Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 5 - Evidence - November 2, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:48 p.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: Issues concerning First Nations education).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. They will either be watching on the web or on CPAC. I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, and I have the honour of chairing this committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. Given this mandate, the committee has undertaken a study to examine possible strategies for reform concerning First Nations primary and secondary education, with a view to improving outcomes. Among other things, the study has focused on the following: tripartite education agreements, governance and delivery structures and possible legislative frameworks.
This evening we will hear from one witness, the Assembly of First Nations. We are, of course, very familiar with the AFN, which is a national representative organization of First Nations in Canada. There are over 630 First Nations communities in Canada. The AFN secretariat is designed to present the views of the various First Nations through their leaders in areas such as Aboriginal and treaty rights, economic development, education, languages and literacy, health, housing, social development, justice, taxation, land claims and the environment.
[Translation]
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are here this evening.
[English]
The Deputy Chair of this committee, Senator Lillian Dyck, is from Saskatchewan. Senator Sibbeston is from the Northwest Territories. Senator Ataullahjan is from Ontario. Senator Smith is from Quebec. Senator Raine is from British Columbia, and Senator Demers is also from the province of Quebec.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses. From the Assembly of First Nations, we have Shawn (A-in-chut) Atleo, National Chief; Richard Jock, Chief Executive Officer; Morley Googoo, Regional Chief from Atlantic Canada; and Jennifer Brennan, Senior Strategist.
As a committee, we are very fortunate to have Chief Atleo here to share his perspective, not only in his capacity as National Chief but also as a professionally trained educator.
National Chief Atleo, we look forward to your presentation, which, as you know, will most likely be followed by questions from senators. If you are prepared, sir, the floor is yours.
Shawn (A-in-chut) Atleo, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is I, on our behalf, who feel very fortunate to be welcomed back. I would like to, as is the way of our peoples —
[Mr. Atleo spoke in his native language.]
I want to give proper respectful accord to gathering here with you in Algonquin territories.
As was said, I am A-in-chut, or Shawn Atleo. I am greatly pleased to be here with my colleagues. I want to additionally mention that Regional Chief Googoo most recently joined us at the National Executive of the Assembly of First Nations. We have regional chiefs from right across Canada, coast to coast to coast, and the regional chief brings with him some deep experience in the area of education. He has agreed to take the portfolio lead for education amongst our national executive, so I am thankful that Regional Chief Googoo was able to take the time to be with us here this evening.
I feel fortunate to be here. Thank you for the work you are doing. In particular, Mr. Chair, Senator St. Germain, I want to thank you for your leadership with your fellow colleagues. I have the fortunate feeling because the work really is about reflecting back on very passionate, very brilliant testimony that you have already heard from First Nations leaders and experts right across the land. My role here tonight is, in many ways, not to necessarily bring new information, but rather it is an opportunity to encourage you to take these voices forward boldly. I want to remind you all that there is a great sense of urgency to act and that, indeed, the time has come to do exactly that — the time to say firmly, "No more." No more will First Nations children in this country be left behind.
At the Assembly of First Nations, we have the privilege to serve all First Nations leaders, as I said, from coast to coast to coast. It is a tremendous honour indeed and certainly one that requires a great deal of balancing, given the very different circumstances of First Nations in different regions.
Our role is one of facilitation, not direction. Through full respect of First Nations treaty and inherent rights and by opening doors to support First Nations government efforts and advocacy, we make progress on the mandates we are given.
As you all know, I as well personally made education a top priority right from the beginning. In accepting the honour as national chief, we set out to put our students first and to leave no stone unturned in a very aggressive effort to engage Canadian society broadly on the priority of First Nations education.
At my very first assembly as national chief in December 2009, I was very moved by the show of support on this very issue as our leaders stood up in full unity to support education being a national priority. This sent a strong message across the land, saying that we are committed, that we are ready and that we will not stop until our kids have every opportunity that they so richly deserve. I am so glad that we are sending this message to our kids.
Shortly after that, with the support of First Nations leadership across Canada, I issued a call to action to address the crisis in First Nations education. I want to acknowledge you, the Senate committee, for initiating this study of First Nations education back on April 13 of 2010. I deeply appreciate the focus you have helped to bring to this critical issue.
In order to move forward in First Nations education, we called for specific commitments including four main areas, the first of which is reconciliation. Canada's commitment to endorse the UN declaration creates the appropriate framework to advance this work. It means reconciling the reality and rights of indigenous peoples across the country, including commitments to reflect our languages, our identities and our many contributions to the land within an accurate curriculum for all Canadians, and particularly in support of our own students so that they may see themselves reflected back.
There are examples across the country where progress is being made, such as treaty curriculum in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, native studies textbooks in Alberta and Ontario and strengthened professional development programs for teachers in all provinces, to name a few. We must build on these important foundational steps and ensure that they take hold in every region of the country.
The second area is the pursuit of a First Nations education guarantee, and by this we mean stability and equity in resourcing for First Nations children. There is a clear consensus that a secure fiscal framework is needed for funding in education. You have heard this many times. The current approach for funding First Nations schools through an outdated funding formula, combined with time-limited, proposal-based programs, is just not an acceptable approach. The 2 per cent cap on annual expenditure increases that has been there since 1996 has meant that classroom funding in First Nations education has not kept up with inflation, nor with population growth. We estimate that at least a 6.3 per cent increase was required over this time period to simply keep up.
This funding shortfall does not include costs needed to support the educational components of a 21st century school system that are missing from the formula that currently funds First Nations schools. This includes such basic services as libraries, computers, sports and recreation, vocational training, and First Nations languages, including immersion programming.
Comparability with funding for provincial schools and systems is a basic benchmark. More specifically, First Nations require funding that will cover the real costs of the programs and services that are comparable to what students in provincial systems receive. In remote areas and small schools, this may require additional funding support.
Funding must be predictable to enable First Nations schools and systems to plan. It must be sustainable and not require First Nations to constantly write proposals, compete with one another for scarce funding and fill out dozens of reports that, in the end, no one even reads.
The third element is systems that speak to how we will actually get there, how we will achieve stable, fair funding essential to deliver the quality education for all our students. First Nations education must be supported through professional and accountable institutional supports delivering second and third level supports.
In this committee, you have all heard very clearly that First Nations education systems must be empowered to provide the necessary supports to First Nations schools and share expertise with provincial systems. Who better than First Nations to develop culturally appropriate curriculum and provide culturally based teacher education?
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, this is an area we have seen amongst the Mi'kmaq in the Atlantic. Regional Chief Googoo, if provided the opportunity, can share some of those experiences from on the ground out in the Atlantic. We also have other examples, like the First Nations Education Steering Committee in British Columbia, groups that have demonstrated that empowering First Nations education systems will move First Nations education forward. You have heard from other regions at different stages of development, like Manitoba, Alberta and Northern Ontario. Across the country, First Nations are working to build systems. They are at different stages, but they all share a common destination, born from a consensus statement now decades old, expressing our common desire and belief in the importance of First Nations education systems.
We recognize it is time to act and fulfill the vision articulated in the 1972 policy paper "Indian Control of Indian Education" and work with First Nations in the development of a framework to enable First Nations education systems to emerge.
The fourth area is the area of support and partnership. Our call to action also speaks to the need for partnership and support, which means recreating a learning environment in our communities and linking with organizations, with the public and private sector to invest in our schools and in our kids.
We understand that the challenge to improve First Nations education reaches beyond the classroom, and that stability and success require us to reach out to others as well. We need to take a holistic approach to ensure First Nations children will be able to succeed.
Early childhood education must be more accessible as we support children and their families in the very early years. We also require a coordinated effort among the three federal departments that currently deal with this issue, provincial departments and First Nations to create more opportunities for First Nations to succeed.
Post-secondary funding must be in place to ensure that our high school graduates have the promise of higher education. It is an absolute necessity, one that I have personally benefited from and I am thankful for. Our research points out we need an additional 65,000 university graduates right now — that is, in addition to those who are already attending — just to achieve parity with the rest of Canada. Many educational organizations and private corporations have stepped forward to make contributions. We appreciate their efforts and hope that this is just the beginning.
