Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of September 28, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:47 p.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: Issues concerning First Nations Education).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to all honourable senators and members of the public watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or the website.
I am Senator St. Germain, from British Columbia, and I have the honour of chairing this committee. The mandate of the committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. Given this mandate, the committee has undertaken a study to examine possible strategies for reform concerning First Nations primary and secondary education with a view to improving outcomes. Among other things, the study is focused on the following: tripartite education agreements; governance and delivery structures; and possible legislative frameworks.
I will introduce the members of the committee present this evening. Beginning on my right are Senator Ataullahjan, from Ontario; Senator Raine, from British Columbia; Senator Patterson, from Nunavut; Senator Demers, from Quebec; and Senator Lang, from the Yukon.
Representing the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey are Eleanor Bernard, Executive Director; John Jerome Paul, Director of Program Services; and John Donnelly, Negotiator. From the Union of Ontario Indians — Anishinabek Nation is Murray Maracle, Education Director; and from the Council of Yukon First Nations is Ruth Massie, Grand Chief.
We have many questions to ask because we are in the final stages of this study. I ask that you keep your remarks as concise as possible to give senators an opportunity to question the experiences that you bring to the table.
Ms. Bernard, please proceed with your presentation.
Eleanor Bernard, Executive Director, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey: Thank you for inviting Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey to speak once again to the committee. We have been in operation since 1998, and we have experiences to share. The purpose of our presentation is first to relate how education works for us in terms of self-government and service delivery and education agreements with the province and second to make suggestions on how to make things better for others. We have kept the focus of this presentation on elementary and secondary education.
Eleven Mi'kmaq First Nations in Nova Scotia exercise jurisdiction over education through the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. Two thirds of our students attend school on-reserve, and the other third attend provincial schools. In addition, our education agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia allows us to negotiate for programs and services for Mi'kmaq students living off-reserve. There are many areas where we feel that Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey has demonstrated success in service delivery in developing a modern relationship with the Province of Nova Scotia. Our graduation rate has increased steadily over the past 13 years. Anecdotally, in Eskasoni, four high school students graduated in 1998, but there were 53 graduates in 2010. In terms of percentage, last year saw a graduation rate of 72 per cent.
We have developed retrieval programs for students at risk and successful immersion programs have been implemented in our schools. The findings of a long-range study by McGill University show that these students adapt quickly into regular programming and score higher on literacy tests by grade 6 than in the regular programs. In cooperation with the Nova Scotia department of education, we have introduced system-wide assessments in literacy and numeracy in all schools on reserve. We have developed common identifiers with the province so that we can track students throughout their academic career. We have negotiated a modern education agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia for our students attending provincial schools. The agreement, currently in its fifth year, stresses student success as the basis of the agreement. Nova Scotia assumes shared responsibility for student performance in the provincial schools and commits to developing programs to meet Mi'kmaq students' learning needs.
There remains much work to be done. The Mi'kmaq language is at risk. It is important to maintain the language as an integral part of Mi'kmaq culture. Students with solid language skills develop confidence in themselves and their communities. Some of our communities have lost the language. It is our intent over the coming years to devote significant resources to the development of Mi'kmaq learning materials and books, training of Mi'kmaq language teachers, and the provision of online language programs. Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey schools take part in all province-wide literacy and numeracy testing. We will not be satisfied until our testing results match or surpass the provincial averages.
Many of our students are not prepared to engage successfully in the Mi'kmaq and wider Canadian societies. These students can become a life-long drain on community and provincial resources. Investments in alternative programs, recreation activities, retrieval programs and tutoring can have an impact on student success. The Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey exercises jurisdiction that is recognized by both the federal and provincial governments. We do not believe that Canada recognizes that reality on a day-to-day basis. A few changes would assist Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey greatly and allow us to devote our full attention to education rather than to administration.
Simplify the financial renewal process. In spite of being in existence for 13 years, it has taken 3 years to negotiate a new financial agreement with Canada. The late signing of the agreement this fiscal year has cost Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey in excess of $1.1 million. In fact, even though the agreement was approved by Treasury Board at its meeting on September 22, we have been informed that the new funds that are part of the grant will not be available until December at the earliest. We have a financial track record of 12 years of no deficits, clear audits and successful program delivery. We have built two large schools on time and within budgets. Wagmatcook First Nation has been ready for the past three years to begin construction of a new school. The resources are available under the agreement, but for three years it remained unsigned. This project would have been a good inclusion in the federal infrastructure program.
Ensure self-governing communities are considered in relation to new initiatives, capital, O and M of facilities. Too often in the past, new programs were developed with no consideration for the unique relationship that exists between Canada and Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. We do not want to be treated as an Indian Act band. Special education, First Nation student support programs and education partnership programs are examples of programs implemented without consideration of our existence or the wordings of our financial agreements. Our professional education relationship is with the Province of Nova Scotia. Our financial relationship is with Canada. Recognize that Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey operates their schools using provincial curricula and standards. The professional relationship we have in terms of education is not with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Understand the education planning cycle. As of this date, we are rated a response on current year funding for the Education Partnership Program. The school year has started.
Recognize and respect our jurisdiction. We will continue to respect the financial accountability we have with Canada. We continue to work with federal staff to ensure they receive relevant and up-to-date information for their needs. We continually guard against the provision of duplicate or irrelevant material or information.
At the risk of ignoring recommendations from the royal commission and numerous studies and initiatives involving Aboriginal education, we offer two simple suggestions. We really believe and have evidence to show that exercising jurisdiction makes a real difference. Simplify the transfer of education jurisdiction. We know across the country many groups have been negotiating for dozens of years with no apparent end in sight. Lay out some models that Canada can support. Have Canada state clearly what it is prepared to do. All too often, negotiations are carried out with a blank slate and over time Canada lays out their limitations and conditions. Years of negotiation are spent on own source revenue agreements, intellectual property clauses and program reporting requirements, activities that are all often raised years after negotiations begin.
The Chair: I will now go to the far northwest and call on Grand Chief Massie for her presentation, please.
