Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 14 - Evidence - November 16, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:32 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 the meeting to order. Good morning and welcome, honourable senators and members of the public watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I am Senator Gerry St. Germain, from British Columbia, originally from Manitoba, and 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 educational agreements or partnerships; governance and delivery structures; and possible legislative frameworks.
This morning we will hear from Colin Kelly, Official Trustee with the Northland School Division No. 61 in Alberta. Mr. Kelly was appointed official trustee in January of this year. Prior to his appointment, he served as Director of Education for Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta for three years. He also worked for the Yukon government, from 2005 to 2007, as the Co-Chair of the Education Reform Project and served as the Superintendent of Schools and Assistant Deputy Minister of Education from 2002 to 2005. From 1990 to 2002 he was the Superintendent of Northland School Division. In 2002, he received the President's Award from the Alberta School Boards' Association.
Mr. Kelly attained his doctorate of education in educational leadership from the University of Alberta in 2000. He earned a bachelor of arts and a bachelor of education from St. Mary's University in Halifax in 1974; and in 1986, he received his master's of education from Memorial University, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Before welcoming our witness, let me introduce the Committee members who are here today.
[English]
On my left is Senator Jim Cowan, from Nova Scotia, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Next to Senator Cowan is Senator Maria Chaput, from Manitoba. On my right is Senator Dennis Patterson, from Nunavut and next to Senator Patterson is Senator Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick. Next is Senator Patrick Brazeau, from Quebec; Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, from New Brunswick; and Senator Daniel Lang, from Yukon.
Senators, please join me in welcoming our witness, whom some of you might know. Mr. Kelly, please proceed with your presentation.
Colin Kelly, Official Trustee, Northland School Division No. 61: Thank you very much. Senators, thank you for this opportunity. I sincerely hope that the little I have to contribute may in some fashion assist you in the very important deliberations you will be undertaking on this extremely important, current and significant topic.
I wish to stress that I believe that what you are undertaking as senators, given your positions of influence and decision-making, is one of the most important issues facing Canada, First Nations and Canadians generally; and it needs action, precise interventions, direction and resolve to finally address the educational deficit faced by many First Nations of this country.
Education is about self-fulfilment. It is about opportunities, self-realization, contributing to society and, hopefully, leaving the world in a little better than we found it. However, for First Nations, it is also about self-government, self- realization and the realization of treaty promises. As with all cultures, it is a necessary mechanism for the transfer of intergenerational knowledge, the enhancement and revitalization of Aboriginal languages and, thus, the very survival of cultures.
I believe it also needs to be said, given the gravity of this nation-wide study that you are undertaking, that you are giving people hope. I sincerely hope that this standing committee will realize some tangible results.
You see, I believe there have been over 2,000 studies related to or on Aboriginal peoples and Aboriginal education. A comment was put to me by a chief when I was involved with the Yukon government and the Council of Yukon First Nations on the education reform initiative. He said: ``Kelly, what needs to be said has already been said. What is needed is action on pertinent recommendations and practices and resources to realize them.'' I am sure that you have heard this message and that the message you have received is the same.
I must also state at this point of my submission that I do not speak for Aboriginal people. I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with and for Aboriginal communities and children. With my educational experience, I believe I have been privileged. I worked for a provincial system with a predominantly First Nations clientele for 30 years. I held similar positions in the Yukon and was their superintendent and ADM of education. I had an opportunity to co- chair an Education Reform Project with the Yukon government and the Council of Yukon First Nations. For three years, I was the Director of Education for Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, and I was recently appointed an official trustee for Northland School Division No. 61. I have worked for two orders of government and have seen education on both sides of the fence.
It should also be understood that all my references to education are primarily Alberta and Yukon based, the same as my experiences.
I am also encouraged, besides the obvious profile of this group and your positions, because the areas of discussion are current to the issues facing Aboriginal education and require resolution based on cooperative discussions and partnerships.
If I may, I would like to comment briefly on each of the areas of your stated mandate and hopefully it will initiate further dialogue.
Concerning possible legislative frameworks, all provinces and territories of Canada have an education ministry and legislation that govern the delivery of educational services. This legislation comes in the form of an education act or a school act. Parents, community members, students, bureaucrats, everyone and anyone who wishes to know and be involved, can be familiar with the contents of the acts or legislation. They will also be familiar with the expectations, the roles and services provided. Thus, such legislation allows for structured input and involvement, it allows for avenues for questioning and optimal use and it defines roles. This legislation also holds government, governance and employees accountable. Also, as an act or legislation, any change would require consultation and legislative debate and readings, for First Nations who receive offerings or support through federal avenues do not enjoy the same legislative protections. It is my understanding that federally funded education is policy driven, thus avenues for input or change are limited or non-existent, and legislative debate is not a requirement. Changes, in reality, can be imposed and public debate often limited. I believe it is time for a national debate specifically on First Nations education, with a goal to the development and passing of an act to govern First Nations education.
As to tripartite memorandums of understanding or agreements, I firmly believe that the time for tripartite agreements between the three orders of government — federal, provincial and First Nations — is now. I believe the three governments are also open to partnerships. I am also of the opinion that such partnerships are necessary if we are to successfully address First Nations education. Tripartite agreements allow for a sharing of resources and expertise. They also allow for agreed upon, targeted initiatives.
A case in point, in the memorandum of understanding between Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8, the federal government and the provincial government recognizes the autonomy and authority of First Nations. The two governments commit to improving and ever increasing the knowledge of First Nations students by removing barriers, creating strategic learning opportunities for First Nations and to improving the service and quality of education for First Nations students attending both First Nation operated schools and provincial schools.
The education deficit faced by First Nations students is not limited to band operated systems. First Nations students attending provincial and territorial schools are not achieving at the same level as their non-First Nation counterparts.
According to this MOU, how will this be done? The MOU commits to agreed upon targets and commitments focusing on resourcing, funding analysis, programs and services, legislation and policies, tuition and education service agreements, long-term strategic plans and accountability, performance management, relationship building, parent and community engagement and cultural and treaty awareness.
All of these are essential to building and creating a culturally appropriate contemporary education jurisdiction, all of which are essential to addressing First Nations education and creating support for education.
Central to the MOU discussed is the formation of an indigenous knowledge and wisdom centre. Such a centre will be charged with focusing and improving educational outcomes of First Nation students in a culturally appropriate and responsive education environment.
The agreed upon directions of this MOU is commendable, the success of which is going to depend upon a number of contributing factors, including everything from human resources, political will at all three levels of government, and financial resources. However, in my opinion, there are three key factors in ensuring the success of this or any other agreement.
I believe all agreements need to be based on the principles of a true partnership, and I suggest using the principles set out by the Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples when defining ``partnership.'' Their definition, in summary, embodied the original principles of the treaties. That is a relationship based upon mechanisms committed to a nation-to- nation non-interference, non-subordinate, mutually respectful, equal partnership, consent on both sides, and non- subordination on either side.