As you can see, our call to action has several elements, all of which are interconnected, all of which you heard about in greater detail from witnesses who have come before you. The federal government responded by working with us on the national panel on K to 12 education. This is also an important effort to engage First Nations that will also be reporting within the coming months.
Most importantly, we must take all of this information and take deliberate steps forward. Our challenge today is to quicken the rate and pace of change and commit to the bold and decisive action that is needed. This is where your role as a Senate committee is absolutely critical.
You have heard very clearly that the existing framework for First Nations education is severely flawed. The existing educational provisions of the Indian Act are essentially the same provisions that existed in 1951 when residential schools were the primary mechanism for education for First Nations people. The framework is based on the belief that after the passage of time, First Nations would no longer exist.
Our population growth, the assertion of our rights and our survival tell us that this framework is both outdated and fundamentally wrong. With no recognition of First Nations rights or responsibility, and no commitment to stability and resourcing, the Indian Act fails every test as a vehicle to support education. First Nations need and deserve a guarantee of quality, culturally relevant education.
The June 9, 2011, report of the outgoing Auditor General identified four main issues with the current federal approach to First Nations programming in general and education in particular. You may be aware that those four areas were: lack of clarity about service levels; lack of a legislative base; lack of appropriate funding mechanisms; and finally, lack of organizations to support local service delivery. Each of these areas supports our call to action and you have an opportunity to address each of these head on in this important report.
We must capitalize on this growing momentum and consensus on the need — as you have heard and also as the national panel is hearing — not for mere reform but for fundamental transformation. Our rights, the specific treaty right to education and the clear expression of First Nations control of First Nations education first set out in the 1970s, continue at the centre of our position. Now we look to give full affect to our rights and we will do this through fully building and implementing systems of education designed to serve, nurture and propel every one of our children to their full potential.
You will have noted that there are differences from nation to nation and from region to region, and this must be fully respected; but you will also have noted that First Nations are all working toward a common vision. You heard firsthand of the successes of First Nations working together in charting the way forward. Whether it is the work under way in Manitoba, guided by the Wahbung vision, the success achieved by the Mi'kmaq in the Atlantic that I referred to, the First Nations Education Steering Committee in B.C. or the First Nations Education Council of Quebec — and there are a good number of other examples — you have heard their passion for fundamental change and the conviction that First Nations must lead the way.
The picture that is emerging is becoming very clear. As the leaders and experts have all said, it is time to move forward, supporting and enabling a First Nations education system, one that starts first and foremost at the community level and then is fully supported and nurtured through second and third level supports that are essential components of a system.
The work is not easy and it must be done right. To refer and reflect on witnesses such as Dr. McCue and others who appeared before you, these supports are desperately needed.
Let me be very clear on the vision that we see emerging; it is not one that is imposed or is top down. Rather, it is built from the community up and reconnects First Nations on their own terms through geography, culture and identification with their larger indigenous nation. I again refer to the Mi'kmaq experience as being exemplary of that.
Second level supports must emerge from the nations themselves and reflect shared mutual interest and reinforce our languages and our cultures. This level will deliver key supports, as well as assuring education accountability to every community and every family.
You have also heard that third and even fourth level supports may be required in a fully functioning education system. Much of this detail must emerge as we take the next steps forward, but we must create the space for fully functioning systems that are supported at a broader level, not to oversee or restrict but, again I emphasize, to enable and to support that transformation.
We see functions including supporting First Nations research, data, innovation, teacher training and curriculum supports at this level. It is not about politics and can never be about organizations jockeying for position. The systems we build must be fully effective, governing bodies with full transparency and accountability to all First Nations who become a part of these structures.
Giving effect to the First Nations education regime requires a new framework that recognizes our rights and enables the development of systems as just described. We have also seen this referenced in many studies and recommendations previously, including, in 2002, the final report of the ministers' national working group on education, which clearly directed the recognition of First Nations jurisdiction over education. Since that time, we have seen varied and often only partial advancements, and no coherent effort to advance full implementation.
You have heard from others, like Harry Lafond from the Office the Treaty Commission in Saskatchewan, speaking about the need for such frameworks and mechanisms to recognize First Nations. This is the essence of what I think many of the witnesses said: The new framework must enable; it must not be imposed, but rather be determined by First Nations; it must transform the fiscal relationship away from unstable and vulnerable programming allocations, and instead deliver on a guarantee of stable, secure and equitable funding that corresponds to our needs and ensures that we can equip our schools and teachers with the tools to help every child to succeed.
The provincial and federal status quo has not worked. It is time to turn the page on the failed policies and approaches of the past, to give full life and expression of First Nations control of First Nations education.
You have heard loudly and clearly from our experts from First Nations right across the country that now is the time. The First Nations before you have demonstrated the success that can be achieved, especially if fully supported and enabled right across the country. We have consistently seen study after study on this issue.
Moving forward, we must advance a holistic and lifelong learning approach to education. Through building education systems, we can reconnect learning at the very earliest years, well into adult learning and beyond.
This is about challenging all parties to work on making early childhood education more accessible to First Nations children, more culturally and linguistically relevant and an integrated component of First Nations education. It is time to make room for First Nations, for our governments, our languages and cultures and for our systems.
We are all treaty people. Our collective ancestors understood this as they forged treaties of peace and friendship, of alliance and mutual support. We must implement the treaty right to education, the promise of mutual respect, support and realize the tremendous shared potential that we all have.
We can think of the words of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, who said: "Let's face it, we are all here to stay."
We cannot just be assimilated into an imposed system of education. This has been tried and it has been a miserable failure. Instead, we must embrace what another former judge, Sidney Linden, reflected upon during the Ipperwash inquiry when he said that "we are all treaty people." This is indeed the vision forward through mutual respect and a commitment to support one another. Honouring our respective jurisdiction and obligations, we can then move forward successfully.
We as First Nations leaders have tremendous role models and sources of inspiration — our nations, being filled with the brave men and women who have carried this fight and have made this moment today possible.
I think of people like the late Ernie Benedict of Akwesasne. He knew that the greatest potential for our people existed within the minds of the young. He began the North American Indian Travelling College. He used a van and a pile of books in his many years' journey driving across the East, alone much of the time, carrying a dream and the knowledge of the Iroquois Nation and the importance of retaining indigenous values through education. This vision later found a permanent home and led the way to the creation and success of the Mohawk Freedom School.
I think about my own late grandmother who raised 17 children, the eldest of which is my father. Before she passed away she said, "Grandson, I was a fighter all my life. I raised all of my children to be fighters. We no longer fight our fight with our fists; we fight our fight with education."
Men like Ernie and women like my late grandmother serve as inspiration to us all in our respective homes. It is up to us to honour them, their vision, their passion, and achieve what they desired above all else — to rest confident in the knowledge that never again would our children be ripped from their homes and families and disconnected from their identity and cultures under the guise of and in the name of education.
They can rest assured that First Nations are taking our place with the full respect and recognition that we deserve to nurture a new generation of young leaders, to give way to a new dawn of tremendous hope and opportunity for all our people and for all of Canada.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening.
The Chair: Thank you, National Chief Atleo, for the excellent presentation.
Morley Googoo, Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations: I am very glad and privileged to have the opportunity to be here. I want to thank the national chief for inviting me. I am very honoured to take on a portfolio of such importance to create better well-being and quality of life for our people through education.
I want to acknowledge the national Truth and Reconciliation Commission event that just took place in Halifax. It was an amazing and excellent event. I admire and acknowledge the strength and courage of all the people who have spoken to help educate Canadians, including our own people, on what has happened to our people.
While we are doing education reform, we need to clearly understand where we have come from as a people. Last week's event, with discussions and testimonials of survivors of residential schools, opened my eyes to appreciate the hardships that we have gone through as First Nations people. To have that officially recorded for our lifetime is important for all Canadians in order to have a greater appreciation and understanding of where we are coming from and the challenges we are facing. When people ask, "Why can't you just be like us?" the whole story is now documented of why we cannot just be like other Canadians.
There is a gap, as has been said in many reports and in the Speech from the Throne, between the quality of life of non-Aboriginal Canadians and First Nations people. We will increase our quality of life by educating the next generations of our people.
