Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 23 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, December 10, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:06 p.m. to study issues pertaining to the human rights of First Nations band members who reside off-reserve, with an emphasis on the current federal policy framework.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this is the thirtieth meeting of the Forty-first Parliament of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We have been entrusted by the Senate with a mandate to study issues respecting human rights in Canada and elsewhere in the world.
[Translation]
The committee was struck by the Senate to create a forum to discuss human rights, both federally and provincially, and to consistently ensure that members of minority communities receive equal treatment.
Over the years, the committee has submitted reports on Canadians, the United Nations Human Rights Council, children, the status of matrimonial real property on reserves and employment equity within the public service.
[English]
My name is Mobina Jaffer, and as the chair of this committee I would like to welcome you to today's meeting. With me is Senator White. All of our colleagues will join us shortly. We want to give you the maximum time to speak, and I can assure you that when my colleagues come, they will read in the transcripts what you have said.
With more and more Aboriginal and First Nations people living off reserve, there is a growing need to ensure that all First Nations people, regardless of whether they live on- or off-reserve, have access to the same human rights and forms of protection.
[Translation]
Our first witnesses, from the Native Women's Association of Canada, are Michèle Audette, the association's president, and Teresa Edwards, its director of human rights and international affairs. Ms. Audette appears frequently before the committee, and we greatly appreciate her being here.
Michèle Audette, President, Native Women's Association of Canada:
[The witness spoke in her native language.]
I would like to start by thanking the Anishinabeg Nation for welcoming us on their land, which is now being shared in a number of respects, particularly with the Native Women's Association of Canada, in terms of our office space here.
I must also thank you for inviting the Native Women's Association of Canada to appear, once again, before the committee to speak to the countless problems facing Aboriginal women across this vast land we now call Canada.
The Native Women's Association of Canada is a wonderful organization that has been around since 1974. We have member organizations across the country, in every province and territory; these are women who have been volunteering their time for years to improve the living conditions of women, their social, political and cultural standing, and of course, respect for their human rights.
Before I begin my presentation, I would like to share with you something Grand Chief Konrad Sioui said that struck me. During a meeting, he remarked that he did not live on a reserve but on Wendat land.
Regardless, then, of where members of the Huron-Wendat Nation live, be it on or off reserve, as defined under the Indian Act, the nation's land extends to every member of that community. I wholeheartedly agree.
The oral tradition and a number of studies have shown that, historically, Aboriginal women have been the protectors and keepers of their land and, of course, their people. It has also been shown that they fulfilled very important roles in the social, economic and justice realms, and in terms of their nation's rights. They played an extremely important and central role. Unfortunately, that role lost its importance over the years, after the Indian Act was foisted upon them by the government, and I do mean foisted.
That piece of legislation used to be called An Act for the gradual enfranchisement of Indians, and its purpose was the assimilation of our peoples. I am proud to say that today, in 2012, my people, the Innu nation — like many other nations across Canada — are still very much alive and very proud to be here.
I am also proud to say that Aboriginal women play a pivotal role today, in 2012. We are taking back our former place in society, a process that is more difficult in some regions than others. But in our hearts, we have always held the central role of keeping, protecting and guarding our land, nation, language, culture and so on. In our eyes, that role is still very much alive and very important.
In light of that central role, I cannot ignore the fact that a large majority of us still face social, political and economic barriers, and have obvious difficulty exercising our democratic rights within our nations and Canadian society. These barriers have plagued us for generations.
As these conditions persist, numerous studies conducted over the years by Statistics Canada, universities and even our own Aboriginal institutions have unfortunately proven that, globally speaking, Aboriginal women are the most marginalized and poorest population, and are subject to some form of violence, be it systemic, economic or physical. We unfortunately hold the top spot in those statistics, and I say that with great sarcasm. It is a shame that we continue to suffer with these realities.
Extreme poverty plagues communities both on and off reserve. A woman's annual average income is $20,000, but it can be as low as $12,000. That is the reality we live with day in and day out.
As I mentioned earlier, the systemic discrimination we suffer because of the Indian Act hurts us on a daily basis. That legislation dictated the creation and administration of reserves, as well as the discrimination and unilateral violation of rights we face, both on and off reserve. Grand Chief Sioui said that regardless of where his nation's members live, they are part of his land, and he takes care of them and protects them. That is why I support his position.
It is unfortunate that, over the years, Canada's Aboriginal women have seldom been consulted. In fact, when I was elected a few weeks ago, the environment minister's advisory committee eliminated the role of Canada's Aboriginal women on that committee altogether.
I am sad to show you that, yet again, we are frequently left out of consultations, despite the importance the environment holds for Aboriginal women.
As far as poverty is concerned, we are not leaving our communities because we want to, but usually because we are seeking better living conditions. If the living conditions in our communities supported women, if they offered women safety, greater justice, adequate programs, both for themselves and for their families, and the fundamental rights they are entitled to, as human beings, I do not think we would see so many people coming and going between our communities and urban or rural areas.
Violence and extreme poverty are two other reasons that we leave our communities. Overcrowding is another. Up to 14 people can live under the same roof, and many women leave as a result.
There is some good news, however. More and more women are leaving to obtain a college or university education, something their communities cannot give them, unfortunately. Some communities do not even have elementary schools, and the children are forced to leave their homes, the places where their culture, language, traditions and history reside.
So the reasons we leave our communities are numerous. And I would remind you that the motivation for leaving may not always be pleasant.
I gave you some figures that speak to the extreme poverty we face. The Native Women's Association of Canada has solutions. Our provincial and territorial organizations have solutions to improve the quality of life of women, their spouses and their families. Nearly 80 per cent of Aboriginal women are single mothers. That disturbing figure shows that, despite suffering from poverty and discrimination, Aboriginal women still have to support their children.
You have an important role to play, and I hope you are going to make strong recommendations to the government so that the human rights of these women are no longer violated. I think being poor is a violation of human rights because it prevents me from making the choices I would be entitled to, as a mother and for the well-being of my family. And especially for my dignity and the dignity of my family.
Too often, women end up on the street engaging in prostitution. Training 101 for sex work is not a course offered at university.
We have too many vulnerable women who, with no other choices, end up on the street.
A few years ago, the Sisters in Spirit project, which was started by the Native Women's Association of Canada, showed to the federal government and the whole world that more than 583 women went missing or were murdered over five years. Most of those women were young women in vulnerable situations. Those women and their families, who could have been protected by their communities if they had had programs, services and appropriate facilities, ended up on the Sisters in Spirit lists.
Today, we are telling you that this number is no longer appropriate. There are now over 3,000 women a year who are murdered or who go missing.
On my own behalf and on behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada, we are asking the federal and provincial governments loud and clear to hold a national public inquiry to shed light on these cases of missing persons and to ensure that we change this system that discriminates against us. We must find solutions to counter this systemic violence; the government, the First Nations, our Aboriginal governments, our Aboriginal organizations and our families must find better solutions so that, together, we can say that we have put an end to these disappearances and these murders.
The ball is in your court or the arrow is in your camp. It is a very nice arrow with a lot of hope and a lot of love. I am telling you, as Aboriginal women, we have come together as allies. If we can sit down together and say that, together, we are taking steps to improve the living conditions of Aboriginal women across the country, I guarantee you that the statistics will drop and that people will say that we cost a lot in taxes. I am sorry, but that is wrong. We will stop using services because our communities will be protected.
To conclude, I would say that, as a mother of five children and being surrounded by marvellous women across Canada, it hurts to see that, when we leave our communities for the reasons I have listed, our children are often affected. And when I spoke about systemic discrimination, remember the impact of the residential schools on the people of my generation and of my colleague's generation.
The rate of placement in residential schools of children of our generation is so much higher than that of our grandparents' or parents' generation. There may be major work to do in terms of human rights. How is it that Aboriginal children are placed in those schools much more often than the children of Canadian society? I repeat that there is much to do: education for our brothers and sisters who live outside the communities, discrimination resulting from Bill C-31 and Bill C-3, the whole issue surrounding the division of matrimonial property that Aboriginal women are extremely vulnerable to in their communities.
We have long been suggesting solutions to you, solutions that come from our communities and our organizations. We are smart, self-taught, passionate and educated people. We are capable of doing it, and we want to do it. So join us as allies in making these changes.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Audette. We will now hear from Thibault Martin, a professor with the Department of Social Work and Social Science at the Université du Québec en Outaouais.
Thibault Martin, Professor, Department of Social Work and Social Science, Université du Québec en Outaouais: I would like to thank the Senate committee for allowing me to speak. I would first like to say that my presentation will not be normative. I do not intend to make any recommendations because I think the First Nations and Aboriginal institutions already have a certain number of recommendations they would like to make.
As a sociologist, I will just provide indicators of problems that you are trying to figure out, including the discrimination of Aboriginal persons in urban environments. For us, sociologists, the premise is that discrimination is not just an act, but a result. An institution, an organization may be considered responsible for discriminating against people, even though, in practice, the institution or organization is doing nothing to discriminate against them. It is the result of the system.
Students often ask me, " Can we say that the federal government is responsible for discrimination against and what has happened to Aboriginals?" Obviously, this is a question that arises at the university. You cannot hold a government responsible for what came before; it inherited it.
However, it is the responsibility of all governments to put measures in place to right and repair problems arising from discrimination. So the government's responsibility is not judged on the situation it inherits but on the situation it will leave behind. The federal government has long known about and admitted that there is a problem with discrimination, especially in urban areas. One of the solutions considered, after consultations were held with Aboriginals, was to allow them to self-govern. Self-government was seen as one way to allow Aboriginals to get out of economic distress and to fight against discrimination.
The federal government, because that is what we are talking about here, is prepared to work regularly with the territorial and provincial governments to sign political agreements. The best known one was the one that led to the creation of the new territory of Nunavut, but there are political agreements across the country that enable Aboriginals to move closer to self-government, if not toward obtaining regional governments so that they, themselves, can create legislation that contributes to lowering discrimination.
