Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 16 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:50 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).
[English]
Marcy Zlotnick, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of both the chair and the deputy chair this morning. As a result, I must preside over the election of an acting chair. I would like to invite nominations for that role.
Senator Raine: I nominate Senator Campbell.
Ms. Zlotnick: Senator Campbell has been nominated by Senator Raine. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, it is therefore moved by Senator Raine that Senator Campbell preside as Acting Chair of the committee this morning.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Zlotnick: Carried. Senator Campbell, I invite you to take the chair.
Senator Larry W. Campbell (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: I welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or the World Wide Web.
My name is Larry Campbell, I am from British Columbia, and I am the acting chair of the 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 education agreements; governance and delivery structures; and possible legislative frameworks.
This morning we will hear from two witnesses. The first is Abraham Jolly, Director General of the Cree School Board of Quebec. The Cree School Board was established in 1975 with the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the first comprehensive land claims agreement in Canada. Under the agreement, the Cree took control of their education, including the ability to decide the language of instruction; their school curriculum; the hiring of teachers; and their Cree school calendar. The latter would allow Cree youth to participate in traditional hunting and fishing activities, as well as obtain a classroom education.
Today the Cree School Board controls a substantial budget and provides education services to over 3,600 students at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels. It has implemented a distinctly Cree curriculum in economics, geography and history, as well as in-service training for Cree teachers.
In spite of these initiatives, the dropout rate remains high. We are interested in learning what might explain why the system does not appear to be leading to positive learning outcomes for most students. We hope that such an exploration might provide the committee with food for thought when putting forth suggestions for reform.
Our second witness is Angus Toulouse from the Chiefs of Ontario. Established in 1975, the Chiefs of Ontario is a coordinating body of 133 First Nation communities located within the boundaries of the province of Ontario.
In August 2005, the Chiefs of Ontario released a comprehensive education document entitled The New Agenda: A Manifesto for First Nations Education in Ontario.
According to the manifesto and related documents, First Nations in Ontario are seeking the return to the full recognition of the jurisdiction of their governments over education. Education is seen as a fundamental means to pass on cultural norms, values and the continuation of their societies. The revitalization and use of First Nations languages is viewed as fundamental to this goal.
Of significant concern to First Nations in Ontario is that while they operate their schools and administer programs, ultimate control is still attached to the federal government. They therefore seek adequate resources to manage and deliver effective education systems that will meet the dual goals stated in Indian Control of Indian Education of preserving their identities while preparing their citizens to work and live in a modern world.
We look forward to what promises to be informative testimony. Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are present this morning.
On my left is Senator Raine from British Columbia; next to Senator Raine is Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut. On my right is Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, from New Brunswick; next to Senator Stewart Olsen, Senator Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick; and next to Poirier is Senator Patrick Brazeau, from Quebec; and beside Senator Brazeau, Senator Jacques Demers, from Quebec.
Abraham Jolly, Director General, Cree School Board (Quebec): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and to share with you our experience pertaining to education in our area within the Cree, Eeyou Istchee.
I am Abraham Jolly, Director General of the Cree School Board and the Eeyou Istchee. As mentioned, the school board was created under section 16 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975. It is often considered the first modern-day treaty.
The Cree School Board is one of the first education systems in Canada controlled by a First Nation. The special status, unique powers and the responsibilities of the board require special funding to support its unique characteristics and special rights and obligations. Section 16 has a number of guarantees and obligations for funding from the federal and provincial governments. The board is charged with special responsibilities for cultural and linguistic preservation and development, as well as crucial responsibility for developing the educational and human resources for the future of Cree society.
The Cree School Board has the mandate to provide education to Cree youth from pre-kindergarten to secondary 5, as we put it in Quebec, as well as to support Cree adults in their pursuit of post-secondary education, continuing education and vocational training. The board has a mission that differs from most other school boards in one aspect: In addition to providing for well-educated youth and adults, it also has a mission to ensure that the Cree youth are proficient in the use of the Quebec Cree dialect and well grounded in their Cree culture and identity.
Today, the Cree School Board is going through an ongoing effective change process to improve our schools and our education system. Over the past two years, the board has been proactive in establishing goals for student success and objectively assessing and sizing the strategic gap that exists between our students' desired situation and their current situation in the areas of both youth and adult education. Several independent assessments have helped determine that this gap is sufficiently large and important enough to warrant a focused, determined and professionally managed approach to ensure the gap is closed significantly over the next five years and beyond.
The board has engaged leading experts in the areas of youth education to establish, in partnership with the Cree School Board, educators and their leadership, the initiatives and deliverables that will best address the gaps identified for the Cree youth. The board has also hired experts in the areas of strategic planning, organizational capacity building and governance in order to set the strategic direction within which the management of the board can establish the board wide initiatives and deliverables that are necessary to help attain the desired student outcomes.
In addition to the educational initiatives and deliverables, the board clearly understands that its own internal organization and approach to managing has not been consistent with its desired position, which is students and education first. If this does not change — in deeds, as well as words — the educational initiative will not be successful.
It is for this reason that the board has agreed to organize and conduct itself in the role of serving the students and their educators first and foremost, with the clear understanding that the educational groups within the board will act as the students' advocates in this capacity. They will request and approach operational schedules, deliverables and resourcing.
The strategic plan is the written manifestation of these goals and what will be done at all levels of the board to successfully reach them. It has been designed with student success as its primary overarching goal. It is the plan that will guide all priorities, resourcing and organizational design of the board, as well as the plan by which all staff actions, choices and behaviours will be guided individually and collectively.
