriginal and treaty rights issue, then you will definitely have First Nations peoples on your side, because those issues are the very foundations they are holding on to, and holding the federal government responsible for.
The Chair: Do you have any comment on that issue, Dr. Carr-Stewart?
Ms. Carr-Stewart: I agree with Ms. Battiste. Often, First Nations are concerned because if you eliminate the Indian Act, on what basis do they have any special services? They do not, because Canada does not administer any programs under treaties. If we recognize treaties and the constitutionality of the federal government's responsibility, then we can create partnerships.
Many provinces enter into partnerships with the First Nations community for education services. If you can establish a legislative way that recognizes First Nations and responds to their constitutional rights, then we can establish partnerships with provincial school boards. That does not mean we go back to the white paper and the provinces take over education, but it does mean that we can have partnerships.
One was signed last week in Saskatchewan involving the Dakota, the Saskatoon Tribal Council, the Saskatoon public school board and the department of education in Saskatchewan to provide services, both for the First Nation children and for the non-Aboriginal children in the Saskatoon public school, so they can share services back and forth.
There are many ways, without turning the program holus-bolus over to the provinces, that we can maintain the rights of First Nations people. The federal government can be responsible for funding partnerships and paying for their share of the partnerships with provincial school divisions. We often forget that there are many arrangements between provincial school boards and the First Nations people already in place across Canada, not only in the Prairies but across the whole of Canada.
Senator Peterson: Your presentation this morning has reinforced again the challenges of education with First Nations, Aboriginal people. We are aware of the issues because we have had numerous presentations by First Nations groups before this committee, saying the two major challenges they have are economic development and education. The two are linked.
We know that in recent years, the economic interests of Aboriginal communities and non-Aboriginal communities are becoming more and more in sync. We are also aware that the First Nations, Aboriginal people, will become a major portion of the workforce as we move forward. We know all these things, and yet we have difficulty coming up with a framework and moving ahead.
We talk about constitutional rights and INAC not being able to provide services, and we go around and around. Eventually, we have to stop and agree on some type of framework that we can all coalesce around and focus our energies on. In your opinion, what type of tripartite agreement could all parties — federal government, provincial government and First Nations — reasonably align on in terms of where we are going?
Ms. Battiste: There have been many tripartite agreements, but the tripartite agreements have been under discussion with the Indian Act as the framework. For me, that framework is the problem to start with — we need to have Aboriginal treaty rights as the core foundation, as opposed to having the Indian Act as the core foundation.
In the past, I have found that the tripartite agreements have been deals made by groups in different places. All the deals are different, depending on what the outcomes are. However, if we begin with the foundation of Aboriginal and treaty rights — the foundation that Aboriginal people came into Canada with something and they did not give that up in lands, in lieu of, or anything — if they hold onto their governance, their languages, those teachings, their Aboriginal knowledge and so on, if we understand those are the things that are sacred that they want to hold onto, then we enter into agreements where that foundation becomes the backbone of the agreement.
The agreement then does not allow, as in all the other cases, the provinces to take off with a lot of money without any accountability. At present, the accountabilities are not shared. There are more Aboriginal people in provincial schools today, especially at the high school level. When we talk about the high-school-level achievements, these have not been created at the First Nations community level; they have been created primarily at the provincial level.
These accountabilities have never been dropped into the funding mechanisms for the provinces when they receive their money, or share any of the tuition monies that come with First Nation students from reserves into the provincial schools.
Those kinds of accountabilities need to be brought into the consensual agreement; but if we place Aboriginal and treaty rights at the backbone of the agreement, then we have a different kind of picture and arrangement, one that First Nations people would adhere to. I think that approach would also support and help non-Aboriginal people and Canadians across Canada to understand part of their history that they have been denied because of the prejudices and what we call hegemony, in terms of knowledge production and distribution; what is held as being superior and what is thought to be inferior. That kind of arrangement will build a better block than the ones we have had so far.
Senator Brazeau: Welcome, and thank you for being here this morning. You both mentioned education as a treaty right. I want to explore that right a bit further.