Ruth Massie, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations: Good evening. Shaw Nithan. Thank you, senators, for the invitation to speak to you today regarding a very important role for all Canadians, parents, families and children: Education.
As Grand Chief for the Council of Yukon First Nations and a member of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, I am here to speak to you regarding the needs for improvement in the education system for Yukon First Nation students. In Yukon, there are 14 First Nations and 11 that have land claim and self-government agreements. We would like to acknowledge all those who have assisted our students, the efforts made thus far and the continued work and undertakings to create an education system suitable for our children. The education of our people is an integral part of our traditional ways and the connection to our lands; in the words of our elders, "the whole Yukon is our school; in the past, we learned from our surroundings." That is in our document Together Today for our Children Tomorrow.
In the current context our education system, including primary and secondary, has changed dramatically for First Nations from a traditional holistic approach — which we grew up in, for my age group, including our languages, our cultural practices, learning from the community, our elders and our families — to children attending government-run public schools.
In 1964, under the federal-territorial General Tuition Agreement, the federal government transferred the responsibility for education to the territorial government without First Nation involvement. The primary objective of the agreement was to provide "the same educational opportunities and instruction" for all students. It outlined the policy of joint education by which the Government of Yukon would be responsible to educate the status Indians in the Yukon. Relatively few studies over the years have evaluated whether this objective has been accomplished for Yukon schools. A study was done in 2007 on education reform. The Yukon does not have on-reserve First Nation run schools like other jurisdictions in Canada. Therefore, all Yukon First Nation students attend public schools, with the understanding that culture, language and First Nation morals and values are instilled within the educational programs and school community.
An education which provides our students all the tools they need to succeed has not only been our request, but our right. Successful students who are confident, culturally enriched and positive contributors to our communities and Canada are fundamental for the future success of Yukon First Nations people. Our future cultural, economic and social well-being is dependent upon each generation achieving their educational goals and needs. Currently, this is not happening. Many students today are not completing school and our low literacy rates are a barrier or a problem.
In terms of how we, as Yukon First Nations, see change occurring in the current education system, we can look back to our document of Together Today for our Children Tomorrow and the Kwiya report from 1987, which outlines suggestions on how to improve the education of our children. All of the recommendations in those documents still stand today, 40 years later. Change in governance structures, policy and legislation, and development of true partnerships working together are all key factors in eliminating the gap for our students.
In the Kwiya report, four recommendations were intended to be addressed in 1987, when the report came out, and they still are today: First Nations education, official recognition of equality of opportunity in education for Yukon people; formal recognition of First Nations culture as part of Yukon society; recognition of the immediate need for an Indian education commission to represent the interests of Yukon First Nation peoples; and the need for the Yukon government, in partnership with First Nations people, to initiate specific legislation, policy and structural reforms of the territorial education system.
Our elders noted in Together Today for our Children Tomorrow that:
Unless changes are made by the Indian people themselves, it will have the same results; a one hundred per cent dropout rate . . . much of this is due to curriculum irrelevancy, alienation of Yukon First Nation students, need for more First Nation teachers in the schools, textbooks used to reflect the traditional approaches to the environment, language in all schools, communities to be involved in the delivery of these programs.
Currently, in more cases than not, there are inadequate support systems in place to assist First Nation students attending school, and not all schools have cultural programs or liaisons with Yukon First Nations to assist with establishing a positive cross-cultural environment for the students. Students should feel comfortable, capable and confident in their learning environments. For many of our students, this is not the case. The development of an alternative type of school in Whitehorse was created and it is called the Individual Learning Centre, which has a 90 per cent graduation rate for First Nation students. We must ask ourselves why the Individual Learning Centre is an option that First Nation students choose, and are successful in, versus the public school setting.
We have identified some factors which contribute to students choosing an alternative option: The school environment meets the needs of the students culturally, socially academically and personally; the administration is comprised of First Nation and non-First Nation staff with a hands-on approach with the students; experimental and cultural programming are included in day-to-day activities. With such high levels of success from the Individual Learning Centre, we must also ask ourselves why these models are not incorporated into all 28 Yukon public schools.
When we look deeper into our system, prior to students transitioning into secondary school, there are many factors, beginning with kindergarten, which prohibit students from reaching their full potential. Some communities have the Aboriginal Head Start program enabling pre-kindergarten type programming to ensure students are prepared to enter the public school system. The program includes a strong focus on literacy, culture and language.
As the Yukon is primarily comprised of several rural communities, some of which have more than 85 per cent First Nation student ratio, cultural programming in the school is vital. Many of these students, who transition into urban settings to complete their education, find themselves far behind academically in comparison to other students. This, in turn, is extremely discouraging for the students as it also creates feelings of angst and discomfort in the classroom. These are all factors which have disabled many of our Yukon First Nations students in reaching their full potential. Many feel defeated before they start.
Yukon First Nations have clearly outlined our vision for education over the years. There were numerous discussions with the department of education with the Yukon government on student success and changes that are required.
In the 2007 final report of the Yukon education reform study, there are over 207 recommendations for improved changes regarding the education system, none of which are implemented today. Governance structures, legislation, policy and fundamental changes within the system are all outlined.
In terms of the current government structure, through a partnership and support of Yukon government, we have established a Yukon First Nation Education Commission as a step towards co-governance and delivery of education in the Yukon. We will continue to work with the Yukon Department of Education to establish mechanisms to advance the education of our citizens. Shared responsibility of delivery in programming has always been the model and focus we see being the best fit for our citizens.
Yukon First Nations are interested in entering into a tripartite type of agreement with Yukon government and Canada. However, unless all parties are able to play a role actively, the true sense of partnership is lost. Each party has to share the responsibility and effort in striving for success.
Our children are the future of this country. Working with the department to create co-governance models and the sharing of existing and future resources is how Yukon First Nations see our children attaining the best education possible.
After 40 years of discussion, our governments have finally agreed to work together on implementing the outstanding recommendations to attain better education grades for all students attending our public school system.
In closing, I would like to note the various supplementary documents we have provided as supporting information for your research and study.