I had the privilege of being the chief of my community for 19 years, beginning at the age of 24, before I took on the position of regional chief. In my time as chief, I looked at governance and tripartite and legislative agreements. In Nova Scotia, we took over the jurisdiction of education through a self-government agreement. I was chair of that before I took on this position.
I had the opportunity to build a new school in our community. I followed the process from the start. We began by talking about it, and then we were just protecting post-secondary funding. The discussions turned to transfer of jurisdiction and then to having a greater understanding of governance and of what having control of own education really meant.
In our process, rather than having the regional office decide who will get a school, the First Nation communities decide among themselves which community is the first priority. It is very important that we have a greater sense of control in prioritizing the major things that will help to improve our communities. While it is challenging to determine which of the 13 First Nations in Nova Scotia will get a school first, it is done on the basis of who actually needs a school first.
I experienced firsthand in our school the funding gaps that every presenter before us has talked about. If we had built a school under federal standards, it would have been 10,000 square feet smaller than it is, and it would have been inadequate for what we wanted for our community. Being the chief in our community and chairman of MK, with direction from our principals and directors, I knew we needed a school that required an investment of an extra $1.2 million. Our community came up with those dollars to address the gap.
Those are important things that are more community based than policy based. I usually hear that it is Treasury Board requirements or Treasury Board rates that block what is needed. Those limitations have to be lifted in order for us to be able to achieve our goals.
I am very pleased to announce that we have just signed our third agreement. This agreement will allow two more schools to be built in Nova Scotia and the much needed expansion of a gymnasium in one of the largest communities in Nova Scotia, which is the Eskasoni First Nation. These three projects are possible because of the First Nations working together. While there is only $7.5 million of capital in the agreement, the unique resource sharing among the communities allow these projects to happen, because the Mi'kmaq decide what their priority is.
In order to achieve goals in education, you need the right environment. Quality schools in each First Nation are important for us to meet our goals.
While we still want to increase our graduation rate in Nova Scotia, with education under our own jurisdiction our success rate is 72 per cent, whereas across the nation the rate is, unfortunately, lower than that. We are very proud of achieving that success, but still want to improve on it.
Through having jurisdiction over education and working together as First Nations we are able to assist communities in negotiating with the province on tuition rates. Rather than taking it for granted that our children are getting adequate education services, we are negotiating and buying education services from the province. Negotiating ensures that we have adequate educational services for students, be they on or off reserve.
We have self-government in education and we have exercised it. As chairman, I stickhandled around many complex issues. At the end of the day, our report card is very good, so much better than it was when we were a federal school.
In closing, I have had the opportunity of being a federal school student to being the chief of my community, to being the chairman of MK and now regional chief and having the portfolio of education, assisting the national chief in moving this item forward. I have seen a great difference from the days of the federal school, which are not so long ago, where once we decided to go band control — and as a chief this was the first stages of taking band control — the federal employee then went on and shuffled and he became the warden of a prison. Those are the realities; those were employees and the rest of the federal school teachers became departmental staff somewhere along the line. Today we are very proud to have two of our Mi'kmaq as the principal and vice-principal within our community, doing a great job.
Last but not least, while everything today in our funding agreement says we should meet minimum standards, as a board member and as chairman of MK, we said why shoot for provincial standards when maybe our province is sixth or seventh nationally in the educational rating? Why not find out who is the best in Canada and shoot for that standard? Better yet, let us not shoot for the best in Canada; let us shoot for the best in North America.
In our community I am very proud that we do implement the seven habits of highly effective, efficient people in our school system. It is a school, A.B. Combs, in North Carolina, that first integrated that and has received international recognition on the success of elementary school kids learning the seven habits from Dr. Stephen Covey. I said I want to go to A.B. Combs in North Carolina. Their salespeople said there are two schools in Canada that have started doing the seven habits with elementary schools. They were in Alberta, which was ranked highest for elementary schools at the time.
We visited both Alberta and A.B. Combs in North Carolina. I am very proud that we are able to teach this and integrate it into our own educational system within my community.
While I see and hear all the challenges across the country, from far and wide, I am very proud of my own community and very privileged to have the opportunity to be involved in a process of jurisdiction where we are talking about, as one of the options for First Nations, to ensure that we are being successful in education.
With that, I thank you for your time and for listening to me.
The Chair: Thank you, Regional Chief Googoo. It is certainly encouraging to have someone who has a success story that we can build on and that we can find the solutions that we are seeking by way of this study to improve the plight of education on our reserves with First Nations children.
National Chief Atleo, in First Nations Control of First Nations Education, It's Our Vision, It's Our Time, July 2010, you recommend that immediate steps be taken to develop federal legislation. What level of consultation do you feel will be required and with whom in the development of this legislation that you speak of? What in your view should be the key components of the possible legislation? Is that a fair question?
Mr. Atleo: It is an important question, in part because legislation, as we all know and need to recognize, is how governments organize themselves and provide instructions. One area that I would point out as one example that most Canadians do not know is that First Nations are the only segment of Canadian society without a statutory guarantee for funding for education. That points out that there is something missing on the government side to give effect to the federal government's obligations, both the fiduciary and the relationship with First Nations as well as to give effect to the treaty obligations.
Further, we know that one challenge that we share has been a pattern of mistrust between First Nations and governments. As the regional chief said, the Truth and Reconciliation event has driven a deep wedge between First Nations and Canada and Canadian society. We welcome what I would suggest is an air of reconciliation triggered by an important apology made in the summer of 2008 by Canada to the residential school survivors and the ongoing work that the regional chief helped host in Halifax when survivors courageously told their stories about the reason there are such deep difficulties and trauma.
When it comes to our work, senator, we are cognizant of this deep sense of mistrust about how we have interacted. That has largely been characterized by unilateral decision-making on the part of government, of which the Indian Act is just one element and residential schools are just another element, but if government manage how they receive and give instruction through legislation, the experience has not been one that has served to build trust with First Nations; it has eroded it.
For any effort to be successful, to create a way forward, it must be done in full partnership with First Nations. As I alluded to in my remarks, the Assembly of First Nations can play a facilitative role. The people who really need to provide the end support or instructions are the First Nations themselves. The example of the Mi'kmaq organizing themselves, organizing an education authority, stands as an excellent example of how nations are organized and how they can drive the efforts forward.
What can we do to support and facilitate respect and reflect the authority of First Nations to take decisions for themselves and to support bottom-up, if you will, First Nations communities at that level driving the solutions that are required? The document you are referring to is a policy document that was endorsed by the Assembly of First Nations, by the chiefs in assembly at our annual general assembly that was held in Winnipeg in the summer of 2010. Mr. Chair, we do have examples that we can build on of joint policy and legislative development. One that I would point out that does not serve as a full and complete answer, but the Specific Claims Tribunal Act was an exercise by which First Nations and government together worked to find a way forward.
I would not stand on that example as being the penultimate. This needs to be about supporting in this case the Mi'kmaq, supporting First Nations and treaty nations throughout their respective territories, and also breaking a pattern of top-down or unilateral decision-making on the part of Ottawa. That is the major pattern that we must break.
Full collaboration and support for our First Nations to drive the solutions is required. Assembly of First Nations certainly with the instruction and support of the chiefs have been asked to lead and help facilitate the way forward.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations this evening, gentlemen. You did an excellent job of going through our witness testimony and bringing us all up to date in case we had forgotten.
Our chair has asked the important questions with regard to how the relationship is going to work over time, because you had suggested that we need a new framework that is not imposed but developed by First Nations and you gave part of an answer to that.
Chief Googoo, our committee travelled to your territory and visited Eskasoni. I am trying to remember the names of the different places we went to and they are escaping me. I do recall the structures; the buildings were great. They explained how the school was run. Everything looked wonderful.
They had a tripartite agreement which you told us has been renewed. One thing that stood out was the funding situation, which you alluded to several times within your presentation. They were finding that you could have all kinds of wonderful schools, programs and services but if you do not have the money to run it, it will not work. It seemed to me they were saying that they did not have sufficient resources. In the one school we went to, they were talking about having to be responsible for the shortfall in funding when children from their own on-reserve school went to the school in the city. They were charged the difference in the funding, so they ended up in a deficit situation.