Nunavut, inspired by Bill 101 in Quebec, created a law that states that Nunavut's territorial administration must be done in the three official languages and makes Inuktitut the working language for its administration. It is an important change because, when Aboriginals have to work in a language that is not their own, it becomes more difficult for them to move up in the public service.
Nunavut has decided to institute the Aboriginal language as a working language. The federal government is moving toward self-government for the territories, if not the reserves. But, in urban areas, progress toward self-government is minimal or non-existent.
The arguments are simple on the part of both the federal government and the public opinion. We are wondering how we can become autonomous in a city when we do not have a territorial base. Although this is not impossible, it is a basic question that the federal government or this committee could perhaps study.
Some Aboriginals are asking that urban reserves be created, even if the reserve is far from being a panacea. However, when they ask what constitutes a minimum, they often get negative responses. For example, I remember working on the issue in Winnipeg. The Winnipeg population was completely against creating an urban reserve, even though it was not intended for people to move there, but to enable having a tax-free zone where Aboriginals could create businesses.
So it is very difficult. But some political will would allow the federal government to have an impact in cities where it could enable Aboriginals to create employment or other activities, such as setting up new institutions. The Huron village of Bwendake is a good example of an Aboriginal community in an urban setting that has managed to use that capacity to live in the urban environment and connect with the rest of the political world.
Ms. Audette spoke a great deal about the fact that, from the Aboriginal perspective, there is no rupture between the rural world — that of the community — and the urban one. I had another quote that was along those lines from an Aboriginal I met in Val-d'Or. He said that he didn't live in the territory; the territory lives in him, and that when he is in the city, he brings his territory with him.
Let us understand that, unlike what we think, there is a migration in both directions. Right now in Quebec, as many Aboriginals are returning to their community as are leaving them. So the city is not in disconnect with the community. A lot of Aboriginals go to the city to study, to improve their lot in life, and that needs to be considered.
However, the other reason Aboriginals move to urban areas is because they are not getting the services they need in the communities. A lot of Aboriginals have diabetes and do not have dialysis services in their region, so they must go to the city.
There is a community in Manitoba where the vast majority of the population lives in Winnipeg, about 500 kilometres away by plane, because the people have diabetes. They have asked for decades for a dialysis centre that the federal government does not want to pay for, saying that health care comes under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government should also consider that the city is the result of the community. So federal public policies having to do with Aboriginal issues should integrate the two.
I will now be more specific by highlighting a few of the important subjects. First, there is the health of Aboriginals in urban settings. There is major discrimination. Sixty per cent of Aboriginals suffer from diabetes. Most of them, who went to the city to take advantage of health care services, do not have access to a doctor, or if they do have access to a doctor, drop the doctor because they feel mistreated or because they no longer have the means to live in the house they are in. They move to another neighbourhood and lose their doctor.
For these Aboriginals with diabetes and no access to a doctor, their lives are at risk. And although the federal government says that health is a provincial responsibility, the federal government has its share of responsibility too. The only reason why Aboriginals are in cities is because they are not able to receive health care services on their reserves. So there is a causal link that the federal government cannot deny.
I think the Senate Committee on Human Rights should consider this issue carefully.
Clearly, there are other issues, such as housing. Aboriginals are systematically discriminated against when they look for housing. I remember that I recently interviewed a white guy, as we say in Val d'Or, a non-Aboriginal. The mining boom in that area is incredible; people come from the southern regions with high qualifications and high wages; he told me: " The vacancy rate in Val d'Or is 1 per cent. If two people, an engineer and an Aboriginal, wanted my place, would you rent it to the Aboriginal if you were me?"
The Chair: Professor Martin, the Senators would like to ask you some questions; could you wrap up your presentation?
Mr. Martin: Certainly. So access to housing is a challenge. Access to education in Aboriginal languages and culture is a challenge, if not non-existent, in cities; so is access to credit. I did a study on Aboriginals in Winnipeg; they are systematically being denied a bank account because they are on welfare. That is outright discrimination. I have evidence and everyone knows it, including Aboriginal associations. So there is no access to credit, which is not the case for other Canadians. As you must know, justice is also a problem, with the over-representation of Aboriginal people. A federal government report said that the justice system — from police officers in the streets to courts — is faced with a problem of systemic discrimination.
[English]
Senator White: Thank you. I have a question for Ms. Audette.
We are seeing a large movement of the urban Aboriginal population. I am trying to understand what percentage of Aboriginals, in particular First Nations, are moving specifically from on reserve to off reserve, or urban, as a result of education and health access.
Ms. Audette: I would say that number — if I am not accurate, it is not far off — is close to 70 per cent of our women who are leaving the community to live off reserve. For the majority of them, it is for emergency reasons, such as family violence or extreme poverty.
Like I said earlier in my presentation, I am proud to see that we have more and more women who, in order to end those adverse conditions, are using education as one of the solutions.
We are now trying to put in place a plan of action for socio-economic development for First Nations women, Metis, for Aboriginal women. Social reintegration is something I am very passionate about, something we presented to this government.
We are also putting in place an Aboriginal women's entrepreneur network for this country, as well as a micro credit fund because some women in the community are not able to obtain funds under the Indian Act. We are considered minors, as you know, so by creating that micro credit fund, it will help to ensure that women in the communities can change their lives. Those are some of the solutions.
The board of directors met this weekend. We did a survey across Canada. Many young women are, like me, in between or older, and we all need financial literacy training. There are basic things that we need to do. They are not very costly, but interesting, as solutions. In addition, we want to ensure that Aboriginal women can be as competitive as other Canadian women when looking at the global situation.
Senator White: In light of that, are we seeing any positive impact now as we see this growing urban Aboriginal population within cities like Ottawa? I was previously the police chief here, and we have seen a dramatic growth in the last five years, in particular with Inuit, but also with First Nation communities. Are we seeing any positive impact on education levels and less so on health? I know Ottawa in particular has had a little more of a battle around the Wabano health centre during the development stages, but what about on the education level?
Ms. Audette: I will pass that question to Ms. Edwards.
Teresa Edwards, Director of Human Rights and International Affairs, Native Women's Association of Canada: As far as education, statistically we are seeing that First Nation women in particular are reaching higher levels than their counterparts, First Nation men.
Senator White: Urban versus on-reserve or men versus women?
Ms. Edwards: Both. Women are reaching higher levels of education; however, the problem is that it is not translating to the amount of income they earn per year. Women are still coming in at a lower level of economic security.
One of the solutions, as Ms. Audette was saying, is engaging women using micro credit to the global market and everything in between, as well as including Aboriginal women as part of the Aboriginal economic development framework. We need to have more women engaged in trade and business if we are to fill the labour gap that is coming. We have the Aboriginal population do so particularly with our women. It is a great time. If this government were to invest in young Aboriginal women, it would lead to the gradual retiring of the older population. We have the fastest growing population, so we should take advantage of this opportunity to have women engage in economic development.
Ms. Audette: To conclude on this, I met with a director responsible for a training centre. She told me that 97 per cent of her students, the majority being women, are completing or finishing their degrees. I asked about the other 3 per cent, and she said that it is mostly women having difficulty finding child care services and proper apartments or housing for them.
Senator White: The socio-economic impact on education, in other words.
Thank you for your testimony today.
The Chair: Ms. Audette and Ms. Edwards, if you could choose from three issues that affect Aboriginal women the most, what would they be and how would you prioritize them, especially for women off reserve? You have mentioned a number of them — daycare, violence, poverty — but how would you prioritize them?
[Translation]
Ms. Audette: The Native Women's Association of Canada has the will and desire to work with the federal, provincial and territorial governments to develop an action plan for Aboriginal women, a national framework that will address economic development, the social economy, access to education and ways to encourage women to stay in school; of course, the fight against poverty is the backdrop for all that.
To sum up, one is not more important than the other; these are the three main priorities that, as president, I advocate. The goal is also to ensure that non-violence is promoted more strongly at the federal and provincial levels, but also in our communities and urban centres.
[English]
Ms. Edwards: Ms. Audette said it all. When we have economic security, we have less violence. When we have economic security, we have access to housing. When we have economic security, it opens up the world for our women. That has been the way we are leading. Rather than being reactionary to violence, we are still looking at violence prevention and the promotion of non-violence, absolutely; that work will always continue. However, we know when women have choices and economic security, they will inevitably be able to leave violent situations if they have that choice, so that must be an essential part of the foundation.
[Translation]
Senator Harb: Thank you very much for your presentations. They were very interesting. You talked a bit about the Indian Act, and you said that it was causing a lot of trouble.
Do you think that the government should repeal this act? If so, is your community ready to stand together on what to do next as first Canadians and as far as your role is concerned?
Ms. Audette: I strongly believe that the Indian Act is the best definition of what discrimination is. It is outdated and paternalistic. But if you were to tell me that the Indian Act was going to be repealed tomorrow morning, it would mean that we are finally on equal footing as nations and that I have a right to speak, and I have control over what is happening on the territory, which includes the economy, the environment, sustainable development and human rights. I have my own constitution, so I am a self-government, both economically and financially.
But that is not the case, and if I were told that the act will be repealed tomorrow, what protections would I have? What guarantees would I have that I am still the first nation of this territory and that it is no longer just a reserve, but that it is a territory? We need to do things step by step, but, above all, the strength of our First Nation needs to be engaged and respected, not by imposing things, the way it is under all current bills. We must sit and talk, nation to nation. We have the solutions. We are the ones who are constantly in crisis mode; if the legislation disappears, things should not be imposed, but they should stem from the desire of the nation or the Aboriginal peoples. This will only happen if we have meaningful safeguards to ensure that our treaty rights, our ancestral rights and our inherent rights are upheld. It is important to consider all those aspects.