Senator Lang has just passed out the package from the Council of Yukon First Nations. In it is a copy of Together Today for our Children Tomorrow. It is our original document for land claims settlement. There is a copy of the Yukon education reform report of 2007. There is a copy of the Auditor General's report on the Yukon Department of Education from 2009-10. There is also a copy of Understanding Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements, 1997. There is also a map of the Yukon Territory. It is a native language map.
We are honoured to have this opportunity to address the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and look forward to positive outcomes for our students in regard to the future of their educational path.
In your package, you sent us questions and we gave you a written response as well to the questions forwarded to us.
The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief.
Unfortunately, colleagues, they are in English only, and it prevents us from circulating the packages as such at the committee level because all documentation has to be in both official languages. Therefore, I will be talking to you, Senator Lang, to possibly make arrangements to have the documents translated. I apologize for this, but it is something that is beyond my control.
Last, but not least, sandwiched between the two ladies, is Mr. Murray Maracle, Education Director, Union of Ontario Indians — Anishinabek Nation.
Murray Maracle, Education Director, Union of Ontario Indians — Anishinabek Nation: Thank you; it is certainly a thorn between two roses, if you put it that way.
I would like to thank the Senate committee for the time to speak on issues on Aboriginal education. It is an area near and dear to my heart. I have been in the area for 30 years. Our organization, the Union of Ontario Indians — Anishinabek Nation, represents 40 First Nations of the 133 in Ontario. I have beside me numerous reports that have been created by experts in the field, and they are filled with excellent recommendations to improve educational outcomes for First Nations people in Canada. I am not going to tell you anything new, different or groundbreaking that is not already contained in the reports. These reports have been created by Aboriginal educators from our perspective, by joint initiatives between government and First Nations and by the Auditor General, and everything we need to know is in these reports.
The disturbing fact is that with all the knowledge documented, and at great cost, we continue to look for answers. We continue to hope to find the magic bullet that will fix the problem. There is no magic bullet. I will quote Michael Mendelson from one of the reports that I have here beside me: "The school system is failing Aboriginal people in Canada right now." That is a tragedy. The report takes statistics from INAC's own data that shows we hover around 33 per cent graduation rate for Aboriginal learners, which is less than half of the other Canadian population. One statistic from the report that always bothers me is that 41 per cent of the total budget for education for our young people is transferred to the province, mainly through tuition agreements. Who is holding them responsible for the success of our young people or, better yet, the lack of success?
The Auditor General over the last 15 years continuously gave the federal government bad reviews on handling Aboriginal education, along with some recommendations to improve. As of today, how much has changed?
How do we change that relationship between the federal government and First Nations to start to implement some of these recommendations? We have never had equal partnership in these solutions. Programs are developed, we give our input and it seems it is not taken seriously. We have much to offer in creating solutions, but we must change the relationship. We have to be involved at a higher level, at the table where they write the cabinet documents, Treasury Board submissions and, if necessary, legislation. We have the people with the skill and knowledge to be able to do that.
They continue to tell me why this cannot happen, but no one tells me how it could happen.
I would like to touch on the pan-Aboriginal approach taken by government, the one-size-fits-all. To think that one solution or one policy can be created in such a diverse segment of our population is not real. We have huge geographic differences, from urban to isolated fly-in communities, from communities rich with resources to very poor ones, from large communities to very small communities, from communities that have access to human resources to communities that do not have any.
We need to work towards policies that will empower these communities to take these differences into consideration as opposed to the exclusionary policies that we have now and are dealing with every day.
I would like to highlight a project that we undertook in December of 2010 where we brought together some Aboriginal academics to have a think tank discussion, specifically on Aboriginal education. Members of that committee included Dr. Rose-Alma McDonald, a Mohawk; Dr. Pam Toulouse, an Ojibway and a professor at the School of Education, Laurentian University; Dr. Emily Faries, Cree, a professor of Native Studies at Laurentian University in Sudbury. Dr. Barry Montour is Mohawk, and he is director of education in the Akwesasne Mohawk Board of Education. Bruce Stonefish is a director of the Indigenous Education Coalition in Ontario. Dr. Pam Palmater is Mi'kmaq and is associate professor and chair of the Ryerson University Chair of Indigenous Governance. Dr. Duncan MacLellan is associate professor in the Department of Politics and Administration at Ryerson University; Dr. Scott Clark is associate professor in the Criminal Justice and Criminology Department Ryerson University. Dr. Ted Dunlop is director of the School of Child and Youth care at Ryerson University.
The goal was to provide strategic guidance and innovative ideas about how First Nation governments can address the current issues they face in education, and we included post-secondary in that. The event was explicitly non-political in nature and was not funded or coordinated by any federal or provincial governments.
The think tank noted that in the last 40 years numerous research, studies and reports have been produced related to First Nations education with very little follow-up action. They also highlighted the problematic context of First Nation education when it comes to residential schools, discriminatory laws and policies and government control. This has resulted in physical, social and cultural trauma and is directly related to the significant gap in education achievement levels of the First Nations and Canadians. It was also recognized that education is the key not only to empowering our communities but is a necessary step in our nation-building.
Four general themes were used to gather discussions, including the current context, a strategic vision, an action plan, and how to properly evaluate our successes.
From these learned discussions amongst our own indigenous scholars and academic partners, the group stressed two critical issues to any future success in Aboriginal education. First, we must exercise our inherent right to self- determination and assert jurisdiction over our own futures, which is key to education. Second, we must address the current inequality in education funding, which includes a discriminatory 2 per cent funding cap. We are expected to have equal success with unequal resources. It is time to stop the marginalization of our students and take responsibility and implement some of the recommendations from these reports. We do not need any more reports; we do not need any more recommendations; we need action.
I would like to thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. I will now open up the discussion to questions.
I have a question to start with. The individual learning centre that you spoke of, Grand Chief Massie, would you reiterate again the success of graduates going through there?
Ms. Massie: Some of the students that go to the alternate school are from the rural communities, and they do distance learning through their computers as well as attend. About 90 per cent of the students, when they all enrol, will go through to graduate, because they do have the hands-on help. They have the support consistently on a daily basis.