Second, I believe all agreements with our First Nations need to be about self-determination, self-governance, and about the realization of treaty promises. I believe that First Nations need to be resourced so that they are able to participate equally in any agreement or negotiation.
Relating to service delivery structures, there are significant deficits, in my experience, in service delivery to First Nations education. I am sure you heard much about this in your hearings and deliberations.
I would like to reference two, and these seem to be commonly referred to in federally funded First Nations schools, as second-level and third-level services.
Second-level services are those school-board-like services that are delivered in the form of curriculum support, instructional coaching, mentorship and other forms of professional supports for teachers, students, student services — such as special education — professional development. All of this is in the name of supporting school-based programs to improve student learning. Second-level services are designed to ensure a consistency in educational offerings of schools and school jurisdictions.
During my time with Treaty 8, and with the help of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, second-level services in four northern jurisdictions and three provinces and one territory was researched. These jurisdictions were chosen because of similarity of geography and demographics with our Treaty 8 schools. This analysis shows that provincially and territorially an average of $1,300 per student was expended by jurisdictions on second-level services.
For provincial and territorial educational jurisdiction, second-level services are a matter of regular business and are an accepted and necessary part of any educational offering to students. Any thought of operating an education system without second-level services is, to a certain extent, incomprehensible.
The fact that these types of services are almost non-existent at the band operated school level may help in explaining the unacceptable student achievement gap between band and provincially operated schools.
The third-level services are those services or supports for viable governance structures. The lack of governance structures is directly related to the absence of legislation and legislative framework we discussed earlier.
Unlike their provincial counterparts, governance in First Nations schools is an area that is not supported by legislation. It is not supported by recognized educational supports, such as provincial school board federations. It is not financially supported through the federal funding frameworks.
Governance is often left to chiefs and councils, in most cases, who are, by the very nature of the government structure, overtaxed with responsibility and under-resourced by a host of other responsibilities. The danger therein becomes decisions based on politics rather than on pedagogy. In addition, there is little time for discussion and direction related to shared governance between First Nations systems.
As with the necessity for debate on education legislation, government needs to been an integral part of any initiative or debate that you may undertake. Any governance structure should not be imposed, and a change in policy or funding frameworks cannot be the avenue or the impetus used to construct governance structures. As well, it is my opinion that adopting a provincial governance structure and superimposing it on a treaty area or band-operated schools will not be effective. First Nation leadership in communities will be better able to define governance structures that will work in their particular area.
Governance does not mean that First Nations need to give up individual authority or autonomy. Governance can mean the pooling of resources and supports to facilitate existing governance and partnership with provincial jurisdictions and educational authorities.
As a concluding comment, I wish to stress that there is reason for optimism among the pessimistic educational results. The three orders of government are very serious about addressing First Nations education and are willing to remove those barriers and to address legislation, services and resources.
I say this because there are initiatives that potentially can deliver results. There is the formation of the First Nation, Metis and Inuit Education Partnership Council with the Government of Alberta. There are the three treaty areas and the Metis Settlements General Council. The Alberta Métis Association shows partnership promise, as does the current review of the Northland School Division. Of course, the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding on First Nations Education in Alberta holds tremendous partnership potential. Partnerships are key to addressing many of the educational issues. Partnership allows for shared resources and access to resources. It allows systems to learn from one another. It allows for building on individual strengths. It allows for better dialogue and workable legislation.
The education of First Nations children should not be the sole responsibility of only one order of government with on-reserve students funded by the federal government and off-reserve students falling to the responsibility of the province. All students in a province should be afforded comparable access to education, legislative guarantees and opportunities. Issues of funding, barriers and competition for students should not be a factor to student success. Student access to programs should not be determined by geography and home address. Partnerships, as earlier defined and based on the principles of the MOU, with all three orders of government can assist in this process.
In my five minutes, I hope that I have touched on topics you have heard about before, thus reinforcing them; that there might be something new to provoke thought; and that I provided enough detail to generate some discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. What do we have to do to shock Canadians and all governments? I am not speaking only about the present government because every government since 1867 has failed in this area. We never lived up to our treaty promises, according to First Nations. I would like your comments on that. We need to live up to our promises as Canadians. What we are doing is shameful. We are filling our prisons with First Nations, Inuit and Metis people. It is a crime on the part of all Canadians to not force this situation to be rectified immediately.
We hear presentations — you said 2,000 studies on the issue — by government after government and party after party. It does not matter which party is in power. I have seen different governments in British Columbia fail to recognize the need. What could we do to shock Canadians into the realization that if we lose another generation of these people, the resulting social nightmare will be on the shoulders of every Canadian?
Mr. Kelly: That truly is a huge question. I have to agree with you that we have not lived up to our treaty promises. First Nations have not realized the benefits of the original partnerships that were agreed upon at the time that treaties were signed. There is no doubt about that.
I firmly believe that political will is required. This has been an issue for all governments, irrespective of party affiliations. It is time for a government to take very bold steps and a leap of faith. Treaties are about a partnership and about sharing. Treaties are not about subordinating or controlling every aspect of life of a group of people; and yet we have done that for a significant number of years. Things can happen with legislation and allowing First Nations to self govern. In looking at the issues around education, I see the answers in First Nation communities; however, the opportunities are not there.
We need to listen. We need to take that leap of faith. We need to take some very bold steps to address a completely unacceptable situation. If that situation continues with our same practices and legislation, it will be for a significant number of years, and we will lose more generations.
Senator Cowan: This is not an area of expertise for me but rather it is an area of interest for me as it is for all senators. Just listening to your presentation makes it all seem so reasonable and so rational. Perhaps the question, as asked by the Chair of the Committee, is why we are here in 2010 asking these questions and hearing presentations such as yours, which seem so reasonable. Perhaps you have a unique perspective in that you have become a school board by yourself, which might reduce the debate at the board table. We have seen that work at times in areas where boards become dysfunctional and government steps in and appoints someone to take on the responsibilities of the board.
If you had responsibilities on a national level similar to those that you have in your district, what magic wand could you wave that would enable decisions to be taken to address this issue that has been studied to death for 150 years? You speak to the principles of equality of partners and respect. All of us would agree that without those principles, there cannot be meaningful progress.
How do we get from where we are now to where everyone would like to be? I am sure no one would express satisfaction with the status quo. Clearly, more studies are not necessary; they would amount only to more reports to fill the shelves. What do we need to do to get this going?
Mr. Kelly: You are correct. More studies are not necessary. There have been a significant number of studies that have been shelved. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is a magic wand or a silver bullet, one action that will address all of the issues.
If I can relate it specifically to education, I am convinced, given the present situations that we need to work cooperatively with our First Nation governments, our provincial and territorial governments, as well as the federal government. In education, as with a number of our social programs with First Nations, we have built those barriers between on-reserve students and off-reserve students.