Dr. Carr-Stewart said that Treaty 1 to Treaty 7 contained a reference to education. Can you expand on the language dealing with education? What reference is contained in those treaties?
Ms. Carr-Stewart: All the numbered treaties, up to Treaty 11, which were signed in the 1900s, have a reference to education. When we look at the treaties, we have to keep in mind what the written document says and what we know from looking at archival documents or from listening to oral history. The clauses are short. Basically, they say that the Crown is responsible for providing schools or teachers on the reserve for First Nations whenever First Nations ask for them. The statements are short. However, when the treaties were negotiated, some treaties took weeks to negotiate and some took months. People went back and forth. There was a discussion about education. It was not only that short statement in the treaty. The discussion about education took place frequently over many weeks. That statement was written in Ottawa and then was included in each of the treaties. Treaty rights diminish from Treaty 1 to Treaty 7. If you look at history, as an aside, Alexander Morris was fired after negotiating Treaty 6 because Canada said that he had given too much away. He yielded to First Nations demands.
The treaties contain a short statement that it is the Crown's responsibility to provide a school on reserve and teachers whenever the First Nations ask for a school to be established. However, when we talk with elders and we learn about the oral history, and when we look at statements by treaty commissioners and by people from the RCMP who wrote in their diaries and in various documents at the time; there is a much larger involvement of what education is. It is lifelong learning. That is what First Nations understood Western education was at the time, because missionaries did not discriminate between children and adults. They provided education for both groups.
Education was this promise that life would be better. It was replacing life on the Prairies, because the buffalo were no more. It was an economic replacement. It was meant to be what many parents would want for their children today. It was a way for their children to be able to provide in the future. First Nations people knew their children would learn to read and write — we can pick that out from statements by the chiefs at the treaty negotiations — and that they would be able to have a job to live like the White person afterwards, but still maintain their own culture and language. There was never any discussion that they would give up culture and language. They would remain who they were and also learn Western education.
Similar to how children learn two languages, we see that when they are educated in more than two languages, they do much better than unilingual children in the school system. It was a way for education to enable First Nations people to be equal participants in this country. I would argue that we have not provided that education. First Nations were giving their land to be used by the newcomers. It was a way of sharing their land, and in return, to get back the Queen's "benevolence and bounty."
Senator Brazeau: I will, by no means, disagree with you, but I think you will agree that in 2010, education has not been identified as an Aboriginal and treaty right by the courts as we speak. Depending on who interprets these treaties, we can have a lot of different interpretations.
My concern with education being a treaty right is that in Quebec, where I am from, there are no numbered treaties or historical treaties. The same applies in British Columbia. If we take the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, that is almost half the First Nations communities in this country. First, what are your views with respect to those communities? Is education still a treaty right if there are no treaties?
Second, if I understood both of you correctly, I think you suggest that, as a premise, to be able to move forward, education must be treated as an Aboriginal treaty right. In my experience, Aboriginal issues sometimes change at a slow pace. The current situation and the reality is that many willing First Nations communities that want to move forward on education so that more students graduate and more people are included in the school system — that is, to have the intended results that we are all seeking — are moving ahead and signing tripartite agreements with provinces and with the federal government.
If we utilize Aboriginal education as a potential Aboriginal treaty right, how long will it take before any level of government, whether it is federal or provincial, recognizes that right? How long do students have to wait, and how long do Aboriginal people have to wait, to be able to reap the benefits of a good, decent and equitable education?
Ms. Carr-Stewart: I disagree with you on one statement. First Nations education is not a potential treaty right. It is a treaty right. It is in the treaties. Because the courts have not ruled on it does not mean that it is not a treaty right. Education is in each of the numbered treaties. In most of my research, I refer to the numbered treaties. There are treaties all across Canada. Quebec has treaties also. One case that did go forward for Quebec, the Sioui case, recognizes the rights of Aboriginal people to their own culture and languages.
Senator Brazeau: We are talking about education.