Although legislation is good, how do we address the funding differences? In Saskatchewan they tell us that there is about $6,500 allotted for a student going to a reserve school, and about $10,500 to that same student if they went to a provincial school in the next town. They would have to pay $10,500, but the band would not get that money. It sets up a situation that is almost like a double whammy.
You also alluded to getting statutory funding. I believe the interim Auditor General has recommended that be looked into and that it would be funding from Treasury Board. I am long-winded, but could you comment on those areas?
Mr. Atleo: The points you make are really critical and from a national perspective, I find it challenging. As I said in my report, it can set up some unfair conflicts between First Nations and regions. There are at least 40 new schools required right now. There may be only funding for a few.
That is not only unfair; it is untenable. You see the kind of innovation that the regional chief is describing emerging in places like the Mi'kmaq Education Authority. They are doing everything they possibly can to ensure the children know the leadership will strive to make this work.
Mr. Chair, to connect back to your question, one of the additional challenges is around how. Tripartite agreements are one way. What is challenging us is to ensure that — if we truly build this from the First Nations, from the nations up — we be careful not to impose overall approaches including tripartite approaches, and that the principal relationship is one between First Nations and the federal Crown. That is where the fiduciary duty remains. As this work progresses, we will also be looking to receive the national panel report. We will be looking to First Nations leaders as to specific mandates for the next steps that we might need to pursue.
This is an important element to senators that I wanted to articulate. The national panel report, unlike other reports, is not only going back to the federal government. It is jointly coming back to First Nations as well. The reason that is important is so it gives us opportunity to pause and reflect. What is the national panel is reporting? What have they heard? What elements are different or the same in the innumerable reports we have referenced in your work and ours? What is the way forward? A statutory guarantee is one element, as well as fairness and equitability, at minimum on par with students in the Canadian education system.
I would go further to suggest that if the residential schools was — under the guise of education — an effort to remove First Nations learners from their culture, language, teachings of their elders and territories, would we not value the cultural heritage of the over 50 indigenous languages? As well as the deep history that should be recognized as a rich part of the cultural heritage of this continent, and ensure — that as the royal commission has said, back when it reported — that the full language supports are provided for indigenous populations? That is something we embrace. Academics make it clear that if you are multilingual, you have a better chance for academic and career success.
You are raising important points. I would look to First Nations leaders and nations from coast to coast to provide further instructions about exactly how we would achieve setting up those second and third level supports. As the Mi'kmaq have done, they would then describe their relationship with other authorities — whether provincial, territorial or other levels of education systems — but that it be up to the First Nations to drive that approach. We would find a way they would be supported to respect the diversity, autonomy, and authority and jurisdiction of First Nations to take their decisions, as have the Mi'kmaq taken theirs.
Senator Dyck: You said that tripartite agreements were one option. What you are getting at is that whatever people come up with, there should perhaps be an option to come in at different points or to work from whatever your framework is? I think at some point there might be very critical short-term needs versus long-term needs. What Chief Googoo described is something where they have taken care of a lot of the things they need, but they may fit into the model at some stage. Someone who is early on their journey would not necessarily fit in. Does that make sense?
Mr. Atleo: I think it does when we consider examples like tripartite agreements — not just in areas of education but across the policy spectrum — have been touted as a model. They have been suggested as a policy way to get the work done moving forward. First Nations' control of First Nations education has always been about First Nations designing the way forward. As well, we must first identify the relationship that First Nations have with the federal government.
Any parent would be interested or concerned with — as we have the right to move between our villages, our reserves and to the urban setting — ensuring that at minimum we have proper standards, supports, fairness, and equity between systems. There is naturally going to need to be some way to give expression to that. The tripartite approach is one example of that. To move in sequence, this requires for the treaty right to education, the First Nations relationship with the federal Crown, and the fiduciary relationship that exists to be identified as a priority. In some of the examples I have identified, First Nations — including in the Atlantic and other parts — are at different stages talking about their relationship to the provincial authority.
To be clear, and as the Auditor General has rightly pointed out in a good number of reports over the course 10 years, it is not clear within the current system how you can deliver or provide effective educational supports. A new framework or new mechanisms are required. In this case, it would be up to the Mi'kmaq. If we are beginning to build from the ground up again, perhaps there can be some reflections that only the Mi'kmaq and the regional chief could answer about their experience up till now with the tripartite exercise. Also, whether or not there are additional shifts or changes that may need to be made, knowing that in many areas of policy other governments will bring ideas like tripartite arrangements to First Nations. Make no mistake, First Nations share a shared sense that we want to see success in education.
It is about finding locally driven, nation-driven solutions on how we support and ensure that the diversity of approaches will be there. It is a diverse country. In Canada we have diversity in the provinces and territories and different systems in place, including across different cultures or segments of the Canadian population. We should not be concerned with, we should embrace, the cultural linguistic diversity of First Nations and find a way to support it all.
Senator Sibbeston: As always, I found your presentation clear, convincing, determined and with all the solutions. You provide the complete package.
Am I right in thinking that we are reaching the stage where Canadian society is ready to do something about First Nations education? It is not a Department Aboriginal Affairs solution. When we hear from Aboriginal Affairs officials, we find that their timeline is 25 to 40 years. Nothing going into the system ever comes out very quickly. It seems that the answer needs political action at very high levels of our government — the minister and the Prime Minister.
We have reached at time in our country when First Nations throughout the country have developed solutions; they know what needs to be done. They are very involved in education. In most cases, money is needed in order to carry out what needs to be done.
You say that you have taken action — a call to action, as it were — and that the federal government has responded. Are you saying that the Prime Minister and the department will respond in a meaningful way to First Nations in our country? Canadians are outraged when they learn the facts. When we hear such evidence from witnesses before the committee, senators are generally outraged, angry and disappointed about the existing situation for First Nations people in our country. It is unacceptable. I take that to mean many Canadians in our society want First Nations to advance. Are we at the stage when something will finally be done?
Mr. Atleo: In large part, this committee has a central opportunity to play and say that now is the time, given the litany of reports, the apology, the efforts post apology, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Until now, we have had less shared understanding, as the regional chief said, of where we have come from and why the conditions are what they are. Important efforts have been made, despite the lack of support, and there have been successes, such as the Mi'kmaq Education Authority. Malcolm Gladwell, the famous author, would refer to the regional chiefs as outliers. It is against all odds that they have achieved over 60 per cent success rate. They have to be commended for that. The regional chief clarified that they have been able to achieve a transfer of jurisdiction within a funding grant, and not in the role of a tripartite, as was suggested. Certainly, through the call to action we have been reaching out to all Canadians, from school districts and student associations to civil societies, NGOs, unions, business and industry. It is about the young child holding up a sign saying "All I want is a school," as she meets me on a dirt airstrip in Northern Manitoba or the late Shannen Kootstachin from Attawapiskat, who came to Ottawa to lobby for a school and said, "All I need is a school." Those are the real stories we have now in Canada for us to arrive at a moment in time when we have a shared understanding of how we might arrive at this place with a deep gap. Senator Dyck said earlier that even if a community gets a school, they find themselves behind the eight ball. The regional chief said that if a community gets a school smaller than they need, they are already a decade behind.
We have to ensure that we arrive at a shared understanding about how deep this gap is and about how badly the current system is failing all of us. We have inherited this; none of us in this room created it. Now is the moment when we see the Senate doing one of the most important reports, in my view, about unleashing the human potential of young people. If we support the closing of the gap in education and the labour market, in one generation this could result in a $400 billion contribution to Canada's economy. Think about this as we come out of one of the most difficult economic periods in Canada's history. Think about the austerity measures. Closing this gap could result in $115 billion in saved government expenditures. These things reflect and respect the original treaty relationship, which is by its very nature not only social, cultural and political but also economic.
We have not seen the realizing of the economic potential of our young people. Part of the answer is the economic reality of this country: The fastest growing segment of the Canadian population is First Nations under the age of 25. It is becoming increasingly clear that to meet the demands of the modern labour force in this country, First Nations, young people in particular, need to be supported to succeed in school, but not at the expense of their identity, language or ties to their territories and certainly built solidly on a foundation of recognition of First Nations jurisdictions, treaties and Aboriginal title and rights. That is what Indian control of Indian education has always been about since the early 1970s.