I am very much a supporter of band operated, First Nation run schools. However, having worked with that system, there are some very basic premises and services that all provincial systems enjoy that the band-operated system does not enjoy. Going into Treaty 8, a simple question of our student enrolment and how our students across the system are doing, First Nations do not have a database system to be able to give that information back.
How can you operate a school system where you do not have a history of how our students are doing academically, what their achievement levels are, where they are showing strengths and weaknesses? How do we expect educators to make pedagogical decisions without that kind of information? Provincially we have that information at our disposal; every superintendent of a board has that. Nationally it is not available.
There are significant differences in how school systems are funded within the same province. We did a funding analysis with three treaty areas in Alberta, as well as the federal and provincial government. Initially it showed that about 28 per cent of the First Nation on-reserve students in Alberta are underfunded in comparison to the provincial systems within the same area. When you have heard chiefs tell you that they get approximately $2,000 less per student; that is very much their reality. It is very difficult to introduce the kinds of programs that are needed, the kinds of interventions that are needed, and attract and keep staff.
If we were to look at funding arrangements that were comparable, funding arrangements that would address the needs that many of the First Nation students are experiencing, if I take a look at the funding manuals within the federal government, it is two pages. I think there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 28 different categories.
In Alberta, when we sit with our superintendent and the secretary/treasurer to define budgets for our jurisdiction, it is a binder an inch-and-a-half thick. There is access to funding to address the different needs that the students bring to the classroom. As a result, we show a disparity between what we are spending provincially on students and what is being spent in the federal band-operated systems.
As a result, you get into competition for students. You get parents who are not satisfied and want to send their children into a provincial system. The provincial systems do not do as well as they should in addressing language and culture, which must be very much a part of their educational systems. We are setting up this competition.
We then have students going into a provincial system, and the First Nations will tell you that the level of accountability is not always there. How are our students doing? Their input is usually through a tuition agreement which, by the way, is based on a 1974 master tuition agreement, and it talks about the exchange of dollars. It does not talk about accountability and it does not talk about programming.
I believe there is no silver bullet, no one thing that needs to be done, but there are a significant number of things that need to be done. I firmly believe — and it may be naively — that we need to, without taking control of First Nations or band-operated systems, establish the relationships and partnerships with the provincial systems. The province needs to be a part of any kind of relationship because the students, in Alberta's case, are not just First Nation students but are also Albertans, and should be benefiting from that Alberta advantage.
Targeted programs and initiatives put in place by the Province of Alberta are not extended to band-operated systems, and federally funded systems do not match dollar for dollar or program for program. We are setting up a two- tiered system within our own provinces and setting up an unfair advantage.
I would like to believe that the one thing that we really need to do is to resource our First Nations populations, set up mechanisms so that they are able to enter into relationships and partnerships with provincial systems and look to be an equal partner — not look to become run by the provincial systems, but become an equal partner with them.
Senator Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Kelly, for coming. As you noted, you spent some time in the Yukon, which is a much different system, I gather, from what you experienced in Northern Alberta.
In the Yukon we are very fortunate in many ways. We have a system that is set up through the Government of the Yukon, or the province, and it applies to all students throughout the territory, and subsequently you do not have the disparity of one school getting more money than another school, and the funds are distributed accordingly. It would seem to me that, although it is not a perfect system, it is not to say that it cannot be improved.
It would seem to me that perhaps the provinces should look at that as a framework model that could be put into place in the provinces. It would help them to meet the question that concerns us all, the situation where you have a failure rate among our First Nation students and children that is unacceptable.
I do not totally agree with some statements that were made, however, that it is the Government of Canada or the province that bears all the responsibility. Everyone is part of this play; everyone is part of the problem, so to speak. I go back to those who are parents, those who are on the band councils, those who represent the province and the Government of Canada.
From the taxpayers' point of view, we cannot spend any more money than we are already spending. I do not think we can print it fast enough to spend it, the way we are going about it. Money is not solving the problem.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have to look at the fact that the federal government should not be in the education business. They are doing a very poor job of it. We are spending millions of dollars and the results are abysmal: absolutely unacceptable. Until there is a political will by all political parties, nothing will happen in that regard because no one will make the move.
I feel there must be a consensus at the political level, so that at that stage you can move ahead and work out an agreement with the provinces or the territories, depending on the case and situation, and have one jurisdiction in the education business. That will, in part, I believe, go towards meeting some of the problems we face.
There is another aspect that I would like to hear Mr. Kelly address, and those of us who live in rural Canada are familiar with this issue. How are we going to get the kids to school?
We have many situations, for whatever reasons, where there is no parental direction. These kids might miss at least one day a week, if not two days a week. Then, we wonder why it is that in Grade 10 they have only a Grade 7 education. These kids are bright and they do not deserve to be neglected in such a way. Steps must be taken not just within the school system but overall so that we can create an atmosphere where everyone wants to participate in the school system. If we do not get the kids to school, you can forget it.
Mr. Kelly, you have a fair amount of experience in various parts of Canada. Perhaps the first question is: Should the federal government get out of the education business?
Mr. Kelly: You mentioned a number of things. I will try to address as many of them as possible.
You are correct in saying that the Yukon system is different. The ministry in the Yukon is actually the school board, which is responsible for education. As a result, the funding to all schools in Yukon is equitably distributed. A significant number of financial resources go to education in the Yukon. However, there is also a discrepancy between how our First Nation and non-First Nation students achieve in the Yukon as well. Those same kinds of discrepancies exist with rural Yukon in comparison to urban areas. The statistics support that.
That also means that things need to be done to address that First Nations education deficit, which was recognized by the present government. Otherwise, it would not have initiated the education reform project designed to involve First Nations in every aspect of the delivery of the education system. Key to anything that you deliberate is the fact that First Nations have to be significantly involved.
I did not hear a statement today that all of this is the responsibility of government. You are quite correct. We all have a role to play, and we all have to bear some of the responsibility for what is happening educationally. When I look at the situation that I am involved in, I do not think about what happened to Northland School Division governance where the board of trustees was solely the responsibility of the trustees, because it was not. We all bear some responsibility — government, supports provided by government, parents, administrators, educators and teachers. We all bear some responsibility when it is deemed that our children are not doing well in the education system.
The question about kids coming to school is a significant issue in a number of our First Nations schools and with First Nations children in our provincial systems. An average attendance of 80 per cent in a number of our schools is very troublesome. When you miss two days a week, you miss one fifth of your school year; and every five years, you miss one year of school. Then we question why our children are behind. School absenteeism is significant.
How do we go about having our parents send their children to school? We have a significant amount of work to do; there is no doubt about it. You have read about it, studied it and heard about the residue of the residential schools. The reality is that our populations are still dealing with that residue.