Ms. Carr-Stewart: You cannot look at something in an isolated way. If we offered First Nations people education as a way that they could participate and be equal members of society, then Canada must maintain that offer. If we continually ignore the people who sign treaties — and there are a variety of treaties; specifically we are talking about the numbered treaties, but there are treaties from Nova Scotia to British Columbia — and we gain all this land for nothing, why do we think people sit back and cringe that Canada does not support the treaties in any way? First Nations people, indigenous people across this country, were willing to share their land with the newcomers. Most of us in this room are newcomers, or our parents were, and we are still newcomers. We took without maintaining what we said we would give. I would argue that all that First Nations people are asking for is that we respect what we negotiated, and we provide a system equal to what provincial systems provide.
There are many success stories across Canada for First Nations education. We tend always to look at what Marie Battiste calls the negative factors. We do not give credit to those people who provide strong education. However, it is not only one area; it is also finances. First Nations people will often say, "We should have the same amounts of money as we transfer to the provinces when First Nations attend provincial schools."
When we have conducted in-depth research, that approach did not solve the problem. To simply give a First Nation who manages a small school the equal amount of money, let us say $7,000 that they transfer to the provincial school when children transfer to provincial schools, will not solve the problem. We have to create larger systems. We have conducted research in southern Saskatchewan. We need more than 50 per cent increase in funding to create the same level of service if we continually go with small entities. We have to move to larger entities to provide a strong educational system, and we have to move away from the federal government going only on a unit cost without consideration of what services we are looking to approve.
Senator Brazeau: To clarify: I did not say that education was not an Aboriginal treaty right. All I said was that the courts have not pronounced themselves on that as of today.
The Chair: Are there comments?
Ms. Battiste: I will follow up by saying that the court has said, in R. v. Côté, that where an Aboriginal right exists, parents have a right to teach it. Hence, where we have Aboriginal rights, the Aboriginal parents have those rights to teach those kinds of things, and education is the manner by which they would extend it. They have the right, within their communities and families, to build on those particular rights, but also the schools are part of their communities. Every culture has education as part of it. Basically, those things are connected.
Canada has affirmed Aboriginal and treaty rights. It did not say Aboriginal rights of those who are in treaty territories. It says Aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution of Canada, which means that in B.C., for the Inuit in the North, for the First Nations in Quebec and all those areas, including those in peace and friendship treaty areas — which are also in the area I come from, Nova Scotia — all of those people are Aboriginal peoples in Canada who have Aboriginal rights.
The problem I see is that the courts have been left to be the adjudicators in the absence of federal and provincial legislation, policy and regulations to affirm those particular things. The courts have been active because these things have been contested by First Nations Aboriginal peoples across Canada. We need to have Canada and the provinces and territories take an affirmative step rather than being on the defensive or allowing the courts to define all these particular rights and their obligations. It is time that the Constitution of Canada be converged as one in all the provinces and territories.
Senator Raine: It is a pleasure having you with us today. I am from British Columbia, and I think you know that there is a tripartite agreement there, but it is not being implemented at this time because of a lack of funding.
Can you envision a structure that respects the provincial boundaries — because that is who is delivering education to the non-natives in Canada — and sets up an association or a framework where you have a parallel system that is not duplicated but working together? The objective would be to take control of what is required right down to the community level. Obviously we need to have a structure. I can envision the structure, but I do not know how that would work legislatively without a strong tripartite agreement with the federal government to provide the funding, the provincial government to assist with delivery, and the First Nations to be involved locally in requesting what is to be delivered.
If we need legislation to make this agreement happen, does it start at the federal government, at the provinces, or with the First Nations? How do we get it all unjammed? Right now, it looks like we are conducting more and more studies, but the outcomes that everyone agrees are needed are affected by the lack of funding.
Ms. Battiste: If we take legislation from the federal level, then it ends up being federal politicians and bureaucrats creating something for First Nations. At the provincial level, it has the same effect. Therefore, I am not sure that legislation is exactly the way to go.
