Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2006

[Richard Paton]

Over the last couple of years ITK has been heavily involved in a number of initiatives and in partnership with the federal government. Leading up to the first ministers meeting was the series of aboriginal round tables, and in that regard there were certainly discussions around lifelong learning. The focus in that series of round table initiatives was on K to 12.

Our recommendations stemming from that round table process essentially led us to commit to and push for the exploration of a national Inuit-specific education and resource centre. I think that is something that is clearly needed. There are best practices out there. There are certainly specific approaches to dealing with education in the north and in the Inuit regions.

The commitment over the next 12 to 18 months, if it were provided, to determine how we can move forward on the Inuit education resource centre is one that could bring together the specific initiatives we're looking at.

I think it can be done in collaboration with all of the Inuit regions—not just ITK, but those Inuit regions that we represent as well—because they bring forward, as you described, the success stories and the initiatives that are working in the regions. But without being able to bring them together to clearly identify what's working in each of the regions.... Incorporating them into that research centre is something that I think is needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

If you don't mind, committee, I'm going to restrict it to five minutes rather than seven minutes so that everybody has a chance before we leave.

We'll move on to the Bloc, to Mr. Lévesque. Be concise, please.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Paton. I represent the region of Nunavik, which differs slightly from Nunavut, in terms of the agreements signed with the province of Quebec.

On May 25, I was in Salluit and noticed that education there is different from that of allochthons. In fact, students who live in cities are able to get a good night's sleep, which is not the case in Salluit, Nunavik. When I was in Salluit on May 25, some 7 to 10-year-old children were still out in the streets at 4 o'clock in the morning because their parents were fighting at home, in housing units that are too small. I am sure that the lack of housing has a huge negative impact on students' ability to concentrate. I believe that Nunavut has the same problem.

As regards consultations, and since this committee is undertaking a study on education, do you have any recommendations on specific areas of research that this committee can look into? Are there any specific topics that have not been sufficiently researched, or on which we have neglected to get your vision? I would like to know your opinion on this subject.

[Richard Paton]

Perhaps one of the areas in terms of research is in relation to the preservation and protection of the Inuit language. There are various dialects as you move from region to region. In general, you have Inuktitut overall, but in the western Arctic, you have Inuinnaqtun. So there are different dialects. I think one of the areas of recommendation that you could look into is in developing Inuit-specific curriculum.

I think more research would need to be done in relation to the protection of the Inuit language itself and to identify whether or not a common language, a unified language, is something that would help in relation to the development of curriculum, or whether or not languages specific to each region need to be protected for that particular region, rather than identifying a unified language. More research could be done overall in that area in terms of moving forward on the protection, preservation, and promotion of the Inuktitut language.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I want to make sure that I am clear. Research has been carried out on specific aspects of First Nations education. Beyond the strict and basic needs of a specific culture, were you consulted during the studies that have been conducted to this date, in an effort to understand the education model that would be most beneficial to Inuit communities? I am referring to communities outside of Quebec, because in Quebec, there were agreements with the Government of Quebec on these methods. The only thing missing is space, and not methodologies, which Inuit school boards seem to be satisfied with.

Were you directly consulted by the Canadian government on these methods?

[Richard Paton]

Part of that consultation would have led up to the first ministers meeting through the round table process, but those were very short consultations. When you look at the round table process, you're talking about a series of meetings that happened over the course of three or four days and invited numerous participants in relation to the round table process, but not Inuit-specific. I think that's what's needed, a series of consultations with Inuit on Inuit-specific issues in relation to education.

When we see national conferences or national consultation taking place, we see issues that are relevant to aboriginal Canadians as a whole, but not in relation to Inuit specifically. I think that's what's needed, to be able to further identify Inuit-specific issues and be able to consult with Inuit specifically on how to best move forward. I don't think that has been done to date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming before the committee today. I appreciated your remarks about the Kelowna accord.

I had spoken earlier about the Transformative Change Accord that was signed in British Columbia between the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the leadership council representing the first nations of B.C. Just for clarification, there is a slight paragraph in there that I want to read, because I think it speaks to the understanding that people had about this event that happened in Kelowna.

It says:

At the First Ministers' Meeting on Aboriginal issues on November 24th/25th, 2005, First Ministers and Aboriginal Leaders committed to strengthening relationships on a government-to-government basis, and on focussing efforts to close the gap in the areas of education, health. housing and economic opportunities.

This accord respects the agreement reached on November 25th and sets out how the parties intend to implement it in British Columbia.

I think this is an important document simply because it reaffirms the fact that all parties in Kelowna felt that they had reached an agreement that people were then taking out and acting on--in British Columbia, for example.

That's more of a comment, but I wonder if you could specifically talk about consultation. We hear much about meaningful consultation. Specifically what elements are important to you in a meaningful consultation process? What needs to be there?

[Richard Paton]

In relation to ITK, we do provide consultation from a national level, but in order to give meaning to consultation, you need to do more than just work with a national organization. You need to be in touch with the regional organizations and the communities themselves to be able to identify and associate with the needs that are current to each of the regions and to each of the communities.

In all four regions, there are different components and different needs in relation to education and the barriers to education that each region is facing.

There was a comment about an 11-year-old living off the street and not being able to attain a level of education because of the fact that he or she may have been living off the street. Housing is certainly a major component and a major issue in dealing with a number of issues across the north and across each of the regions, and it ties into education. But the needs in relation to housing are different in each region, and the needs in relation to the barriers that Inuit are facing in each of the communities are also in varying stages.