We need to build an education system that will reflect the cultures of the clientele. Only in that way will we build an ownership of our school systems. If we do not have that ownership and if our parents do not feel that this is the best place for our kids to go during the day, we will not have success in our educational system.
I can assure that you we will not be able to accomplish that by passing the responsibility to the provinces or by simply saying that the provinces have perfectly good educational systems. Although they have perfectly good educational systems, we cannot superimpose them on our Aboriginal cultures. If we do, we will not meet with success. If you extend that and we did meet with success at some time, then we will have completely annihilated all languages and cultures, I suppose.
Our kids are as smart and as bright as any of the children in this province or in this country. We have to build a system that reflects our Aboriginal people and Aboriginal cultures and that is front and centre in our schools and in our curriculum. Then, we will have an ownership. Once our parents feel that sense of ownership of the system, then attendance will be a less significant problem.
Senator Brazeau: Happy Louis Riel Day to you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you; it is our day.
Senator Brazeau: Mr. Kelly, I have a couple of short questions. First, congratulations on your appointment. I would like to know specifically what steps you and your inquiry team took upon your appointment to improve student achievement and graduation rates and to clean up the mess, so to speak, that was left behind.
Mr. Kelly: First, the review team was not mine as I did not direct it. I was to assist the review team in all their deliberations. I preferred that kind of structure because it allowed me to go into communities to work with them.
I should also point out that even though there is only one trustee in Northland School Division, we have, in every one of our communities, a local school board committee. Those are in place because it is essential that we have community input and community deliberations on each of our schools. They are an integral part of the operation of the jurisdiction.
I should also point out that we are waiting for the review team's report. It is currently in the hands of the minister. It is our understanding from the minister that it goes through a process of cabinet, caucus, et cetera. You would know that better than I do. I would expect that the report will be made public this month. That is the hope.
One of the primary things we did refers basically back to our second level services. For the last couple of years, Northland School Division did not have all of their supervisory decisions in place. We put those back in place. It is really essential, given the teacher turnover in many of our northern communities and the significant number of new teachers coming into the system every year, that we have those kinds of curriculum and instructional supports to help our teachers in the classroom. Our schools are more remote and quite isolated in a number of cases. It is important that supervisors bring about consistency in delivery, in assessments and in curriculum offering, as well as ensuring that the curriculum is followed by the teachers in the classrooms.
That was one of the first steps we took. Then, we dealt with some administrative matters. We increased the size of the administration team so that our schools did not feel that sense of isolation, and we placed an emphasis placed on the introduction of early intervention strategies and literacy and numeracy initiatives into our schools.
Senator Brazeau: For quite a long time I have heard the fluffy language with respect to what should be done in education. This has been studied to death, and it will take political will to move beyond the status quo and provide real, tangible results.
I will give you an example. The biggest single barrier, in my view, is jurisdiction. Section 91.24 of the Constitution states that the federal government has jurisdiction for, ``Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.'' The provinces deliver education within their own geographical boundaries.
For a number of years I sat with the Council of the Federation, education ministers, provincial ministers, territorial ministers, and everyone wanted to do something on education. The bottom line, at the end of the day, is, yes, let us do something on education, but we want the federal government to pay because they have jurisdiction for Indians.
To me, we could talk about treaties, about more funding, about governance systems, but there is a lack of political will. Given your experience working in the provincial system, I am sure you will agree with me that the federal government does transfer a significant amount of dollars for education to the provinces. Before the Council of the Federation I had demanded, years ago, for provincial governments to show how much they were spending on Aboriginal peoples on education. I am still waiting for that information.
Perhaps it is because people do not want to talk about what is really going on and the truth and the facts, but this is the biggest barrier. How do we overcome that?
Mr. Kelly: That is one of the very things we wanted to address with the MOU. There are a couple of beliefs, and you are right on all fronts.
Education by the way, for on-reserve First Nation students, is the responsibility of the federal government, and you cannot shirk that responsibility. The amount of monies that are being spent on our reserve systems is less than what is being spent in the provincial systems. We know that. Those facts and figures are there.
The amount of money that is being spent on systems provincially, I can certainly provide you with what we spend per student in our jurisdiction, and we can provide you with what is spent provincially per jurisdiction. I know Senator Lang has access to that information for the Yukon because, as mentioned earlier, to their benefit, they spend a significant amount on education. It is really vital that those dollars be expended.
One thing we are after in the MOU — and it is to the credit of the provinces as well and the province must be recognized for their involvement in this — is that when we look at on-reserve students in a particular province, they are not just the responsibility of the federal government.
In Treaty 8 we were also of the belief that these students were Albertans as well and they should be benefiting from the Alberta advantage. There are instances of programs, targeted initiatives based upon sound educational policies that have been introduced by the provincial government, for those dollars are not accessible by the band-operated systems.
One hope in the MOU is that we look at breaking down some of those barriers and we look to cooperatively develop those partnerships in such a fashion that it is not about the province taking over the band-operated schools. It is not about the feds passing on the responsibility of education or financing of education to a province. It was about ensuring that the kinds of educational opportunities, in Alberta in this case, were equal for all students.
We have heard Alberta officials and ministers ask how we can break down these barriers. How can we ensure that all students in Alberta have access to educational programs? Why is it that there are barriers for off-reserve students going to an on-reserve school, and vice versa?
The MOU was an attempt to address some of those things you are talking about, but being more concerned about programs and students than we were about which school they attended.
We have an initiative on the go in the Northland School Division right now. It is at its very early stages, and we are working with one of the First Nations. In one geographic area we have three provincial schools, all operated by Northland, and two band-operated schools. For too long we have been two separate systems.
We have put together terms of reference, and in the next few weeks we will be sitting with the interested groups, and they have all agreed and signed on to this. We will look at how we offer programs for all students in that area. There are things happening in the provincial system, and there are resources that our provincial schools have access to that the band-operated school four kilometres down the road does not have access to; that should change.
The band-operated system — and this is true of many of our band-operated schools — have programs, offerings and expertise that we want to take advantage of as well, because we are dealing with the same students, the same families. We are looking to remove some of those barriers and look at what we offer educationally for programs to students in that area.
I think we need to do more of that. That was the intent of the MOU as well. Let us try to break down those barriers. It is not about the band-operated systems becoming part of the provincial school jurisdiction. I would say we do not necessarily want that, because provincial systems have not demonstrated, and they and I will admit, we are not as successful as we want to be. It is not a matter of who runs the school; it is a matter of cooperation, pooling resources, looking at programs that need to be offered and, in partnership, working at them.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Kelly. It was very interesting.
In the information that we received you talked about the NSD being unique in Alberta and that it was created by provincial legislation. At the same time, it says you served 2,900 students in 23 small, northern Aboriginal communities. The schools that you and the NSD are responsible for, are they First Nation schools or provincial schools?