However, I think of an accord of some kind that crosses all three levels in a unique feature, which allows each of those areas to be unique to their area. For example, what is going on in B.C. would be different than what is needed in Nova Scotia because of differences in terms of the wide variety of First Nations in B.C. versus one in Nova Scotia. Those provinces are different kinds of scenarios. It has to be done with a mechanism that allows the three groups to work together. It has to be consensual within the communities. It is not an Indian Act band chief decision-making power that is being given to them. That element is important. We have to see that Aboriginal and treaty rights are not given to chiefs and councils; they are given to people. The people must have the right to make those choices and be part of those negotiations as well, in the manner in which they choose and how they choose it. It is not to have one-off legislation here or there, but it has to be a somewhat unique feature that allows these elements to come together, again on the basis of the Aboriginal treaty rights.
Ms. Carr-Stewart: The B.C. tripartite agreement has a lot of good things in it. It is potentially — because it is not yet implemented — an agreement that puts responsibility on the province. There are statements in the agreement that First Nations people must graduate from the schools at the same rate as non-Aboriginal people. The responsibility is there for the provincial schools to ensure that they provide the right kind of education and success for Aboriginal students.
Money is an issue, but the federal government has to realize that if we are to make a change, not only since Confederation but prior to Confederation, we have had a minimal amount of funding in First Nations education. We can go back into the annual reports, and it is not until 1926 that Canada thinks they might have paid the full cost of education. It will take a large amount of money from the federal government to fund education if we are ever to address all the issues. Education is not a piecemeal thing.
The senator from Saskatchewan mentioned the change in the population. We do not have a long time to make much change to Indian education. The population in the Prairies is the fastest growing portion of the population. In Saskatchewan, by 2020, it is estimated the population will be 50 per cent White and 50 per cent Aboriginal. Unless we provide an education system for First Nations students, and are willing to fund a great deal in the short term, we will be living with a much poorer economic system in Canada because we will not have people trained to do the jobs that will be available in 2020.
Money is an issue, but I do not think we have any other choice than to convince Canada to put money into First Nations education if they want to make a change.
Senator Raine: Picking up on what Dr. Battiste said, do you envision a system where you could have a body in the community, not the council and chief, that is responsible for education? We might consider it a school board — maybe "board" is the wrong word — but some education council in the community. How do you see that organization being governed and set up?
If that is the key, then obviously the confidence in how those bodies come into being, the confidence from the federal level in those organizations, is key. It is hard to flow money to a group that we do not know, and we do not know how it is structured. Do you have any thoughts on that point?
Ms. Battiste: I wish I had the magic bullet for you. Therein lies the rub. I think that there is not yet a magic scenario that will fit all across Canada. As I said, the diversity of groups across Canada will require a diversity of scenarios.
The one worked out among the Mi'kmaq and in the British Columbia area took a while to construct and create; to develop their own confidence within themselves as well as the confidence within their whole area. With the critical mass today of Aboriginal scholars, educators and teachers across Canada, we have that critical mass in areas to create the kinds of governance structures that are built around systems of accountability. I believe we have those kinds of people, but we do not have the systems in place that can bring those two together.
It is Canada's responsibility, but the decision must be a consensual one; it must be in collaboration with, and built on, principles of the Aboriginal and treaty rights. Those foundational principles on issues of self-determination, issues of empowerment and redress even, the issues that have gone on so far, all those principles must be brought into the conversation.
It can be done. Just as the Constitution of Canada took some while to create a principle called Aboriginal and treaty rights, that kind of discussion needs to go on with Aboriginal peoples and with the structures they build with communities; being understood and heard that they have the rights and how they wish to bring those rights forward. Whether the structure is with their chiefs, some will agree that is where they want to go; others will see a structure outside that one.
Ms. Carr-Stewart: There are First Nations systems in Canada that are well functioning school divisions. School boards on the Kainai reserve, which is in southern Alberta, have an educational authority, and individuals are elected to the school authority; they are not the chief and council. We have examples of success across Canada.
The Kainai have the benefit of being a large reserve. It is the largest geographical reserve in Canada; it has a large population. They have in excess of seven schools, maybe nine, on the reserve. There are those examples across the country where we have success.