In closing, the early years of the Cree School Board were difficult. Over the 30-year period that we have been in existence, it has been a journey in itself in trying to establish ourselves in serving our people within the aspect of education.
Since it was created in 1978, the board has come a long way. The board now controls a substantial budget and provides service to over 4,000 students at the primary, secondary, post-secondary and adult education levels. We believe we have shown the courage to look objectively at our past performance rather than hide from it, and are now prepared to show that same courage in implementing a strategic plan that is grounded in academic best practice and uniquely crafted to serve our client groups, the Cree youth and the Cree adult students. By doing so, we will achieve our overriding goal for student success academically, socially and economically, while keeping intact the Cree identity as well.
Angus Toulouse, Regional Chief of Ontario, Chiefs of Ontario:
[Editor's note: Mr. Toulouse spoke in his native language.]
I introduced myself in my spirit name and said that I am of the Cree clan, from Sagamok Anishnawbek on the north shore of Lake Huron. I am here today on behalf of the Chiefs of Ontario. I thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments to you today on the study you are conducting across the country regarding the elementary and secondary First Nation education.
Let me begin by expressing that the federal government continues to have an obligation to ensure that First Nations can implement their inherent right to exercise jurisdiction over lifelong learning. This entitlement is affirmed by the spirit and intent of treaties signed in exchange for the sharing of the territories and lands and is guaranteed also by section 35 of the 1982 Constitution of Canada.
With regard to governance and delivery structures, First Nations in Ontario receive education support services from a variety of sources, primarily through tribal councils and community education authorities. First Nations affirm that second and third level support structures comparable to those offered by school boards and ministries in the province are necessary to build on the successes happening in the classroom. However, funding has never been targeted to support and sustain the structures of this nature.
This does not mean that First Nations in Ontario have not been examining how to improve the support framework. In fact, jurisdiction discussions related to education are ongoing and evolve as the needs of First Nation schools and the support and governance frameworks that can support them are identified.
Since not all First Nations in Ontario are involved in these discussions, this suggests to us that there is some work to be done to outline and confirm broadly, what the elements of a second and third level education support framework would be. We must use the progress already made in these discussions to create an overarching framework that aids First Nations' governments to determine how and to what effect they will choose to work together to achieve the shared education objectives.
The challenge is to ensure the framework allows First Nations the autonomy and flexibility to pursue their education goals and targets and consistently access quality education services. This may sound like a relatively simple task, but I assure you that it is one that demands time and care.
When speaking of tripartite education agreements, the Chiefs of Ontario agree that the provincial and federal political will to foster relationships that create a better system for First Nation education provides an opportunity to improve the educational experience and outcomes for First Nation students. First Nations have seen some positive tripartite collaboration in Ontario at the regional level, which, though informal, has been beneficial to all parties. We believe there is value in continuing to foster these opportunities.
The Chiefs of Ontario are moving forward in tripartite collaboration with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to develop a strategy focused on practical education supports at the First Nation level. The working group is in the early stages of developing key areas of focus that will address the gaps in service provision and reduce the gap in education attainment between First Nation students and other students in Ontario.
We have also been engaged in the development of a tuition agreement resource guide, another collaborative effort involving INAC, the Ministry of Education and the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. That being said, it is not our position that a tripartite agreement is necessary to do what is most needed for First Nation students. However, it is our belief that a securely funded education system with confirmed roles, responsibilities and relationships will augment, support and improve the tripartite collaborations. This suggests that simultaneous action is required on two fronts.
First, we recognize the need for structural work that clearly defines what working together and nation building will look like for First Nations in Ontario. Decisions of this magnitude will require time and patience. Most importantly, First Nations must be allowed to focus on these decisions without the overwhelming concern that their schools are continuing to operate under a degrading funding scheme.
The second requirement has been the driving force behind our efforts in 2010 and will continue to be in 2011 and every year thereafter until this matter is addressed with meaningful deliberation and timely action. I am referring to the issue of critical underfunding in the area of education that First Nations across this country continue to face year after year. We are fortunate to have an ally in the current Government of Ontario that is willing to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with us in our efforts to close the education attainment gap and to address the underfunding of First Nation schools.
The Ontario education system has been recognized as an international leader in the area of education. They have experience and expertise to share with us that will assist our students in mastering those skills they must have to compete in a knowledge-based economy. Absolutely, yes, through our collaboration, we have an opportunity, a dialogue, a forum and a process to ensure that this kind of sharing will occur.
Can they help us to determine the actual costs of having a unique and highly competitive academic program? Yes, they can do that also, which makes them such a profound partner in at least two critical areas; however, it does not mean that they become a jurisdictional partner.
It is our understanding that the residential school apology was the federal government's way of recognizing that never again should First Nations people be put in a situation where an external government with no expertise or vested interest in our languages and culture is responsible for the education of our people. In the area of language and culture we hold the expertise, and we have long stated that it must be a central and defining focus of our education systems.
With regard to possible legislative frameworks, we must reiterate that we find the current funding challenges to be the underlying issue of inadequate education provisions for First Nations. We also know that we are not alone in viewing this as paramount. Bill C-599 was tabled in Parliament two weeks ago today by the Bloc Québécois. It would be a good starting point for future legislation because it necessitates the development and implementation of a First Nations education-funding plan to replace the outdated formula that is currently in use. Once this funding challenge is addressed, it will ease the pressure and burdens on First Nations and provides better support for First Nation learners to access an education system with programs and services grounded in First Nation languages, values, traditions and knowledge.