Mr. Kelly: They are provincially run schools, and it is predominantly an Aboriginal population. We are on six Metis settlements and a number of First Nation communities. Approximately 50 per cent of our students live on reserve and attend the provincial schools.
Senator Poirier: Are there no First Nation schools in those communities? You also supported the idea that First Nations should have the authority and manage their own school system, but here you have provincial schools where 95 per cent of their students are First Nations, Inuit and Metis students.
Mr. Kelly: Yes, and we are neighbours with a number of band-operated schools.
Senator Poirier: Is there a reason that you feel 95 per cent of your students are going to the provincial system and not to the First Nations schools, if they are there and available to them?
Mr. Kelly: There is one community in particular where there is a reserve neighbouring on basically a non-First Nation or non-status community. There is some competition. We want to wear away at that competition between the systems.
There are some reasons why parents want to send their kids to a provincial system. Some parents believe that the provincial systems have a better curriculum or they are better at offering a curriculum, and that their students will have a better chance at an education. We have some parents who do not want to send their kids into a band system in some of the neighbourhoods or communities we are talking about because — unfortunately, in my opinion, but it is a parental decision — they do not want their children exposed to cultural and language programs. At times this decision is based upon a religious affiliation of one form or another. Other than that, there is very strong support for a band-operated system in our neighbouring communities.
The difficulty arises because, in my experience, band-operated systems are underfunded and not as successful in retaining many of their instructional staff and teachers. They are not able to offer comparable programs and sometimes have larger class sizes. All of this can erode a parent's faith in the educational system.
However, among the majority of First Nations population, there is much the same desire that you or I have for our children to succeed in the school system. At the same time, they want to ensure retention of their language and culture; and band-operated systems are potentially better at providing that type of education.
Senator Poirier: Do you feel that the cost of sending students to the provincial school is taking away a significant amount of money from the First Nation's schools? The cost per student for the provincial school is higher.
Mr. Kelly: I will answer that question but I will go back to your previous question as well. I neglected to mention that some of the band-operated systems offer a K to grade 6 program. After that, the students go to a provincial system for junior high school and high school. The money they receive per student federally quite often does not match what provincial systems expend, so band-operated systems have to find other avenues for those dollars. I know of band- operated systems that take monies from their heritage funds and other programs to pay the provincial student costs.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I must say that I am really sorry to see that, despite continuing efforts — because there has been efforts —, Canada is still not fulfilling its duties to First Nations.
First Nations, in education or in other areas, have constitutional rights, such as respect for their culture and their traditions. That is enshrined in our Constitution. They have a right to education like all other young Canadians, but they do not have access.
I know that some of my colleagues will say that education is a responsibility of the provinces, and it is true. However, in the case of First Nations those are constitutional rights, and Canada has therefore an obligation.
On the positive side, after all these failed attempts we are finally recognizing that our one-size-fits-all approach is not working. It has never worked, and it will not work for minorities nor for First Nations.
To meet the needs of these young members of our First Nations, to give them an access equal to what all other young Canadians have, to provide them with an appropriate education according to their needs, their culture and their traditions, what would be the first step, in your opinion?
[English]
If the first step is to remove the barriers, what are those barriers? How can they be removed?
Mr. Kelly: Certainly I agree with you that one size does not fit all. That is why I qualified that my comments are based on my Alberta and Yukon experience. It does not mean that what I say is applicable across the country.
I also agree with you that education for First Nation students is a federal responsibility. It is a treaty promise. In order to realize the intent of the treaty, that responsibility cannot be removed and passed on to a province. For that first step, the federal government needs to recognize that the role of Indian and Northern Affairs' in First Nations education is that of enabler rather than procurer of policy and balancer of budgets. Government's role is to enable First Nations to do what they believe is necessary within their geographical area or province or territory.
Too often the band-operated systems spend far too much time trying to access funding through the federal bureaucracy. They have to spend far too much time generating reports and justifying what they have done. The federal government needs to recognize that the costs of education vary in the provinces and territories and that a one-size-fits- all formula does not work and one funding formula for 10 provinces and three territories does not work. The government's role is to enable First Nations to create and adopt viable education systems.
Currently, they are too marginalized financially because the resources for any kind of support are not in place. There are no centralized resources for curriculum development or for the development of language programs. That is my opinion on the first step to be taken.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Kelly, for your thoughtful and well organized presentation. It was good to hear numbers and your mention of tripartite partnerships.
I am not sure that you can answer my question. Where you are going is all well and good in an ideal world; however, we have before us a problem of such magnitude that I am not sure we can solve it. So many students are not getting the education they need. I wonder whether we should think outside the box from all of these reports and time-honoured ways.
Do you have one example that this committee should consider? Do you have one example of success in this issue? That is what I would like to see.
The Chair: Doctor?
Mr. Kelly: All of a sudden it is ``doctor.'' Where did that come from?
The Chair: We need the cure.
Mr. Kelly: There are some schools in Northern Manitoba that are doing very well, band-operated systems that are producing a number of graduates. I think you should look there.
I am not saying this just because I was part of it, but you should also look at the intent of the MOU on education between Treaties 6, 7, and 8, and the federal and provincial government. It holds a remarkable potential for the kinds of partnerships and, if you look at the intent and commitments, it does not just address education. It talks about children in care, special needs students and some of the other kinds of social issues that need to be taken into consideration.
The reason I suggest that you look at that one is because the treaty areas were very much a player in determining the direction that the MOU has taken. I do have to say that the province and the federal government were obviously very eager participants, but the lead came from the three treaty areas, and that is really where it needs to come from. I would take a look at the potential there.
What is key is ensuring that the commitments will be worked on. You are right: Any time we get into agreements, the issue of money always comes up. The province says the federal government needs to put more money into it. The federal government says these students are residents of the province, so maybe the province should put money into it. They are both correct. Meanwhile, while everyone is talking money, we are not progressing as well as we should in the educational systems. We need to deal with that issue.
The benefit is that it is no longer just a First Nation government saying to the feds, ``We need more money.'' The province is also saying this is what we spend, this is what it requires, this is what is required to do business in this province, this is what we pay our teachers, and here is the cost of education. It brings about more credibility, and all three orders of government are on the same page.
I need to stress that First Nations are resourced so they become equal partners. It was interesting to go into these discussions. The senior representatives from Ottawa arrived with technical support, policy support, research support, legal support and there were probably five or six people from the federal government at the table. The province would arrive with ADMs or directors of education, executive directors, a policy analyst, a couple of lawyers for legal support, and a host of expertise. All we can do is envy that representation. The First Nations has one representative from Treaty 6, one representative from Treaty 7 and one from Treaty 8. We do not have the same availability of resources.
It is important that we all be able to sit around the table, carry out those negotiations, and have the same kinds of access to resources. I honestly believe if we do that we can build a better system, but it will take all orders of government, and we do have to break down those barriers between on reserve and off reserve. I do not suggest we do away with that. I still firmly believe in a band-operated system, but I believe that we will have a better offering if we do this in partnership and share resources.