The Chair: Dr. Carr-Stewart, you said that funding is critical, but in the same breath, you said that there are existing structures out there we can use. At the present time, do you think giving more funding to the chiefs and councils will make any difference? The problems are systemic. The money is discretionary, to a degree; it does not necessarily have to go to education.
I think $7 billion to First Nations blurs the whole issue. I think we have to engage all Canadians. I do not know how we do that because, as Senator Peterson said, and I think you said as well, Dr. Carr-Stewart, in Saskatchewan the population will be 50 per cent Aboriginal and 50 per cent non-Aboriginal. For the federal government to contribute more money right now without the structures, whether they are legislative or what have you, it is beyond me to see how this money will make any difference in the process at this time.
Ms. Carr-Stewart: Money does not solve problems. My grandmother made that statement many years ago, and it has not changed. However, if we want an education system, then we have to create a legitimate system focused on education that is funded correctly to address student needs.
Right now, I would argue that yes, money is spent on First Nations education. The money is not focused. It goes to small entities, and the smaller the entity, the less likelihood that entity can provide services.
If we look at larger entities, we need less money. The Mi'kmaq are a good example. They administer for all the First Nations in Nova Scotia; they have one regional office in Sydney and a sub-office in Shubenacadie, which is on the mainland. They do not have any other administrative offices. Those are the only two.
Nova Scotia is a small province, so there are benefits of size in this system. However, in those two offices, they have second-level services; they may have a reading consultant, a psychologist and a speech specialist that provides services to all the schools within the geographical area. We can implement those kinds of cost-savings if we look at a system.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, when it transferred schools, did it through a devolutionary process only to individual bands. Only those bands that are large, like the Kainai, have had success. Size has helped them to be more successful. There are other factors, I agree, but size is one of the issues.
When we transfer to individual First Nations, even though I know First Nations like that control, it does not provide the best education system. We need to look at a system. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, in their own document, clearly said they did not provide a transfer system of education. All they transferred were salaries for the existing teachers and principals that they hired at the time.
During devolution, Treasury Board made a transfer from salaries to contribution dollars. The money is only for the teachers' and principals' salaries; it was not for a system of education. Some of us are old enough to have been a part of that euphoria of transferring schools; in hindsight, transferring schools to small First Nations was not an effective way to create a system.
It will take additional money, I do not doubt that, to implement programs; but it is taking the money we have and allocating it in a way that is more effective to create education systems across this country. Those systems, as Ms. Battiste said, can be tribal councils; they can be treaty lines; or they can be province-wide such as in Nova Scotia. It is up to First Nations to choose those options and todecide how to do that, but we have to move from funding individual First Nations to create a system of education. We do not do that in the provincial system. We have moved to larger organizations because then we can provide services that students need.
The Chair: Who should devise that system?
Ms. Carr-Stewart: I think we do that through sitting down and negotiating. If we look at areas, Treaty 6 has looked at that issue a few years ago; how to create one system for all of Treaty 6. We have Treaty 8, which is a cohesive group that crosses B.C., Alberta and the territories. We may look at provinces that would come together. New Brunswick might separate on Mi'kmaq and Maliseet lines, but if we sit down, there are ways that we can look at education.
The Chair: We look to those of you that are in the profession and have worked your lifetime in it. If we make solid recommendations and we go to the Prime Minister, regardless of who he or she is, we can sell them. When we went on specific claims, we were able to sell them on the idea that this is something that must be done. Our report was virtually mirrored in the legislation, and it was because we listened to people like you. We need definitive ideas as to how to overcome the mistrust that is out there on the part of the First Nations. I go back to the abdication of the fiduciary responsibility under the Constitution and our treaty. This is what we are searching for.
Before we went into this study, several people, such as Senator Brazeau and others, were apprehensive about the study because this issue has been studied to death. He is right, and others are right when they said the same thing. We must come up with recommendations that the government cannot ignore. That is why we are calling on you to help us, because most of us do not have the training, expertise or education in the field that you have. Some of us come from business backgrounds and athletic backgrounds.