Senator Harb: Are you saying that the government is not taking the issue seriously and is not treating it as a priority?
Ms. Audette: I have been in politics for 20 years and, regardless of the government in power, it is unfortunate that, 20 years later, I still have to sit here and say that we are no longer children and that we have never been the government's children; we are educated people, self-taught and passionate, and we are able to make decisions about our current and future aspirations.
Despite the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it is unfortunate that, still in 2012, we are not able to have a discussion and say that the bills studied by Canada's highest democratic institution cannot be the result of collective work; we are not being asked to recommend something.
The Chair: Mr. Martin, would you like to give an answer?
Mr. Martin: To the question about the Indian Act?
Senator Harb: Yes.
Mr. Martin: I completely agree with Ms. Audette, meaning that the leaders of Aboriginal communities do not want the Indian Act to be abolished if it means that Aboriginals would become simple citizens without any constitutional rights. We know that we have been at an impasse since 1969. If we look at what Ms. Audette is saying, in Nunavut, Inuit have a regional government and, though it may not fully treat nations on equal footing, they have the foundation for self-determination. They do not have the Indian Act and are not saying that they would like to have one. I think that, if we gave them an alternative, they would prefer the alternative to the Indian Act.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Ms. Audette, does your organization have any projects or initiatives that target the health of women and children? Also, what is the state of maternal health in the community?
Ms. Audette: I love your questions, senators.
One hundred per cent of our funding was cut not long ago from Health Canada — 100 per cent. It is hard to say that, yes, we have something in place, and we had 10 or maybe more people devoted and dedicated to the health of our women and our children across Canada. I would need your help to put this back because it is a need.
[Translation]
Health is the cornerstone, and these budget cuts are affecting us.
[English]
There are communities that will work, but the Native Women's Association of Canada would like to continue and would like to be a partner on this. Maybe it could be a recommendation to put back this beautiful project that we had with Health Canada.
Ms. Edwards: Going back to the prior question about the Indian Act, we would definitely like to see the acknowledgment and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as Ms. Audette mentioned, but we also want to see our treaties respected. To reiterate that point, there has been a lack of consultation, even with the private member's bill going forward at the moment on the amendment to the Indian Act. Having people come to present before a committee is not deemed consultation.
Therefore, we would need to be very careful about any types of changes that would go forward. It would have to be in full partnership with First Nations, including the very distinct role of Native women. I wanted to clarify and reiterate that point.
The Chair: I have a few questions. As you know, this is a study for people living off reserve, and we want to know how First Nation women would be affected differently than First Nation men. Can you describe the different ways that First Nation women are affected? Are these issues significant concerns to your membership?
[Translation]
Ms. Audette: Of course there are differences between men and women, but I would say that most people who are victims of psychological, economic and domestic violence are Aboriginal women. Of the people who are responsible for children, 80 per cent are women.
The whole issue of dialysis, health care needs and services that are not offered in communities, the AIDS/HIV issue, mental and physical health issues largely affect women who end up in urban centres and rural areas. Once we come to urban and rural areas — I experienced this yesterday on a street corner here in Ottawa, though I love Ottawa; I see it in Montreal too — we are discriminated against because we are different, but also because of the history of our nations and because of what we are as Aboriginal people, in addition to being discriminated against as women. So yes, there is a difference.
At a social level, women represent 52 per cent of the Aboriginal population and, unfortunately, more than half of this population lives in extreme poverty. So this is much more the case for women than it is for our men and sons inside and outside our communities.
Yes, it is a huge problem. More and more Aboriginal women are going to jail, and it is often because they live in extreme poverty and commit crimes related to extreme poverty. Those differences exist. There are many solutions, but why not change the history in our schools, in our communities and in Canadian society? Why not change that and stop mortgaging our young people, Canadians and First Nations alike? Why not stop keeping them in the dark?
These kids will later take our places, and they will have learned the true history of Aboriginal people, how we saved your lives, how we welcomed you, how we showed you how to live here, and how, today, we are completely marginalized. I am sure that the relationship would be much better. So yes, there are differences between men and women.
The Chair: Professor Martin, you are saying that migration to cities is often caused by a lack of services on reserves. Do you think that the federal government should continue to be financially responsible for Aboriginals in urban centres?
Mr. Martin: I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Chair: Let me reword it.
[English]
Because services are lacking on the reserves and people move, as Ms. Audette said, to urban areas, do you think that the federal government should continue providing funding to people who have moved from reserves to urban areas because of lack of funding?
[Translation]
Mr. Martin: There are examples of places like Manitoba where this is working well. There was an instance where the federal government worked with the provincial government to create a dialysis centre specifically for Aboriginal people. So yes, I think the federal government should assume responsibility, because it is not providing the services people need on reserves. So it must provide at least the equivalent of those services; the amount that the government would have to pay to provide Aboriginals with the same services as non-Aboriginals should be transferred either to the provinces or the centres co-managed by Aboriginals. It seems to me that this is the least it can do.
[English]
The Chair: I have a question for NWAC. In your 2011 report and focus group recommendations on the Canadian Human Rights Act and Aboriginal women, you discuss the patriarchal nature of First Nations governments. You say that this patriarchal nature of First Nations governments affects the ability of off-reserve First Nations women to participate in band decision making and to have their concerns adequately represented on band councils.
If their concerns are not adequately represented on band councils, what measures could be put in place to ensure that women's concerns are addressed?
[Translation]
Ms. Audette: I would first like to say that, in June or July last year, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was an interesting step forward for Aboriginal women. Why am I drawing this parallel? Let us remember that the Indian Act was imposed on us; that is the past. But the act is still in force and that is the present. This act has been placing men in power for decades, and it has changed our ways of governance where the roles of men and women were well defined and there was mutual respect. All of a sudden, the Indian Act no longer lets women play that role. I call it brainwashing. When I was younger, I was beating our leaders over the head. But now that I am older, I realize that this act has affected all of us.
It is important that women's and human rights organizations work with our member organizations to provide training and the necessary tools to help these women know their rights, take control of their lives, learn how to go into politics and how to take their places and maintain them. That is what matters.
More and more women are taking action across Canada. Remember that, in 1985, women did not even have the right to participate in a meeting of elected representatives, not to mention participate in elections. The year 1985 is recent in the history of the world and in the history of women.
In light of action taken over the years by the member organizations of the Native Women's Association of Canada, more and more women are now in politics. Those programs need to be maintained or at least supported while the demand is there.
I would say that the participation of women is an obligation, because we represent 52 per cent of the population. After eight years of being the chair of the Assembly of Treaty Chiefs, I see how things work with women in politics. It is not something against our men — we still need them —but it is important to support this type of initiative.
[English]
Ms. Edwards: I would add some good news in that we are making advances. In First Nations communities, we have over 118 women chiefs and over 800 women councillors, which is a higher rate of decision making and leadership for women than in any other municipal, provincial, territorial or federal government. That is a great advance for women in leadership.
With respect to section 67, NWAC is working with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and several First Nations to develop pilot projects and toolkits that we can offer First Nations as tools in helping to have dispute resolution mechanisms when difficulties happen within their community. This will ensure that vulnerable populations and marginalized women on reserves are not victim to any kind of retaliation for bringing forward a claim of discrimination on reserve and enforcing their rights.
The unfortunate part of that is that, when it was put in place, there was no funding for implementation to offer training to chief and council and management on reserve to be able to put the law into force. We are doing it with private organizations — NWAC and the Canadian Human Rights Commission — and we have developed several booklets and tools, as I mentioned, for First Nation chiefs and councils to use to ensure that women are protected and have a voice, yet, at the same time, that custom, culture and the First Nation governance structures are respected.
We are taking ownership and doing what we can to protect women in order to ensure that they have a voice and that women's rights are protected.
The Chair: On the AANDC website, the Metis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate maintains a bilateral relationship with each of the two national Aboriginal organizations that represent Metis and Non-Status Indian interests. Is your organization involved in regular discussions with the Metis and Non-Status Indian Relations Directorate?
Ms. Edwards: You are asking at AANDC?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Edwards: Not particularly. NWAC has statements of partnership that we work collaboratively with the Assembly of First Nations, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but the non- status group from AANDC would work more with the Métis National Council and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples than with the Native Women's Association of Canada.
The Chair: Thank you all for coming here. I know that you came on short notice.
Ms. Audette and Ms. Edwards, we are always happy to see that you have given us a lot of time. We appreciate that.
Mr. Martin, thank you for accommodating us at short notice. We appreciate the presence of all of you, and we look forward to working with you in the future.
I would like now to welcome our next panel, John Richards, Professor, School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University who is attending by video conference from Vancouver; and Don N. McCaskill, Professor of Indigenous Studies at Trent University.
Thank you very much for making yourselves available. We will begin with Professor McCaskill.
Don N. McCaskill, Professor, Indigenous Studies, Trent University: Thank you very much for having me appear before your committee to provide input into the important work you are doing. I have been working with Aboriginal people and conducting research for the last 40 years.
I want to briefly report on two major research projects on urban Aboriginal people that have just taken place in Ontario. The first is the Urban Aboriginal Task Force which studied Aboriginal people in five Ontario urban centres, including Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Barrie/Midland/Orillia and Kenora. The second is the Toronto Aboriginal Research Project. I have the report here, and I am happy to give a copy to the committee. There are additional copies of both reports available.
As you know, one of the major findings of the reports has been that the Urban Aboriginal Research Project has been by and large neglected by different levels of government, partly because of jurisdictional disputes between the federal and provincial governments as to who is responsible for Aboriginal people. The vast majority of funding tends to be given to off-reserve Aboriginal projects, despite the fact that over 50 per cent of Aboriginal people in Canada now live in urban areas.