The Chiefs of Ontario welcome the recent announcement that the AFN and INAC have agreed to work collaboratively on creating a panel of experts to explore and advise on the development of options, including legislation, to improve elementary and secondary education outcomes for First Nation children who live on reserve. Unfortunately, the current federal approach to developing legislation, as we have seen in other areas where it has been developed, does not reflect the principle of "free, prior and informed consent" recognized under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and it does not respect the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate First Nations.
Legislation that reflects the First Nation vision for education will require cooperation and initiative on the part of federal, provincial and First Nation governments. This process must adhere to the international standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with the assurance that the system is developed in consultation and collaboration with First Nations and that it respects First Nations' jurisdiction over education.
The Chiefs of Ontario welcome Canada's recent endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, UNDRIP. The principles and articles of the UNDRIP set the parameters for full engagement and mutually acceptable resolution on many long-standing issues regarding First Nations education. More specifically, Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People asserts that:
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
This approach is consistent with the original treaty relationship between First Nations and the Crown.
In closing, I want to cycle back to the broad topic of funding. Funding issues revolve around the amount of funding available and the way in which funding is allocated. An overarching issue remains the 2 per cent funding cap that allows education funding for First Nations to increase by only 2 per cent each year. The 2 per cent cap has been in place since 1996, despite significant demographic and inflationary growth in the last 15 years. The impacts of this cap can be felt everywhere from antiquated education facilities, to day-to-day classroom operations, to the lack of resources available to fully develop and sustain First Nation structures that provide second- and third-level education supports.
We must replace an antiquated system of isolated and under-resourced schools with a systemic approach that links support and ensures capacity, including the ability to plan and effectively manage this essential service — the basic right of our children to a good education. The way forward must be centred on our students, must respect our rights and must confirm a First Nation education system.
This system, first and foremost, must be grounded in First Nation control to never repeat the mistakes of the past and instead to embrace and involve all of the parents, families and whole communities in supporting the success of their learners. We can then establish linkages as appropriate with the provincial systems and post-secondary institutions through partnership approaches that ensure our students can succeed anywhere they choose to do so.
Building this system challenges our people to come together to advance nation building to ensure the best possible delivery of education to our students. It will require a fundamental effort in the way and manner in which funding is transferred. The current arbitrariness and inequity must be replaced by a stable funding arrangement based on real cost drivers, delivering a key guarantee to our children that they will have the opportunity to learn in a safe and culturally appropriate environment. We understand that existing economic conditions create a competitive environment for many sectors requiring investment, but we contend that there is an economic imperative and mutual benefit in doing the right thing.
First Nation learners require an education guarantee that levels the playing field and provides them with equal opportunities to succeed and participate in local, provincial and national economies. After all, education is all about creating opportunity — just and equitable opportunity. Meegwetch.
Senator Raine: It is good of you to be here. We are interested in what you have to say.
Mr. Jolly, could you explain the level of funding in your agreement? I understand that it is different because your treaty involves funding from both the provincial and federal governments. Could you clarify for the committee the amount of funding to the Cree School Board from the provincial government and the federal government? Percentages of funding would be fine.
Mr. Jolly: Funding is 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial.
Senator Raine: Does this funding target certain categories? How do you set up your budget and how does it work with two-party funding?
Mr. Jolly: I should explain that the most recent negotiations with the ministry, with federal representation at the table, took place in 2009.
We have a legal position to negotiate for our own funding within the school board. That includes negotiating with the province and federal representation as well. We are able to negotiate based on what we call the funding rules that we established between the parties. Funding usually comes through an agreement over a five-year period, based on the negotiations.
Senator Raine: We have often heard that funding has been capped at 2 per cent, through INAC to other First Nations education authorities. We are aware that the cap is not actually 2 per cent because there is block funding in different areas; we are not always comparing apples to apples. In your case, has the funding been capped from INAC, or is your funding able to grow as your needs grow?
Mr. Jolly: We have had the opportunity to be more at the forefront with provincial representatives. The Cree School Board has a history of negotiating with the Ministry of Education. That is the link we have as a school board and it is one of the privileges we have. Through that means, most of the communication and negotiation process works through the provincial government.
Recently, federal representation has been a part of that process, recognizing the agreement that all three parties would be at the table when it comes to negotiating for funding. That has been the situation with us. As I said, the linkage has been more with the provincial Ministry of Education pertaining to the funding rules and so forth.
Senator Raine: It appears that funding is not the major issue in terms of the Cree School Board. In actuality, the review you have undertaken is to get at the issue of why you are not seeing the student success you are looking for.
Mr. Jolly: That is right.
Senator Raine: I am interested in how important parental involvement and parental buy in are to the value of education. How important is this involvement for student success?
Mr. Jolly: That is huge in terms of the importance of trying to connect family engagement with education. As part of the strategic action plan, we see this as a review area to look at more closely in terms of how to engage our students and families to view education as important in our communities, our homes and also regionally speaking.
This has been a challenge overall. When it comes to the idea of education across the country, it is seemingly difficult to embrace education, for some reason. We can perhaps find different reasons for that. Those are the challenges we are facing right now as well.