The Chair: Is it because of a better pupil-teacher ratio or have you been able to analyze why the success rate has been that much better?
Ms. Massie: As they go through their program, they go on their own individual education path. We have some learners who are a little faster and slower and so on, but they have the constant attention on a daily basis. Their programs change and they are quite relevant to their traditional ways. I think it is just the perspective. I think a lot of it, too, is that some of our teachers are Aboriginal teachers, so if the students are having difficulties or whatever, they are coming forward. When they go to public school they get frustrated; they just walk out the door and do not come back.
When they go in, they are really encouraged by counselling to go into the school. A lot of the feeback from the students was that they were being ignored in public school, and they get frustrated and they leave school.
The Chair: Are some of the students that you are producing there going into post-secondary and to universities around the country?
Ms. Massie: Most of them are, yes.
The Chair: Are they in a position to compete and to perform at that level?
Ms. Massie: Yes. When they come out of the learning centre they do have to go into, I guess it is like a grade 13 at the college, it is like college prep, just to ensure that they are passing all the aptitudes and so on. That is a three-year program and most are in there for about half a semester and they go into their field of study then.
Senator Lang: Could I follow up on the success of that program that the Grand Chief spoke of? It is one that could be looked at across the country. This is largely students who have been in the public school system, as she has said, have dropped out, but they have volunteered to come back. This is an initiative that was taken in fact by a minister of education who is First Nation, and he was the one who came up with the idea in conjunction with the department of education to see how we could save these young people and put them back into the education system.
It has been very successful. They do come out eventually, the majority of them, with grade 12. It is not strictly for First Nations. Once again, it is for all students who have had trouble in school. At the end of the day, I think we have managed to help these young people get back into the world of education and to get into that learning centre and then move on. I think the Grand Chief has touched on in her remarks very well the fact that the Government of Yukon, in conjunction with the First Nations and the other side of the population, especially in our small communities, are working very closely together and I think overall have a lot of successes that we could talk about.
Senator Meredith: Grand Chief, I would like to pick up also on that point you raised with respect to the alternative school. What have you done in terms of trying to incorporate some of the best practices that have been learned at this alternative school into the public system? Has there been a willingness on the part of the boards of education to implement something similar to increase the graduate rates at the public school level?
Ms. Massie: In some of the schools they have pilot projects a little bit similar to that. As Senator Lang said, this learning centre is not only for First Nations students; it is for whoever has dropped out. It is the encouragement to get them back on the education path.
At our high school, we do have pilot projects, but we also have some Aboriginal advisory committees that work right in the department of education. They are putting together a joint action plan with our education commission. We do have an Aboriginal education commission up and running now, with the support of the Yukon government. We have been putting the development and the establishment of these units together over the last couple of years, so they are just starting to get together.
Everyone has their scribe notes and they compare them. We are actually working together quite nicely now. We are on phase two of our projects and committees working together. It is called education in partnerships with the Yukon government. We have an action plan that we participate in.
We are participating in a MOU for a tri-party agreement, and Yukon and First Nations of the Yukon have agreed to approach Canada, and Canada has not stepped up to the plate. They have just recently advised us they want to have a facilitation role rather than a responsibility role in the tri-party. Now we are looking at whether we should go bilateral and both of us approach Canada.
That is where we are at in that process, but there is a pilot in one of our schools and it is just starting. We have not got any results from it yet. Everyone seems to be so excited about it, but the school year just started.
Senator Meredith: To look at the resource training for teachers in terms of pulling them out of the public system or having to sensitive them to the culture and language and sort forth so they are able to effectively impact these students, has anything like that been entertained?
Ms. Massie: Do you mean to pull them out of school?
Senator Meredith: Teacher training.
Ms. Massie: Through the Department of Education, we have Aboriginal language programs in our public schools. I would say all of our communities have the Aboriginal languages in their schools. We also have traditional programming in the schools, which is out on the land doing the cultural practices on a daily basis in some of the rural communities.
Senator Meredith: Ms. Bernard, you wanted to comment on that?
Ms. Bernard: I wanted to point out that one of the initiatives that Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey has been involved in is partnerships with universities. When we partner with universities, we try to make sure they bring programs to the communities. We have a program that has just been completed in the community of Eskasoni. It is a certificate for teachers who are teaching immersion in the Eskasoni schools and other Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey schools. It has been very successful. We have had a BED program delivered in the community that has been successful and has graduated at least 15 students. We are looking at doing another program.
The programs that have been delivered in the communities have been successful. The university comes to the community.
Senator Raine: I have a supplementary question for Grand Chief Massie. You mentioned that some of the schools had an Aboriginal Head Start program, but not all of them. Is there a reason they would not all have an Aboriginal Head Start program?
Ms. Massie: Some of our communities are very small, and there is a minimum number of students that can go to a head start program. Some of the programs do not have enough students. In Whitehorse they have a larger program. There are two First Nations there, but only one has the Aboriginal Head Start program. They invite the other First Nation to participate because their population is not big enough to have two programs. Why have two programs when they are all in the same central location?
Our communities also have a lot of distance between them for the ones that do not have a program.
Senator Raine: Have you looked at early childhood education delivered through the parent? Parents are often involved with the health system when they are pregnant and having their baby. Maybe that is a good time to start to get the mothers involved in those small communities with some remote support for early head start.
Ms. Massie: We have a very active stay-at-home learning program. Some of them are doing long-distance education right in the home. Some of the high school students who do not want to transition into the city and do not fare well when away from their families can do long-distance learning on the computers. There is a lot of home learning programming in the territory because of not only the Aboriginal population but also the Yukon population itself. We have many rural residents who live in the middle of nowhere, so if they have a computer they can log on and learn that way. That is positive.
Senator Raine: Listening to you describe the situation in the Yukon, one question I would ask is why you would want to get the federal government involved. All the rest of the country seems to be anxious to do it themselves with self-government. You already have self-government for the most part. What is it that you are expecting by bringing the federal government into a tripartite agreement?
Ms. Massie: It would be the financial support of your system. The territorial government is an agent of the Crown, and the resources go straight to them. We do not feel that expenses in the education department are getting the best bang for the buck. A lot of it is going into administration when it should be going to education and programming.