Senator Stewart Olsen: How long did the MOU take, from start to finish?
Mr. Kelly: We met with the three grand chiefs, and our chief of education with Treaty 8, Chief Rose Laboucan. We met with the Minister of Education, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and the federal INAC minister, at the time, Chuck Strahl. I believe it was in July, maybe even early August, and we were finished in November, early December.
It takes a will to sit down and just commit. If it is important enough, you do commit your resources.
Senator Sibbeston: My question is a bit profound in some ways and I cannot help but think that Senator Patterson would agree with me. You are probably the perfect man to ask because of your experience in the North and with Aboriginal people.
The curriculum of the education system is initiated from the South, from urban centres and universities. It is based on computer age knowledge, whereas in the North, you are dealing with Aboriginal people. I laugh at myself because in a way I have a primitive mind. My grandmother had a similar mind; she used to look at cups or little containers and spend a lot of time looking at catalogues because she was amused by things she had never seen before.
In the North you are dealing with a completely different kind of people, Aboriginal people, who come from the land, the bush, and they are not industrial based. You are dealing with people who have a different philosophy, culture and mindset. There is an attempt to impose the urban, southern education on these people.
Have you ever thought about having an education system that is more in tune that recognizes the situation of which I speak? That applies to the North, the Inuit, the Dene and all the people in the northern parts of our provinces. Is this not a problem, trying to bring something from the urban South to people who are completely different? Naturally, you will have problems.
Is the answer to devise a system that originates in the bush, or originates in the northern parts of our country, and start from there and eventually incorporate knowledge so that people can feel comfortable and can succeed in it? Have you thought about that?
Mr. Kelly: The short answer is ``yes,'' and I think you have probably heard that from First Nations people for a significant amount of time. My experience leads me to believe that two things need to be done.
I am not too concerned about the curriculum. The learning outcomes in a curriculum are very good all across the country. The support materials and how we teach that curriculum is something that needs to be adapted. There is no doubt about that.
There is one case in point. Within Treaty 8, the grade 1 social studies curriculum teaches about my family, my school, my community and me. The approved curriculum resources, of course, are mainstream. Over a period of time, Treaty 8 took it upon itself to adapt the social studies curriculum for their schools to reflect the schools, communities and peoples within the Treaty 8 area. When they talk about me, it is a First Nations child, a First Nations family, and the school is a band-operated system. The learning outcomes are the same. The resource materials that are used to teach it are adapted to be much more familiar to the students. We took that grade 1 curriculum, brought it to the Alberta government, and asked the Department of Education to run it through their processes and to see if it met their standards, and it did. It is an approved teaching resource for all Alberta schools.
What you are talking about can be done. The difficulty is that Treaty 8 gets approximately $45,000 a year in order to do this. To rewrite and publish a social curriculum from K to 12 at that pace will take decades. It will not be done. The resources are not put there to allow it to happen.
I think two things need to be done. There needs to be an adaptation of the resources for the existing curriculum and the existing learning outcomes so that they are more applicable and current to our First Nation students. We need initiatives around curriculum development that reflect the values and cultures of the peoples that it serves, those very things that you are talking about, namely, about the discrepancies between the North and the South.
Senator Sibbeston: One of the most successful programs that ever happened in the North was the Breynat Hall experience. That program, run by the Catholic Church, picked out the best kids from all the communities and brought them together. They set up the school in Fort Smith. Over the course of 10 or 15 years, they created all the leadership that we had in the North. While there was emphasis on the kids doing well in school, there was a lot of emphasis on leadership, on winning, on feeling good and on being proud. In a southern setting parents are naturally like that, they are disciplined and ambitious. However, in the North people do not realize that these elements are necessary for success in today's society. You must remember that people just come from the bush. They do not have that same attitude and philosophy. Somehow or another, we need to get that into the schools so that they can succeed in modern society. Have you thought of that?
Mr. Kelly: I have been told on a number of occasions that an education system is necessary for the First Nations population, but elders will tell you that it is also necessary for students to learn and to know the Aboriginal culture. It is also necessary to have a bridge with the larger society so that they know and learn about the larger society, the dominant culture.
There has always been that desire in our First Nations population. In my experience, there has never been any attempt to isolate an education system. It was always about knowing who you are and the values and language that determined your culture. However, it is also about being able to participate equitably and equally in the larger society. That is very much there. It will require curriculum development and the development of resource materials.
While we are on that topic, another issue is facing us in our Aboriginal cultures, namely, the loss of the languages. Senator Lang will tell you that there are a number of initiatives in the Yukon about revitalization and reviving the Aboriginal languages because all of the Aboriginal languages in the Yukon are endangered languages and there are few speakers. Only three Aboriginal languages in Canada are not considered endangered.
Senator Lang will be able to tell you that when you speak with those elders, they want their children to know their language and their culture — that is, the very essence of who they are and what they are all about. I guess you do not understand it until you have lost it or it has the potential to be taken away.
Languages are important because not only is there a loss of culture, but instructionally it impacts on how our children are doing in school. When children come to school, there is an expectation that you have one language or a solid language to build on. We are entering into situations and we are finding some situations in some of our communities where we have First Nations or Aboriginal children coming to school with some of the Aboriginal language and some English but they do not have one language with a solid foundation. Instructionally, it is making it much more difficult for them to learn and for our teachers to teach. You need a language as a solid foundation for learning.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Kelly, you talked about the importance of governance and First Nations taking ownership of the schools. I think we would all agree that without community support, schools are doomed if not greatly disadvantaged.
You took over the Northland School Division last January and we should have seen a report by June. I believe that report is not complete. Mr. Kelly, can you give us an idea of how governance failed in this bold experiment? Many communities and many people were involved. It might not be your mandate, but why did it come to the point where the board had to be dissolved? More important, what can we learn about how to make governance work because it did not seem to work in this example? Can you help me on that?
Mr. Kelly: Not a lot, sorry. However, you are probably better to have that conversation with the Minister of Education for Alberta as to why they felt that it was necessary to take that step and why he believed that governance was failing.
With Northland School Division, I helped set up that governance structure. I firmly believed in it. Northland School Division is operated by its own act. Every community elects a local school board committee as if it were a board of trustees. The chair for that committee sits on the corporate board. When I was superintendent, at one point in time I had 25 trustees sitting around a table much like this. It was good because issues from every community were coming to a board table.
Why did it fail? If a governance structure fails, as I mentioned earlier, I do not believe it rests solely with the trustees. If there is any kind of governance moving into the administration world, that is not solely the responsibility of a trustee. It is also the administration having to say, ``Well, this is not an area where you go. We need to define our barriers and define our parameters.''
I should point out that this is not the only time that this has happened to Northland School Division, and Northland School Division is not the only board of trustees that met this fate over the years in Alberta. Some smaller boards of trustees encountered a situation where the ministry felt they were not being effective.