I see it this way. There is an overall rejection, resistance or reluctance to education for some people, but there are also those who receive education and work with the benefits that come with it. In the context of First Nations people, you can divide into different categories where those people fall in terms of the issue of education. However, the bigger question for us is how we, as Cree people, work internally, to establish a system that can work for our people. This has to come from us and we have to promote it.
I would like to see a point in time where our Cree people can say that this is the education system we want for our people. We are in the beginning stages of trying to establish that through our change process, strategic planning, and so forth.
Senator Brazeau: On behalf of the committee, I apologize for the "Indian time" this morning. I am not a big believer in that, but it is just the way things work sometimes.
My first question is for Mr. Jolly. I have quite a number of friends who work for the Cree School Board, so I know how it operates. Is it not true that on top of the federal and provincial education funding that you receive, there is a top-up from Cree communities that is basically forwarded to the Cree School Board for the benefit of the students? In other words, do the Cree communities in Northern Quebec feed into the Cree School Board in terms of allowing them to have more money on top of what they receive from the federal and provincial governments?
Mr. Jolly: I would not say there is a top-up. We also have what they call the New Paths, which comes from the federal government, and that is directed more to the schools. However, I cannot say there is a top-up, other than perhaps some initiatives that have been taken under one of the agreements we have, the Paix des Braves agreement.
There is a goal to have 150 Crees working for Hydro-Québec, and there is funding that comes from that. We jointly work in collaboration with the Niskamoon Corporation in trying to achieve that goal. Some of the funding flows through us for administration in terms of serving those students.
Those are the only programs I am aware of. There is no Cree top up coming from the communities; that is for sure.
Senator Brazeau: I was referring to the Paix des Braves. I should have clarified that. Thank you for your clarification.
As a committee, we have heard a lot about the importance of the input of Aboriginal languages and culture into any type of curriculum for the benefit of Aboriginal students. What level of engagement or collaboration do you have with the Province of Quebec? On the one side, it is important to have tradition, language and culture built into the curriculum, if possible, but it is also important for Aboriginal students to also have the basic education in terms of the provincial system, so they can at least have minimum standards and levels of education. What types of partnerships or collaboration do you have with the provincial government in terms of curriculum development in the K-12 schools?
Mr. Jolly: First, in the presence of the Senate, I want to acknowledge two of our great leaders within the Cree Nation that have passed on this year. As you know, our Grand Chief Billy Diamond passed away, and also the former chief in Mistissini, Smally Petawabano, both of whom were signatories for the James Bay agreement. In the presence of the Senate, I want to acknowledge those two great leaders. Certainly, they are the reason for what we have today in terms of the James Bay agreement, especially pertaining to section 16 with regard to Cree education. Billy Diamond was really the voice for Cree education during the negotiations at that time.
With regard to collaboration with the ministry, in the last four or five years that I have been Director General, we have taken the approach of establishing relationships as much as we can with those with whom we work. Certainly that has been favourable on the part of the ministry as well. It is encouraging to know that back in 2007; the provincial government also took the initiative, through an education committee, to learn more about the Aboriginal situation in Quebec. They have done their report on that as well. I believe it was provided in 2007. As far as understanding more of the situation around Aboriginal education, including the Cree situation in our region, I think the province is more of a place of understanding the situation around Aboriginal education in our region.
For those reasons, there seems to be more of a collaborative effort to work together. Also, as far as the Cree language is concerned, I do not see any better place to be than in Quebec, in terms of the position that they have on their language as well. There is an understanding about how it is important for us to maintain our Cree language as well.
Senator Brazeau: Chief Toulouse, you talked about inequities in funding and the 2 per cent funding cap and whatnot, and we hear that often, obviously.
You mentioned the Bloc bill with respect to funding issues, and you talked about the funding formula in place with respect to the inequities.
I assume, when you talk about that, that you must have data where you can clearly see that First Nations schools are being funded at a lower level than perhaps the neighbouring provincial schools. Do you have that data on hand?
Second, what is your understanding of the current funding formula in place for First Nation schools?
Mr. Toulouse: Let me go back. I was a band administrator in 1988 when the federal government came up with this formula. It was manually driven back then, so you could see, as you were going through the formula, because we had to manually do this, how much you were getting per child. At the same time, we had a tuition agreement. I was on the school board for the Espanola School Board; I was a trustee.
I also saw how the funding came from the federal government to the First Nations and to the school board. There was no formula. There was a bill that arrived from the school board to the First Nation community. We put in a requisition to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to say here is the tuition that we have to pay. The federal government sent the money and it was paid.
When it came time for our First Nation operated school we saw the discrepancy. If a school board said that the increase will take place by $500 to $1,000 per child, they would do that through a special education kind of factor that they have at the school. What we found, after we looked at this and studied this, was a huge discrepancy where the school board was charging, per child, in excess of about $2,000 or $3,000, and we actually had to have an accounting, an audit done, forcing the school board.
What I am talking about was the systemic relationship between a school board and the government. Where we have identified the cost that we would need to be met, in terms of educating our students, in terms of the instruction and so on, we tried to bring that forward, along with the need for special education, special services, speech pathologists, those kinds of specialists. We could not get the government to recognize any type of that funding. They did not want to fund some of these initiatives, but at the same time if the provincial school system had invoiced them, they would pay them.
I always saw this inconsistency based on my experience, being a former administrator and also as chief, seeing that there has been no movement in that regard. Even though we have put out the kind of data that you have talked about, senator, in terms of let us see that data, we have put out that data and that data has been given to the federal government many times in terms of showing the inequity. It is quite substantial.