We studied over 1,500 people in the Toronto Aboriginal Research Project and found in our research that there have been significant changes in the urban Aboriginal populations over the past several years. We found, for example, that one third of the Aboriginal people in cities can now be considered middle class; they have attained a certain level of economic success, as defined as earning over $40,000 annually. The educational levels of almost every socio-economic measurement have led to significant improvements over the past many years. Educational levels of urban Aboriginal people and most socio-economic measures tend to be somewhat higher than non-urban Aboriginal people, although somewhat below the level for non-Aboriginal people.
We found that there were different types of Aboriginal people and that the whole Aboriginal population is very complex. Some Aboriginal people were third generation people living in the cities. On the other hand, we discovered that for 70 per cent of Aboriginal people, First Nations and Metis communities retain an importance for them in terms of such things as travelling back to visit family to engage in cultural ceremonies such as sweat lodges and other spiritual activities, to attend ceremonies, funerals, weddings and for many different reasons, as you would anticipate. A large percentage still maintains important ties with the rural communities, the First Nations communities and the Metis communities.
I gather of one of the central mandates of this committee has been the issue of rights with regard to Aboriginal people. We discovered, as some of the other speakers talked about earlier, that while about a third of Aboriginal people live economically successful lives, a little more than a third of urban Aboriginal people still experience significant problems such as poverty, single parent families, addictions issues and homelessness. For example, the result of several studies is that it is estimated that over 25 per cent of the homeless people in Toronto are Aboriginal. That is well above their proportion of the population.
We also discovered that the majority of Aboriginal organizations are social service organizations. There is not the same institutional completeness for urban Aboriginal people that there are for ethnic groups that come into the city. For example, there is no Chinatown; there is no residential community in the same sense. This is different for some cities in Western Canada such as Winnipeg, Regina and others, but in Ontario Aboriginal people tend to spread out throughout the urban areas.
In terms of the issue of legal rights and the related question of urban self-government or relationships formally between First Nations communities and urban Aboriginal people, we found that the majority of Aboriginal people do not feel — when they leave their reserve — they leave their community of origin. They do not feel that they should have to give up any of their rights, privileges and responsibilities that they have in the First Nations community, even if they do move to the city.
In terms of legalities, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, has been interpreted to apply primarily to First Nations based on land claims, developments, development of self-government, and those kinds of things. It has not been particularly transposed into the rights of urban Aboriginal people.
There have been some examples of developing relationships that have some legal status with regard to the provinces. For example, in urban areas, some Aboriginal agencies have taken on legal mandated services in the area of child welfare. There are educational agreements that have been signed and others, but not formal self-government or legal issues per se in terms of transferring legal rights to the urban area.
On the other hand, a number of models have been put forth for urban Aboriginal self-government. There is increased responsibility for their affairs within the urban areas, one of which has been the community of interest model, which proposes more political autonomy through the development of self-governing organizations within the city. The organization that sponsored the research in Toronto, called the Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council, is an example of a group of social services that get together and all have mandates to represent, in one sense, the community. They all have membership made up of many different Aboriginal people within the urban area. They also have boards of directors that are elected by their membership.
The community of interest model suggests that there could be an organization separate from existing organizations as an independent political body or somehow connected to existing Aboriginal organizations in very broad representation. It could be put forth as a model of self-government, and the same rights and privileges that exist with regard to non-urban Aboriginal people could be put forth in the city as well. It was tried in 2001, somewhat unsuccessfully. A group attempted to establish an independent political representative body with voting rights and a constitution, but there just was not sufficient consensus within the community to make that happen.
We have a chapter in the TARP report on urban Aboriginal governance, and one finding is that at this point in time there is not a feeling that there is sufficient consensus to be able to develop any meaningful urban Aboriginal self- government.
Another model that involves the First Nations directly is the host nation model where the First Nations community provides governance and services to their citizens, even if they have moved to urban areas. There are a few examples of that. For example, in Thunder Bay, the First Nations communities and the PTOs — provincial-territorial organizations — have established some service organizations, such as in the area of housing, for their members who come to the urban environment as well.
There are some legal precedents. Of course, the Corbiere decision established the right for Aboriginal people who move to the city to vote in First Nations elections. More important, because of the significant relationship that exists between First Nations communities and urban areas, there is a real sense that there should be some kind of collaboration potentially with regard to the First Nations community in the urban areas. We make 58 recommendations specifically in the report, and many of them have to do with the relationship between the two.
There are some examples where there is more and more of that kind of relationship. Of course, in other parts of the country, such as Saskatoon and of course Vancouver, where it affects urban reserves, this situation is very much there.
In terms of looking at human rights in a different way, we discovered that there were real issues with regard to discrimination and racism concerning urban Aboriginal people. A number of studies in that regard have been done in cities.
There are some examples of racial profiling by the justice system and police particularly, at least that is the perception of the majority of people.
In terms of security guards, educational institutions, stores, malls, those kinds of things, we discovered there was a perception for some Aboriginal people — and I do not want to emphasize this point too strongly. There were examples of discrimination and lack of human rights with regard to urban Aboriginal people in a number of different settings.
I will stop there, otherwise I will talk forever about the findings in the study, as we looked at about 14 different topics using seven different research methodologies and we had a sample of over 1,500 people. I can wait until the question period, and I would be happy to answer any questions then.
The Chair: Thank you, professor.
We will go on to hear from Professor Richards from Simon Fraser University.
John Richards, Professor, School of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University: Thank you. When I got up this morning, I got dressed and I by chance decided on a Bangladeshi garment that I am wearing before you. I also do a bit of work in Bangladesh on education among marginalized groups. It is a very difficult, complex issue and it is, in my opinion, at the heart of the problems surrounding Aboriginal Canadians.
For those on the committee who may not be familiar with anything I have done, I am an aging academic. I have worked with the C.D. Howe Institute. I have done a lot of work on Aboriginal education in Canada, as well as education in Bangladesh, which is not the subject for today.
I would follow on with Professor McCaskill by mentioning also the Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study, with which I actively participated. This was a study completed by Environics two years ago of 2,500 urban Aboriginals from Halifax to Vancouver. There were extensive hour-long interviews with individuals, and I had the privilege of being part of the advisory circle that designed the questionnaire and took part in that study. Subsequently, there was published with the C.D. Howe Institute last summer a report on the question we posed in that study about life satisfaction among urban Aboriginals.
A quick summary: From this and from other surveys that have asked Native people about the extent of their life satisfaction in Canada, several things follow. One, the majority of urban Aboriginals want to stay in the city. They consider it home, and their level of life satisfaction is about the same as that of those living on reserves.
None of this is to say that the situation is ideal; far from it. Relative to non-Aboriginal Canadians, those who report a low life satisfaction is approximately double in this sample compared to what you would find among typical non- Aboriginals. In other words, there is discrimination; there is poverty; there are problems of cultural identity, all of which matter.
Personally, I am of the opinion that there have to be two avenues for those who are First Nations. Many will want to live a life on reserves, and reserves should be renovated, restored, given autonomy and it should be feasible for that life.
Other First Nations — and obviously Metis are not in that category — will increasingly want to live in cities. As Professor McCaskill said, based on the last time we had a census, in 2006, the results showed approximately half the Native population now live in a city, and the cities will be home to probably the majority of Native people over the next generation. They must be welcoming, and the key to that transition being made successfully is schools. There are many problems in provincial schools, but there is nothing uniform about it.
Here in British Columbia, where I have studied schools quite closely over the years, there are some school districts where there is very little gap between the performance of Native children and non-Native children. There are also school districts in British Columbia where there are very large gaps.
In Manitoba and Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan is my home province — approximately a third of the school age population is now Native. It does not make much sense, in my opinion, to think of separate school systems for this population.
What makes sense is that the provincial governments spend a lot more time and effort on affirmative action and discussing Aboriginal culture in classes, not only for Aboriginal children but also for non-Aboriginal children. When I grew up in Saskatoon, we had negligible discussion about Native cultures when I was growing up as a teenager. I learned about these matters far later.
I can go on at great length on this theme.
There is a great transition going on at this point where Native people are moving to town and often moving back to reserve, in the case of First Nations, or moving back to a rural community if, for example, they are Metis. The rural communities matter, historically, as Professor McCaskill was saying. Nonetheless, the city is home. In the city there will inevitably be, as there should be, a fair degree of integration of Native people with non-Native people. This is particularly important in cities in Western Canada, Prairie cities in particular.
There are some complex financial issues at stake here that the committee may want to pursue and discuss. The most important financial issue for First Nations — registered Indians when they leave — is uninsured health benefits, which are approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. It is a very large component the financing of health care for First Nations peoples, and these benefits are accessible both on and off-reserve. However, I do not think it appropriate that one try to replicate the pattern of social assistance or housing support for First Nations people living off reserve relative to what happens on reserve.
There are many things to talk about on this issue, but I will close with the single most important theme in my mind: How do we ensure that the school system — primarily provincial system — off reserve pays sufficient attention to the success of Native students among them?
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now go to questions.
Senator Zimmer: Professors, thank you for your presentations. The question I have is in relation to Saskatoon, and you both touched on it. I went to university there, too, a few years ago, as did Senator Andreychuk. One thing we noticed when we went many years ago is that Sutherland was close to Saskatoon. Now it is amalgamated.
Regardless, they have developed an urban reserve and have very profitable ventures. They have a gas station truck stop there. Believe me, they run it very efficiently. Another one is near my brother's ranch south of the city, which is Grasswood Park Esso, and it is expanding into a motel and a gas station.
In your experience, is there a developing presence of urban Aboriginal cultures within the city's reserves that are getting more into that, and are they being encouraged by provincial and federal governments to even assist them in a funding head start?
Mr. McCaskill: I guess the answer is yes. Over 30,000 Aboriginal businesses in Canada are now Aboriginal-run. Some of them are in urban areas.