I think there are a number of contributing factors, and I do not know all of them. I do know that the trustees that came to the table were coming with a focus on students, and the only time that governance runs into any difficulty, whether it is Northland School Division or another board, is when that focus on students and how they are doing in the classroom wavers. That is when you will find yourself in difficulty.
That is the only thing I can offer. Although governance is often referred to as taking care of the three Bs — budgets, busing and buildings — the focus must always be on our children in our classrooms and what we can best do to improve their lot and their opportunities.
I do not know if I answered your question, senator. I did not and nor did I, at the time, want to delve into the specifics. My take on this position in Northland was something I laboured over for a long time because I spent 30 years with the jurisdiction. I love that jurisdiction and those communities, and it was unfortunate that it reached the point where the minister felt he needed to do something.
The Chair: One of the senators mentioned responsibility and asked about why Northland School Division failed. I am sure the board of trustees set up the direction and the philosophy as a board of directors would do in a corporation.
Mr. Kelly: That is true.
The Chair: However, earlier, you mentioned the effects of the residential schools and the detribalization that took place with First Nations. You mentioned how this detribalization destroyed their governance structures and you pointed out how the welfare system then took over. Would you say that is possibly an underlying factor? Would you say that the social dilemmas that face our First Nations people are a result of actions that have been taken against them since first contact? Would you say that those actions have led to the present situation, where Senator Lang is saying that you have to get the children to school? Well, if the dysfunctional situation within the community is such, based on the horrific scenarios that were imposed upon these people, how do you deal with that dysfunction?
Mr. Kelly: I wish I had the answers. During the presentation, we talked about governance and I noted that superimposing a provincial governance structure on the First Nations system will not work. I said what is needed is dialogue and a governance structure that reflect First Nations communities in a particular area.
You are also right that we are dealing with a residue of our residential schools. The impact of residential schools has been horrific, as you know. I am sure you have heard more about it in this committee's travels. There is so much that it did do, and interrupting the intergenerational transfer of knowledge is just one part of it. Interrupting the passing on of parenting skills and the extended family has had long-term dire effects.
Again, that is why, when we were into discussions on the MOU, all our focus was not just on education. A significant number of social issues need to be dealt with, and getting children to school is not simply a matter of ensuring the parents say, ``Get to school.'' Parents need to feel confident that the school they are sending their children to is the best place for them to be. Children need to hear, when they go out the door that this is a great school with great teachers: ``Have a great day.'' Unfortunately, that kind of confidence in an education system is not there. We must deal with a significant number of social issues need that require the interagency cooperation that governments have talked about for years but have never been able to take significant steps on.
Senator Lang: I appreciate Mr. Kelly being here today in respect to his overview. I would like to clarify a couple of things. First, regarding my remarks earlier, I realize the constitutional responsibility of the federal government and that it cannot just be delegated. Obviously, the memorandum of understanding or that type of mechanism may be the vehicle to use to get some agreement among the parties to make it happen.
I still maintain that you are better off with the provincial education system than with the federal government, which is obviously not capable and does not have the resources to provide a national education system to even a part of our population.
I want to get the Northland School Division clear in my mind. We spoke of the band-council school system and the Northland School Division. You have, I believe, 23 communities. How many are run by the province versus the federal government?
Mr. Kelly: All the schools within Northland School Division are provincially run schools.
Senator Lang: To get a clear understanding, those are all provincial schools. Are there no band-run schools in that area?
Mr. Kelly: Within the geography that makes up the boundaries of Northland School Division, there are probably 17 band-operated schools.
Senator Lang: For clarification, are there 23 provincial schools and 17 band-council schools?
Mr. Kelly: Yes.
Senator Lang: That is a total of 40 schools.
Mr. Kelly: Yes, but that is also why we are so unique. There are also other provincial school systems within that area.
I will see if I can give you the geography with which you are familiar. In Fort McMurray, in the community of Anzac, is a Northland school. In the First Nation of Fort McKay, Northland, that is a provincial school in Fort McKay. We operate the school in Fort Chipewyan, and then a little further to the south, we operate schools in Janvier and Conklin. Janvier is a First Nation community, and Conklin is a Metis community primarily.
We have First Nation students who leave the reserve and come into the provincial schools. It is an off-reserve provincial school but it provides education for those students. We have communities in the Wabasca-Desmarais area, so we have a school in Wabasca we have a school in Desmarais and a school in Sandy Lake, all within 30 kilometres of one another. Bigstone Cree Nation operates a band school there as well and they have started a smaller cultural school in that area.
In the band school, they keep their students for K to Grade 6, and then send them to us for Grade 7 to Grade 12. We also have off-reserve First Nations students and off reserve non-First Nations students attending our schools. It is a mixture.
Senator Lang: The provincial schools get the same allocation of dollars that you would get if you were in central Alberta. In other words, it is approximately $2,500 per student, or $4,000 or whatever the number is.
Mr. Kelly: We spend more on average than southern jurisdictions because by their very nature it is more expensive to operate a small school than a school with a larger concentration of students. For example, in your case, the amount of money that you spend per student at F.H. Collins Secondary School is significantly different from the amount of money you spend per student in Old Crow. Small schools are much more expensive to operate.
Senator Lang: To follow the financial commitment, in those provincial schools that are providing services to those First Nation children that choose to go there, or maybe that is the only school in that particular area, does the federal government pay directly to the province?
Mr. Kelly: No.
Senator Lang: Is there no remuneration whatsoever?
Mr. Kelly: The federal government provides money. In the case of Wabasca-Demarais, they would provide money to Bigstone Cree Nation. We enter into a tuition agreement with Bigstone and the tuition agreement, as mentioned earlier, is based upon the old master tuition agreement of 1974 that basically talks about the audited cost per student. The Auditor General of Alberta audits our jurisdiction every year. We are able to break it down to all of our costs, break it down to a cost per student and then that is what we would charge a First Nation for them sending students into our provincial system.
The difficulty that comes in is that it is often the fact that the amount of money a First Nation receives for education is significantly less than what we charge for a First Nation student to come into a provincial school. As a provincial school, all we charge back is what we spend. We have cases where the province is obviously spending more money on educating a provincial student than the federal government is giving to a First Nation to educate a First Nation student.
Senator Lang: At the end of the day, the federal government does pay the First Nation, the First Nation pays, in this case, the Province of Alberta, and then there is a difference. Does the province make up that difference?
Mr. Kelly: No, the province does not pay the difference. It is a bill that belongs to that particular First Nation. In this case, there has never been a problem. However, provincial systems have on occasion run into situations where over a period of time the amount of money owed to the provincial system by a First Nation is more than they can afford and at that point in time, the federal government usually steps in and pays the bill. That of course begs the question, if you can pay the bill then why could you not give enough money over to begin with so we can pay our own bills, but that is a topic for another day.