Senator Brazeau: Obviously, you must have heard that the minister will announce a three member expert panel for education, kindergarten to grade 12. What are your views on that? Are you hopeful that that will be at least the beginning or an ongoing endeavour to really tackle this issue? We can all agree — though perhaps with different ways to get there — that education is a priority for Aboriginal students.
Mr. Toulouse: Like many of the First Nation leaders, my initial reaction was, oh, another study? We have studied this enough times. Let us talk about some of the recommendations that have come out of these studies. That was my initial reaction. Then I said, okay, if we are not going to delay that long, and if we can actually come up with a report, come up with recommendations within six months, okay. I do not think we will have another long, drawn-out study that will sit on the shelf and hope someone will open it and want to resource the kind of recommendations that would come forward.
I have been assured that this study will come back to the Minister of Indian Affairs, and to the National Chief, where we will have clear recommendations on what needs to be implemented, relatively soon. I want to be optimistic. Again, we have individuals like Mr. Jolly who have been in the education business to come together and engage quickly. We have our own experts in Ontario also, with many of the organizations ready to engage.
Let me just say, because we are talking about an example from a Cree perspective that you just heard from. In Ontario we have the Anishnawbek, the Muskego, the Lenape and the Haudenosaunee; large nations, if you will. Of course, many First Nations communities fall within these larger nations.
At some point, we also need to look at history, cultural relevancy and education from the perspective of our nations. It will not be a one-size-fits-all because we have huge challenges in certain of these nations. The Lenape, in terms of language, will need to invest all kinds of resources. With respect to the Anishinaabemowin and the Haudenosaunee languages, again, nations want to develop and evolve because of their commonality as nations.
It is necessary that the cultural appropriateness and the opportunity for our First Nations come together. This is, again, because of the policy that we have lived within, which is the Indian Act policy, which again is individual First Nations with individual chiefs and councils that have historically been there. Again, rebuilding and revitalizing the nations are certainly some of the current desires of the citizens of our communities to be part of.
As an example, I am Sagamok Anishnawbek. I am part of that community, but I am also part of a larger nation, the Anishnawbek Nation, of which there are many communities. We have not really had the kind of capacity and resources to come together and develop and evolve, as such.
That is the desire and the wish. We talk about the manifesto, and it supports the nation revitalization of our people, which includes language, education, everything about self-governance.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here this morning. My question is for Mr. Jolly. In your opening comments and your statements you mentioned that the last two years your board was studying the large gap in youth education. Is that study ongoing or completed?
Mr. Jolly: The CAFSI Report was completed in 2008. You will find it on the school board's website. It was a comprehensive study.
We found two experts who were recommended from the provincial ministry to work with two of our own Cree people. We sought people who would take a critical approach but would be open, honest and objective about it, as well.
We went to all nine communities. I believe we interviewed over nine hundred people from the nine communities, including leaders, school committees, teachers — you name it. It is a very comprehensive study. From those recommendations, we have taken the approach of developing the strategic action plan, which is for a five-year period.
Senator Poirier: The plan is for a five-year period. Are you are in year two of that plan?
Mr. Jolly: Actually, the process of planning in response to the recommendations has been a process in itself. It has taken us a few years; plus, in between that, we had to do our funding negotiations with the ministry. The plan begins in 2011. We are in the transition phase in terms of doing some implementation of that plan.
Senator Poirier: Can you share with us some of the main recommendations or factors from your study that you felt would make a difference to address the gap?
Mr. Jolly: In some areas, it is related to education and our delivery of education. Something else that was emphasized was the capacity within every part of the organization or departments and services and even at the school levels, et cetera. Capacity was a big issue. That is something that is also in the works, namely, building our capacity.
More related to education would be the literacy in our schools because a decision was made in 1988 to have the Cree language as the language of instruction up to grade 3. We learned that over a long period, there was not much of an evaluation process in terms of how we were doing in the language of instruction.
Another study sprang from the CAFSI Report more to do with the language study. We learned that our students, even as they come into the schools, do not have a first language. There is a mixture of English and Cree, and no real solid language to work from.
Those were some of the items that were revealed to us. It becomes critical for us, in terms of the early stages of learning that we establish a system that will work. One of the approaches we have taken is to establish what we call a "guaranteed viable curriculum" within our school system. It is not only up to those early grade levels, but is from kindergarten to secondary 5. The plan is that we have to put in more of the core academics and develop a curriculum that will be viable in our system.
That is the approach that we have taken. We have taken things that are proven strategies from other areas, including the United States, where they have done a successful job in developing things like this. The things that we are working with, along with the experts that are working with us, are very much research based.
Senator Poirier: Your board has been in place for approximately 30 years. In your knowledge and from your point of view, over that 30 years, has the gap constantly gotten bigger or is it constantly going downhill?
Mr. Jolly: Perhaps some would say that before the language of instruction was introduced and maybe not followed up on closely, the education system was better. Since we have introduced that language of instruction, it has gone down.
We find ourselves at a place where we are trying to get a firm footing and positioning in terms of how we push our education system to improve. It is taking an aggressive approach in terms of how we want to improve our system.
We believe that it will not be someone from the outside, although we use the resources from the outside when we need them. However, it must be more from within if we want to improve our system. We have taken on that challenge in the last few years and I think we are on our way to making our Cree education system work.