If I may add briefly, back in the early 1960s The Hawthorn Report was published. It likely has been brought to your attention. At that time, there was a 95 per cent failure rate amongst First Nations learners. In the early 1970s, when Indian control of Indian education became a national push, we moved markedly up to success rates in K to 12 graduation of about 49 per cent. Senators, we have plateaued. We have hit a wall that is starting to go down because our population is increasing so dramatically and we have not been able to keep pace with the rapid changes in our demographics. We have not been able to keep pace with the major transformational shifts required in this work: to recognize and support First Nations to drive the change.
I appreciate your question. My short answer would be that we are looking to this committee to help ensure that this is the time when the country embraces the kind of change that is required.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate that you looked to our Senate committee; certainly, we will do our best. We hope the federal government will listen. Often reports written by an important committee such as this one are shelved and not paid much attention. I hope that in this case we can make a real difference.
I want to ask you about the national panel on education. I am aware that you have national support for this panel on education, but I am also aware that a couple of regions are not participating. Do you anticipate a number of regions not supporting this panel on education? How do you propose to deal with that and come up with a report that has national support by all First Nations in our country?
Mr. Atleo: The important aspect of the work of the national panel is that the report comes back to both government and First Nations. This is to reflect the importance of moving forward together and the nature of the treaty relationship and the fiduciary relationship between First Nations and Canada.
If First Nations do not feel that there is a good faith and good will effort to really move toward changes, then First Nations would reserve the right to back away. As I said earlier, once the report is received, we will seek the direction of the chiefs from across the country.
I understand that First Nations from all regions are engaging in the panel effort. That includes First Nations chiefs and leaders. It also includes grassroots teachers, parents, educators, education experts, community members and citizens, who are encouraged to have a say.
To be clear, all regions are participating. There are some regions that are also doing parallel reports to ensure that the voices of the region, from their perspective, are made very clear.
As I alluded to, this call to action was insisting that there is not just one way forward. Similar to, as the Senate is doing a report, so too is there a national panel effort under way, so too are there many other expressions of engagement by First Nations in all forms, including First Nations coming here to make presentations to the Senate.
I am really heartened by the very strong stance that our leaders are taking to stand behind their statement of unity in the winter of 2009 when they said that they would make education the number one priority. Just as there are respect for autonomy and differences within and amongst First Nations, so too must there be full support for a wide variety of efforts to move this work forward.
It is my role, and I have stood behind the statement of the office of the Assembly of First Nations and the national chief, to help open doors, kick them down if need be, but we must get to work. The authority and responsibility must be back to First Nations to make a decision for themselves.
The Assembly of First Nations is not a signatory to a treaty, nor does my office hold Aboriginal title and rights. It is only the rights holders and those who are signatories to treaties who can give effect to those treaty rights and Aboriginal title and rights. I will stand firmly in support of First Nations, pursuing any and every way possible to advance their rights and jurisdiction, especially in the area of education.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I want to begin by saying that I am replacing a colleague. I was not sure whether I had the required qualifications, but I was the head of a school board with 15,000 students, and 27 elementary and secondary schools. So, I had a chance to be part of that environment, and I also had three children go through the school system. That is the extent of my experience in this area.
First, I would like to say that Canada's other society is also giving this some thought. The education of our youth is being reconsidered, and the dropout rate among boys has become a concern. We have problems. We do not have all the solutions. I think that we can share our experiences.
The other issue is about transferability from one province to another. I have children who began their education in Quebec and then moved to British Columbia, where they had to repeat whole school years. So, we had to pay twice for their studies. I hope that you will not have to deal with the same problems.
I understand that we are now talking about schools only on your territory. You are not talking about schools outside reserves. So, when you discuss schools and your need for them, are you talking about schools on your territory? Did I understand correctly?
[English]
Mr. Atleo: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Second, you would like to develop curriculum programs so as to be internationally competitive and put First Nations on equal footing with nations across the globe. To do so, do you plan to work on developing programs at both the elementary and the secondary school levels with the culture and language component, be it in mathematics, French or other subjects? Do you have any plans to develop a shared history and also — something that has never been seen before — work with the provinces? The federal government has no experience in terms of education. Are you now already working with them or are you currently putting something together? Did you develop all this without any assistance from the provinces?
[English]
Mr. Atleo: First, to the earlier point about that student who went to a different system and then had to repeat a whole year, I think that is where the regional chief's comments about wanting to achieve the highest standards, that is an important value that we all share. We want to make sure that education systems will be effective.
First Nations will also be interested and concerned with ensuring that students will be supported if they move between and go to different systems. That will be an important aspect.
Some First Nations in some regions already are having discussions with the provincial governments, and in some cases it includes tripartite arrangements. In other cases it is just about recognizing that you have separate systems that need to be communicating with one another somehow to ensure that there is mutual recognition.
More broadly, I wanted to mention that when I was reflecting on the Saskatchewan example where they have created curriculum, it is with the purpose of ensuring that all learners within a province are supported through the course of their learning — in whatever school they are in, whether it is a First Nation in a reserve or in a band or in a big city — that everyone would learn about the history of the relationship with the indigenous peoples of Canada.
It is not hard for most of us to look back at our learning and remember that, at the very best, it was cursory and, at the worst, it facilitated a deep gap of misunderstanding between First Nations and Canadians generally.
My time in the East has lifted my awareness about the movement up and down the St. Lawrence Seaway between those first explorers, their relationship with the indigenous peoples. If we are going to facilitate a longer term, better relationship between First Nations and Canadians, this needs to also be about — as we have experienced, particularly I have in the last two years — how Canadians generally are very interested in ensuring that their children are supported and receive the very best education and curriculum that supports an understanding of First Nations people, First Nations culture, both historical as well as contemporary. It would serve our future very well if we were able to close this gap.
In some cases First Nations are having those discussions with provincial governments, but again I reflect back to my earlier comments where we need to recognize that the principal relationship that exists is between First Nations and the federal Crown. The federal Crown right now has a principal fiduciary relationship. When First Nations are able to work through that relationship with the federal government, then it is up to them to determine how and if to pursue discussions with other jurisdictions, including the provincial level.
What we share, though, is a sense that education, especially K to 12, with the national panel work we are doing, the federal department responsible for the relationship with First Nations is not the place for education. It has not served our people well and has not served this country well.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: First, I want to talk about teachers. If you have a shortage of schools, does that mean you also have a shortage of teachers? Do your teachers have the training they need to meet your expectations?
Second, you want to have an umbrella act that will enable you to get organized by nation, but with parameters that may be similar. I also want to get back to the issue of class size. In a province like Quebec, there are standards when it comes to the maximum number of students in a classroom, in other words, 24. If that number was slightly increased to 28 or 29, teachers would be better paid.
Having an umbrella agreement is reflected in the operating cost. Such an agreement would enable you to have a program that is not only adaptable but also in line with national standards. We must all work on making basic education consistent across the board.
Do you have enough teachers? Are they adequately trained? Am I wrong to think that the legislation would enable you to work with the federal government without telling you how to organize your system? In any case, the federal government has no expertise in education. I do not see how the federal government could tell you what to do tomorrow morning. However, minimum standards must be established, be it for teachers, class size or the number of students. Once you have met those objectives in terms of student knowledge, are you going to you discuss details with the federal government, for instance? Or do you prefer to develop those criteria yourselves instead?
[English]
Mr. Atleo: We need to support the teacher training. Right now, communities do not have resources for providing training for teachers. You have hit on a very important aspect. You heard the regional chief earlier say he was very happy that they now have Mi'kmaq teachers and educators within this school system. I would be pleased if he had anything further to comment on that particular aspect.
I can also say unequivocally from my own home village that my father was one of the first teachers in my village. He was my first instructor and first principal when I started in grade one, and my mom was the substitute teacher. People need to understand that our schools do not have the basic resources for supporting the teachers to receive the training that is required.
Since being national chief for two years, I have met with the Council of the Federation several times, and all of the premiers have joined with us in making education a number one priority. We have set out an agenda, and we have challenged the provinces to come to the table to support setting targets for improving education. They are supporting our efforts, but the key piece now is the federal government transforming its role, and then we can see strengthened relationships with other levels of government.
Senator L. Smith: Gentlemen, I have a couple of thoughts and a couple of questions, if I may.