Senator Lang: I wish to follow up on the topic of children not getting to school. You made the point that if they miss 20 per cent of the school year, obviously, they will be behind and it will just be a matter of time before they drop out of school. We noted the dropout rates in your report.
In any of these small communities where the truancy has been or may still be high, are there any innovative steps being taken to work with these parents and children, and the schools in question, to see about getting these kids to school and ensuring that they have breakfast? Are there programs running to try to turn this situation around?
Mr. Kelly: Yes, there are. In our jurisdiction, we have a School Food Services program. We feed every child every day under a nutritional practice. Many of our schools also have access to Breakfast for Learning. A few of our schools have managed to access funding to another program that provides a breakfast program for our children as well.
On top of that, the schools have adopted a number of individual initiatives. We are using school-community liaison people who go on home visits to work with families in trying to find out what the real issues are around getting kids to school.
It is not just about parents and family; that is a huge part of it obviously, but I believe you touched on the fact that it is also about curriculum. It is sometimes about the programs and how we teach them. We have seen success in schools that are bringing in the more experientially based programs that are adapted with the same learning outcomes to the culture. One program that we want our provincial schools in the area to access is Bigstone's cultural school. It is amazing to see how intent the children are when they go into that particular facility. While there, they follow instructions in the Cree language with elders. They learn from traditional story telling. I had an opportunity to visit the school and watched as the children learned about the skinning of a beaver and how to form a beaver pelt. I listened to the stories and heard the spirituality found in them. The course is language focused, culturally focused and the students are very much attuned to all the activities.
The senator has a wonderful program in Old Crow, where for two weeks a year, the students are out on Crow Flats. There is strong support from the community, strong support from the elders and strong support from the parents to have their children out there. It is not just two weeks away from school. An approved program is taught out there. It provides the same learning outcomes in a different modality, a different way of offering that program.
We need to look at what you talked about in adapting the curriculum, the resource materials and looking at how we offer the programs. Obviously, the way we are doing it is not meeting with success, so to keep doing the same thing the same way is not what we need. We need to look at how we can do this differently and how we can best get our children to respond.
Senator Poirier: Earlier in your presentation you mentioned that partnerships need to be built and we have to stop thinking of our First Nation students as just First Nation students but also that they are Albertan students.
Prior to becoming a senator, I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and one of my portfolios was Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs in the Province of New Brunswick. I am an Acadian and I see myself as an Acadian and as a New Brunswicker. I remember early in my new portfolio I mentioned to a First Nation person in a meeting that we needed to work together because we were all New Brunswickers at the end of the day. They quickly corrected me in saying, no, we are not New Brunswickers, we are First Nation people.
In your experience, do you feel that First Nation people see themselves as Albertans also? I would like to have your thoughts on that.
Mr. Kelly: The response you got is not surprising. First Nation people are First Nations people.
I talked about the kind of cooperation that is needed. Alberta, as you might have heard, is doing very well economically. The government talks about the ``Alberta advantage.'' First Nations people believe that the Alberta advantage should be open and accessible to everyone. I agree.
In any kind of partnership, there is no desire for a province to take control of a band-operated school or First Nations communities. In a partnership, as mentioned earlier, one partner is not subservient to the other. We look at the strengths and abilities of both and build on them. One has something to offer and one has something to give. We can build better education systems in that way.
I will give an example: Our provincial system will get $1,130 this year for every self-declared Aboriginal student. The band-operated system down the road does not get that money. They do not have access to Alberta education funds. When we take a First Nation student into a provincial system, we spend $1,100 per student. We do not discriminate, but we do not get the monies for those students. Should we offer any special program for those students? No, we do not do that. However, the band-operated system will not get those dollars to develop programs. We spend that money and charge it back to the First Nation. The federal government will say that it cannot match those dollars, so the First Nations are automatically in a financial deficit.
First Nations are First Nations and will remain First Nations. In order to build those kinds of partnership bridges that we talked about, we need to have that kind of cooperation. When you operate a band-operated school, it does not mean that some of the resources of the provincial system cannot go into that school. In Northland School Division, I have pedagogical supervisors, mentoring coaches, and special education coordinators that drive right by a band- operated school on their way to work. We cannot continue that way. I am talking about the same children in the same communities. We need to cooperate on how we educate them. In order to do that, you should not have to give up control. First Nations people should not have to say they are Albertans or New Brunswickers, nor First Nations.
First Nations should have access to the same kinds of opportunities, programs, funding and advantages as the provinces have. We should be able to share. We attempt to achieve that in the MOU. How can we work together? When we sit down for conversations with the band-operated schools, we are not interested in having them be a part of Northland School Division or in having Northland School Division run their schools. That would be a detriment to our First Nations population. It is all about sharing some of my resources and some of their resources so we can better educate our population.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Kelly, you mentioned that there is a need for a national act to govern First Nations education. We have been amazed by the fact that the Indian Act is dated and irrelevant in terms of education, truancy, et cetera.
What elements would you like to see in a national education act on First Nations education? Given the interest in education expressed by the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations as a priority, who would be the main parties in developing such legislation?
Mr. Kelly: The main parties would be the First Nations. With your question, we are into a political world that I would prefer not to enter as an educator. That said; there should be representative First Nations from all provinces and territories across the country and representatives from the Assembly of First Nations.
A couple of areas need to be addressed in any proposed legislation. We constantly hear about the lack of accountability of First Nations. We hear little about the accountability of the federal government in its role in the delivery of education. Both sides need to be accountable. As you know, education legislation sets the direction and vision for education, which is provincially and territorially accepted. We need that same vision at the federal level. A national education act would outline the necessary steps to ensure that you attain that vision.
Legislation would help to determine governance and the role of governance. It would also address funding and the responsibilities of students and parents. Without some kind of national standard, we will continue to stumble in the area education for First Nations students.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, Mr. Kelly, I thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge and experience with us. We came very close to the political arena, from which you would sooner stay away; we well understand that, given your responsibilities. I look forward to seeing how successful the MOU signed in Alberta will be. It could serve as the model to be adopted right across the country.
Mr. Kelly, thank you again. We may call on you again when we are in our final steps of drafting a report, which we want to be concise, precise and focused, and one that cannot be ignored. We will need all the help we can get.
Mr. Kelly: Thank you for the invitation to appear today. I am truly humbled and honoured. I certainly wish you well in your deliberations. I sincerely meant it when I said that there is nothing more important for us to do as Canadians than to address the state of Aboriginal education both on and off reserve. I sincerely believe that focused efforts will bring about some tangible results.
I look forward to the MOU, which holds remarkable potential for Alberta. There is no one set initiative or one answer. We can learn from one another and do this collectively.
The Chair: We are adjourned until tomorrow evening when we will deal with the draft report on one of our studies.
(The committee adjourned.)