Keep in mind that, overall, education is a battle out there in terms of the way it is changing in our modern day. When you think of the challenges with the high-tech world and with cyberspace, I often wonder where the minds of our youth are in these days. Are they captivated with what we have to teach in our schools? We also struggle with those things in our society.
It is a challenge, but I think there is still the need to go back to the basics of what needs to be taught in our schools. That is what we are trying to establish.
Senator Poirier: In 2004, the Auditor General reported that it would take probably close to 28 years to close that gap. Do you feel it is possible that we close that gap in a shorter period?
Mr. Jolly: Our goal is to improve our graduation rate in the next five years to about 25 per cent, which is a conservative estimate. Hopefully, we can build on that for the following five years. As I said, it is the need to get a firm footing on where we want to work from to build ourselves.
I would like to be optimistic and think that we can, at least on our end, work aggressively to narrow that gap. The partnership needs to be there, with the agenda from the national and provincial level, and the collaboration to work with them in that partnership.
However, how I see it from our region is how do we take this on ourselves and maybe contribute to narrowing that gap? More importantly, how do we embrace our own education system to know that this is the system that will work for our children in the future? From that basis, yes, we certainly want to attain that goal.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I see a real difference between education in rural areas and in more urban areas. I do not think that a report that we would produce can be a valid report unless we deal with both areas.
In the rural areas, I think it is much more difficult. I would like your input on how you see a report that would address rural areas. I believe it is a bit easier to address urban areas. There is more available for urban area reserves and urban area Aboriginals. I do not mean reserves in cities, but reserves that are closer to larger centres that can provide universities, community colleges, assistance and backup assistance than, say, the Northern Cree in Northern Ontario.
Mr. Jolly: Are you talking about the rural region?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
Mr. Jolly: As a school board, we do serve our nine communities in the different regions of James Bay. Five of them are along the coast of James Bay. One is more on the Hudson Bay side. We have four inland communities and a few of our communities are close to smaller towns. There is a bit of access to get to those places.
For all of our communities, with the exception of Whapmagoostui in the Hudson Bay region, there is not really access to the highways and so on. We are also looking forward to having the Eeyou Communications Network that will be coming into our region. It will give us an opportunity to look at how to best use telecommunications and videoconferencing, and perhaps connecting with the outside institutions to bring education into our communities.
Our head office is located in one of the Cree communities in the southern region of Misstissini, Quebec. I understand a bit about the need from our level, regionally speaking, to be able to go into where our schools are and to learn about the situation in our schools.
I talked about the process of working to put a plan together. We are planning to do our community tours from January until the end of March. We plan to visit all our communities to do presentations about the direction that we are going as a school board. We will also be taking things from the CAFSI Report, including the recommendations from that report and the plan we put together on that. There is a real need to connect with our schools. The Council of Commissioners consists of nine representatives elected from the local communities to sit on the board. We have a chairman of the Governing Board of Cree Education. The organization has all its departments including human resources, finance, IT, education services, adult education and post-secondary programs. A director general oversees all of those departments. We are asking them to go deeper into the classrooms to look at our capacity in term of serving our students in a way that brings about success.
Mr. Toulouse: In Ontario, of the 133 First Nation communities, 30 of them are in isolated, remote fly-in areas. Again, many times, without going there, without seeing the state of the facilities, it is challenging.
I will use Pikangikum in Northern Ontario as an example. There has been a huge growth rate in that community. For this one community, there have been as many as 100 births in any given year, which is, again, quite substantial for one community to deal with, if you can imagine the kind of growth. There is one classroom for kindergarten. If you have 100 kids coming in, you have already outgrown that classroom by two or three times. As has been the case, these children are beginning school in shifts. Instead of starting their day at 8:30 a.m., or somewhere around there, they must start at 7 a.m., just to ensure they have as many hours in so that the next shift in the afternoon of these kids can have their time in the school facility also. What ends up happening is many kids fall through the cracks.
Are we closing the gap? No, I believe it is widening when we end up with those types of circumstances and there is recognition of the connection between the facilities and the kind of teacher retention needed, when sometimes there is a shortage of teachers. There is a changeover every year so there needs to be recognition. They realize that their own people need to be the ones providing the instruction. They need to get the accreditation and the training, which they are doing, but it does not happen overnight. They are moving in that direction where they are encouraging their own because they are the ones who have a vested interest and ensure that the retention is there at a bare minimum.
We need more solid plans really that ensure we can measure this 28-year gap as we close it. Without the basics such as facilities, however, it will not work. I am not from a remote community, but I recall that when we built our new school the work was not completed and is still not completed today even though construction began in 1985 with the promise that it would be completed. We still do not have a gymnasium and we operate with very limited administrative space. There are no science labs or computer labs. The basic things that are in every single school are not there and the reason for that is the funding. Capital facilities are a big part of the learning environment. I am sure you have heard that the Attawapiskat First Nation has been waiting for quite some time.
Many communities need to address the facility aspect — the basic infrastructure. The other thing we do not have in many of our communities is broadband Internet. It is not there. Basic infrastructure must be a big part of ensuring that there will be quality education.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I understand what you are saying. I can see a real advancement if students could take lessons by teleconference and if they had computer labs and broadband Internet.
Should the curriculum in isolated areas follow the same path as urban areas or should it be a bit different? Not everyone will want to go to university, but many would like a community college type of experience after they complete initial education. Does one size of curriculum fit everyone?
Mr. Jolly: That is probably the heart of the matter in terms of where we would like to see improvements in our education system.