In our department, administration overrides service delivery, I guess.
Mr. Maracle: We have a unique situation in Ontario. The Ontario government has instituted full-day junior kindergarten that starts at four years old. Many of our communities that do not have schools within their community will have to send four-year-olds out to full-day kindergarten. That will rob from the Head Start programs and daycares we have in our communities. The programs we have in our communities are culturally and linguistically enriched. When the government does things, it can sometimes step on the jurisdiction that we have, and then it becomes a fight for students. On the outside, the population is dwindling and they are trying to keep the schools open. Our communities are growing at a rapid rate, and we are trying to contain as many young people as we can. Sometimes those decisions get made without a lot of consultation, and it takes away from the solid beginning we want to give these young people.
The Chair: Mr. Maracle, do you believe in a tripartite agreement? Do you believe that working with the federal government, the provincial government and the First Nations is workable?
Mr. Maracle: No, absolutely not.
The Chair: For what reason?
Mr. Maracle: If we work in a tripartite agreement, we first have to understand that we have jurisdiction for education. We will have a bilateral agreement with the federal government and a bilateral agreement with the provincial government. The federal government responsibility is resourcing, and we can do bilateral agreements in that case. We can do bilateral agreements with the province on the educational attainments and standards. I do not think the two should be mixed together.
Senator Demers: Thank you for the good presentations. They were well prepared. Last year I went with Senator Lang to the Yukon, and in particular Whitehorse. He drove me around and I was extremely impressed by some of the young Aboriginal men and women I met. They were well educated and looked good. The problem is the dropouts. Do you have a plan? When kids are dropping out at age 14 or 15, these kids will cause you trouble somewhere. We are talking about drugs, and unfortunately some young women will get pregnant at 12, 13 or 14 years old. Is there some kind of plan? How do you bring these kids back? Do you just say, "Okay, you are out; see you later"? How does it work? What I hear is alarming. How do you bring these kids back to you? Do you just let them go?
Ms. Massie: I think that is what started the learning centre. We had a couple of teachers in school who were very interested in any student who dropped out of school. One just went out and talked to the students. The Yukon is very small and you run into everybody every day at the grocery store or the corner store. He just talked to some students, and then he went back to the department of education because he was a teacher. He came to Whitehorse from a rural community where he had to assist the students after hours and before hours as a community member. It just grew from there.
For Yukon First Nations, we have always had First Nation liaison coordinators in all the schools to try to bridge that gap, and they assisted as well. That is what brought our working partnership together today. It has been a work in progress, but we are finally working together.
Senator Patterson: I would like to ask a question of Ms. Bernard and her colleagues from Mi'kmaw.
I was quite shocked to hear what you said about your funding arrangements. If I understood you correctly, you only got your funding for this fiscal year in the month of September, just recently.
Ms. Bernard: Yes.
Senator Patterson: You had to wait some three years to get agreement to build schools that you ended up building on time and under budget, and you have not had a record of deficit.
Ms. Bernard: That was previously. In the previous years we had built other schools, but every five years we renegotiate for a new funding agreement. This last agreement has taken three years.
Senator Patterson: What is going on? What is the problem here? Can you explain? It seems to me you got your ducks lined up.
Ms. Bernard: John Donnelly will explain the situation.
John Jerome Paul, Director of Program Services, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey: It is even longer. It is like we gave notice two years before the agreement expired and it still took three years after that to complete. That is five years.
Senator Patterson: Why?
John Donnelly, Negotiator, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey: It is hard for us to say why. I can tell you that in November of 2008 we presented the federal government with an agreement that we were prepared to negotiate. It was not a new agreement; it was a renewal of a funding agreement. It took until approval on September 22 before that agreement was signed. The election did come into play this spring. We had hoped to have the agreement signed at the beginning of April. We got interim funding between April and September. It was not as if Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey did not have money.
However, because the agreement then was six months, signed late in the year, some of the new funding we negotiated was prorated. We lost $1.1 million that we expected to get if we had signed April 1. The federal government was not prepared to include that. They prorated the money to the date of the signing of the agreement.
Also, because it was two years late, we missed all that money, over $2 million, last year. We are not even saying anything about that money we lost out on.
Mr. Paul: Or the year before that.
Mr. Donnelly: Or the year before. For this year it was hard for MK to take that, through no fault of their own — fair enough, there was an election and that — the funding got prorated and they had to eat the $1.1 million they expected to get and make some plans to proceed with.
Senator Meredith: Was some of that money allocated to staffing or just to the reconstruction of these schools?
Ms. Bernard: Some of it was in elementary and secondary funding for the operation of schools. There was also some capital included in that, yes. Some of it was post-secondary education funding.
Senator Meredith: Conceivably student learning was affected by that in terms of the number of students you could have actually enrolled.
Ms. Bernard: Some programming, yes.
Senator Patterson: I am still trying to find out without pressing you and it seems like you are not the problem, but can you figure out what is going on?
Ms. Bernard: The federal negotiator had no mandate.
Senator Patterson: Are people not answering your calls? What do they tell you? You must have been pressing them. What do you think the problem is that obviously needs to be fixed?
Mr. Donnelly: From the time we sat at the table, it took a year and a half for the federal negotiator to even get a mandate to negotiate with us. When they did come to the table and start negotiating, it moved along pretty quickly, until they started introducing new clauses into the financial agreement.
You have got to remember that the MK has been in existence since 1998, has had a good record, has a high graduation rate, very successful and a large number of Aboriginal teachers throughout the system. However, last year the federal government decided that in this agreement, which had never been in any previous ones, that own-source revenue had to be included in the agreement. In other words, resources that the First Nations already had, they had to be prepared to share to operate the system. That had never been in an agreement.
The chiefs in Nova Scotia are negotiating a comprehensive self-government agreement and told the federal government they are prepared to talk about that, in terms of the full self-government jurisdiction. Why should we start talking about it just at the education table, which was running along? There was no flexibility there at all.
