Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 14, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:19 p.m. to examine the accessibility of post-secondary education in Canada.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Today we continue with our study on accessibility to post-secondary education. In particular, today's theme will be post-secondary education for Aboriginal peoples.
We have two panels today. On our first panel, we have three guests. Welcoming for the first time the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo, who is the hereditary chief from the Ahousaht First Nation. In July of 2009, he was elected to a three-year mandate as National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. Mr. Atleo graduated in 2003 with a Masters of Education in adult learning in global change from the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, in partnership with the University of British Columbia, the University of Western Cape South Africa and the University of Linköping in Sweden. In 2008, his commitment to education was recognized in his appointment as Chancellor of Vancouver Island University, becoming B.C.'s first indigenous chancellor.
Marc Leclair is Senior Policy Advisor to the Métis National Council. Founded in 1983 after the explicit recognition of the Metis as one of Canada's three distinct Aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act of 1982, the council is made up of five provincial Metis organizations from Ontario westward and receives its mandate and direction from the democratically elected members of the provincial bodies.
Our third guest witness today is Lisa Wilson, who will appear as a representative of the Gabriel Dumont Institute. The Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research Incorporated was formally incorporated as a non-profit corporation in 1980 to serve the education and cultural needs of the Saskatchewan Metis and non-status Indian community.
Before going to our guests, may I welcome substitute members of the committee who are with us today. Senator Brazeau is substituting for Senator Demers and Senator Stewart Olsen for Senator Keon. Welcome to both of you. I think we will be joined later by Senator Dawson on behalf of Senator Merchant, and Senator Nancy Ruth on behalf of Senator Champagne.
We are ready to get under way. I will start with you, Chief Atleo. If you could give us about seven minutes of opening remarks, we would appreciate it.
Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To senators and the committee, it is a great honour and privilege to be here with you, and we are very appreciative that you are bringing focus and attention to this subject.
With the seven minutes I have, I will go through some of the major points, first appreciating that a discussion about post-secondary education is really a discussion about education more broadly.
I was looking at correspondence going back to 1971 from Jean Chrétien to then-Prime Minister Trudeau. I vaguely remember 1971. Our graduation rates back in the early 1970s were around 12 per cent in the K-to-12 system. Today, they are close to 49 per cent, so one might say we are making progress on the long journey, but we would also suggest it is time to consider taking to scale the kind of significant change that will see the sorts of success that we all desire and would benefit from, very clearly understanding the history about where we have come from. That includes the fact that until changes were made to the Indian Act in 1951, First Nations were denied the opportunity to attend post-secondary institutions.
We begin with this notion that we do not have a long time frame of success in post-secondary education. The 1960s was the first time we began to see graduates from post-secondary education; my father, for example, being acknowledged as the first, if not one of the first, to graduate with an academic doctorate degree in the First Nations community from the University of British Columbia. That was not long ago. He just turned 71 last week; he completed his education when he was 55.
We begin with a little bit of a reflection on education and on education success. That which we have achieved, in the eyes of many of our people, has been tremendous given the kinds of constraints that we feel we have been under. Since then, we have 518 schools on reserves, 45 indigenous institutes of higher learning, and the graduation rate has slowly started to move up in the K-to-12 system. We have moved from a handful of post-secondary attendees, as I alluded, going back to the 1960s, to as many as 27,000 First Nation peoples in 1998-99 going through the post-secondary system.
As some may have heard, we have set a very high goal of 65,000 post-secondary graduates over the next five years, and we do that based on the good work of an economist and a report that was done in 2009 for the Assembly of First Nations as being the kind of objective that would close the gap on achievement rates with the rest of the Canadian population. These are the objectives that are being pushed forward by First Nations chiefs across the country for whom I have the responsibility to advocate, and who represent the more than 630 First Nations communities in Canada.
In 2008, there were approximately 8,000 First Nations-controlled schools and institutes right from the elementary to the post-secondary level. There are many challenges, and you will hear consistently from First Nations that the major challenge is the chronic underfunding of First Nations elementary and secondary schools, a lack of financial support for First Nations people to be educated in our languages similar to that which occurs for the anglophone and francophone communities.
Building very much on the spirit of the apology that Prime Minister Harper and the rest of Parliament offered in the summer of 2008, the legacy of the residential schools era, which lasted over 100 years, had a tremendous injurious effect on our peoples, and it was all done within the guise or under the umbrella of education. If education were a tool that separated people from language and culture, then surely education should be the tool that reconnects people with culture and family and supports the reconnection of indigenous communities as well. Therefore, the apology was very significant.
The greatest barrier facing First Nations students struggling to succeed is a lack of financial resources. This alludes to a tremendous number of other issues such as child care, adequate housing and adequate academic preparation. Of course, in the time that I have been National Chief, we have been reaching out to the post-secondary institutions, to academia, to the education system, school districts, teachers' associations and students' associations, strongly suggesting that this is an all-hands-on-deck effort that is required to ensure that the learning systems are receptive to supporting First Nations learners.
In 2009, the report that I have been alluding to entitled Focusing Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's Post Secondary Education Program: Targets and Impacts, speaks to the objectives, as I have said, under the authorship of Waslander, I believe is the name of the economist. The report notes the fact that the program budget has been subject to an arbitrary cap for more than a decade. If there is one message we have here, it is going back to the sentiments in this letter under the authorship of Jean Chrétien back in 1971, hinting that there needs to be a joint effort between First Nations and government. The words were welcomed in the Throne Speech that we work together to strengthen and reform, that tinkering around the edges will not be helpful. What is needed is for us to jointly examine how it is that we can improve the effectiveness and efficiencies and build on the good accountability that First Nations have been demonstrating for the delivery of programs and the work that communities are doing to ensure their citizens, wherever they reside, are well served.
Our recommendations that I will summarize is that we address the fact that the 2 per cent annual cap on spending increases for the department's post-secondary education program be eliminated immediately, and that the department spending increases for post-secondary programs be based on actual costs associated with program components and not be subject to discretionary caps. First Nations reacted with great concern when the transfers to federal or to provincial and territorial education and health programs were protected at the over 6 per cent rate, which they were in the last budget, but there were no increases when it came to addressing the 2 per cent cap. We have a tremendous legislative gap that exists when it comes to ensuring that there are protected and sustainable resources that are flowing for First Nations learners on an annual basis.
The committee recommends that the department's budget in the 2007-08 and ensuing fiscal years be increased to reflect increased expenditures associated with providing more funding to more eligible First Nations and Inuit learners. I could be corrected, but I believe around 10,000 students would be going to post-secondary if they were otherwise provided with support to go to the post-secondary level.
I look forward to the forthcoming exchange, recognizing the time frame that has being allotted for opening thoughts. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. With the good work from our national chief's committee on education and our education directorate, we are well poised to be a strong partner in the effort to strengthen and reform education.
This is something we feel so strongly matches with the aging population in the mainstream community in this country. The growing youth Aboriginal population is really one we must gravitate to very quickly and we must move fast to ensure that particularly young people are supported for success in education.
It is within that spirit that we are very appreciative to accept the invitation to appear here today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, chief, for your contribution. Mr. Leclair may now go ahead on behalf the Métis National Council.
Marc Leclair, Senior Policy Aviser, Métis National Council: I want to echo the national chief's remarks in thanking the committee and you all for being here today to hear us. We do not often get a chance to do this.
I want to first introduce who the Metis people are that we represent. There are some 330,000 Metis people who identify in the last census. From Ontario west, 9 out of 10 will identify as Metis. That is not to say there are not people who identify as Metis in other parts of the country, but this is where the bulk of the population resides. It is a very youthful population, though not as youthful as First Nations or Inuit. However, 52 per cent of the population is below the age of 19. We anticipate that, over the next 15 years, about 80,000 to 100,000 Metis kids will be in a position to go on to post-secondary education. It is a fairly significant number. Currently, there is an enormous gap between the number of non-Aboriginal people and Metis who attend post-secondary education. About 18.2 per cent of Canadians, generally, attend, whereas our participation rate — while getting better — is still only about 7 per cent of the population.
Of course, we know that post-secondary education leads to better jobs, higher incomes and greater self-reliance and that there is a significant generational impact. Children raised in families whose parents have gone on to post- secondary education generally tend to go that route, too. That is a very important component.