The challenge is trying to teach two languages in our school system and trying to treat them as first languages as well. We are taking an approach prompted by information in the CAFSI Report. The report indicates that if a child does not read by grade 3, it is likely that that child will not graduate from our secondary program. In addition, if the child does not read by grade 3 there is a chance that they will struggle as they go on onto those next levels. If we do not teach it right in the early stages, there is a good chance our children will suffer the consequences of not succeeding. That has been the focus area in terms of how we need to do a better job in our system.
How we evaluate the progressive stages of the child's learning is also becoming important for us. We need to be able to look at it, even at the grade 2 level, to say how the child is doing. This is true even at the grade 4 or grade 6 level. The idea for us is that we could look at teaching them in the second language in the early stages. However, by the time they get to grade 6, something has to be integrated to say they need to learn it on a first language basis. Then we move them into the secondary level, starting at secondary 1 and secondary 2, which are grade 7 and grade 8 in other places. We then try to prepare them ready to graduate with the Ministry of Education examinations. We want to be aggressive in saying that our students need to attain the level they should, as in any other school.
We also need to keep in mind that we have to ask how we develop the Cree part of our curriculum. We are in the early stages of reform in that area. There is a need for them to know their Cree language, Cree heritage or history and also establish their Cree identity as they come out through that system.
Those are the perspectives we are starting to have in how to do this. Again, the initiative and follow-up have to be taken from within, and the big part of our change process is how to become accountable and responsible regarding how we educate our children and ensure they come through our systems. Ultimately, we want to create opportunities for them to have employment. As they walk through our system, we want to enable them to enter colleges and universities. There are also those avenues of vocational education they can go into, and some might go into hunting and trapping, as well.
Mr. Toulouse: In terms of what could be there, there is a research evaluation component that we need and want to have. There are enough individuals out there, but we need to bring them together. We do not have the institution to do the kind of research that is really necessary and to evaluate the curriculum changes, if you will, that might need to happen to promote a constant evaluation and improvement. We do not have that capacity; there is no such thing.
A First Nation community indicates that language and culture are important, so they develop an immersion program. They succeed. The language is coming back strong with the younger children. However, due to the residential schools and the multi-generational impacts of the loss of language, we have children immersed in the language whose parents have lost it. That disconnect needs to recognized and has to be rebuilt.
Those are the challenges we face as we continue to improve on the current curriculum to ensure that our children receive, at a minimum, what they could receive if they were in a public school system. We do that while being culturally relevant in our case.
There is not enough evaluation. There has to be some kind of recognition that we need that institution to support the development of the Haudenosaunee, Muskego, Anishnawbek and Lenape. These are huge languages with many dialects stemming from them.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank the witnesses very much for coming. Mr. Jolly, our committee has heard recommendations that First Nations' school boards need to be strengthened by not only providing services to their constituents but to also own the schools and provide an executive management function, as well, so that the education authorities would relate to school boards the same way that provincial education ministers relate to off-reserve school boards. That would allow an accounting function between the boards and the education authorities.
You have had a lot of experience with a board right from the beginning, and efforts have been made to get community ownership and elected representatives. However, I understand that your review has decided that you need to overhaul your governance model. Could you tell the committee why you looked at a new governance model and how you feel it should be changed or strengthened? Could you give us an outline of that, please?
Mr. Jolly: Thank you for that question. As I said before, in the process of trying to work with our effective changes, we needed to target major parts. Those included the way the council operates at the board level. The Council of Commissioners are the board members of the Cree School Board.
From the director general's standpoint in tries to move the change process more within the organizational aspects of it and more into the schools. I have had the opportunity of taking a master's program in leadership and management, which included the governance development aspect for boards. I do not know if you are familiar with the Policy Governance Model by John Carver. We have looked into that. The council has actually been on a journey to learn more about that model.
There were some things we felt we could look at. To make it short, over the period of four years, the council has come to a place of having its own council policy manual. It has been a work in progress, while being guided by an outside expert providing coaching in that area.
I want to say that our first meeting this last week here in Ottawa was based on the new way of operating with the council policy manual. Operating that way was new business for us. However, within part of the council policy, the board also looks at itself in terms of how it governs.
It is also very important in terms of the relationship it has with the organizational part of the school board. Their focus is more on their expectations. They try not to get too much into the operations part of the school board. We established those things in this process.
We are in the learning stages and we feel it is probably the best practices that we can adopt in our situation. I am not sure if that has answered your question.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, yes. I happen to be very familiar with the Carver model which has been applied in the Northwest Territories. I believe what you are saying is that maybe boards were set up under the agreement but not given training or support; is that right?
Mr. Jolly: Actually, in looking at it, the boards were more "managed" or "controlled" by the established bylaws. Part of it is the Education Act. However, a big part of our Education Act stems from section 16 of the agreement. The board was basically more guided by bylaws than anything else, a legal document I guess you could say, and some aspects of the Education Act in terms of how it did its business.
There was a need to do an internal review and that is what came in as part of looking at the governance aspect of it. We looked at models out there, and I think these were the things we felt would work best for us.
Now that we have the model established, we are looking at its influence on the current bylaws and in some cases the Education Act. We are working with our legal counsel on those things as well.
Senator Patterson: The board should develop its own bylaws and policies. I find that interesting.
Recognizing we do not have much time, I would like to switch directions. One thing really leapt out at me. If I understood right, the Cree School Board year is 139 days. I understood that according to one of your annual reports.