Ultimately, the way we resolved was to say we will talk about OSR, sign the agreement, and we will commit that we will negotiate within a three-year period any own-source revenue agreements. It was a real problem, especially as it was brought in two years into the negotiations of the new funding agreement.
Mr. Paul: To clarify, we had also offered, prior to that presentation, that we could show audits that showed the amount they are requesting. Our communities already use their own-source revenue to top up post-secondary, elementary and a number of other areas, and we could provide the audits to show that the communities were putting that money in. When they offer own-source revenue it is really a deficit financing plan. That is the amount of money the government says, "Okay, we will keep that; now you have to top that up," but the chiefs did not like that idea.
Senator Patterson: My question is about what Mr. Maracle called self-determination. We have heard testimony from Michael Mendelson, who is quite a well-known adviser on education, and we are considering legislative reform, that if we are to address the education challenge that we are talking about tonight, legislation should allow First Nations regional education authorities to create governance structures that would be like school boards in provincial systems, with both service and oversight functions.
I would like to ask Mr. Maracle, and perhaps other witnesses if they would wish to answer, would that be a way to improve the self-determination? School board models are well known in provinces. Would that model work with First Nations?
Mr. Maracle: I think First Nations have already moved down further than even that. In Ontario, my organization is negotiating an education agreement like my brothers and sisters over here. We are in our twelfth year of negotiations to get it off the ground. Within those negotiations we have already designed, within those 40 communities, that education, if you want to call it a governance system, how we will aggregate and how we will use those systems. The other association in Ontario that is in negotiations now is Treaty 9, and they are making the same effort. They will have that aggregate type of governance in some fashion that they will develop within their self-government agreement. They have 49 First Nations, so that is a good chunk of Ontario that has walked down that road, and we are getting close to that.
If negotiations could be a little quicker it would be much better for us but, as I said, we have been doing it for 12 years. We have already designed a school board system for the 40 communities that we represent.
Mr. Paul: For Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, back when we first initiated the organization in our communities, we looked at various governance models in our Oak Island document, which is available on our website. Within each of our communities, various models are employed. Some use school board type governance, some just an administrator. You have to allow the community, at the stage they are in, to develop a model they can live with, that they have the human resources to provide the direction, et cetera.
Senator Meredith: Mr. Maracle, you mentioned the fact that you do not believe in the tripartite agreement. What would be your best solution with respect to funding? I understand that there are huge challenges, and I must commend your communities for continuing to move forward, despite the delays and the fact that the young people are being affected by those delays. At this table, we are all shocked to see that this process has taken so long to get your education systems off the ground and fully functioning. I must commend you.
I have always stated that young people are not only our future but they are our present. There are some present-day challenges they face, and the frustrations in the school system allow them to walk out and give up. Your community has been faced with suicides and so forth. The subject is near and dear to my heart, where young people are concerned.
I am throwing this out to you. What are the top two things that we as the Senate could move forward for you in terms of the challenges that you are facing right now? What are the top two things that we as a committee can move the federal government on? Again, it is about the preservation of life here and giving a good quality education to these students.
Mr. Maracle: There are two things that have come out time after time in meetings we have had and even in a lot of the reports we read here. Number one is funding. There is a funding issue. We are funded less than our counterparts, and we are expected to have equal success; we are measured against that. That is not a real measurement.
The second is where we exercise jurisdiction. That is when things happen. That is when success happens. When we exercise our jurisdiction, then we will make agreements, and that is why our organization does not look at tripartite agreements; it looks at bilateral agreements. We will have an agreement on education and standards for the people who have the jurisdiction within that province, and then we will have agreements with the federal government for the funding.
We have to understand that the people in the education department of the Department of Indian Affairs are not educators. The majority of them are not educators, so when we talk about education issues, sometimes they do not understand us. When we call the province and we talk about education standards and curriculum and such, they understand exactly what we are talking about.
I think what we have come across is trying to solve education issues with people who are not educators. They are funders, and sometimes they are not good at that either.
Ms. Bernard: Two of the most important things for the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey would be respecting our jurisdiction, and when making financial arrangements, that it does not take so long; three years costs us dearly. That means that some of our communities will not be able to provide the programming that we would have been able to if we had the funding.
Senator Raine: This is very interesting. We have been at this study for some time now, and what you are saying is not new; there is a common thread here.
One thing I would be very interested in hearing from you, in a governance model, obviously there are tripartite or bilateral agreements with the provinces and the federal government. However, if you are setting up an education authority to run a school system for your communities, who would the structures be accountable to — to the governments, to the member First Nations, to the parents or to the students? How would that accountability be dealt with in a school system that you would see?
Mr. Paul: The first and foremost stakeholder in an education system is the parent. The parent is sending you their child, and they are giving you control over what happens to that individual who is now under your protection. Their brain is under your protection. As such, you have to be accountable to them for what you are providing for that student in relation to safety in the school, that they are going to a safe and nurturing environment, one in which the student can learn and develop their full potential.
One thing we have done to try to engage parents is having a student information portal where parents can go online and see how their children are doing. If a student is not there, automatically the system boots up a query and gives the parent a call to say, "Your child is not in attendance."
One of the things we are most proud of at our organization and with all our communities — people talk about graduation rates — what I am most proud of is the variance of ages or being age-to-grade appropriate. What we are finding is that we are about 95 per cent age-to-grade appropriate, so students are one year off or less to what their grade should be at their age. That is amazing.
Our retention has gone up. Engaging students, parents and the community is what self-government allows you to do. We are talking about quality of life. Once those students do well, when they search for a job, they will be employed.
One of the most powerful things we have, we made a new school book. We graduated, I believe, nine teachers when we started. Once we knew we were going to build, we set up a teacher program. Nine teachers; now you are talking about nine families where one parent at least is gainfully employed. The quality of life went up. We see janitors now in that school from the community. The quality of life went up dramatically in that community. We talk about the same thing in other communities.
Based just on our arrangements with St. Francis Xavier and other universities, we have graduated approximately 85 teachers since 1995. Again, the quality of life goes up. We have graduated students in the areas of science, education, nursing, et cetera. We have done a wonderful job.