The reconciliation mistrust federally seems to be the huge issue. Senator Sibbeston talked about the length of time in terms of decision making. It would appear, chief, that you are balancing a lot of issues, nationally and then with the local regions of your group, the various tribes. Are you equipped to be able to solve the national issues and the regional issues? Do you have a priority list that will help you accelerate that time frame which has been long historically?
If there is another question, it would be to Mr. Googoo on the issue of best practices. It is very impressive to see what you have done, going to the States and getting examples from other areas. How open are the rest of the tribes geographically to accepting best practices? Do you have a group working on national issues and a group working on regional issues?
This is a question for both of you. How coordinated are divergent groups in accelerating what you want to achieve? It would appear that governments will only do so much. You folks will do a hell of a lot more, and it seems like you have done a hell of a lot more. The success of this in my mind will not only be just getting the federal people to kick in and your relationships with your provincial people, but to me the ultimate success will be your people and your ability to mobilize your people. How do you feel about where you are? How will you be able to accelerate that time frame so we are not talking 25 or 30 years before things are done to make this problem dissipate and have the success that you want to get those 65,000 kids through university and to increase your success rate from 57 per cent in most regions to higher levels of success from a high school perspective? I know it is a long convoluted question.
Just listening to you, I recorded nine of the points that you talked about, Chief Atleo: reconciliation, funding, libraries, computers, sports equipment. You went from macro issues to micro issues, from global issues to day-to-day issues. Are you able to manage the size and scope of these issues? Do you have the right people in place?
Regionally, Chief Googoo, can you take what you have done and put it across the country, or are there discrepancies and cultural differences that are hard to overcome?
Mr. Atleo: Maybe I can ask my colleague to speak about the Mi'kmaq perspective, as he would have the authority to do so, particularly as the chair of the authority.
I wanted to comment at the outset that the Indian control of Indian education push started when I was five, back in 1972. I am really in agreement, not to suggest or infer that this is what you are saying, that we cannot wait. We simply cannot wait. We would be in fear of losing another full generation of young people. We cannot see this challenge and become overwhelmed with what we think is its complexity. It is like any other aspect of tackling large challenges. Once we begin to dig in and understand it, the elements will become much clearer. That is where you are helping to lead the way. That is what has been desperately missing in real conversations between First Nations and the government.
I have a few further comments, but I will ask the regional chief to respond, because you are asking some important elements that really can only be spoken most effectively from a nation level or regional level.
Mr. Googoo: Those are very good questions. It is important to identify bright spots. What we have created in Mi'kmaq territory in Nova Scotia is a bright spot. The whole principle-centred leadership about it is that we empowered broad- based action. We empowered communities, which are really the stakeholders of education.
Too long have the federal and provincial governments' rates and funding formulas been accepted too much as the status quo. The provincial systems have done their funding cuts and have cut their school boards and so on, and at the end of the day they increased tuitions and so on, where the federal government has locked in their rates and no increases. This is where we have not adapted to proper change, which did not allow the proper education to happen.
I think we recognize lead measures that are put in place and lag measures. The lead measure is knowing that the high school graduate rate is 36 per cent opposed to 72 per cent. This committee in its report and the education panel that will come will also factor on the speed of trust. The more you include people — I would refer you to a book called Leading Change from the Harvard School of Business. It touches on exactly what you were talking about, establishing a sense of urgency. We cannot wait until the next grade or the following grade. We lose out on a whole generation.
Then we have to develop a vision and strategy. In the reports that are coming, we hope that the national chief and all the people involved are able to use that as a tool to be able to create a clearer vision and strategy, and then communicate that vision and strategy with our communities across the country, one of them being the bright spot of the Mi'kmaq and being a success story.
At that point the information we are sharing now and the information that the education panel is collecting, whether some communities may not like their approach or whatever, the most important part is that the information that comes there comes with a sense of duty and responsibility that these realities are happening within our communities. We all have a responsibility to ensure to do something about if we are in a position of influence in any way, shape or form to make sure that quality of life through education is achieved through whatever ways we have to.
I may mention that some communities have wanted to take part in the education panel. If it was not for the Mi'kmaq taking control, there would be no success story. Maybe the whole process here is looking at best practices again. We learn from early on in this report that empowering First Nations and ensuring that they are part of the solution is phase 2. Once the education panel finishes its report and makes the recommendation to the ministers and the national chief's office, we then need to take the strategy to phase 2 level where we look at best practices and say we need to include everyone now. Here is the information; let us not argue on processes, let us focus on the strategy and approach on how we are going to achieve our success.
As far as taking on the portfolio, I have clearly told the national chief I do not want to take on a portfolio where I do not know if there is going to be success. I need to clearly know that we can move on it. I am very pleased at the commitment and the passion he has towards it and I will help in any way, shape or form to help assist achieve that because education is very close to my heart as is to all families.
When we get to phase 2, it is our strategy that we need to clarify and then communicate that. In our second round of communications of how to achieve our goals and objectives to create a better quality of education for everyone, that is just part of process. I see that coming along. The steps that we will take moving forward and as long as we continue moving forward will be supported by all parties because partnership in this process is important. It is very key so far that the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and the national chief's office are in partnership in making this a priority along with all the chiefs. I believe we are on the right track to start off.
Senator L. Smith: At the end of the day, Chief Atleo, have you given us the top three priorities that you need or would like us to address in terms of our study? What would be the end results for you?
Mr. Atleo: End results, top three?
Senator L. Smith: Your top three. In planning strategy, especially when trying to recapture lost time, how many priorities do you pick? You can only do so many at one time. From a business perspective, what seems to be important is simplifying the priorities so everyone can understand them and then you can get them done, as opposed to having ten priorities. People get confused with ten priorities, and then you may not even get three of them done. Maybe you have already done that.
I apologize. It is my first time at this meeting, but from experience, it would seem that that would be important to know.
Mr. Atleo: Are you speaking within the context of education?
Senator L. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Atleo: To pick up on your original question around timing and issues such as complexity and how we move this forward, the first priority of three would be systems and supporting the systems that are to be developed. In some cases, that may take time, but we must remain committed to support those systems to be developed. That is what First Nations have been pursuing since the advent of Indian control of Indian education.
Second, we must strive for quality culturally relevant education that picks up on earlier points that other committee members have made.
Third, we must have fair, equitable and stable funding.
I agree that we need to strive for short lists. This is the short list of three that in many respects are not new and they certainly are being expressed by me here today. I would suggest strongly that many have, in different ways, articulated that, both here at the Senate as well as at the panel, but this probably summarizes the many reports that go back to the early 1970s.
Senator L. Smith: Is funding number one or number three?
Mr. Atleo: The three are inextricably linked.
Senator L. Smith: I understand, but which is number one, number two and number three? You started with the trust issue. My experience in life is if you do not have trust, you do not even have a chance for a relationship. You talked about historical mistrust and reconciliation. I think many of us are aware without a lot of detail in some situations of what the government has tried to do. Having clarity is critical so that you can succeed at what you are doing. It is just a thought.
Mr. Atleo: I respect and appreciate that. I also ask for understanding how challenging it is to pull any of those three apart from one another. The residential school system stands as probably the best example of a system gone desperately wrong. Funding flows now within a system that does not work, that does not respect the need to overcome the legacy of the residential schools and address things like languages, and so that is the reason it is very challenging. The calls have been made for a long time for the resources. First Nations have made it very clear, as I said in my presentation, that a 2 per cent cap has been there since 1996, but at the same time we need the systems to be developed.
I appreciate and I understand the question and the challenge to pursue what might be number one of those three and I respectfully submit that all three need to land together in order for this to work going forward.
Senator Demers: Chief Atleo, the last time you were here I was very impressed with your preparation and even more impressed tonight because you come prepared, but you do not come in a crying mood and begging; you come with strict points and I really respect that.
The last question will be important for you. You mentioned the word trust. If you have no trust in any relationship or any work, such as in a company with two owners with no trust, it will never work. It hit me when you said there is no trust, no matter how hard you worked, so would you just keep trust in mind?
You talked about "act now." You talked about a plan, a system and a challenge. If you are going to be very successful in that, you are going to have to find some trust. How do we get to that level of trust?