Our population, while not altogether large, is quite large in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are 55,000 people in Winnipeg who identify as Metis, so it is a significant part of the population and a very young part of the population which has much to offer the labour markets of those two provinces, which need our participation.
We have sort of been the one Aboriginal group for which responsibility has not been accepted at the federal level. We do not agree with the interpretation that the federal government does not have responsibility for at least some things, including education. The provinces do not accept responsibility under the Constitution, so we are kind of a political football. We go back and forth and we try to build business cases at the federal and provincial levels for governments to invest what are, in effect, our own tax dollars, because we pay all of the taxes: provincial, income, federal tax, GST, PST, et cetera. In some senses, we try to convince governments that we want you to take our tax dollars and invest in our people, particularly in the area of education. While our educational attainment is better on most indicators than that of First Nations, at the same time we do not suffer some of the geographic isolation and some of the problems they have in terms of getting good teachers to stay, having enough resources to pay good teachers to stay, et cetera.
We are being educated in the provincial school systems, and we have been working at the Council of the Federation with the national chief and others to work with provinces to take education more seriously. We are making some progress on that front. I do not think it is as quick as we would like but, by and large, these provincial education systems are educating both First Nations and Metis. In our case, it is 100 per cent. The results are not nearly as good as we think they should be. We are looking for greater participation.
Our biggest challenge is trying to get both levels of government to pay attention to the education needs of Metis. The last time we tackled this was in Kelowna. We set some education targets and other targets. The government's buying into the targets but not the spending program indicated to us that it was looking to come up with a new program, but we have yet to really fully engage on that, although progress is being made.
At the post-secondary level, there are really two major recommendations that we are looking for you to consider. The first deals with what the national chief dealt with: Financial supports for students. The income level disparity between Metis and non-Metis is quite large. Our family formations are different. We have larger families and we have families earlier. Our history with the Gabriel Dumont Institute, or GDI — and this is the same for First Nations University — is that some of the girls who become women come back for basic adult education upgrading then come back to school and do very well. In fact, one of the strengths of Aboriginal institutions is that the adult learners are coming back in and attaining productive jobs.
Therefore, you have a poor population coupled with the fact that there has been a bit of user pay in the education system. Tuition fees have gone up over the last couple of decades, so it really is a bad combination if you are poor and the tuition fees go up. That family structures are a little different than the average Canadian families really speaks to the need for greater public investment because, with working level families, it is very difficult to raise the money to attend these institutions. To deal with this, we run $50 million in skills training every year and we have done that for 15 years. We have $500 million in skills training. I tabled with you — just for your information, but not as a submission — the report entitled Métis Works. You will see in here that most of our provinces have set up these scholarships and bursaries, and we have been able to convince post-secondary educational institutions to match the resources that we put into these endowment funds. We have been seeking and had looked for recommendations from you for the Government of Canada to invest in these endowment funds. We are trying to preserve the capital in the funds and the Millennium Scholarship Funds, when it was in place, for underserved Metis and First Nations.
We have a vehicle which Canada and the provinces can invest in. We are also seeking support for our post- secondary education institution, the Gabriel Dumont Institute, or GDI. This is one that the early founders started in 1980 and it has done phenomenal work and is seen as a best practice. It is looking to expand its research capacity, to extend its abilities to develop curricula and is looking for what all post-secondary institutions almost take for granted: Expanded core funding. We know through the social transfers that $3.4 billion goes to provinces to support post- secondary education institutions. The Province of Manitoba, in the case of the Louis Riel Institute, is making some investments, as are GDI. However, we are looking to see more transparency in those transfers to ensure that Metis institutions are getting their fair share of post-secondary resources.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Now, Ms. Wilson, I understood that you would like to just answer questions. However, you may make an opening comment if you wish.
Lisa Wilson, Program Director, Gabriel Dumont Institute: I am alright with a support role.
The Chair: Thank you for being part of this discussion.
Colleagues, I need to get your names down so that I can divide the time up. We have until 5:15 with this panel, then we have another panel. While we are getting your names down, I will, as is tradition, start with the first equation.
Aboriginal post-secondary access is an issue with which we are now into our third panel. It is a very significant issue for us. We have heard many of the statistics and how under-represented Aboriginal people are amongst those who graduate from high school compared to the general population. We understand how vital it is in terms of the future of our country's prosperity that we have more people going through high school and advancing into post-secondary education.
As I mentioned, we have now heard from three panels; this is the third panel. On the first panel, we had officials in from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and they told us they had begun a review on post-secondary education programs; that was back in December. Then we heard in Budget 2010 that the federal government expressed its desire to engage in a new approach to providing support to First Nations and Inuit post-secondary students to ensure that students receive the support they need to attend post-secondary education.
I think you both reacted somewhat to this in the sense that you said what kind of things you would like the federal government to do — lift the caps, for example — but have you any further reaction to that?
Let me throw in one other part to this question, because it came out of the last panel we held, which was last week, in which we had David Snow here who, together with Calvin Helin, produced a report for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in which they said that they thought the post-secondary education funding — the PSSSP program — should be going directly to students as opposed to going through Indian bands.
I wonder what your thoughts are about that, Mr. Atleo.
Mr. Alteo: It is sort of a two-parter. The first piece is really about, as my friend Mr. Leclair was alluding to, what is referred to as the Aboriginal Affairs Ministers Working Group, which is provincial and territorial leaders coming together around an agenda of education, economic development and health. It is fair to say that education is probably topping that particular agenda: recognizing the need to address the inter-jurisdictional challenges with which we are faced, and education is only one example of a number that we need to tackle.
I certainly would encourage the federal government to not only take a full seat but encourage the Prime Minister to consider leading that exercise and pursuing a first ministers' meeting so that we can address the need to not only overcome inter-jurisdictional differences or challenges but also find efficiencies to make sure we are maximizing the resources that are available. The chiefs have provided a mandate for engagement at that table with other indigenous leadership, and I think that is one such process or approach that could prove to produce results.
The reason I would suggest so is that we had reformed, with First Nations, this specific claims approach; something we had in a similar context — and I reference this letter back to 1971; going back to the early 1970s, at any rate — was a push for Indian control of Indian education. We are still talking about pursuing First Nations' control of First Nations education, and because we are talking about it now, we are not starting from scratch. We have a large body of work. I have referenced several reports, including the report made to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in 2007, called No Higher Priority: Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education in Canada. There were recommendations, the like of which I have been reiterating here: the 2 per cent cap; that the budgets be increased to reflect increased expenditures; that we recognize the success — this, of course, was an all-party report — of Aboriginal-controlled institutions, which should be acknowledged by government, supported and built upon.
This is an excellent example. This happens in the United States — real recognition of tribal colleges, for example; it happens in places like New Zealand. We do not need to start from scratch when it comes to ensuring that we strengthen and reform education in a manner that would support learners.
There is an important element here leading to the second part of the question, which referenced the report and the idea of supporting individual learners. Under the guise of education, the residential schools, for the better part of 100 years, were a tool to pull families and communities apart, including the likes of my father, who at age 4 was pulled from his home. He only spoke our language, and for 12 years was subjected to a system that was externally imposed and deeply divisive.
If the changes were not made until 1951 — and we have had such a short period of time — I think an approach on education needs to respect not only the very foundational manner in which this country was formed, which is the signing of treaties and mutual respect and recognition on a nation-to-nation basis, but that education should be the tool that Canadians recognize.
While this committee and none of us wrote the Indian Act — we did not create the residential schools — we have inherited obligations and, I think, responsibilities to one another to support the rebuilding of families, communities and nations. We have experienced tremendous divisions and conflicts that were not of our doing, on and off reserve, status and non-status. We still have those being battled in the courts, on and off settlement land.
I think this is not just a tool of supporting individual education for success in a market economy. It goes far beyond that. This is recognizing that education is an important element; but I see places like Onion Lake in Saskatchewan and Restigouche in the Atlantic provinces finding resources to support the resurgence of their language when there are no such fiscal supports. They look at a place like Alberta and ask the question: Why is it that the francophone community there receives $2,100 or $2,300 per student for support in that language when the Cree language receives $215 or $220 in support?