In 2004, the UN did a study. They looked at the standard of living of all Indians living on reserves in Canada at the time, and we were 50th in the world. That is like Haiti. At least now the quality of life is going up.
That is allowing us to have jurisdiction, to have the chance to gain part of what the Canadian dream is. We want a share of that. We do not want to live in poverty. Right now, we have over 400 deferred students in Nova Scotia who could go to university; they have all the grades but no money for it. When you look at those students, talking about a cycle of poverty, you have just sent those students, their children and their extended families to continue in poverty. That is what we are talking about when we talk about education and what it offers people. We want to offer that dream to our people.
Senator Raine: Do the others have comments on whom the school organizations should be accountable to?
Mr. Maracle: One thing we have a difficult time explaining is the difference in the way we think and believe. Where our counterparts are very linear in thinking, we are very circular. Who are we accountable to? We start being accountable to the student, number one; that is our first priority. We are then accountable to the parents and the family, then to the community and then to the people who look after that community. Our accountability goes through a whole life cycle; it is not linear.
That accountability serves us much better because we are held accountable for the standards, for safe schools and for the graduates. We are held accountable on all areas and facets of education, as it should be. Explaining that to someone who does not think the way we do is very difficult sometimes. They think it is a pretty wishy-washy system, but it is not. It is probably more true governance than the linear systems we have now. We know we have problems with those linear systems of governance.
The Chair: I have one more question that I would like to ask. Most of you have —
Senator Meredith: Sorry, Mr. Chair, the Grand Chief —
The Chair: I am sorry, did you want to comment?
Ms. Massie: Just quickly, I totally agree with Mr. Maracle's description of how we are accountable. In the Yukon we do not have First Nations schools. We all go to the public school, but we still all deal with education. We do have, as self-governing people, the ability to draw down our jurisdiction of education. We have started to do that, but we are doing it in partnership with the Yukon government. We do not want to take over our education. We want to participate in it so that our education goes up; all of our rates go up.
In our jurisdiction, there are not very many people in the whole territory. There is no reason we cannot all work together to try to improve everyone's education level and their path.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Meredith, for pointing that out.
Senator Ataullahjan: We see the emphasis on local solutions, letting the community govern and decide for itself. How do you see the provincial and federal governments fitting into that? Do we depend on the federal government for resourcing and the provincial government for educational standards?
Mr. Maracle: I am sorry; I did not hear your question.
Senator Ataullahjan: We are talking about emphasis on local solutions, letting the community govern and decide for itself. How do you see the provincial and federal governments fitting into that? Should we depend on the federal government for resourcing and the provincial governments for standards or do they work together? What do you expect from the provincial governments and the federal government?
Mr. Maracle: I think you have it correct. From our point of view, the federal government is the funder; they have the responsibility through treaty rights and the constitution. I do not want to get into all of that, but I think they have the responsibility to do that.
All of us here live in different jurisdictions, and we all have to deal with the education quality and standards of the jurisdiction we are in, which are sometimes quite different through the country. We would deal with the province for those standards and the educational portion of it.
We have negotiated some great ideas with the province right now on standards. They are looking at our standards now, the standards we have also to match with their standards. We are having quite good success, such as new credentials for teachers who will gain some credentials for taking some Aboriginal courses.
I think that was the best way and it works well in our area.
Senator Meredith: As a follow-up, you mentioned jurisdictions and that you represent 40 bands within Ontario. Across the country — I am just looking at this holistically — you talk about coming together and ensuring that the goal of educating the young people in your communities is number one for all of your communities.
Is there a cross-sharing of best practices across the various bands? In terms potentially of what is going on in Yukon and the successes you have encountered, Ms. Bernard, with the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, has there been a sharing of best practices for development rather than this segmentation across regions and jurisdictions?
Ms. Bernard: Yes, we do a lot of sharing with other regions. Any time we are asked to talk about some of our successes in programs, we are more than willing to share. In fact, we are visiting B.C. next week, and we have been to Manitoba.
We do a lot of research papers that show our successes and some of the work that we have done — our best practices. We are more than willing to share at any time. Of course, we always talk to other people about other programs.
Senator Meredith: Does he give you a hard time at all?
Ms. Bernard: Always, but then again, it is mutual. I always give him a hard time too. We always talk with other people from across the country who have similar experiences. We learn from them; they learn from us.
Senator Meredith: Excellent.
Mr. Maracle: On best practices, we are more nationally looked at. Ms. Bernard and I have known each other for some time now. We worked on some unique and special projects.
I would like to mention one that we are kind of forgetting. Someone asked if we have a plan for the students who drop out of school. In Ontario, we have developed a consortium of post-secondary institutions specifically for Aboriginal young people. We have known that those people usually come back at a later age in life. They are usually 23 or 24 years old and they may have a family, so we have all those necessary supports.
We have a national association for all of those post-secondary indigenous institutions that sometimes will take in those people who have lost their way; usually they are older. We share best practices nationally. Not only we do it community and region wise, we do it nationally also.
The Chair: The committee's terms of reference are governance and delivery, tripartite agreements and possible legislation. I think an integral part of the whole process is funding, no question. However, unless you have a vehicle designed to travel down the road, there is really not much point in putting gas in it.
We were hoping, as a committee, that we would be able to make recommendations regarding governance and delivery — whether it be by tripartite agreements or possible legislation. These were the categories we were looking at that we thought we would end up studying at least.
You have all experienced a degree of success, and I would say more success than many of our First Nations have at the educational level. What would you say is the contributing factor?
In your case, Mr. Maracle, you have 39 First Nations groups. Is it 40? Did it grow by one? In my documentation it says 39.
From the Mi'kmaq, 11 First Nation groups have been brought together, and Grand Chief Massie, you have all of Yukon. Is there anything you could recommend to the committee so that we could possibly project your success into a report?
Mr. Maracle, you mentioned the exercise of inherent rights and being able to take control of your own destiny. That is what came out of the two critical recommendations when you had that think tank with all your learned First Nations people. The other aspect was inequality in funding. I believe those were the two things you brought forward.
We are trying to design that vehicle, or make a recommendation to the government to design a vehicle that will take us to where we want to go with our First Nations people as far as education is concerned.