Several years ago, the federal government established economic development as a national priority for Aboriginal people and established training and apprenticeship programs; funding agencies, such as Miziwe Biik in Toronto, which is a training and employment development institution; and also, most important, supporting a lot of small businesses.
There has been growth. There is a national association of Aboriginal businesses. There are business associations that are Aboriginal. There has been a huge growth in Aboriginal businesses. I think this committee has probably also heard that there are barriers to establishing successful Aboriginal businesses, particularly access to capital, legal difficulties with regard to the Indian Act, collateral and those kinds of things.
However, at the same time, the federal and provincial governments have both devoted substantial resources in the past to facilitate Aboriginal businesses, shopping malls — literally the whole gamut of Aboriginal businesses. That is not to say that the majority of Aboriginal people are still engaged in those kinds of activities; there are still some serious economic problems and a lack of training in some areas. However, certainly there has been a huge increase in the economic development. That is reflected in the statistics I gave in terms of the number of Aboriginal people living in urban areas and who are economically successful.
Organizations are not there for them, though, but are for a lot of successful non-Aboriginal businesses. They are not as organized, either. For example, the banks and a lot of the organizations that are non-Aboriginal do have sections of them that are Aboriginal, but there is no equivalent of the Rotary Club, for example. It is a different kind of Aboriginal association.
We found in the research that there is almost nothing for the urban Aboriginal middle-class at this point. As I mentioned, almost 90 per cent of the Aboriginal organizations in urban areas are social service oriented in order to deal with the issues that people who are poor have to deal with, which is logical given the fact that the majority of Aboriginal people in the past have needed those kinds of services.
We are now recommending that for economically successful people who do have businesses and that kind of thing that there needs to be recreational, cultural, social and artistic kinds of organizations that are available to middle-class Aboriginal people and that will help support their identity and help them in many different ways.
We actually used the example of the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre in Toronto at the corner of Bloor Street and Spadina as an example of the kind of institution that might be developed to assist urban Aboriginal middle-class people and business people to be able to facilitate more economic development growth than has occurred to date.
Mr. Richards: May I add to that briefly?
The Chair: Yes, please.
Mr. Richards: I would insist that the success in economic activity is fair enough. I am delighted to know that the Grasswood Park Esso is doing well down near Saskatoon.
However, the employment of Native people in enterprises, whether they are Native owned or non-Native owned, depends on getting through high school. If you look at Canadians overall, if you have not completed high school, whether you are White, Metis or First Nations, you are not likely to be employed. There is not much difference between the White and the First Nations employment rate among those who have not finished high school; both of them are under 40 per cent. On the other hand, once have you finished high school, whether you are First Nation, Metis or White, your employment rate jumps by about 25 percentage points, and it proceeds to grow if you get trade certificates, college or university.
The danger of thinking about business activities independent of education is that ultimately it will not work. In a modern economy, the less you have as the first rung on the education ladder — high school — it is very unlikely for First Nations, Metis or White people to obtain jobs.
In my opinion, that brings us back to the problems of education. There are huge gaps in the performance of education systems, both on and off reserve. The provinces in Western Canada are beginning to realize just how crucial this is. There are a lot of bright First Nations and Metis people within provincial school systems, particularly in the four Western provinces, who are doing a lot of very good work in trying to overcome a history of ignoring education.
The weakest results by far remain in reserve schools. The reserve schools are poorly organized. They tend to be standalone exercises without the necessary resources, and the performance of these reserve schools is very weak.
Senator Andreychuk: I will continue on the education topic. Perhaps Professor McCaskill and Professor Richards can both answer, but I will address the question to Professor Richards. Yes, we grew up in Saskatoon. We did not really talk about that issue, but it was prevalent. I recall that we started reaching out for more social services within the urban setting, but then the jurisdictional disagreements started to come as to who should pay for Aboriginal services off reserve, and we have struggled with that since. In education, it seems to me that this is most important because, on the one hand, there is great pressure on the federal government to put more resources into reserve schools. Yet, we are hearing that there is a natural migration to cities. Despite the fact of being Aboriginal and wanting to know your roots, the cities have an attraction for all of us. Therefore, how does one integrate into the urban setting when leadership is saying, " Put the resources into the education on-reserve, and it should be equal to what you get in the cities?" It is very difficult to give a comparable education on-reserve when you have small reserves, large reserves, isolated reserves and groupings of reserves. There is so much complexity there. At the same time, there is this mobility into the city.
That is one problem. Where do you put your resources? Do you try to encourage them within the urban settings, within the cluster? It is almost the same debate that we had in Saskatchewan. When people started to migrate into the cities, farms became smaller. You were less able to get the kind of education that you wanted in small towns, so then you got comprehensive schools. Then, you went into urban clusters that reached out, and you did transportation for the schools.
How do we tackle education for Aboriginals when their leadership is saying that there has to be a certain amount on the reserve and when, in fact, there is a certain amount required within the cities?
That means social services as well. I was involved in many of the projects. You are not going to get a young Aboriginal educated if you do not respect his culture, his language and his background. We have some specialized schools or specialized programs for Aboriginals in Saskatchewan. Those should be nurtured, I think. To me, it is a complex issue. Where do we put our emphasis? When we started the First Nations University, we put it on the quality of education, but we very quickly found out that the support systems and the social services are very necessary. We reached out, in all kinds of ways, to integrate the students into the university and to take courses out, pre—university, into Aboriginal reserves and communities so that there was an understanding and an appetite for education. I guess I am going in circles because that is what I hear from people. I get requests from urban Native leaders who say, " We need resources here." Then, there is the reserve. Then, there is: Do we specialize in a slightly different Indian education system as opposed to the population?
It is a struggle that you hear about in Toronto, in a different way, in the immigrant communities. How do we attack and put on the right emphasis at this time?
Mr. Richards: I will start with two examples of activities that are going on.
Edmonton is interesting. It is one of the Western Canadian cities with the largest Aboriginal population. It also has a so-called separate school system, which is historically linked to the Catholic Church, and the so-called public school system, which is not. Both of them are very similar inasmuch as they are fully funded by the provincial government.
In the Catholic school system in Edmonton, which is renowned across Canada as one of the most ambitious, innovative school organizations in Canada with respect to Aboriginal education, they have chosen — and I think wisely — that their Aboriginal programming, which will, as Senator Andreychuk says, emphasize culture, is not in separate schools. It is integrated into all 84 of their schools, varying depending on the number of Native kids in that particular school.
The public school system in Edmonton, with somewhat less success, has tried the idea of separate Native-only schools, with not very optimistic results academically. The schools become too much a question of social problems and not enough a question of learning, and that is the difficulty. If you try to separate Aboriginal kids in such schools, you wind up with disproportionate social problems.
Now, there is no quick, easy answer here. The results are not brilliant for Native kids in Edmonton, nor are they in Saskatoon, Regina or Vancouver. The idea of separate schools for Natives only, in an urban context, is not, in general, an appropriate way to go about it. Who pays is another question that you have raised.
I would like Ottawa to pay more for off-reserve schools, but — let us face it — First Nation and Metis people come off the reserve and are Canadian citizens, just as you and I are. They have the right to a good education, and the provincial governments have a responsibility to respect Native culture, to introduce appropriate programming and not to shirk on this matter. It is really only in the last decade that the provincial ministries of education have taken really seriously that they must do better with respect to the outcomes of Native kids in provincial schools. To their credit, there is a lot of activity going on in education departments in Western Canada precisely to that end.
Let us talk for a minute about reserve schools. Another initiative that has not been mentioned to this point — and I think it was a honourable one — was four pages in the federal budget this spring promising an extra $300 million, approximately, to reserve schools and promising legislation with the idea of encouraging First Nation reserves to establish the equivalent of school boards on reserve. If anyone has followed this dossier closely — and I have because I have been involved in giving advice to the federal government on it — it ran off the rails in October when a group of chiefs said that they did not like what the federal government was initially proposing. This is too important an initiative to let it fall off the rails. I hope that your committee will dig into the matter of reserve school organization. Apart from a few saints who are teachers in reserve schools, it is nearly impossible to get good education outcomes from stand-alone schools. Both of us are from Saskatchewan, and we realized that we had to change, in the mid-20th century, from the prairie school house model into one of school districts.
Enough from me on that theme.
Mr. McCaskill: I have been involved in Aboriginal education for 40 years, and it is a huge complex issue. The jurisdictional issue that you raised needs to be highlighted, and if your committee can do that, that would be something very important. There are still huge problems in terms of the federal and provincial governments disputing who is responsible for what once Aboriginal people leave the reserve and who is responsible for what when they are primarily provincial government responsibilities, such as education.
As I said, the provinces have done some significant things. For example, in the post-secondary area the Province of Ontario recognizes that Aboriginal students in colleges or universities need extra support services, and they now give every college and university between half a million and a million dollars to provide extra support services, such as counsellors, mentors and special academic programs.
The other big issue is whether you establish special educational programs for Aboriginal students or integrate them and incorporate more and more Aboriginal content into the curriculum as a whole. You will notice that in Nunavut they now require in curriculum in all schools that the residential school experience be taught. The more that non- Aboriginal people are educated about Aboriginal issues, such as Aboriginal contributions to Canadian society and a number of other things in terms of the history and the contemporary situation of Aboriginal people, the better.
I think the issue that was raised is quite true. Many of the specific programs in urban areas that were established for Aboriginal people, like the First Nations School in Toronto, have had difficulties because in some ways many of the special needs of students of the schools in those cities have been then put into these special schools. Therefore, they have not been typical public schools. We recommend, similar to the African-centred schools established in Toronto, that an Aboriginal First Nations school with largely high academic standards be established for high school students in Toronto primarily for economically successful children of Aboriginal parents. We found a huge problem with regard to middle-class Aboriginal children and youth losing their culture, their teachings and not being familiar with them.