This gets us into a notion of conflict between communities within the country, even between indigenous peoples themselves. Therefore, we are asking that Canadians — through their elected officials, through this committee — consider the implications of decisions that you are taking. That is why we reiterate the notion of working closely with indigenous peoples.
Of course, we come with an interest in being strong partners to not only strengthen reform but to ensure that if for 100 years we put all this money and effort into taking away people's potential, or having done all of this damage, that we should place a lot of political will and resources into rebuilding communities and reconnecting.
That is my thoughts in response to those two points.
Mr. Leclair: The machinery for delivering the support for students, our machinery, is done on a province-wide basis. Our approach is to maximize as much money as we can for the students. That is why we partner with post-secondary educational institutions. The key is to find the best system to deliver resources to the students at the lowest possible cost.
The Chair: Ms. Wilson, have you a comment?
Ms. Wilson: National Chief Atleo makes some really significant points in terms of us being within, perhaps, the first generation or two of Metis people to attend universities and to have those opportunities. Within the context of the Metis institutions that currently exist, we have 30-plus years of experience in capacity-building to deliver to our communities post-secondary education that has a cultural basis.
I do note that National Chief Atleo made the very important connection between culture and education. I do not think it is any accident that the Metis institutions within Western Canada are founded not only to promote education but also have that basis in culture, because culture is absolutely significant when tied to education.
One thing that I will say is that the capacity has been built over the past 30-plus years, and I think that the foundation exists and needs to be built on for Metis education.
The Chair: Given the time for the first panel and the number of speakers I have, we have five minutes each for a combination of questions and answers.
Senator Eaton: As you can see, we are fascinated and want to do our best from this report.
Chief Atleo, you certainly reinforce something that we have found in this committee; your father was obviously very educated. He ended up with a post-graduate degree, he had a doctorate, which is one of the things we found. People were more likely to go to university and finish university if their parents had gone to university; you are obviously very much a product of that.
You have a target that you want to hit of 65,000 graduates in the next five years. There are obviously more young Metis and First Nations people ending up in urban centres, but there are still many very isolated communities. Do you have a different program to get kids from both areas to postgraduate education? If so, can you tell us about the different tools you are using for isolated people and urban people?
Mr. Atleo: I took my master's degree while I was the executive director of a family addictions treatment centre in a rural setting adjacent to my village. I studied through the four universities that were articulated. I was the first cohort of this program. We are still at the early stages. My son was trying to research how he could do an online learning program while working with the community in Vancouver where he is residing.
Senator Eaton: Did you do your studies online?
Mr. Atleo: I did it all online. We have yet to grow that opportunity in a manner that recognizes the realities of both urban and rural life.
The recent Aboriginal urban peoples study done by Environics was helpful. It contained a number of indicators. It found that, as in any other culture, people have a strong desire to retain links with family, culture, language, et cetera. It is no different for indigenous peoples. The distinction here is that, under government policy, those divides are perpetrated. The fact that we only have a one-generation experience in my family is the exception, not the rule. I think that is fair to say for many indigenous peoples who are in their second generation of post-secondary education success now.
We are seeking recognition that it is not so much that we have indigenous peoples who are living either in a rural setting or in an urban setting as it is to understand more deeply why people go where they go and stay where they stay. For 20 years I tried to get a house in my village, to no avail. I finally do have a home in my village, but it took me over 20 years to get it. My interest has always been to go home and be at home, then I end up in Ottawa. Go figure.
The important thing is to drill down and understand more deeply the dynamics that have led to where people are residing. I have lived both in the urban setting and in the reserve setting, my home setting.
Treaty No. 3 said, ``You give me your child and I will give you my child, and we will raise them so that they understand each other in each other's ways.'' We have not done that. We still have people graduating from post- secondary education who do not know about the treaties, the indigenous peoples or the real history of this country. We have not done ourselves a great service on educational supports for indigenous peoples or on raising awareness among the average Canadian about the relationship with the community just across the river, the bridge or the railway track.
In response to your question, it must not be just about how we will deliver education in the rural or the urban setting. Rather, let us establish a manner in which the communities help design and create that. There will not be a one- size-fits-all solution. We need to create a framework, recognize that the need exists, engage the indigenous peoples to help design a way forward, and recognize that the treaty right to education is still a part of the framework of this country.
That has not been the experience. We began with the notion that INAC is doing a review. How is it that we will be involved in reforming or strengthening it if there is internal work going on with which we are not intimate? The relationship with government is an important aspect, but we need to reach out to civil society, the philanthropic community and to business and industry. They all have important things to say, as does academia, in delivering education, and they are far from receptive, in my view. I suggest they are still, by and large, asking our people to leave their language and cultural ties at the door. We will continue to encourage the learning systems to recognize that they are in some ways perpetuating the legacy of the residential schools era if we do not return to a manner in which education respects and reflects the way First Nations University of Canada has done for our learners. The process as well will be critical.
Senator Brazeau: Welcome to all of you. My question deals specifically with the Macdonald-Laurier discussion paper entitled Free to Learn.
Before turning to that, I would like to commend you, National Chief Atleo, for being an advocate for education. Obviously, education is a key component for our First Nations people to get out of poverty-stricken situations. I think we agree on that. How we think we should get there may vary a little, but I think that at the very least we have the best interests of students in mind. I believe that it is more important that students have access to the available resources than is who is administering them.
Let us get back to the position paper, Free to Learn, which was co-authored by David Snow and our Aboriginal colleague Calvin Helin, who is from B.C. That paper highlights some of the problems with the current post-secondary education program and its delivery in terms of some First Nations having recorded some surpluses over the years on funding, and also funding that has been utilized for ineligible expenses. There have been questions of nepotism and favouritism with the available funds. Education funding has been used for purposes other than education. That was agreed upon by INAC officials in a committee yesterday, where we talked about post-secondary education as well. Let us face it; post-secondary education has very little results-based criteria attached to its funding agreements. This has been highlighted not only in this paper but also by INAC, which has conducted their own internal audit on their post- secondary education program.
I will read one bullet from the conclusions which summarizes what I want to say:
The funding authorities currently in use, coupled with the limited tracking of how funds are spent, do not support the sound stewardship of Program funds.
Obviously there are many more recommendations.
Many Aboriginal students have also testified in that respect, as well as Aboriginal experts in education. Given your role as head of the Assembly of First Nations, what are your views with respect to this position paper? It is obviously moving beyond the status quo. Do you believe that the chiefs across the country would generally support this type of model? I hear you talk about First Nation control over First Nation education, and I am hearing that perhaps First Nations communities should administer those funds. In my opinion, who better to administer those funds than Aboriginal students themselves? That, in itself, would be First Nations control over First Nations education.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this position paper.
Mr. Atleo: Here is the opportunity. Senator, the points you raise around how resources are administered and managed are important ones. We share the notion that we have an opportunity at this juncture. Let us create the kinds of performance measurement, data collection and accountability types of instruments that will, as Mr. Leclair articulated, produce quality results, and begin from there.
It is critical that we talk about accountability from this perspective, because we need to have in context issues of how resources are utilized and raised, and the implications of misuse.
As far as financial management is concerned, of the 557 audits conducted by INAC in 2002 and 2003, problems of any kind were found in only 16 cases. That is less than 3 per cent. These problems range from matters as simple as a lack of full documentation to more serious accounting irregularities, the likes of which may include what you are talking about.
According to the standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 96 per cent of First Nations have no accountability issues of any kind, meaning they are fully compliant with all rules and regulations. The fact that there is a fiscal accountability issue of any kind in less than 5 per cent of cases compares favourably with all of non-Aboriginal society, whether applied to government, business or individuals.
First we have to have the accountability conversation in context. Where I strongly agree is that there is a shared issue of accountability. There are charges made towards First Nations by a small minority, the likes of which I think this information articulates, but there are also First Nations that have issues with accountability back to the government. They are writing a report to INAC on issues like education once every three days. Who is reading those reports? Sixty thousand reports are landing on the desks of government.
Rather than having a ``he said — she said'' conversation, we need to get to what you are focused on, which is success in education. I wanted to respond to that first, and then I am happy to speak to the second aspect.