When you come here and speak to us, Liberals, Conservatives and certainly to the chair, do you trust that we are trying to do everything possible within our power as senators to try to better the life of your people?
Mr. Atleo: Mr. Chair, what I really appreciate are expressions as I feel that I am personally receiving — deeply sincere and the best of intentions. I will begin there.
This is the moment of reckoning on an issue like this in the history of our country. There are many who would reflect back and say it was well intentioned during the residential school era as well. There are those who truly thought that that policy was doing the very best, and so we acknowledge that and we leave that for consideration for what it is worth. We do know, however, what the outcome was. I reflect back to the regional chief's comments about inclusion. I think that is a very powerful notion because that is what the original treaties always suggested, namely, that we would design a way forward together; that Canada has endorsed the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. It suggests a way forward. Within that declaration, it says that indigenous peoples have the right to be involved in designing an education system that will work for them. That is only one of at least 42 articles.
The three areas that we can build trust on is to build on the declaration, the endorsement that Canada made, a very important one. We have been pursuing and are still hopeful to hold a First Nations Crown gathering with the Prime Minister, the head representing the federal Crown, so that we might take pause and reflect, take stock of that treaty relationship, understand the importance of where we have come from, acknowledge that there have been challenges, and recommit to a way forward built on full partnership.
We can begin putting deposits, if I can put it this way, in a mutual trust account by working together for our kids now, knowing that this has been at minimum a 30-year push since the early 1970s, but it goes back much further than that for many First Nations leaders.
Many who have gone on before have been suggesting strongly that we need action. Now is the time for action. It is through action that we, in both personal relationships and business relationships, and I would suggest in the treaty relationship between First Nations and Canada, can establish a new level of trust. We can rekindle the original trust relationship between First Nations as given expression through treaty.
I believe this, in the end, is about relationships between people. The reason I reflect the learning is I think about Samuel de Champlain and the new learning that has been reflected about that original relationship. The original relationship was built on mutual respect, mutual recognition, and supporting those newcomers through the early hard winters. Trade began to ensue, but make no mistake: The very early understanding was that the trade was available to certain portions of the river. Farther up river was the exclusive rights of the indigenous peoples and they did not give full permission. If we can recapture those early relationships and have recognition of First Nations' jurisdiction, let us begin that work for our children in the area of education — something that is such an incredibly important human value for us all.
I am a father. When I met with the Prime Minister, we spoke as fathers. All we want is the best for our children. Is that not what any father wants, the best for their children? This is a universal human value that should drive us together so that we begin to unearth and understand what has driven us apart and begin rebuilding that trust in the sequenced manner in which we are suggesting, that we receive these important reports and that we, the Assembly of First Nations, go back to the leaders not to suggest the imposition of anything but to ask for instructions and directions. That is, which way is it that you want to go? Can we move as quickly as we all desire to see the transformational change for our children? Do we have the support and encouragement of Canadians? This is why I reflect back again on how important the Senate committee's work is and the report you are doing. You place a point on one of the most fundamentally important aspects, namely, the relationship, not only between First Nations and Canada, but might I conclude my response to this piece by saying that the external imposition of division amongst our people begins the day you remove a child from a family. It begins the day when borders are put up between Canada and the U.S. and between provincial and territorial boundaries. Those are the types of externally imposed divisions, including the Indian Act that First Nations did not design.
We have been tasked with trying to overcome a litany of historical externally imposed divisions that were not of our making. Our leaders are still stepping forward and saying that, notwithstanding these great challenges, we still must find a way forward. That is why I am really appreciative of the time that you as a committee are taking to understand this, because Canada does need to join in understanding what we have all inherited that has created the mistrust and has exacerbated and held back the potential of our young people. We simply must not allow that to go on any further.
Senator Demers: Thank you so much. You have all the right in the world to have that mistrust for what was done to you in the past.
Senator Raine: I must say that this has been a study for our committee that has been fun to be on because we have gone out and seen some places in our country that are absolutely exploding with energy. You look at the kids and you see them in the schools and you really start to understand the tremendous opportunity there is when the education is being well delivered down in the Mi'kmaq Nation or in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where every community can have a good situation for their children.
Having said that, looking at the information that we have seen and at the stacks and stacks of reports that have been done for years and years, it is fair to say that this committee does not want this report to sit on a dusty shelf somewhere.
Chief Atleo, you still mention that we need to do consultation and we cannot go out with an imposed framework, if you like. We feel like we have been consulting as a Senate committee and that we have heard a lot of good things. We would like to come out with a report and a proposal. Hopefully, it has in it a framework that people can then adopt and buy into.
Would that be seen as imposing or would that be seen as offering? I do not think, from the bottom up, you can come up with a framework that will fit everyone. I do not think there is one framework, but we need to break the log jam and move forward. What can we do to ensure that our report is valid?
I would like to ask Chief Googoo, because we saw what you are doing there, to describe how you got to where you are? Did it start from the local communities and the local school and then to the First Nation? Did it come from the bottom up or did the brightest minds in your community sit together and come up with it?
Mr. Atleo: Even the language that we share and use to describe our work becomes critical. I am not a lawyer, but the terms "consultation" and "accommodation" have important connotations around the legal obligations of the Crown to First Nations. There are and do remain differences between First Nations and Canada when it comes to consultation.
I met with chiefs today which one federal department considered a casual conversation consultation. When you begin or even end without a shared understanding of what you have been engaged in, it can cause further mistrust, and not support or enable the work but hinder the work. It is with great respect that I offer that as a cautionary reflection at the moment we have arrived in because it is so important that we get it right.
The standards that the United Nations declaration suggests that indigenous people, including those in Canada, worked for decades to see affirmed in the international declaration is free, prior and informed consent. What the regional chief has referenced is the notion of inclusion. In this discussion, we talk about facilitating support so that we can support the empowerment, as the regional chief said, of nations and systems to be developed and so that we do not become prescriptive.
We are looking for the federal role to be transformed away from the way the Indian Act describes the relationship in the area of education. We are looking for transformation from the federal government away from their Indian Act described role towards a statutory guarantee to support the enabling of first nations to control their education and to establish a fiscal transfer system from the federal government to the First Nations' system.
Those would be some fundamental transformations on the part of the federal government. That is the boldness that I am principally referring to.
As to support for First Nations, which you are asking the regional chief to comment on, I have also had the opportunity to witness and observe First Nations education systems across the country. There has not even been talk on how to support the enabling of the majority of the systems across the country. In my formal role as B.C. chief, I saw the First Nations Education Steering Committee begin to organize themselves in the B.C. region. I am not sure if they came to your Senate committee, but they were participating in the panel, so they have had the support of other arrangements and legislative inclusion. However, they are still struggling to be a whole provincial system that gets the kinds of support necessary to accomplish the objectives that they were seeking. It tells us that, within the various constraints of the system, we have yet to fully develop a system to support entire regions where 200 First Nations are working together.
I want to add those comments, Mr. Chair, because this is about considering putting in full effort to encourage the federal government to transform itself and to turn the work around to enable and support. I do believe that First Nations systems can be developed. The First Nations are developing them. We can certainly draw a spotlight on those that we would hold up as being successful, but not be restricted by them and say that we have a model here that we would now take and impose on others. It is that prescriptive manner.
To answer your question, perhaps a little bit more directly, it may very well be received as prescriptive. We need to be very careful about how we approach our work, and recognize that what First Nations have been seeking is First Nations' control. How do we move boldly in a way that supports First Nations to do exactly that? I think that is our challenge at this moment. We look for the Senate to consider how to help accomplish that.
Mr. Googoo: I want to mention how we evolved. I evolved from a federal school student to being chief of my community when I was 24 years old, transferring from federal school to band-controlled school and then discussing the transfer of jurisdiction.
It is very important that when we transferred the jurisdiction, it gave us the confidence because it said, "You guys can decide what type of education you want. You do not have to follow minimum provincial standards anymore. You do not have to have anything imposed upon you from the federal government anymore. You decide."
We have to also recognize that we do have a lot of educated people in our community, not only Aboriginal educators but also non-Aboriginal ones, who have devoted their lives to helping Aboriginals. They are a part of our community. A perfect example in our community is a gentleman, Brian Arbuthnot, who is non-Native but who was instrumental in making MK happen. His lifelong commitment was with the same First Nation. He could have gone to do so much more and he has. We gained the confidence that it was ours and that we were able to make the changes.