I will not beat this point to death. We still have Senator Fairbairn, followed on a second round by Senator Peterson and Senator Raine.
Senator Fairbairn: Thank you very much. Dr. Carr-Stewart, you spoke about the activities in southern Alberta. I am from Lethbridge and, in the "growing up" of it, have been close to the Kainai. The college there has turned out to be a tremendously helpful thing to the people not only in their own community but also beyond. When the University of Lethbridge was created, they created it with us. It has turned out to be a tremendous change for the city and for the people around it, as well as for the Kainai itself. In fact, we never open the convocation. It is opened with great enthusiasm by the people from Kainai.
Together, the two organizations have changed that whole part of southwestern Alberta, as well as the other communities. As you said, it is possible. Once we start, we can really move it ahead. With young people and their families, it makes a huge difference to the connection throughout our area. It is possible and it can be done. I think all levels of government have a sense that this model could be used further.
Ms. Carr-Stewart: I agree. In looking at Red Crow Community College on the Kainai reserve, at Old Sun Community College on the Blackfoot reserve south of Calgary, and at Blue Quills First Nations College in the St. Paul area in Alberta, all those institutions have been accredited by the Province of Alberta as private post-secondary institutions. They are accountable, both to their people and to the province. Those mechanisms are possible if we sit down, as the Bloods and the Blackfoot did, and negotiate and agree. People on First Nations reserves do not like being accused of mismanagement and of being unable to live within parameters, any more than anyone else. Those reserves are good examples where accountability is maintained. They live within the requirements of Alberta education, advanced education, and they meet the needs of both their people and the non-Indian people in the surrounding areas. It is those kinds of systems that we can create that allay fears of the non-Aboriginal people about more money going nowhere, and no accountability. There are good examples where accountability exists. People are educated, and those institutions have grown significantly since they were first founded.
Senator Peterson: You talked about the financial challenges being staggering. In 2008, 2,200 Aboriginal students could not continue with their post-secondary studies because of financial constraints.
To deliver more money into this system, is it possible to develop a curriculum and governance system that one could point to and say here it is? Can it be done on a national scale, or is that too large? Should it be provincial? How far does it have to go so we can have this system and say, here is the model, and then start directing funding? Is this possible?
Ms. Battiste: With the Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre, we worked with communities to identify not only the education services that they needed but also their overall goals with regard to a system of lifelong learning.
In these First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples came together and developed their own model of lifelong learning, and looked at what resources we have now that would work to help develop this model; where the gaps exist and where we find those resources in terms of what kinds of servicing, what kind of resources or what kind of delivery mechanisms are needed? In so doing, they created their strategic planning. These strategic lifelong learning models, which are available online from the website of the Canadian Council on Learning, have grown from these communities and have gone into these communities where they have begun to use them now as a way of strategically planning their future, recognizing that the economy, their economic development and their education have to go hand in hand. These are not things that can be separated. A person may go through school, obtain a high school diploma and then not be able to be employed or to obtain a college degree and have nowhere to go. It is a matter of internal planning, which is why the kinds of funding that have been given presently to First Nations communities is less than those going to provincial areas. Funding has been deficient in all kinds of ways, all across the board, which is why one might need, in the discretionary funding, to move one funding to another. We are looking at the whole system, not at one thing. We are looking at a whole.
If government underfunds an area, people will have to move resources around. When it funds them to the amount that they need to do those kinds of things, then they do not have the need to do so.
There are mechanisms or systems that Aboriginal peoples across Canada — First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples — have begun to think through; what a holistic system would look like and how they might work within their communities. They have begun that process. It has been cut short by the funds that we no longer have to pursue work within the communities, through the Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre, and Canadian Council On Learning. However, they have continued it within the Assembly of First Nations, for example, where they are pursuing that work with communities and looking to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to provide additional work in terms of taking these processes into those particular communities.