The Chair: Unfortunately, the five minutes are gone. It goes quickly. I have a clock here, I know. I am sorry about that. Maybe we can get back to it, or maybe one of your colleagues will help you pursue it.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations. They were very much appreciated. I am from Saskatchewan, where the population has a high percentage of both Metis and First Nation individuals. As you mentioned in your presentation, Chief Atleo, Saskatchewan is home to the only First Nations-controlled university, the First Nations University of Canada, which is in rather dire straits with regard to funding. Part of that, I think, may be due to the fact that it goes to the way in which post-secondary institutions are funded. From what I can gather from the internal audit done on Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in January 2009, the First Nations University of Canada is the only institution funded through the Indian Studies Support Program, the ISSP, funds.
How do we get around the funding dilemma? The First Nations University has turned around dramatically within the last couple of months, but the federal government has not restored full funding. What should be done?
Mr. Atleo: I commend the work that is happening in Saskatchewan. My colleague on our national executive, Regional Chief Lonechild is rightfully pursuing this issue, with a strong push from the students. The students are saying that this institution is important; it reflects and respects who we are. This alludes to my earlier point about the need for us to strengthen the recognition and promote the long-term viability of institutions like the First Nations University of Canada.
When considering the governance challenges it has had, McGill, U of T and even Harvard ran into governance problems. You have institutions that have been around for a century that, in their time, ran into governance issues. Ours are still young and developing, and they need to be supported. We need to gravitate to supporting the First Nations University of Canada.
This does ladder to Senator Brazeau's points and questions around the report itself and the support for students. First Nations chiefs are looking to have the title in rights and treaties for which they have guardianship responsibilities. They see the First Nations University of Canada as one such example of how an institution is created that reflects and respects their culture, their people and their governments.
There is also the idea of rebuilding nations, rebuilding communities and reconnecting families. I would certainly not be sitting here if it were not for my tribal council-directed education support that facilitated not only my education, making sure the resources were there, but the links back to family and community.
I know, for our tribal council, one of the first things they asked was, ``Shawn, will you come back after you get your degree and help out in Nuu-chah-nulth?'' I spent years not only working in addictions treatment but I was also on the political executive.
My quick response is that it must be supported, sustainably and for the long term. Governments must move to recognize more properly the place of these institutions to help the rebuilding of our families but, importantly, to build the potential of this country that I think we all feel has been missed when it comes to indigenous young people.
The Chair: Do either of our other two panellists want to weigh in on this issue?
Mr. Leclair: It goes to the point I was making earlier, which is the role the federal government should play in supporting First Nations and Metis institutions that rely either on core funding or funding primarily by the provinces. We think it is an appropriate role for the federal government to support the Gabriel Dumont Institute, the Louis Riel Institute and the First Nations University. It should be part of the federal role.
The reason we say that is when it comes to the social transfers, where the $3.4 billion gets cut up for the provinces on a per capita basis, it is supposed to go to post-secondary education. We see no assurances that we are getting our fair share of resources based on per capita. In the absence of that kind of accountability framework, I think it is appropriate that the federal government provide the funding directly.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentation. I will be quite brief, and I would ask that you try to be as brief as possible in your answers so that we could get to everyone who wants to ask a question.
I am a bit concerned, and I support absolutely the approach to higher education and post-secondary education. Chief Atleo, I would like to see, in your presentation, something more about what we are seeing in the Metis studies on post-secondary education, and that is a leaning towards community colleges and apprenticeship programs. I am very worried about the ratio of kids that drop out at the grade six level and do not go on because they do not see anything. Maybe they do not want to go to university. We need to provide another way for them to use their talents in the same way we do everywhere else.
Have you considered community colleges, apprenticeship programs, that kind of thing?
Mr. Atleo: Yes, and I fully agree.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you.
Mr. Leclair, this is quite an impressive book you have here. I did not actually hear your response to the chair's question to you on where you think the funding should be directed. Should it be as a response in the report with regard to funding? Should it be directed to individuals or to band councils? I did not quite hear your response to that.
Mr. Atleo: This will require a little longer response. This refers back to the important need that First Nations have been articulating for decades, of a jointly designed response. What is important here is that the full response is not just my intervention here; it is to reflect the fact that First Nations need to be fully involved in designing that response. If there was an economist's suggestion, a well-thought-through notion that we should pursue 65,000 post-secondary graduates in the next five years, it is only a point of entry.
To your point about apprenticeships, my brother is an electrician. To the point about community colleges, this is not only focused on the 65,000. This is an all-hands-on-deck, full education effort that is required. As such, it is not about any singular suggestion that wins the day here. The idea of financing individuals, for example, that someone gets resources when they are born; that may be one element of a 25-year plan.
What is required in this country right now is to bring change to scale, and to do it now and to do it jointly. I do not think it is a matter of accepting or rejecting any one singular notion. It is about recognizing that we still need to give effect to the treaty relationship, section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, Articles 21 and 14 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which this government has indicated a willingness to embrace, which includes designing approaches that include culture and language.
I have not seen how it is that supporting an individual will address the full complexity of the rebuilding of nations, the linking of individuals with language and culture. Those elements need to be fully discussed because First Nations have had that as their objective. That is what Indian control of Indian education is about, and that is still what First Nations control of First Nations education is about. It does require a more fulsome contemplation and response, respectfully, to some of these questions.
The Assembly of First Nations as one group is fully prepared to be a full partner in helping to come to those solutions, as we have demonstrated, through things such as specific claims. It resulted in a major reform of something that we have been trying to do unsuccessfully for 30 years. We have a similar issue; we have a similar opportunity.
Senator Eaton: If there were a fund created at the birth of each indigenous child, they could choose to go anywhere. If you get the marks, you could go to McGill, the University of Saskatchewan; you could go anywhere. The world is your oyster. Do you agree with that or do you feel they should be streamed back towards their native culture, even if they want to go somewhere else?
Mr. Atleo: If this is a nation-to-nation discussion, then you have that discussion with the leaders of those nations to design an approach that helps rebuild those nations. It is for those nations to determine the sorts of tools that will give effect to the treaty right to education, or whether those approaches take it away. That is up to the chiefs and for the leaders of nations to determine.
We have a report with some ideas, and it is one such report with a few ideas. We have the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; we have innumerable reports that go back to the 1970s, and I think it is time that First Nations leaders and government work together to see the best way to go forward to get the maximum benefit.
I will reiterate the fact that the residential schools were an externally-imposed, unilaterally-designed approach that was not a joint effort. We are still feeling the repercussions, and will do so for generations. What is important now is that we are in a period to give effect to the apology that the Prime Minister offered: that to divide families like that, to pull language away was so destructive. We will hear about it in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the next five years. Education needs to be the tool that supports and recognizes that, and so I would strongly suggest that we need to get to that sort of approach that helps to reconcile between peoples.
Senator Brazeau: I do not mean any disrespect, but I am hearing a lot of the nation-to-nation talk, honouring treaties and nation building, which I do not disagree with, but we are talking about the post-secondary education program and ensuring that Aboriginal students have access to resources so that they can get an adequate education similar to non-Aboriginal Canadians in this country. Having said that, I come back to my earlier point with respect to what the Assembly of First Nations and the chiefs are ready to do in terms of ensuring that those students have access to those funds, because you did talk about accountability. You were talking about accountability in general.
The accountability I was referring to is the testimony heard by INAC officials on post-secondary education only in which they also admitted that they did not have the staff to look at all the reports that are being filed and are not in a position to fully assess if funding is being properly spent or not, yet we hear a lot of ``We need more money.''
What is the position of the AFN with respect to the Calvin Helin/Dave Snow paper? If we do not have time to do it, I would certainly appreciate a written response to be forwarded to the committee.
Mr. Atleo: I would certainly look to the chiefs for their fulsome response, if they chose to do so. What I can say unequivocally is that First Nations chiefs and First Nations governments are certainly committed to supporting all their citizens, wherever they reside, to have success in education. If the resources were there, if the 2 per cent cap had not been in place since 1996 and there had not been a $2 billion shortfall in funding, those young people would be in schools and could be connected with the rebuilding of nations, overcoming the disconnect that has been facilitated by government policy for 100 years, and so that is the position that we find ourselves in.