So I think what's needed in respect of consultation is to be able to talk not only to us at the national level, but to consult with each of the regions and with each of the communities so that you can better identify and associate with what each of those communities is essentially undertaking and facing as barriers in relation to education.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you. I have just one quick question that will require a yes or no.

Concerning the final report of the Nunavut project from Thomas Berger, dated March 1, 2006, have you had any response at all from the government?

[Richard Paton]

No, not at our level at ITK.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Paton, for coming here today. Thank you especially for addressing the issue of education, which our committee has agreed is our first priority.

I think it's unfortunate, Mr. Chair, that we took as long as we did to debate the motion and that we missed a large part of education in our discussion with previous witness.

I just want to say, Mr. Paton, we are committed on this side as well to closing the gaps in education, health, housing, and economic development, but we do feel that it's important as well that we address structural changes that may be needed as we proceed in those areas.

I think I heard during your statement--and I may have misunderstood you--that the people of Nunavut actually did sign a document at Kelowna. I just want to clarify that.

And then, finally, to address the high failure rate and dropout rate that you highlighted in your report, certainly that's a concern for all of us. I noted that the Berger report, on page 53, talks about some of the local initiatives in at least a few communities, where there are methods being used that highlight traditional training and skills attainment.

What obstacles do you see in terms of the educational system, first of all, incorporating those; but my second concern would be, when those people come back to the school--and they enjoy coming back to school and learning those skills--will that limit them in any way in terms of broader job opportunities within Canada?

[Richard Paton]

I'm going to have to get you to repeat the last question, but I can address.

In terms of ITK and the region signing off on an agreement, it wasn't the Kelowna accord. What we signed off in May 2005 was the Partnership Accord. In Kelowna we came to an agreement in terms of the direction we were moving forward in. But the signatories to the Partnership Accord were done in May 2005, which led to the first ministers meeting and the discussions around the issues raised in Kelowna.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

The second question was regarding some of the methods of education. For example, it highlights jewellery making, basket weaving, kayak making, and so on, which I can understand would certainly be an appealing and important part of education. I'm certainly not downplaying that in any way.

Will there be a large enough job market for those students to use those skills? Our desire as a committee is not just to educate, but to have an outcome where people are gainfully employed and productive and able to care and provide for the needs of their families.

[Richard Paton]

In relation to perhaps not a well-known fact, Inuit in Canada are approximately 53,000 strong, but in our output in terms of art, in the export of Canadian art nationally, Inuit represent 10% of Canadian art export.

And so in relation to the question you're asking, the smaller industries or the smaller fields in arts and crafts specifically has great potential and great crossover into other fields as well.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Is there any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Yes, the chair was going to ask a question. Would you like to--

Okay, Mr. Bruinooge for a brief moment.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Maybe I could just clarify your point in relation to the first ministers meeting. You talked about the consultation period not being long enough, only three or four days, whereas other members of ITK have talked the standard line of 18 months. I just want to see if there is a difference of opinion there.

[Richard Paton]

No, 18 months of work led to discussions at the first ministers meeting, but it took longer to come to an agreement in terms of the issues dealt with at Kelowna.

The 18 months I referred to was to the work done within the aboriginal community, and in my understanding, the agreements and the issues raised in Kelowna between the aboriginal organizations and the federal government were done over the course of two or three weeks. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of the issues that were dealt with.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We only have another 10 minutes, so we'll keep it short.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Paton. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee. I had the opportunity to be in Nunatsiavut last weekend and attend a couple of graduations, which are quite pertinent to this particular conversation. They were quite moving, and they also pointed toward some optimism in the Inuit communities.

I have a couple of things. This standard line about 18 months that my colleague refers to--that's 18 months of hard work on behalf of a lot of aboriginal people and aboriginal communities that lived through the Kelowna accord. In terms of the Conservatives always talking about whether money is enough, I would say that to have a boat move, you need some fuel. So we need some resources to make things go.

In terms of Kelowna itself, I would say education is a holistic approach, you can't just faction it out. And you've already touched on it. We have to deal with housing, socio-economic concerns; we have to deal with capacity building. All those things were in Kelowna.

I will ask a simple question from the Inuit perspective and ITK's perspective, and this goes to the heart of the honour of the Crown, because you can't have a treaty or an agreement with one government and have it thrown out in a few days, and then have the honour of the Crown upheld. That's not the way it works. There's a continuum there. There's a consistency there in terms of the honour of the Crown, and of course, that applies to treaties that go back millennia--not millennia I guess, but certainly centuries.

I want to ask, is it the opinion of ITK and Inuit that there was an agreement in Kelowna, and that $5 billion was booked to achieve the targets and objectives set out in Kelowna?

[Richard Paton]

In my opinion, and certainly ITK's opinion, there was a 10-year plan agreed to in Kelowna that would move forward on all of the issues you just spoke to.

There were discussions about the funding that would be required to fulfill the commitments stemming from the agreement, but I personally could not speak to what that amount was associated with.

There was a 10-year action plan agreed to in Kelowna, which ITK fully supported, that recognized the Inuit concerns and the Inuit-related activities around housing, education, and socio-economic and environmental issues. So I do agree that, yes, we did have a solid 10-year plan, which we felt was a plan and something we could move forward on.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.