Mr. Maracle: It happens a lot of the time. I will go back to the reports again. Not one vehicle is going to be driven by all of us in the country; it is going to be different vehicles. Those vehicles will all do the same thing and we will all make those vehicles work. Within my territory, I will look at a school board type of situation, and that is why we will exercise our jurisdiction in that way. As my learned friend here says, some people just have straight administrative governance systems, depending on their size and such.
When we look at the governance system, it is not so much what it looks like, because we begin to be very prescriptive then. Once we become prescriptive, we are not respecting the jurisdiction of those people to govern themselves.
If you respect the jurisdiction and you negotiate how that will work, there may be different methods that can take. It is hard to say that it is not going to be this, and that is going to be the answer. There will be different ones. It all starts with our exercising our jurisdiction. The people who are on that side of the table will recognize that jurisdiction, and it can work in different ways in realizing that.
The Chair: Does this also apply where you see the role of the provincial government as setting standards of education, and the federal strictly as funding? Did I hear correctly?
Mr. Maracle: Yes, exactly. With some of those standards, it is not that we will just accept them off the shelf from the province. There is a negotiation going on. We have a lot to offer from the educational point of view. We are rich in culture and history and such, so we have a lot to offer back. Those standards can go both ways. A negotiation is not a negotiation of acceptance but of how we will measure the standards we have and how we will measure the people who are in charge of our young people. What standards we will measure those against?
Much of the problem sometimes, as I hear from the Grand Chief in the Yukon, is that we have people who do not know anything about us, who are teaching us. That does not work much of the time. They do not know anything about us, and they are teaching us, and they get frustrated and walk out the door. There are great programs going on now that train teachers. It can happen.
Ms. Bernard: Two things we would like to recommend to the government are that we simplify the financial renewal process and ensure self-government communities are considered in new educational initiatives respecting our jurisdiction.
Ms. Massie: For the Yukon, as I mentioned, we set up and we call ours the First Nation Education Commission. It is the authority, and we are just getting established, but we are working concurrently with the Yukon government. Our curriculum comes out of British Columbia, but we do have the opportunity to establish and develop our own programming, relevant to us, that is going into the school system. We also have a cross-cultural education process for the schoolteachers and we have our own Yukon Native Teachers Education Program, or YNTEP, at the college.
Senator Meredith: I enjoyed your presentations and I am excited about what the future holds for your various communities across the country. One issue, going back to Senator Greene Raine's comments, is about accountability.
Mr. Maracle, you talked about the holistic approach within the community in terms of accountability and structure, not linear, which we are typically used to. However, if, as a government, we are going to invest in your education system, and respecting your jurisdiction, as Ms. Bernard has indicated, who do they report back to and how do we look at accountability in terms of investments that are being made, agreements that are every three years or five years or whatever it might be, as you come back to the table and so forth? Can you elaborate, for the benefit of the rest of the committee members, how to look at accountability from a government standpoint, which you will respect and respond to?
Ms. Bernard: Through the Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey, we provide annual reports to the federal government. We have brought copies of our annual reports with us for your perusal at your convenience. Also, we are subject to yearly audits, and that will continue.
Mr. Maracle: By the time we get to the final negotiations, most of the organizations that are in those final stages have usually had five to ten years of clear audits. They have the reporting structures, annual reports, annual meetings and semi-annual meetings, which it takes to do all those things, so we do those things also. However, at the same time, we still have to have that wider approach. What is buried in that is all those things we have to do.
We are not expecting, and we do not think that we should be thought of as unaccountable in any fashion, because most of the people at this table are very accountable. If you want to go into our communities sometime and see the number of reports we have to fill out, we almost have to hire a person just to fill reports out. I forget what the last number was. We have to fill out 135 reports a year to get a few crumbs off the table. We know what accountability is about and we are good at it.
Senator Meredith: Finally, how do you hold the parents accountable to your system? In Ontario, you must send your pupils to school. How do you deal with the issue of parents who are somewhat not compliant with respect to ensuring that their young people are being sent to the schools? It is a tough one.
Mr. Paul: It is a tough one. We have hit that situation. The best we can do is to try to engage the parents. In one of the communities, the teachers, before the start of each semester, have to visit the parent of every student in their class. They cannot talk about their marks, because the semester just started. At least they have a face for the parent, and the parent is hopefully more inclined to approach that individual, since they have been in their house. Many of our communities are doing that.
We have talked with our children's services organizations, who say that non-attendance by a student is not an endangerment to the life or limb of the child, and you cannot force that child to come to school. The best thing you can do is try to make it an engaging and happy place. If you engage the parent, hopefully the kid comes.
Ms. Bernard: And the child wants to come to school.
Mr. Maracle: They often want 100 per cent guarantees from us in terms of how the system will be better and how we will graduate every student. It is not a reality. We are not going to graduate every student. We will do better than the statistics I gave you. We will have more engagement and we will have more of those things happening. However, to expect us to have a 100 per cent success rate in everything we will do, it is impossible. When we have those questions asked of us, I often ask about their system. Their system has some holes in it too.
We do have a distinct family relationship. Many times, if a student is missing school, especially in post-secondary, the best thing is to call the mother or grandmother. If you call the grandmother, they are back in school the next day; you know that for sure.
Senator Meredith: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses for their excellent presentation and their candid, straightforward responses to the questions put forward by the senators. This is a tough subject for us. We knew it was tough from the onset, because it has been studied to death. As Mr. Maracle said, the pile is much higher than that; it is pretty near as high as the building. That is why we tried to concentrate on the structure, or the vehicle, as I call it. I take what you said seriously, that not one size fits all and the design of one vehicle will not fit all situations.
We thank you again for travelling as far as you did, especially Grand Chief Massie and the people from the East Coast, not to minimize the importance of the centre, Mr. Maracle. We thank you all.
Colleagues, I have a couple of issues to deal with in camera. We will suspend for five minutes so they can take the cameras out. The moment they are out, we will reconvene and get on to this. I have some short notes here that we should go over with regard to the study.
(The committee continued in camera.)