I think that when we sit at this level, we think, "What do we do?" We need to look within those communities, where we will find the examples, where we will find the mechanisms, where we will find ways — with other people being supportive in terms of how we build a system within a system, or within systems — in which we can begin to address what seem to be difficult questions at this level that have been ironed out in all kinds of ways in other places.
There are multiple layers of answers. Even some of what I might call the magic answers are found tucked away at different levels of First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples. They are constructing some of these things, together with indigenous scholars, indigenous educators and leaders committed to this area. We will begin to find answers that can come from within. I think sufficient funds need to be committed to that kind of strategic planning on a global and strategic level within communities as well as something that can be addressed Canada-wide.
I do not think senators by themselves can do that. I do not think that politicians by themselves can do that, or that our bureaucrats are able to achieve that. However, I think we have found, in communities, wonderful successful stories. I have a group of those stories myself, in terms of working with the Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre.
Again, the work we have done is being put up on the website now in multiple reports, and you will find them there. In them are recommendations of the kinds of things that can be done as well.
Senator Peterson: What level of finalization are we at that you could present something that could be given to the federal government so they will know what they are funding; that you have signed onto with different groups you are working with? You said you need more funding.
Ms. Battiste: No, not me; I think that if Canada makes a commitment to do something, it is not simply that the Senate can deliver up an answer and say, this is what you need to fund and here is the language that goes with it. I believe that there are groups across Canada that can pull together from their various areas. I do not think that a Metis model fits a First Nations model. I do not think an Inuit model fits a First Nations model. You have to deal with those entities, those groups, and to have them advise as to the kinds of structures that can be used that can help them address their particular issues on a lifelong, holistic learning model, as opposed to the fragmented approach that we have had so far.
Senator Peterson: You are saying that if we focus on curriculum development and a governance structure, that type of recommendation is what we should and could make?
Ms. Battiste: I would say, first of all, you need all the provinces and the Government of Canada to address themselves to the Aboriginal and treaty rights issues: that is, that indigenous knowledge is an Aboriginal right and that it is something that belongs to the people. They did not give up that right, and it is in their teachings. Those kinds of things are beginning to be addressed.
Some of the other opportunities are the fact that the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada have taken up Aboriginal education as a priority. We have provinces all across Canada that have taken up Aboriginal education as their priorities. In places like Saskatchewan, they have done amazing work and are teaching treaties all across the province to everyone in every school. There are things going on now that can be seen as promising practices that could be taken up in other places.
I think we are at a place where some things are going on. The deans of education all across Canada have come together with an accord on indigenous education. These things are opportunities. They are places where things have begun, where we can begin to create dialogue.
Education deans are asking questions: How do we take up this accord in our own college? Of course, our College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan has taken up Aboriginal education as their priority. Their priority has been to create, in all of the classes, Aboriginal content and Aboriginal perspectives, but we are also working toward educating the entire faculty in the College of Education on the issues around Aboriginal education in terms of the histories, the learners, indigenous education or indigenous knowledge and how to bring those issues into the curriculum.
There are multiple layers and a hierarchy of knowledge that need to be put, and we have begun to do something systematically. It is being done within our university and within our college.
That work will have a reverberating effect as it also combines with people within the ministries, with people within the First Nations communities themselves, and with the Indian Teacher Education P rograms that stretch across the entire province.
Multiple things are going on already. I am trying to say that it is not the one-size-fits-all kind of legislation that will make the difference. It will be the way in which we support the good work that is going on already, and begin to think about ways in which we can create a more systematic approach across Canada that includes diversity. We must recognize that diversity is the norm in Canada, and having uniformity of anything will be problematic when we take into consideration all the different groups.
The approach must be systematic, but it includes diversity. Diversity can be achieved through some systematic approach. Canada itself has been able to achieve that approach by virtue of its own diversities across Canada. Canada should see that approach, itself, is an example for the ways in which diversity can be achieved in a large land mass such as we have.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome, witnesses. I agree that there is always funding involved in anything relating to First Nations education and First Nations housing. There is never enough funding.