There have been some successful schools. This includes the the Joe Duquette alternative cultural survival school in Saskatchewan, which has been very successful in educating Aboriginal people. They devote a lot of the curriculum to Aboriginal issues and helping Aboriginal students strengthen their identity and culture as Aboriginal people, while at the same time providing a sound academic education. There have been a lot of initiatives provincially, and the federal government should probably provide more funding for urban Aboriginal schools and get over this jurisdictional issue that seems to be constantly in the way of trying to get a lot of urban issues settled with regard to Aboriginal people in the cities.
Senator Ataullahjan: Professor Richards, in your recent commentary on happiness among urban or Aboriginal people, you discuss high levels of reported happiness and a sense of well-being. However, the data that we hear consistently talks about urban Aboriginal people — those who live in the cities — having poorer health, achieve lower levels of education, and generally a lower income. Can you explain the apparent contradictions to the committee?
By the way, the Bangladeshi shirt looks good.
Mr. Richards: Thank you.
It is a contradiction, senator, and I am not sure that I have a satisfactory answer to it. I think I have part of the answer.
First, the questions that we asked in the context of the Urban Aboriginal People's Study, which was done in 2009 and published in 2010, replicate results which were done by Heritage Canada six years earlier and not published. If you go back to that report, you will see that I devoted a box in it to discussing this unpublished study done by Heritage Canada posing similar questions in the Prairies to urban Native people and rural people, with some of them on reserve and some not. Again, it was the same result. On average, Native people say they are about as happy as non-Native people. Urban are about as happy as those on reserve — or life satisfaction, to be more academic about it. However, they also find that among those who say that life is not going well, there are proportionately far more Native people than non-Native people.
To come to another part of this contradiction that you were speaking to, how can it be that urban Native people say they are reasonably happy when we know that their education, income and employment situation is not as good as that of a typical non-Aboriginal Canadian? Part of the answer is that many urban Native people compare their economic situation with that of cousins or uncles who are still back on the reserve; relative to them, they are doing better. That is one of the results Mr. McCaskill is alluding to by saying there is success among urban Aboriginals.
One of the stereotypes that is wrong is that urban Aboriginals are primarily those with severe problems of homelessness, whether it is downtown Toronto or Vancouver. That is a serious problem, but it is not the typical urban Native experience. As Mr. McCaskill says, there is now a thriving, if small, urban Native middle class and that is all to the good.
I do not know if that is a satisfactory answer. You may have a better explanation than that.
Senator Ataullahjan: I will see if I do, but that is satisfactory.
Mr. McCaskill: With any group, there is a very complex set of situations and people find themselves in a number of different circumstances. Even if they are experiencing some difficulty or compare themselves to people in the rural areas, they will find that they are happier with their lot than others in the rural areas. It is a difficult situation. It has to do with all sorts of issues that are so complex that it is difficult to say. Every study is the result of its methodology and how the studies are conducted. I think the Environics study was more of a perception study versus the TARP study, which was more of a needs study in focusing on behaviours. There were different kinds of studies, but we emphasize in both studies that there are a number of Aboriginal people who are successful. They are often the ones who are not heard from. We found it was not easy to discover and interview people who were in economically successful circumstances because they were living in Scarborough or Milton or wherever and doing fine. It was more difficult to find out what their situation was.
At the other level, we found it was difficult to study homeless people. We interviewed 150 homeless people and had to have people with particular skills to be able to interview them as well. A lot has to do with the nature of the studies.
The Chair: This committee travelled to Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Vancouver just a few weeks ago. In Saskatoon, we met with Mr. Ray Ahenakew, Acting President of the First Nations University. He said something that has stayed in my head, which is that when Aboriginal students are studying on the reserves, the problem is K to 12. They do not have a chance afterward if they have not had a good education on the reserve; the problem is K to 12. I have been thinking about that, and you have been articulate about how important education is.
We talked about separate schools and other schools. Do you think there needs to be schools or help set up for people who come from reserves — I am very reluctant to say this, but there is no other way I can say it — like a catch- up or a way to get some extra help so they are not lost in the post-secondary and have the same opportunities that our children get? It is not their fault they get poor education.
Shall we start with you, Professor McCaskill?
Mr. McCaskill: Absolutely.
I think you have touched on a very important point, that educational levels, despite the fact they might, for example, have high school education, the actual academic level of students coming out of especially the northern First Nations communities is much lower.
We established a diploma program back in 1974 to deal with that very issue. We found that the intelligence level of Aboriginal students was just as high as that of non-Aboriginal students, but they were not graduating from high school for a whole variety of reasons, such as poverty, lack of supports and the quality of educational system within the schools. Many teachers did not want to teach in those communities or did not fit in well and left; there was a huge turnover. I am sure you know about many of these issues.
There needs to be programs to transition students from those schools with lower levels of academic achievement to post-secondary levels. We find over and over again that the Aboriginal students who come to Trent University tend to have lower levels of achievement. We have in place mentorship and counselling programs, a whole array of programs, but even at that point, for example, if something goes wrong at home with an Aboriginal student, they do not often have the supports that a middle-class non-Aboriginal student would have. If something tips the scales in terms of an Aboriginal student, they end up leaving because they just do not have the supports and feel they have to go back.
It is not so much now, but in the past it has been a huge issue, coming to a setting that was so different in terms of trying to adjust to that first year of university. It is extremely difficult for many Aboriginal students to try to cope with the expectations they have in terms of reading and writing levels, essay writing, making formal presentations and all of those things. There is a real need for that kind of transition. That is a huge issue, and we are recognizing it more and more, and the provinces are also recognizing it more and more.
Mr. Richards: Paul Martin, to his credit, after he was no longer Prime Minister, continued with his active interest in Aboriginal matters. He has a foundation with a number of pilot projects in high schools, one of which is in east Vancouver near where I live, Britannia school. Mr. Martin, in chatting about this with him several weeks ago, said that if he were to start all over again, he would start at the preschool and early primary level. I think he is right.
The First Nations Education Steering Committee here in B.C. has a school-board-like role with respect to schools on reserve in this province, and it does some pretty good recording and analysis of the results of kids in reserve schools. One of the results that you see is that very early on, in Grades 1, 2 and 3, First Nations kids in these schools begin to fall behind grade-level expectations with respect to basic reading, writing and math. I am a great advocate of early childhood education. There is a very fragmentary program, Aboriginal Head Start, across Canada, which is not well- developed on reserves, and it deserves to be.
If we are talking, Senator Jaffer, about how to overcome the problem of First Nations and Metis kids in post- secondary education, I am trying to force you to go back to early childhood and early primary. Until there is adequate emphasis on the importance of getting that right, I think we will all be very frustrated. This is not reinventing the wheel.
When I was young many years ago and a graduate student in St. Louis, Missouri, St. Louis was one of the big cities with huge problems of discrimination against African American students and one of the places that began piloting Head Start programming, which targets early primary and even preschool, in a group that has been marginalized and has limited exposure in the community to success in the formal school system, trying to overcome that burden in a number of ways.
I hope there will be some place in your report for discussing the role, both on and off reserve by the way, for early childhood programming and early primary school programming, which is very sensitive, to ensure that First Nations and Native kids in general feel at home in the school system.
Senator White: Supplementary to that, you talked about high school graduation rates. I think there is also — you can probably confirm this — research as to whether there is an actual high school graduation diploma equivalent to other places. I am talking about Nunavut in particular, where studies in the early 2000s identified that the number of high school graduates who would have scored a grade 12 on a GED, for example, was much lower — as a matter of fact I think dramatically lower — than anywhere else in Canada. I am not sure if that has been emulated in any other First Nation or strictly Aboriginal communities, but I know in Nunavut it was an issue.
Mr. McCaskill: I think that is the general finding, particularly for some of the more remote reserves, for example in the northern reserves particularly.
Some of the urban reserves, for example Six Nations near Brantford or even some of the reserves near us, such as Curve Lake First Nation near Peterborough, have levels of education that are roughly equivalent, although students often have to go off the reserve after elementary school.
Generally speaking, it is quite correct to say that the level of actual academic achievement of students graduating from First Nations schools is lower than non-Aboriginal people graduating from high schools.
The Chair: There are so many questions I know we want to ask you because education is pivotal in our work, your work and what we could learn from you, but we have run out of time. I thank both of you. We will be studying this for a few months, and maybe we will have to get more advice from you. Thank you both for your time.
Honourable senators, I am pleased to now welcome Mr. Richard Missens, Executive Director, Community Relations for the First Nations University. Those of us who travelled to his university in Saskatoon had an amazing time speaking to young people at the university and discovering what Mr. Missens does. It was a real treat.
I know you will speak to us about your program today, so please proceed, Mr. Missens.
Richard Missens, Executive Director, Community Relations, First Nations University: Good evening, senators. I apologize that I have a bit of a cold. This is my first time speaking in front of the Senate, and I have to have a cold; but I will try to bear through as best I can. My name is Richard Missens, and I am a faculty member with the School of Business and Public Administration. Currently, I am on leave to serve as Executive Director of Community Relations for the First Nations University.
Before I talk about the university, I will talk about myself. My story will help you to understand the impact that this institution has had on the lives of First Nations people and the way in which we all can enjoy our human rights better.
I am a member of the Pasqua First Nation. It is an Indian reserve located in southern Saskatchewan. I grew up there in the 1960s and 1970s, and I live there today. I left the reserve in 1980 to go to school and to find work. Eventually, I moved back about 11 years ago. During my time on the reserve, I have seen many things that have changed. I have also seen many things that have remained the same. This can be said of our First Nations people who live off the reserve as well. Many of our families continue to struggle with issues of health, employment, education and cultural loss.