With equal respect to this committee, this is an example of the types of division that have occurred even within and amongst indigenous people, and so we have some choices to make. Will we take decisions that will further perpetuate that situation and drive divisions between and amongst indigenous peoples, or will we create the space that removes us from positional types of conversations and becomes about solving the problems in something like education?
I would still suggest that it is not just about closing the gap on equity, or having the same education. Things have been thrust on our people, which is something we both very well know. We can and have the choice to go to a mainstream institution. What we hear from those who go to First Nations University of Canada, or to other indigenous institutions, is that this has been the filling of a deep gap.
Those post-secondary institutes have only been in place for a short period of time. I used to run one. I would have a learner come in and say ``Shawn, this is my first time in Canada. I grew up in California. I do not know where Ahousaht is; I hear that is where I came from.'' He came from my village and he had never been in this country. He was part of the 1960s scoop. That is an example of a division through policy that we inherited. That person came to my institution, was able to be reconnected to his roots, community and nation, and as such has a full and well-informed choice about how it is to interact with his home nation. We are then in a position to help facilitate that option whereas, up until now, we have not been.
When we decide on solutions for education, to think deeply about the implications, are we perpetuating that same sense of historic division that our people have experienced? I would suggest that we have a responsibility to the notion of reconciling between not only indigenous peoples but indigenous peoples in and out of the country.
The Chair: Senator Martin, you are next, but I am just about out of time. If you can make it a quick question and we can get a quick answer, then we will be done.
Senator Martin: I will make some quick observations and maybe ask you to reflect on it rather than respond. You exemplify the best of both worlds where you are leaders in your community, great role models, and being part of the Canadian system, sort of a world within a world, with the Aboriginal culture and heritage that you embody. In a way, I see myself in a similar place being between the two worlds and taking the best of both.
I do absolutely agree with you about the importance of the partnership. I also know that, in terms of education, money is important and the finances must be in place. That is important. We all agree. In addition to that, there can be all the money in the world but unless we have a true support network for the students, that will not be enough.
Because we are out of time, I would love to hear about some of the things you are doing, additional resources such as mentorship programs, such as the career counselling as well as family counselling that will be required. The partners also include the home and the extended family, and then also a little bit of the cultural counselling. Just as new Canadians have to integrate into culture, when students leave the reserve integration will be important. I would like to hear about these kinds of programs that you may have in place already and, if not, what you have thought about as leaders to prepare your students to go out into this world.
Sixty-five thousand is a great goal. As you said, next year is your sixtieth year to have that access to post-secondary education. As a community, I think you are doing a very good job. When you look back on your history, it is only within about the last 60 years that this has happened. I think that concerted effort and a wrap-around approach will be very important, and government is an important partner in that initiative.
The Chair: Are there any closing thoughts or reflection on what Senator Martin said from any of the panelists?
Mr. Leclair: I appreciate the comments. Let me say that you try to do the best you can with what you have. I cannot think of another area that would be a better investment than post-secondary education, both for the individuals and for the institutions. It is simply a no-brainer. We appreciate the time you took to hear from us, and we look forward to your report.
Mr. Alteo: I am equally appreciative of the interaction. I think we need to grow the circle. I have been meeting with philanthropic groups, business and industry. We need to work on, improve and recognize that the relationship with government is only one of a number of relationships that we need to continue to develop.
We also need to build a culture of learning and education amongst all of our peoples, because it is still very new. You are absolutely correct. We definitely need support in addressing this initiative. We are very appreciative of the committee taking its time on this.
Ms. Wilson: I will echo my appreciation for your interest in Metis post-secondary education and for your questions here today.
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you. You have informed us well. It is part of the information we were seeking.
In the second panel, we are pleased to welcome Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal peoples. Formerly known as the Native Council of Canada, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was founded in 1971. It describes itself as a national organization dedicated to defending the interests of more than 800,000 off-reserve Indian, Inuit and Metis people living in cities, rural areas and remote regions across Canada.
Ms. Lavallée has an extensive background in administration, transportation, business and leadership management. She has been active on numerous boards as a director, both provincially and nationally, as well as on committees that have dealt with Aboriginal issues. She was also a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for approximately 17 years where she was awarded the Canadian Forces Decoration, a Commendation Formation Level and the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal. With her is Roger Hunka, National Bilateral Director for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Chief Lavallée will make some comments and Mr. Hunka is here to answer questions.
Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Good evening, honourable senators. It is an honour to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I would like to thank the Algonquin people on whose traditional ancestral homelands we are assembled.
I am the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. For almost 40 years the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, as a national Aboriginal representative organization, has represented the interest of off-reserve non-status and status Indian and Metis Aboriginal peoples living in urban, rural, remote and isolated areas throughout Canada. We are also the national voice for the constituency and their affiliate organizations making up the congress family of advocates for off- reserve Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Trite, but worthy to repeat, Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the highest dropout rates and the lowest levels of literacy. Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the lowest levels of skills development and are most unprepared for the challenges and opportunities associated with the technology era. Aboriginal women have children at younger ages compared to non-Aboriginal women. Aboriginal men and women attending post-secondary education programs often have overwhelming family responsibilities. The population of Aboriginal peoples in Canada is younger than the non- Aboriginal population and is estimated to grow at 2.3 times that of the non-Aboriginal population. Aboriginal men and women, as a norm, attend post-secondary or technical education far later in life.
The Aboriginal population by ancestry is now two million. According to the 2006 census, Canadians with Aboriginal identity are recorded at 1,172,785. The median age of an Aboriginal in Canada is 26.5 years. Aboriginal children, youth and young Aboriginal families are moving in waves towards larger urban and rural centres, expecting to realize the promise that is Canada: better education, more training skills, more long-term and diverse employment opportunities, better living conditions and an opportunity to realize the dreams and aspirations of a family, home and security.
Against this backdrop, it is clear that both the federal and provincial governments must do more than document the current barriers, challenges and problems with funding and transfer mechanisms for access to education by Aboriginal peoples throughout Canada. The time has come to decide on collaborative solutions that must be implemented as part of the reform to the expansive realm of education.
For many decades, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has shared issues and possible solutions. These can be found in presentations that the congress has made, including to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples; the Kelowna, Canada Aboriginal Peoples Roundtables; Lifelong Learning 1: Early Childhood Development and Kindergarten to Grade 12; Lifelong Learning 2: Post-Secondary Education and Skills Development; the presentation to the Canadian Ministers of Education Council; and our most recent voluntary involvement and contribution to the Aboriginal Affairs Working Group on Lifelong Learning, a document in preparation for the Council of the Federation Meeting scheduled for 2010. These documents and more reiterate the issues and solutions. Reform at the preschool and elementary levels to post-secondary education onward through to lifelong learning is necessary. The solutions for reform must be collaboratively researched and developed. Decision makers must adopt some Aboriginal world view perspectives, which in themselves would significantly reduce the poor performance of Aboriginal youth at the preschool, elementary and high school levels. I am talking about an urgent need to introduce into the curriculum and teaching delivery systems an appreciation for the more visible, tangible and oratorical transfer of knowledge, which is a more natural way for Aboriginal children and youth to learn.
In 2010, we must expend time to truly understand both the reasons for barriers and the solutions which can break down or remove these barriers. Often, these barriers are not just economic but may be the result of physical displacement or apprehension about loss of culture or identity when learning, or immersed in a predominant society's culture and environment. A system of cultural connectivity, daily or for a few hours a week, can address that apprehension. Yet, this simple tool, studied and used around the world, does not appear within the Canadian provincial education system as a norm. If the preschool, elementary and secondary school system is not retooled to accommodate or reduce some clear, known barriers to Aboriginal people's access and chance of success at the high school level, then we will not realize or effect any increase in the number of Aboriginal post-secondary graduates. We need to increase the number and quality of Aboriginal high school graduates who could then continue to complete post-secondary studies or take up skills or specialized training and thus measurably improve their socio-economic situation within the Canadian federation.
Lifelong learning requires research and education systems that address the learning needs of Aboriginal peoples. A holistic approach must be taken when examining the accessibility of post-secondary education in Canada for Aboriginal peoples. Post-secondary education cannot be addressed without examining the child from birth, home nurturing, mothering with language, good nutrition, a healthy head start interface and providing accessible preschool, elementary and secondary education which celebrate the diversity of our Aboriginal peoples.