Mr. Jolly: We have 180 days. Do you mean for instructional time?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Mr. Jolly: It is 180 days.
Senator Patterson: Have you built into the instructional days any time on the land? Has that been developed?
Mr. Jolly: This is a challenge when you are trying to maintain the instructional time in the schools. The more recognized period of time spent in the camps and hunting grounds is in the spring when we do the spring hunt. We usually have a two-week break for people to do their hunting, but it varies for some of our schools because they are in different regions, with the southern communities having their break later as opposed to the northern communities.
Senator Patterson: What success have you had with training Aboriginal teachers?
Mr. Jolly: We did have training earlier back in the 1990s and into the early 2000s, but we put a stop to the teacher training because we felt we needed to evaluate the outcomes from the teacher-training program as well. We have done some more work on that and have worked closely with McGill University. We want to establish a teaching program that would have our teachers finish the program over a four-year period as opposed to the way it was done before. Because of the fact that it was happening in the local communities and the teaching was brought in from the outside, it was a longer process to have our teachers graduate. That was a bit of a problem for us.
We are now engaging with a new program more closely connected with McGill. We now have two years of that training at McGill University and two years will be in the communities. One of my cries within our Cree nation is to call out for people in our region to enter the teaching profession.
Senator Patterson: Good luck.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much for being here. I was raised in illiteracy. When we talk about literacy, all the meanings that come here are obviously coming towards that. I was able to overcome my illiteracy. I could read English and French and speak both languages because I was fortunate to educate myself. I was raised in violence, and that is mostly where illiteracy starts, as well as drugs. You then develop anxiety. Illiteracy is a snowball effect.
We have some Aboriginal people in the Senate who are extremely smart and very aware of what is going on in life, as you are, but when I talk about snowball effect, if you send a group of young men and girls to school and cannot identify that they have a learning disability, it could be a major problem. They need special help. However, if we cannot identity that these kids are not be able to learn, perhaps because of what is going on at home, the snowball effect comes about. They will get older, and if they keep living in illiteracy, as they have children, they will not be able to help their kids because they have a problem with illiteracy. It is a major problem.
I am on this committee because I want to learn, and I think I am learning, and you have shown me a lot. The future of your of people is education. If they do not have any hope or education, they will go back to the same thing. They will live in poverty, and as I mentioned, they will bring up their children and will not be able to help them. That is where you need help.
The senator asked a good question about teachers. Where is the education level of how to deal with or identify the kids who are not able to sit on a school bench and learn because we do not know or maybe have a doubt about what is going on at home? It will never work. I saw it.
Every time I come here, it always seems to come to that and I could see you are crying for help. You have the greatest intentions in the world. We always talk about money. Money is important obviously for getting help, but these kids need help and it needs to be identified why they are not learning. They may just be grouped. If there are five kids who pick up everything quickly and the other kids cannot pick up anything, they will not progress.
I do not know if you see what I see.
Mr. Jolly: I do very much so. That is one of the aspects of looking into our situation as well. We really want to know where our students are at. We also have what we call a special education department within our school board that does the assessment of our students. We are learning that many of our students have difficulty learning. That is one of the classifications of special needs, the difficulty in learning.
I am coming to believe it has to do a lot with literacy issues as far as that is concerned. How do we address that? Like I say, our plan is a bit aggressive. We have a literacy program that we are trying to integrate into our school system, but we also have expertise that comes from the outside. We did a model with one of our schools in which we worked with experts in bringing the reading aspect into our school system. We have seen good results over the past few years since we have done that in one of our schools. We are looking at that as a model to work with and to try to integrate into our other nine schools.
I feel it just as much as anyone in terms of wanting to improve the state of our education. I believe education is the avenue to improving the state of our communities, homes and families. We Cree need to get a grip on education and know that it will work for us in the future.
It is so important that we establish something that comes from the way we think, do things and that we apply ourselves to make that happen. As my friend said, a big part of what we need in our education system is evaluation and monitoring aspect through data collection to know how we are doing and to make improvements. We are going in that direction.
Mr. Toulouse: I emphasize that there are not enough second-level services at our First Nations schools to do those assessments. As you identified, senator, some individuals, like my nephew for example, have a hard time learning the curriculum because of a learning disability. It was not because he was not smart enough; he just had a different learning style. It was not until he was in Grade 7 or Grade 8, which is way too late, that he received the attention he needed. A special school had a computerized system that allowed him to learn as part of their literacy program. It was an expensive school but good for him; he was able to go, although he needed more than that.
Some facilities and institutions could support such students if those students have the proper assessment. Most often, we have to move the child, which is another issue. It is more important that the assessment recognize the need for special education. Everyone should be given an opportunity to learn and to participate in society. If the first step in that exercise is an assessment, then there must be sufficient resources to do that for a child in school.
The Acting Chair: Are there any other questions, senators?
Seeing none, I thank our witnesses for appearing today. It was extremely informative. Certainly, I could feel your depth of passion for this topic. The ongoing issues you have to face are difficult. One thing that struck me was Mr. Jolly talking about the educational challenges. It is fair to say that everyone around this table recognizes that across the country there are challenges to education and how it is delivered to our children in a way that none of us would ever have imagined. We need to be part of that and to keep up with the changes while recognizing how difficult that is to do.
Is there anything further?
To those watching and to senators present today, I wish all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope that it will be a prosperous new year for all. The committee will not meet this Wednesday night and will continue its deliberations in the new year. We are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)