Do you think all forms of education should be funded, such as one-year college programs? They are not funded now. Many students now are not university-minded people. They do not want to go to university because they cannot necessarily find a job after university now. I thought that, in this discussion with tripartite issues, it could be one of the things discussed. There are one-year college programs, such as criminology and flight schools, as examples.
As it is now, if a person wants to take criminology, they have to apply for a student loan. Many times they cannot obtain the loan because this person comes from a First Nations community and they do not have a credit rating. It is hard for them to obtain a student loan. Do you think this issue should be included in the discussions?
Ms. Battiste: The first thing said here was that the economy and education are things that go together. The communities have also looked at that issue in terms of lifelong learning. What do they need within their community to have a holistic system, to have lifelong learning? Not only that, but what kinds of needs does their community have in terms of their environment, food and the kinds of tourism that might need to be developed? What kinds of ways might they pursue those things?
When a community is enriched by having a chance to think about how they can grow as a whole, they can make a decision as to whether they need to have more policemen or policewomen go to school, whether they need to have people working on environmental education and whether they need to work in the area of tourism or other areas.
When we do that, lifelong learning would then suggest that we can decide how we want to move. It is not haphazard. It is not that someone says they want to go to school and they think it is a great idea and they have this talent; we look at it in terms of how they fit within this whole. How can they create themselves to be part of this whole and to make our whole community grow in a better way?
When we do that, then we include those kinds of learning, and we build the economy by virtually working toward helping to develop people to fit within the system that exists, as opposed to having people go through school and having no place to go. Communities must have an opportunity to have some control over, and some decision making over, those things. E12 guidelines that say this is the rule of how to take up and give out monies in post-secondary education do not do that for them, because they need to think in holistic terms about how they will meet the needs within their own communities. The other way takes it and creates a lot of different kinds of problems.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I agree with you. However, there are also many obstacles in a community, such as single parents — single mothers and fathers. They are usually on social welfare. How will they go to school? How will they bring their family out — hitchhike to the school? There must be systems like that in place, as well.
When I wanted to go to school, I had to hitchhike to university. People still have to hitchhike. With the discussions, all this funding should be in place. Hopefully, people who are on the board will bring up this important factor for Aboriginal people who want to go to school.
Senator Raine: You are right; it is a diverse country. We have urban situations with a lot of Aboriginal people in urban centres and not benefiting perhaps from the ties to their home culture that they need, but we also have a lot of remote communities. Dr. Carr-Stewart mentioned that we need to have big enough units to provide effective delivery of second-level services. However, we have remote communities.
Have you looked at how we can deliver education in those remote areas? There are opportunities of delivering education online, but many of these areas do not have high-speed Internet, so it does not work. We come back to what happened years ago, when we had residential schools. Do you see residential schools, under First Nations control, being part of moving forward in education?
Ms. Battiste: Any kind of school needs to be built around community needs, aspirations and visions for their future. If they, in their wisdom, choose a residential school format for meeting those goals, where they can bring into that residential school their own cultural environment and the structures of their own community teachings and so on, that might be an optimal place for them to deliver that education. Those decisions can be made within local communities.
Education always has to be built around what they aspire to and how they want to meet their end goals. That is a community decision.
The Chair: On behalf of the senators, Dr. Battiste and Dr. Carr-Stewart, I thank you for your excellent presentations and your straightforward responses to the questions that were put to you by the senators. If you have any ideas that you think will work, we want to hear them, as both of you bring a vast amount of experience to this issue.
Dr. Carr-Stewart, you said to consolidate into larger units. Detribalization took place and now we are seeking to reverse that process. I do not know if there are any incentives we can give to the chiefs and councils to look at a different system to educate their people better.
We were in Saskatchewan, and we looked at what Darcy Bear is doing at the Whitecap Dakota First Nation. It is remarkable. If you can come up with any suggestions, you know how to reach our clerk. We would appreciate any suggestions to make our report more fulsome, and hopefully a report that cannot be ignored by any government.
With that, I thank you. We will adjourn until tomorrow evening.
(The committee adjourned.)