Accessibility and achievement within the education system cannot be achieved without first researching and implementing measures to reduce the incidence of Aboriginal people's poor standing within the social economic hierarchy of Canada. Poor social economic status of Aboriginal peoples prevents many of our students from pursuing post-secondary education because the prospects of meaningful employment are seen and witnessed to be dim or futile.
We appreciate the 5 per cent of the Canadian population which consists of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada cannot be as visible as 50 per cent of the Canadian population. However, if 5 per cent of Aboriginal post-secondary graduates could acquire or be showcased as welcome tangible successes, that in itself would help to create a wave towards more success and greater hope. We must show to an Aboriginal person that success is within reach when you have a good education or skills that are in demand. The social and economic plight of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada cannot be addressed in a piecemeal approach. A holistic, collaborative understanding, design and implementation of a suite of solutions, with time, can make a difference.
With respect to post-secondary education, the current investment in post-secondary education for Aboriginal peoples has become a ``cash cow'' for universities and institutions. The four-year maximum before funding cut-off is unrealistic and begs to see a far reduced number of post-secondary graduates.
The only students who currently receive funding for post-secondary education are status Indians through the Post- Secondary Student Support Program provided by the Department of Indian Affairs. However, problems with administrative accountability and transparency at the band level prevent and exclude many status Indians from accessing post-secondary funding to which they are entitled, for no other reason than that they do not live on their reserve. Perhaps the solution is to have stand-alone, national Aboriginal peoples' post-secondary education trust funds established and administered by non-partisan administrators.
We have a good example in the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. On both counts, graduates assisted through the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation point to a singular fact, namely, that their greatest encouragement to pursue post-secondary studies comes from a role model and the help which the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation provided. That model can be replicated and expanded for greater impact and greater results. The private sector is ready to help. We maintain that the provincial governments must begin to invest into such a trust fund or establish on their own a provincial Aboriginal peoples' post-secondary education trust fund. There are many options and solutions available. We need to seriously put them out on the table, examine them and collaboratively implement them.
CAP maintains that funding for post-secondary education should be made available to all Aboriginal peoples, regardless of their status or place of residency. The federal and provincial governments have a shared responsibility to equally ensure for Aboriginal peoples, as they must do for non-Aboriginals, that adequate funding or post-secondary funding mechanisms are available to all the Aboriginal peoples who are deserving and aspire to improve their social and economic standing within the federation of Canada through higher education or lifelong learning.
The jurisdictional disputes over Aboriginal peoples that occur between the federal, provincial and territorial governments must stop. The festering of jurisdictional haggling precludes and, indeed, has hindered any momentum for Aboriginal education at all levels and, most particularly, at the preschool, elementary, high school and post- secondary levels.
There have been a few options presented for the reform of post-secondary education funding. It is too soon to decide which funding option is the most adequate because all the options need to be examined in a more detailed and in direct consultation with Aboriginal peoples. The Educational Policy Institute gave five options to replace the PSSP program as follows: status quo with improvement in accountability; administration by a regional First Nations education organization; administration by a pan-Canadian First Nations foundation; direct administration by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; and direct administration by HRSDC.
A recently released written report suggests a program similar to RESPs. The report, although well written, does raise certain questions. For instance, it recommends that $4,000 be invested at birth so that by the time the student reaches university, there will be $20,000 available for education. It costs $20,000 now for one degree. In 20 years, $20,000 will not be enough. The report also does not account for funding graduate programs or post-graduate degrees.
There is an obvious absence of any support to Aboriginal graduates pursuing post-graduate degrees, whether it be a masters or a doctorate. Professors who want to take on graduates are hindered because they do not have access to funds to support aspiring Aboriginal graduates pursuing their masters or doctorate degrees. We have examples of professors taking on Aboriginal students and having to scrounge for funding to support the students' research. This should not happen in Canada.
Although there are problems of accountability with the Post-Secondary Student Support Program, it is the only INAC program that has proved successful for Aboriginal peoples living on reserves and registered under the Indian Act. Perhaps options for improving accountability need to be considered more closely so that we do not lose sight of the goal for Aboriginal students to realize the promise that is Canada, in whatever field or endeavour they choose.
As for the transfer of funds from the federal government to the provinces for post-secondary education, this issue requires more examination than what can and will be discussed here today. Control over education, including funding, must be a shared responsibility with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Options for transferring funds to provincial governments need to be considered. CAP's experience with the provincial administration of funds has demonstrated clearly that the provinces have not matured enough to recognize the different and distinct needs of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples. This is because they have spent years fighting a jurisdictional battle rather than working with CAP affiliates to solve such issues.
With respect to the evaluation of the current mechanisms to fund scientific research and development in post- secondary institutions, again, this issue requires more examination. This issue should be examined by, and in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples. Let us bring together successful Aboriginal peoples in this field and find out what obstacles they had to overcome and how they overcame them to achieve their current standing.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples supports the intent of the federal government's commitment to examine and improve the accessibility of post-secondary education programs. However, the issue needs to be examined more closely and discussed directly with both on- and off-reserve Aboriginal peoples themselves. Let us not forget that within a few months of this date, we will have anywhere from 50,000 to 75,000 Aboriginal peoples newly listed under the Indian Act, and with that, many prospective students.
Canada has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples, and that duty must be honoured in good faith during the examination of the accessibility to post-secondary education. CAP and our affiliate organizations want to be engaged on this issue. Transparency and good faith in communication are necessary if true reconciliation is to occur.
CAP is committed to working with both levels of government on this issue because education at all levels is a fundamental step for Aboriginal peoples to take in the life-long learning journey to realize the promise that is Canada for all the peoples of Canada.
The Chair: Thank you for those well-thought-out remarks.
I will ask you the same question I asked the last panel, although you have already answered some of it. If you want to address it further, that is fine.
We have had two previous meetings on the question of Aboriginal peoples' access to post-secondary education. In the first meeting, we heard from INAC officials that they had begun a review on post-secondary education. That was followed by a reiteration of that, and some specific wording that was used to that effect by the Finance Minister in the budget. That is one issue.
An issue that arose at our last meeting, which was raised extensively with the last panel, was the report done for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute by Calvin Helin and David Snow with respect to changing directions in how we fund post-secondary education for Aboriginal peoples. If you have anything further to add to that, now is the time.
Ms. Lavallée: CAP itself has not been involved in the review being undertaken currently by INAC.
The Chair: Has not been involved?
Ms. Lavallée: Has not been.
The Chair: They have not invited you?
Ms. Lavallée: No, so I cannot respond to what they may or may not be doing at this time. I have seen the report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute by Calvin Helin and David Snow. As a matter of fact, it was sent to me by the gentlemen to look at. Within this document is the concept they are promoting about the RESP.
The Chair: You said that was not enough.
Ms. Lavallée: They are on the right track, I would say, but it is not quite enough to address the other issues. I think if we sat down with that report and with the Aboriginal people and the leadership and we explored it further, as we have said in our briefing, these are good ideas, and some of them are on the right track, but we need to sit down, discuss it and look into the future. It is $20,000 with a base of $4,000. When you look 20 years into the future, $20,000 will not cover costs. They have not addressed the needs of those who may wish to obtain doctorates or masters degrees. We have been getting calls from universities seeking resources from us to help some of these students, which is something Mr. Hunka and I could talk to. Mr. Hunka has had more in-depth discussions with the professor involved in this particular situation.
We believe there are bits and pieces of the Macdonald-Laurier report that have merit, but I think, again, it will take having that open debate and keeping in mind that this is not about Aboriginal organizations or the leaders; this is about designing something that will empower our children to be able to compete in the next century.
The Chair: Frankly, I am quickly getting the impression that this report and its direction could well produce a very divisive discussion within the Aboriginal community vis-à-vis the controls that traditionally have been exercised by the Indian bands. Do you see it that way?
Ms. Lavallée: Sometimes it is an issue of sitting down together and putting the politics aside to realize what is best for the child. That is not easy. No one said it would be easy. You are dealing with 100 years of learned behaviours. As with any learned behaviour, it becomes an educational process to unlearn those behaviours and to put one's own desires and self aside.
The Chair: Well said.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for being here. I have a couple of questions and one comment for the record to begin with.