When I left the reserve to go to school, I attended the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, now the First Nations University of Canada. I remember it was quite difficult as a student. I had to stay with relatives and get a part- time job. Even though I was made to feel welcome, my aunt's home was very small and overcrowded; and I ended up in a small bedroom in the basement in a makeshift work area. In 1993, I was hired as a faculty member for the First Nations University. I have since had the opportunity to work with many young Aboriginal learners over the past 20 years. I also spent seven years as the chair of my band's education authority. We worked with all aspects of education for the reserve, including the Post-Secondary Student Support Program.
During my years spent as an educator and an administrator, I have witnessed the adversity that First Nations people have had to overcome in completing their education. They face daily challenges in meeting even the basic human rights, such as shelter, food, clothing and health. Their learning experience is often in the context of cultural issues, such as the residential school legacy and the loss of cultural identity; family issues surrounding parenting, child-rearing and mobility; economic issues, such as family income, cost of living and employment; and social issues surrounding health care, education and housing.
First Nations University was established in 1976 by the First Nations in Saskatchewan in partnership with the University of Regina. With the mission of providing quality post-secondary education while enhancing the quality of life and preserving, protecting and interpreting the history, language, culture and artistic heritage of First Nations, the university offers a unique set of fully accredited undergraduate and graduate programs. The university is administratively independent from the University of Regina with its own board of governors and is a full member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada — to this day, the only Aboriginal member.
We have found that not only is our curriculum unique but also our student body. Approximately 85 per cent of our students are Aboriginal, mainly First Nations; roughly 76 per cent are women, the majority of whom are single moms; the average age of our student is higher than that of other mainstream universities; approximately 72 per cent are classified as mature students who have been out of school for more than two years; and the majority of our students, around 67 per cent, have children and families. We have anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 students from other universities attending our classes on an annual basis.
Our studies have indicated that retention rates of Aboriginal students are generally 50 per cent lower than that of non-Aboriginal students. Even at our institution, we experience a 42 per cent retention rate from year one to year two. This means that in the first year, we lose more than half of our students. Much of this is for what I would call needless reasons, such as housing, child care, household poverty, transportation, et cetera. However, our retention rate for year two to year three is much higher, from 70 per cent to 75 per cent; and from 80 per cent to 85 per cent for year three to year four. The university has a completion rate of more than 95 per cent in the final year. We know that if we can help students get through their first year, we can greatly improve their chance of graduating.
In this regard, we recently initiated two strategies. The first is an emergency bursary fund. Students can apply for financial assistance to help with immediate emergencies. The idea is that, if we can help students with some of their most pressing needs, we can help them to stay in school. This fall term, we gave out roughly $12,000 in assistance to our students to help with costs associated with food, rent, childcare, winter clothing, books, utilities, bus fare and a laptop.
Our second strategy involved a more direct approach. We initiated our Student Transition and Retention, STAR, program, targeted directly at first-year students. Our early results are very encouraging. We experienced a 75 per cent retention rate for the students enrolled in the program. We now want to be able to encourage more students to take this program, and we are looking at extending it to second year as well.
To date, we have alumni of more than 3,500 graduates. Our graduates represent our institution's success through their achievement. We found that they reside in every province and territory in Canada and a number of them in other countries as well.
I am currently working with our alumni association in planning a homecoming event scheduled for April 5, 2013, to coincide with our annual spring celebration powwow. The alumni have been getting requests from former students inquiring about their eligibility for membership in the alumni association. These are students who have taken classes from the First Nations University but have not necessarily graduated from one of our programs. With an inquiry rate of 4 to 1, we are looking at a possible membership of more than 15,000 alumni and friends in our association.
My own experience with the university has been life changing. My hope is that we have been able to replicate this for others and that we continue, with our alumni and friends, to work toward helping them with bigger dreams and with living lives of service and contribution. Thank you very much for allowing me time to present.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Missens. I have a question for you.
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada provides funding to status First Nations students seeking to pursue post-secondary education through the University College Entrance Preparation Program and the Post- Secondary Student Support Program. Do you have any experience with these programs, and if so, could you explain to the committee any views that you have on their implementation and effectiveness?
Mr. Missens: Yes, I do, particularly with the Post-Secondary Student Support Program. It is one of the programs that my own band helped to manage. I know that the program has very limited supports that we are able to give our students. In my own community, we had a waiting list of around 40 to 50 students every semester, waiting for a chance to go to school. We limited our support to tuition and books, which averaged around $1,200 per student, and we provided a living allowance of $1,000 per student for eight months of the year. That allowed our community to fund around 46 students a semester. These numbers are historical, but I know that the funding was very limited. We encourage students to look for student loans and to seek part-time employment while they were taking their studies.
The Chair: Also, are any of your students non-status First Nations people, and are there any financial supports in place for them as they are not eligible for federal funding under the UCEPP and the PSSSP?
Mr. Missens: Yes, about 20 per cent of our students at the First Nations University are non-Aboriginal students who are directly enrolled in our programs. I do know that some have student loans under the student loans program, and all of the students, including non-Aboriginal students, are eligible for any bursaries and scholarships we have. I know that some participate in that as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Andreychuk: As you know, I have been with the university from the start. I recall the first president, Ida Wasacase, exhibited foresight in saying that to get an academic degree was an absolute necessity for Aboriginal people. I think we could count them when we started, and now there are many. The university went into doing language, social work, education and some of the very basic needs and catch-up and then went into business management and other issues.
At that time, it was about how to get the students there because so many were not completing high school. Those that did had to play catch-up, so there were makeup programs to assist them. The third issue was to keep them there. You point out that that is still a problem. The first year is the difficulty.
What do we have to do, before they get to university, that we have not done so far? I know that the university went out to communities and gave courses. I went out to northern Saskatchewan and taught on Saturdays so that they would get used to the idea of university and how different it is from a high school class. That helped. Everything has helped, but what should we be doing before university to assist with the retention and the preparation so that they can be successful at it? You have identified housing and finances. Those are issues for Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. That is why we have student loans and everything. What is it that we can do, on-reserve particularly, in the elementary and secondary schools that would help to get them to the level of being prepared for university life equally to other students, who always have problems anyway? It would be, at least, at some level.
Mr. Missens: That is a very good question. From my own experiences and in my own humble opinion, one of the things we need to do is to strengthen the K to 12 education system for First Nations people, whether that is on reserve or off reserve. Many of our students come into university — and it is not just our university — without the kinds of skills we need to help them succeed in first year. We spend a lot of time and energy helping students to get up to that level where they can succeed better, so one thing is preparation. I know, from my experience as our board chair in our own community, that funding levels for band-controlled education on reserve are not the same as levels for off-reserve schools. As the Aboriginal population grows, in particular in Saskatchewan, we make a much more significant proportion of the population. I would like to see the curriculum change in a way that helps First Nations people to retain languages, culture and identity, to understand our history and to inherit these things in a proper way.
What we found is that, when our students can begin to deal with the loss of identity, they feel a sense of achievement and pride and self-esteem. These things go a long way to helping students succeed as they meet greater challenges, especially academic challenges.
I also talked about the funding levels as well. Once students leave reserves or even when they are in the cities, it is about helping them financially to remain there. We lose a lot of students, and as I said earlier, it is because of what, to me, are silly things but to them are important things like transportation, housing, childcare, food, a job and those kinds of things. Those things really make a difference. If we can keep them with us for 12 months, the success rates change significantly.
Senator Andreychuk: Putting the issue of funding aside — because it is often that if we have money then we can — you have identified that cultural identity needs to be reinforced in K to 12. What other things in K to 12 have to be done that would reinforce?
Perhaps I can just move off into something else. When I did family court in Regina, I seemed to be able to work with the young people and turn them around better if there was some respect for education by their parents. Parents came in and said, " I did not get an education, but I know how important it is in today's society." There are not many jobs that you can get that do not have some certificate or qualification, whether it is technical skills or university skills; that was one type of parent. The other parent was one who wanted to help their child but really had no respect for education as being the key to it. How do we turn that around?
Mr. Missens: That is another set of excellent questions. Some of the factors that influence a child's success in school include parenting. They start in the home and see the values they set. When we look at homes or households, even the poverty levels, health issues, economics and some of the social issues that we are talking about including discrimination and the quality of education, all play important roles in helping children to see value in their own work in how they prepare themselves for school as we move forward.
It is hard to put a single finger on which one of those has the most impact, but we know when we can reach out and help children that we can create successes that way. Right now in Saskatchewan, roughly two thirds of all of the children who are in care of the state are Aboriginal children, so we are dealing with a multitude of issues around homes, parenting family and economic well-being. Young children in school are the fallout from that.
In our own communities, graduation rates of students graduating from grade 12 are better, but primarily because of the increase in population and not necessarily that we are doing a better job of retaining them. Even at the community level we have continued to reach out and work with parents. Parents are our essential key in helping to keep students in school and creating those kinds of successes for keeping them there. We hope to create these lifelong commitments to learning so when they typically fall out of high school in grades 10, 11 and 12, they will have the commitment to stay in school while they are there.
Senator Andreychuk: I have one final question. You talked about the alumni and providing sources and scholarships and the like. To what extent have you developed a mentoring program for those who have come in? In my day at university, the alumni were usually the first time graduates in their families. I remember meeting so many where they would be the first graduate from your university and the family would come with immense pride that one of theirs got a university education. How are we now taking that example back into the community?
Mr. Missens: We do have a type of mentoring program in our university right now where we take third and fourth year students and mentor first-year students. In my work with the alumni association, one of the things they had talked about is ways that they can contribute and give back to the university, and a mentoring program was one of the things that we talked about. We do not yet have one set up, but it is one of the suggestions that the alumni association has brought forward.