When we talk about leading change and creating the guiding coalition, the guiding coalition is empowering broad- based action. It is part of our identity. Maybe in Nova Scotia we are unique because we are one tribe; we are all Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. We do not have three or four tribes in the province; we have one tribe. I reflect back to when I started off being chief, and one of the elders in Manitoba said, "We have lost ourselves, and we have stereotyped our own people too much." He said, "First they called us Indians, then savages, then back to Indians, then Aboriginals, then indigenous people, then back to Aboriginals, and then everyone got comfortable with First Nations. We will never make change." I will never remember his name, but I will never forget his words. He said, "We will never make change unless we recognize who we are. I am Dene; I am from the Dene Nation. You are Mi'kmaq, from the Mi'kmaq Nation." We have nation-to-nation agreements, and we believe that the transfer of jurisdiction in Nova Scotia is a nation-to-nation agreement, where the province is no longer just the beneficiary of a funding formula or whatever. They have to negotiate with the Mi'kmaq for educational services. We are buying from them. That gives us more control and more input on what type of education we want for our kids. The regional office does not decide anymore who will get a school. The Mi'kmaq decide amongst themselves who will get the next school.
That success comes from the ground up. We may not think that we are ready, but I think some people who are opting out of the whole process, in the early stages of the education panel, are saying, "Why do we not take control of our own process? Why do we have an education panel imposed on us again?" We do not trust what the outcome will be. Regardless, we both have the same objective — to improve quality of education. We have the statistics that are alarming. If we just stick to what the real objectives are, and make trust deposits in that type of relationship and in moving forward, that is the way I see us getting some success here.
Going back, I said it was empowering to the Mi'kmaq, and I have been part of it from day one, the day when we were going to fall apart. Jane Stewart was the minister, and the next day we were going to be signing or not signing that agreement. I was in that boardroom, and I explained to the chiefs the benefits of governance. It just took a little bit more understanding of what we were signing. We signed it. From that day on, we took control of jurisdiction. We then started to decide.
Senator Raine: What year was that?
Mr. Googoo: I think it was in 1992.
Senator Raine: That is 20 years. Look where you have come. I congratulate you.
Thank you. I think it was really good for everyone to hear how it works. It is important that we are not talking about the provinces, for instance. When you think of First Nations, you should really be thinking of the greater nation, rather than the artificial little collection of communities that were set up by Indian affairs way back when. What a nation is, is also often a question.
Mr. Googoo: I think that the environment of us deciding whether our recommendations are imposed or community- based gives us a rare opportunity in Canadian history where we have truth and reconciliation happening and have a greater understanding of how we have to do this right this time. Timing is on our side if we look at this strategically and properly. I want to mention that.
Senator Ataullahjan: You talked about raising funds in the community, Regional Chief Googoo. I was very impressed with the way you spoke about that. You have had great success with that. How did you do that? How did you motivate the people to get involved and raise the funds?
Mr. Googoo: We decided as a priority in our own community. We had our gaming agreement and we knew we had a shortfall of $1.2 million. Myself, together with my council, decided not to settle that. We are not going to build a federal rate school. We know it is inadequate; why build it? It is unacceptable.
Therefore, we had to borrow money. We borrowed against our gaming agreement, and we used a formula of the province — one third, one third, one third. Come to the table with a solution rather than just give me more money. I used the seven habits in leading change formula to tell the regional director, would you come up with one third if I came up with one third?
I went to the province and said on our gaming agreement, could you advance us some money? That will be your one third. We will borrow one third, and the federal government came up and said all right, we will do the one third. That is how we addressed the $1.2 million shortfall.
At the end of the day, the principle was that we will not build a school that is inadequate. This is the largest single investment that has ever happened in our community. It was an $8 million project and we were not going to build something we knew was going to be inadequate. We did not settle, and I am glad we did not.
The Chair: The successes that have been experienced, whether it is the First Nations Education Steering Committee in British Columbia or the Mi'kmaq, consolidation or amalgamation, whatever you want to call it, seems to play an important role for the simple reason it establishes capacity. If you have a First Nations with 30 or 40 people, it is next to impossible to set up a school board or whatever you want to call it — whether it is a level two.
Do you anticipate a huge amount of resistance to recommending consolidation so that the economies of scale are better and the capacity is there to carry through, like the Mi'kmaq have, or like the FNESC has or the Cree in Quebec? Would you mind commenting on that?
This is going to be one of the challenges, as well as statutory funding, if we change the funding from being paid directly to the band, as it is now for band-run schools. On the consolidation, I would like your response.
Mr. Atleo: I agree this is something that we must consider — Senator Raine's earlier comments around another externally imposed reality within the Indian Act of the band structure and systems. That is an excellent point, and it is another example of how First Nations did not choose to be organized.
I can think of my own village. My own home community of Ahousaht is just such an example. Going back to the royal commission report in 1996, the phrase used at that time was "nation building." As you heard from the Mi'kmaq, there is a reclamation going on as we speak. There is nation building going on, nation rebuilding going on across First Nations from coast to coast to coast.
I attended powerful treaties 1 to 11. As the nations there will say, treaties do not make nations, nations make treaties.
We are being challenged again as First Nations to take a system that was imposed on us and to reconsider a system that we originally always had. What we are looking for is the recognition that we did not create this and neither did the Senate; we all inherited the reality of what we have now but First Nations are doing this work.
It does go back to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People's report. It was recommended in 1996 that this is part of the major changes — to reclaim our nationhood.
What might be described as consolidation again would only reflect that if the Indian Act system was imposed, that we be careful about imposing or even considering the imposition of the nation building that must come from the people themselves. The Mi'kmaq are clearly doing that. Other nations across the country are doing that as well.
I did not want to let go by, Mr. Chair, the earlier point around the Mi'kmaq pursuing additional funds through their own source revenue. There are many First Nations that do not have access to additional resources. They do not have own-source revenue or the ability to generate revenue. That is a parallel but very important issue that you raise, because just like your average school system in Canada might do fundraising to build an additional playground, what we are talking about here is the difference and the gap between core service and resources for schools and for school systems, and where First Nations do not have second and third level systems. They would not have the systemic machinery to pursue the resource revenue sharing. In this case, the chief in council and their organizations in many respects would cover off for the lack of second and third level services.
I wanted to reflect more broadly on an important question because many communities put such an incredible importance on their young people, their children, that they will go find ways. They are First Nations governments that are already funded. It places undue pressure on the ability of First Nations governments to properly serve their people.
I thought that was an important point. I get very excited about First Nations doing the work of nation building and nation rebuilding that we see going on. I think the important aspect here is to respect and support that work for it to happen, being driven by the nations themselves.
We certainly have examples that we can look to and draw from that do generate or create the kinds of economies of scale that are being alluded to here that ensure that you have effective system development that is accountable, that is effective, that provides quality, that perhaps is linked linguistically in some cases, as among the Mi'kmaq. There is nothing that warms my heart more than having visited the regional chief's school — when he was chief he invited me there — to hear the young people speaking the Mi'kmaq language, when you know that of the 52 languages that only three right now, according to the language experts, are poised to survive fully and fluently into the future. My language is not on that list.
We have a great concern right now for the timeliness of moving to the support the retention of language. I commend all of those school systems such as what the Mi'kmaq accomplished. I join with commending the work the leadership has done since 1992, the work you have been doing.
Think what a system could accomplish fully supported, and fully empowered and resourced — what kind of acceleration of success we might see in all of our communities.
The Chair: I would like to thank you. As a committee, we work in a non-partisan fashion. I never make a list — left, right or anything. We have excellent senators on this committee, and I will not including myself when I say that. I am thinking more of the general membership of this committee who have done great work.
I am sure that as Senator Demers and others have said, we will do our best in crafting a report that cannot be ignored by anyone because, in my books, failure is not an option. I believe that we can succeed.
I believe that the time is right. I thank the senators for participating, but I thank all of you for presenting here tonight, national chief and regional chief. I wish to thank Mr. Jock and Ms. Brennan for being here as well.
(The committee adjourned.)