In terms of the internal review that is being undertaken with respect to post-secondary education by the Department of Indian Affairs, no national Aboriginal organization has had any invitation or participation in that. It is internal to INAC until they issue a report for the minister to consider in terms of recommendations to move forward. I just wanted to put that on record.
My questions are: How many of CAP's members have access to post-secondary education monies? How many are not able to access it? You mentioned something in that regard in your presentation. How does CAP assist individuals who cannot access the funding because of the fact that they live off-reserve?
Ms. Lavallée: I cannot give you a global number, but I can speak to my own province where I was president and chief for 14 years. Very few people have access to post-secondary education monies unless they were related to someone on the reserve that has access to that funding. Normally, the excuse was that individuals on reserve had priority, or the money had already been allotted.
In order to assist our kids in school, we had an educational fund. We received a small $15,000 per year grant from the province, and out of that grant we gave the high schools small bursaries of $50 per year to offset school costs like locker fees, et cetera. For those going from high school to university, we provided $500 bursaries. For those who were already in a post-secondary institution, we had a scholarship called the Mildred Nash Award, which was for recognition in the area of excellence for an Aboriginal student who maintained a 3.5 grade point average.
The rest of the money went to what we called low-income families, who had to be under the poverty line. They provided us with receipts for books, pencils and clothing for their children. We had a formula based on the number of children and the income level. We were able to help them out with $100 or $200 a year to assist in that area. That was done with a $15,000 a year grant from the province.
Over 20-some-odd years, from that small bursary, we have produced Dr. Pam Palmater, who is now a professor at Ryerson, heading up the new Aboriginal department. We have produced a couple of engineers. We have produced four or five social workers. We have three accountants with masters' degrees. I could provide more examples.
Senator Brazeau: Just prior to your appearance, we had the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations. He mentioned that the chiefs look after their citizens wherever they live.
Knowing the mandate of your organization, let us take this hypothetical. You mentioned in your presentation that approximately 50,000 to 75,000 individuals may be eligible under the Indian Act to regain their status. What would happen, after these individuals are reinstated and have access to post-secondary education funding, and this funding goes to on-reserve communities, when the majority of these individuals currently live off-reserve? Being the political organization that represents Aboriginal people who live off-reserve, what would be your views or your position on that?
Ms. Lavallée: For clarification, are you asking what will probably happen?
Senator Brazeau: What would be your view? The post-secondary funding, which you have already mentioned is a problem for off-reserve status Indians to access, what will happen if those funds go to the chiefs to deliver?
Ms. Lavallée: First, we know that will not happen, that the funding will not get delivered off-reserve. We know that if it is the current status quo, and if those funds are not expended by year end, they get to dump them into their general band coffers. The position I will probably have to take — which I would not want to, but I do not think I have much choice — would be to launch a human rights challenge.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for your presentation. You have a lot of good ideas. On page 8, you mention that the Education Policy Institute gave five options. The status quo with improvements and accountability is that the money is going to the bands and they make the decisions as to which students get the money, right?
Ms. Lavallée: At this particular point in time, that is what happens, except that accountability is somewhat lacking. As I said, these are just options, but options that have to be looked at more closely and discussed.
Senator Callbeck: I realize that. I want to fully understand the five options.
Ms. Lavallée: Do I like that option? No.
Senator Callbeck: Which option do you like here?
Ms. Lavallée: I would like to see all the Aboriginal organizations come together and look at everything that is being proposed. Bring to the table the Laurier document, bring the internal review that INAC is doing, bring this educational policy, bring the material from the Royal Commission, and let us bring in the Aboriginal peoples who have experienced the institution or the process. Let us see where there is common ground and where we can or cannot agree to some of these things and establish a clear set of rules of why we are there.
This is not about AFN, CAP, MNC, Native Women's Association of Canada or any of the national organizations. This is about our children. Our job as leaders is to look at all options that are available to improve the lives of our children. That starts with in the womb, because lifelong learning is just that, from conception to death. I have always been told that the minute you stop learning, you are dead. That would be my preferred option.
Senator Callbeck: Looking at these options, where it says ``direct administration of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,'' that means that department would determine which students get the funding?
Ms. Lavallée: That would mean that there would have to be some criteria set up. Indian and Northern Affairs will have to realize that they are no longer just responsible for status Indians. They will have to realize that there are non- status Indians out there and it will require a different approach to their way of thinking.
Senator Callbeck: All of these options, except for the first one, would be putting the money into the hands of the student?
Ms. Lavallée: Hopefully, yes.
Senator Brazeau: You mentioned in your presentation that one of the things that both the federal and provincial governments must do is to stop talking about the barriers and the funding challenges. Being an organization and knowing your makeup of provincial affiliate organizations, what type of lobbying efforts or work have those organizations done with the provincial governments to ensure that the transfers from the federal to provincial governments are, in fact, being spent on Aboriginal education? What efforts have you made in that respect?
Ms. Lavallée: At this particular point in time, we are participating in the provincial sessions with the ministers of Aboriginal affairs. One of the items on the agenda is education. That will be coming up in Toronto. We are working with the Canadian education ministers, and we will all be getting together.
It starts at the top, which is me, speaking to the Aboriginal affairs ministers and saying that the status quo is no longer acceptable. We are officers of Aboriginal peoples who pay taxes, who use the public schools for the most part. If you live in certain areas, you also pay what they call service fees to access certain school provisions. They can no longer bury their heads in the sand and pretend we are not there. They will have to start working with our provincial affiliates to ensure that all Aboriginal peoples are captured in that initiative and that we are meeting all the needs.
It starts with me introducing my provincial-territorial organizations to the proper people in the provinces and having them set up meetings with the various ministers or deputy ministers who have responsibility for some of these areas and providing them with the necessary administrative support, whether research reports, documents or advice. Sometimes, depending on the PTO, they might require a little bit of a push, and we try to assist them in that respect to get them to a comfort level of meeting with some of the different departments. Some of our leaders are still a little shy, or feel a little intimidated to meet with some of these people.
Senator Brazeau: What would happen if a province decided not to work with you?
Ms. Lavallée: I would have to keep bugging them until I wear them out, and they will just work with me to get rid of me.
The Chair: That is the only thing you can do, is bug those politicians.
I will now move to Senator Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Martin: I am fine. Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Eaton, from Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Educate me, Ms. Lavallée. You represent urban Aboriginals and what does the AFN represent?
Ms. Lavallée: Reserves.
Senator Eaton: Do they get the money and you do not?
Ms. Lavallée: They live on reserves that fall under the Indian Act. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, formerly known as the Native Council of Canada, advocates on behalf of off-reserve Aboriginal peoples in urban, rural, remote and isolated areas, from Newfoundland to B.C.
Senator Eaton: Are you off-reserve?
Ms. Lavallée: Yes. Some of us are not registered under the Indian Act.
Senator Eaton: The money the Government of Canada gives every year when the chief comes and sits in the Senate does not cover you. Do you not get a cent of it?
Ms. Lavallée: Not for education.
Senator Eaton: Do you get any of it?
Ms. Lavallée: Not the same as the reserves get. We get what we call block funding from the office of the federal interlocutor. The Minister of Indian Affairs plays a dual role. He is the Minister of Indian Affairs but he is also the minister responsible for the office of the federal interlocutor, which looks after the office for non-status and Metis people of Canada. The funding they get for the majority of Aboriginal peoples in Canada is basically for what they call capacity funding or BOC, basic organization capacity funding, to allow us to set up an administrative body. That is it. Our historical funding with them has been $720,000 a year to cover across Canada.
Senator Eaton: Educate me here again. I thought Aboriginals by droves were moving to urban areas, especially young Aboriginals.
Ms. Lavallée: That is what the studies tell us. They are.
Senator Eaton: Do you agree with those studies?
Roger Hunka, National Bilateral Director, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Yes. The opportunities on reserves are quite limited. Naturally, any youth or any person would come to the city to get a job and to get an education.
Senator Eaton: You should be like anyone else living in this country. You should be able to go anywhere, but that is another discussion.
Is the money moving with the young Aboriginals off-reserve?
Mr. Hunka: No.
Senator Eaton: There is no proportionality that is moving then; you get organization, basically.