In our homecoming in April, the first one that I know we have ever had, we will be sitting with our alumni and getting some of these ideas and bringing them forward. One of the things we have in our strategic plan right now is to develop an alumni program. When we started to do that, we quickly found that we did not really have a good list of who our alumni were. We reached out to find out who those were and then reached out to develop a program.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you, Mr. Missens. It is great to see you here tonight. On behalf of the committee members who went to Saskatoon a few weeks ago, I would like to thank you for hosting us. It certainly was an eye-opener and it was great to have a visit of the school.
As you are aware, part of the reason for this study is, whether we like it or not, that discrimination still exists for those First Nations citizens who live off reserve. Whether it is discrimination that is done by the federal government for policies, by the provincial governments and even by First Nations governments, it still exists. If you will recall that one of the students who attends your university said that she could not access post-secondary education funding because of discretionary decisions made by her leadership on reserve. I am sure you will remember that conversation and testimony as well.
Having said that, are you hearing other forms of discrimination from your students that occur just because of First Nations who decide, choose or have no choice but to live off reserve? Are there any other issues you hear that First Nations people face in terms of discrimination because of the fact that they live off reserve?
Mr. Missens: I have only heard of one story where they used discrimination. I have heard a lot of stories about challenges they have had to overcome. It was to do with housing. A family was moving in to Regina from the reserve. They called about availability of apartment and on the phone the gentleman said yes, it is available, come and look at it. When he got there and saw who she was, she was told that the apartment just got filled, it is no longer available. She felt she was discriminated against in that sense.
Other than that, it is mostly put in the context of adversity that they have to overcome. I think a lot of this adversity is unique to the First Nations people and thinking about financial things, having to apply at different levels for funding on reserve and off reserve, having to report and be accountable for funding to different levels of government, including their own levels of government, and things like that.
Senator Brazeau: When we were in Saskatoon several weeks ago we had that broad discussion with some students. It is true that the federal government transfers a lot of funding to provincial governments on education, on housing, other social issues. However, often times, in my own view anyway, perhaps provincial governments are not held to account with respect to funding that they should offer to their Aboriginal citizens living in their province. Do you have any commentary on that specifically?
Mr. Missens: I have an example. When I was sitting on our education board, we wanted our Nishnawbe language taught in school off reserve in Fort Qu'Appelle. We approached the school and they said they did not have any funding for that program. We approached the federal government and INAC said there are transfer monies that go to the province on behalf of education for off-reserve Indians. We approached Saskatchewan education and they said no such monies are being funded. You will have to fund that language program your own.
For our First Nations people moving off reserves, we find there is this back and forth between federal and provincial government and where does the jurisdiction lie. Sometimes it is easy for governments to bounce us back and forth.
Senator Brazeau: You are a very bright person. You have lived on reserve. You got your post-secondary education, for the most part, off reserve, obviously. In that non-Aboriginal world or context, you have succeeded. What do you think the solution should be? Like you said, there is a lot of political wrangling between the different levels of government. It happens on many other issues as well, not just the Aboriginal issue, but the people who fall between the cracks are Aboriginal people. What do you believe is the solution? Perhaps we are never going to solve the issue of governments fighting and complaining and arguing about who has jurisdiction. In terms of education, which is your forte in this case, what should be done?
This study is not an on-reserve versus off-reserve issue or study. It is a study about ensuring that regardless of where one chooses to live in this country, that they have the same access to human rights and programs and services. This is a study about being open, outright and putting everything on the table and having strong recommendations for this committee to offer to the government at a later date and time. What do you believe will be the solution for the future? I would like one or two strong recommendations so that we can highlight them in the report to give to the federal government and perhaps different levels of government.
Mr. Missens: I believe that the capacity to deliver and control education should be in the hands of First Nations.
In my own experience, I got to where I was because of three things. The first was my mother. She valued education and put that in my brain, with my family. The second was my First Nations community, my own chief and council, beyond the post-secondary program, finding innovative ways to help me stay in school and overcome some of the challenges. The third was having strong mentors. In the institution like the institution I went to, the First Nations University, or the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College at that time, it was having strong First Nations role models who valued young people having an education.
I strongly believe that the answer rests in building capacity and putting the jurisdiction in the hands of First Nations to control their educational agenda. They have a vested interest in the young people. As they develop their own capacities and strengthen their own systems of governments, you will see remarkable achievements in what they can do in education.
Senator Brazeau: Given your answer, I do not mean to put you on the spot, but I have to ask you a very loaded question. You are talking about empowering First Nations with respect to decisions on education. You are aware that there are many First Nations citizens who cannot access post-secondary education funding, either because of discretionary decisions made by band councils or because of individuals who are put on the general INAC list or now- AANDC list because they are not band members of any band, but they are First Nation citizens who cannot access post-secondary education. Moving forward, if you are talking about empowering individuals, do you believe that perhaps education funding should go directly to individuals, or should that be managed by band councils?
Mr. Missens: There needs to be financial support for First Nation students. It needs to be there at crucial times in their educational career and in adequate amounts to help them to complete their education. First Nations governments are better able to make decisions around those kinds of funding that are in the best interests of their own people. They have the experience and the understanding.
The other thing they may have, hypothetically as we move forward into this kind of a scenario, is the ability to broaden the kinds of support that they have. If we put this kind of funding in the narrow hands of a government department or institution, they will see it as a narrow program with narrow kind of supports and limits on how they can support students. In a band government, they are able to draw on not just other financial supports but community supports, elders, families, leadership, tribal councils and reaching out into the social programming and things that they have at their disposal. The financial control is just one aspect of supporting the success of First Nation students. I think it should be in the control of First Nations.
Senator Brazeau: Of First Nation communities?
Mr. Missens: First Nation government.
Senator Brazeau: Then I have one final question. We hear a lot of First Nations leaders say that pursuant to section 91.24, the federal government has jurisdiction over First Nations peoples and their lands, but education is a provincial jurisdiction. We hear a lot of criticism by First Nations leaders that the federal government should not be in the business of education for First Nations students because, one, they do not have jurisdiction and two, they are not the experts.
How do you consolidate or justify that perhaps First Nations leaders should be the ones making decisions on education? This is a loaded question, as I said. We are walking on eggshells regardless of where we stand on this. First Nations leaders are not experts in education either. I have always believed that the experts, regardless of what we are talking about, be it education or economic development or housing, are individuals. Why do we not empower individuals moving forward?
Mr. Missens: Section 91.24 is a unilateral declaration by Canada. First Nations see education more under section 35 of the Constitution. It is a right. It is an Aboriginal right that we have. Where I come from, we are taught that it is a treaty right. Given that it is a treaty right, the obligation for it belongs to all of us as Canadians, not just the First Nations. However, the First Nations governments, having care and control of Indian education, are better able to help understand, guide and direct it. Individuals need help, and they need governments to be able to help them to succeed. First Nations government, working in concert with other governments and making sure that these treaty rights are understood and enjoyed, including education, is the way to succeed.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you for your presence. This is my first and final question.
This is going into uncharted waters a bit. Usually when we talk about discrimination, we shield it and hide it under a cloud or a tent of organizations. In your experience, have you ever witnessed or heard of professors or teachers discriminating against Aboriginal students in a very discreet way, as you indicated about that apartment, or is it more on the institutional side? There are subtle ways they can do it in a classroom, such as shun them, not pay attention to them, not respond directly to their questions or shunt aside their questions.
Mr. Missens: Our senior academic council has to deal with these issues on a regular basis. It comes from students' concerns in the way that they talk about, for example, Aboriginal women in the classroom and the language used around describing Aboriginal families or reserve life. We deal with those things on a regular basis. They come primarily from our non-Aboriginal faculty. I do not think much of it is deliberate, but it is incremental discrimination whereby they do not fully understand the context and history that First Nations people find themselves in. They try to say things in a meaningful way but they come out in a negative way. When we talk with our faculty about what is being said and how it is being said in the classrooms, we often find that it is more a misunderstanding than a deliberate discrimination. However, it comes off as discrimination in how they describe certain things.
The Chair: When we visited your university, we observed the holistic approach the school has adopted in providing services to students. It was obvious when we spoke to students and from our observations that it was not like any other university. We heard a professor in tears because one of her students was not able to sort out her funding from the band. It was obvious that the university was determined, no matter what struggles the students faced, to help those students get through. I congratulate you for that. The school has adopted a holistic approach to providing services to students.
Can you describe why this is and explain the benefits that this approach has had for your students?
Mr. Missens: Yes, we have a holistic approach to education in supporting our students. The most important things in our university, which leads us, are our ceremonies and our elders. We have elders on each campus who lend guidance and advice to students and faculty. Often, many of us have taken tobacco to the elders and asked them for help with what we are dealing with.
When our elders guide us in helping and teaching the students, they take a holistic approach. Students deal not only assignments and classes but also with their families, illness, economic well-being, and all the emotional, spiritual and physical things that come with those. When we as an institution understand that we have to look after the entire student, we realize that we have to offer programs and services that go far beyond just academic programming, research and tutoring, et cetera.
For example, our emergency bursary program helps to put money in students' hands; it is very flexible. We have collected 47 hampers and raised funds that we will give out to students. We bring ceremonies, weddings and funerals to the university; and we help grieving families at the university. We are part of the community and, therefore, much broader in the services that we have. Most universities are closed systems in that students apply and, once they are accepted, they stay with the university for four years or more and then graduate. We have to take down our walls and reach back into our communities to help students prepare beyond the academic requirements. We help them to succeed after and then, as the senator suggested, we bring them back into the family so that they can become role models and supports for the future.
That becomes a much more open and holistic system and a broader way to help our students to achieve success.
Senator Ataullahjan: Your comment that your mother had the most influence on you was interesting. I strongly believe that it starts with the family. Quite often when we talk about solutions, we ignore the family's huge responsibility. Thank you for pointing that out.
The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with us. You have had to do double duty: When we first came to meet with you, you were gracious and received us well; and now you have given us more of your time. We appreciate that and hope that our paths will cross again.
(The committee adjourned.)