Mr. Hunka: Yes.
The Chair: Before we go on, you have raised an interesting matter here. I want to clarify another part of this. The operative word for the student is being a ``registered'' status Indian under the Indian Act. That does not necessarily mean they have to be on the reserve. They could be in an urban area if they are registered.
Ms. Lavallée: That is right.
The Chair: The bands, however, that are connected to the reserves are making the decisions.
Ms. Lavallée: Yes.
The Chair: Do many of those registered of- reserve, in the urban areas, say, get support under this program from the bands?
Ms. Lavallée: No.
The Chair: What is happening for the people you are talking about is that they are going under the regular program the same as any other Canadian would; Canada student loan or whatever?
Ms. Lavallée: Not necessarily. Depending on the situation, most of them would not qualify for student loans.
The Chair: I see. They are caught; they are falling between the cracks, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Hunka: What is important to remember is that there is not enough for the registered students, no matter who they are. There just is not enough. Obviously, as a community that has a certain amount of money, they would have to look at priorities. That is the problem. If you are living off the reserve, some do get it but the majority do not. Those are some of the problems with funding.
The Chair: This is an important point you have raised. Can I stay on this for a minute? Senator Dyck wants to get in on this on a supplementary as well.
Senator Dyck: What you are talking about is the difference in status, and funding is related to status. For instance, I am a status Indian; I live off-reserve, but we talking about funding. I would like to see the data that actually says how many students who are status Indians and who are eligible for funding through Indian Affairs live on-reserve and how many live off-reserve. We have anecdotal evidence, but where do we have the data? You are saying they do not, but I know people who are funded. There are people who live on-reserve who are status, registered Indians. There are people who live off the reserve, some are registered and some are not. If this new bill goes through, my son will be considered a status Indian, but he will not go for post-secondary funding because he already has his post-secondary. The assumption that 65,000 will suddenly swamp the system is not necessarily true.
Senator Eaton: Senator Dyck, what if he lived off-reserve?
Senator Dyck: He is a band member. He would be a band member. He would be eligible for funding as long as he has status. I am a member of my band, as well as having Indian status. It is complicated.
Senator Eaton: It is very complicated but it is something that, at some point, we should have an appendix to the report explaining what makes status and what makes non-status. If someone moves off the reserve and they are not a member of a band, are they looked after?
Senator Dyck: Indian Affairs will only fund, because they are federally obligated to fund, someone registered as an Indian according to the Indian Act. They are federally obligated to fund that way, but if you do not have Indian status, they are not obligated to fund you. There is no federal responsibility. It really boils down to that.
Mr. Hunka: There is a difference between eligibility and getting the funds. The issues here are the barriers to education, the barriers to getting funding. There is not enough funding, number one. As far as responsibility for education is concerned, it is both federal and provincial. It just so happens that the federal government has — because of the breadth in Canada between the East and West Coast, we have a multitude of treaties, a multitude of relationships and all forms of agreements. Some are clearly specified to be supportive of education and the federal government does provide funds. However, the issue is not just the federal funds, as the report says. The provinces have to kick in.
When it comes to a status person, if you are on- or off-reserve, the way it is right now you will go through some communities that are established and have systems, but we have 633 bands in this country. Some are well organized, some are not. The funding that goes to the band that will be administering it is limited. Obviously, you might have on your list 150 people eligible to get funding. Twenty-five of them are living in the community, so obviously you will try to fund those, and then the rest will be down the line. There is a waiting list. It is not a matter of being mean or discriminatory, or whatever. It is just the fact there just is not enough.
One of the issues that CAP has often spoken about, as have others, is that the provinces have to start to kick in for Aboriginal peoples' education. It is not just the federal government's responsibility.
Senator Eaton: There was something Chief Atleo said that I found interesting. This was when he responded to part of my question, and mostly to Senator Brazeau's. When asked about those funds started for each Aboriginal child, yes, it would be considered, but he wanted a government-to- government band. He gave me the impression of wanting to deal with the Indian chiefs. He made no mention of including Ms. Lavallée or being inclusive of everyone. It was ``talk to the bands, talk to us on reserve, do not talk to the community at large.'' That was the impression I got.
Mr. Hunka: That would be a natural answer for the Grand Chief to give because he is the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and they represent the 632 bands. Ms. Lavallée, on the other hand, talks about the persons who are off- reserve. That is where the voices of the advocates come in. We are simply the advocates. We do not have the administrative monies to administer to off-reserve peoples.
Senator Eaton: I will ask you an education question. You talked about the birth-to-death education experience. I am a firm believer in that. I started my volunteer background working in a day nursery clinic that provided nutritional support for pregnant women of modest means. I know how important that is.
What two or three things would you ask each provincial government to do, to begin with? Is it early childhood education or mentoring? What two or three support systems would you like provincial education ministers to start looking at?
Mr. Hunka: At the preschool level, when there is an Aboriginal mother with an Aboriginal child, let those preschools have Aboriginal content, such as an Aboriginal elder or mother sharing the culture and the language. One of the greatest barriers is the fear of losing cultural identity. In other words, if you would have provinces support preschool systems and recognize the diversity of Aboriginal peoples or that of anyone in this country, but focus on Aboriginal childhood. Have a grandpa come in, tell some stories and say a few words. That child feels a sense of belonging, too, and that they are special and separate because their cultural identity is nurtured as it is at home. That is the first part.
Second, many provinces are just getting around to celebrating history month for various Aboriginal peoples. We still do not have that across Canada for all Aboriginal people. It is a very simple thing to do. Let other children in elementary and high schools know that there is an Aboriginal history. We have 73 nations of Aboriginal people with 53 languages all across this nation. It is things like that which allow the child to have a good sense of self-esteem.
At the same time, one must respect that there are differences in learning. People say a child learns. No, every child learns differently. There are the visuals and those who learned better by hearing, translations and oratory skills. Aboriginal children are more tactile and learn best by experience. Have that available.
Also, when getting into science, there is nothing wrong with seeing that there is an Aboriginal world view and a scientific world view. The two are just as important. Share those.
Those are the three things I would do at the school level. That way, getting into the post-secondary level, you have already a sense of self-esteem, a sense of cultural identity and a sense of a different way of doing things.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Mr. Hunka: I am not saying anything new. These have all been documented.
The Chair: Let me close this discussion off by returning to something I said a few moments ago, chief, that was relevant to the Canada Student Loans Program. I was under the impression that those who were off-reserve, particularly those who were not registered — but I understand the point that you are making about even registered off- reserve people — were able to apply for the Canada Student Loans Program. I wonder if you could clarify that. Is it a question of loans versus grants, for example? Is that why they do not apply because more grant money is needed versus loan money? Or do they just not qualify?
Ms. Lavallée: In most cases, the parents' income levels and such are usually figured into the application. In a lot of cases, it is the income of the parents that sometimes influences whether the child gets access to the funding and loans.
The other issue is the thought of having large student loans when finishing their education and the fact that they are being treated differently than their brothers and sisters. You have situations right now where you might have one child in a family that is registered and can access post-secondary education through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and another brother or sister who cannot because they are not registered.
The Chair: I see. It is unequal treatment, is it, even within a family?
Ms. Lavallée: Even within families.
The Chair: How exactly is the parents' income or asset level coming into play here? Does that mean if it is too low, they will not give them the loan?
Ms. Lavallée: If they happen to be over a certain threshold, then they do not qualify.
The Chair: How is that different from the general population?
Ms. Lavallée: We call it our working poor. A lot of these students are not young. As I said, a lot of our people go to school later in life and are on social assistance. Unfortunately, in some cases, the province will claw back dollar for dollar. That is another barrier. It is sort of a vicious circle type of thing.
The Chair: I understand those points. Is there anything else in closing from either of you?
Mr. Hunka: I would like to just follow up on that point. It is also about the prospects. If I do get educated, what are my prospects of getting a job and being able to pay back that loan? There are still certain areas that make things difficult. You are native or not, or you cannot speak such and such a language. There is that whole area that we noted on page 5: ``What are my chances?''
The Chair: Good points. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. With that, our meeting is adjourned. We are back on the subject of post-secondary education again tomorrow, but tomorrow's focus is disabled Canadians, and we have disabled students coming in tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)