Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Crowder, please.

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

Thank you. And I will keep my question short because I would prefer to hear from the chief.

I want to thank you and your team for coming today. It's important that we hear directly from you. I also want to thank you for the clarification on the percentage on reserve, because when we heard from the department earlier this week, there was some confusion about the numbers they were giving us and the terminology.

I want to reference the Transformative Change Accord from British Columbia. I'm from British Columbia, and the people who signed this accord were: the Right Honourable Paul Martin, Honourable Gordon Campbell, Regional Chief Shawn Atleo, Grand Chief Edward John, Grand Chief Doug Kelly, Chief Dave Porter, Chief Stewart Phillip, Chief Robert Shintah, and Chief Mike Retasket.

The people who were involved with the Transformative Change Accord had a clear understanding that the November discussions were real. The people who were at that meeting then took it and developed a further accord based on what they thought was a commitment.

And I appreciated the words around the honour of the Crown.

The specific question I had for you is about consultation. Could you expand on the criteria you set out concerning consultation? I am quite concerned that the department has a different understanding of what consultation looks like, based on what we heard from them this week on education. Could you say more about what meaningful consultation would look like in order to actually have first nations involved at the table?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Mr. Chairman, consultation has always been a major issue. It has always been pretty difficult to fashion a process where there is meaningful consultation and, most importantly for us, where, at the end of a consultative process, whatever report results from that process and the recommendations from that report are given effect.

What we don't accept is any suggestion that if someone comes to talk to us and makes suggestions, somehow we're giving our consent to whatever plan someone else may have developed in isolation from our communities. The results of a consultative process must reflect the interests of first nations and must reflect the decisions that are taken from within our community. Imposition of government will, we all know, doesn't work. That is something of utmost importance to us.

For example, in education we're now working with the Department of Indian Affairs in a collaborative process to bring forward a report and recommendations on a new policy framework for education. That will affect funding levels for first nations education programs and services so that we can address the fact that there is 30% less spent on first nations education programs and services than governments spend for other Canadians.

In special education, for example, I learned just recently that governments spend now on the order $38,000 per student for special needs students. Indian Affairs spends on the order of $14,000 per student. There are huge disparities everywhere we look.

We would argue that this is a direct result of governments not engaging in meaningful consultation with our governments and our leadership. Otherwise the results would be different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Are you finished, Ms. Crowder?

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

Let me just ask this. In your view, is the current educational consultation process sufficient? Is the consultation process that is currently going on with the educational framework plan sufficient? Is it inclusive enough?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

At the moment it's a process that is acceptable to us. But now we are hearing rumours that cuts will be introduced for first nations educational programs and services. If in fact that is true, then the consultative process on this issue is not acceptable. It becomes a sham exercise, and I am certain Minister Prentice would not find it acceptable either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Can we move on to the government?

Mr. Bruinooge, please.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the national chief for coming today. He's an important aboriginal elder for whom I have a great deal of respect. I'd also like to wish him well in his upcoming campaign and his re-election exploits. I wish him all the best—though perhaps we may need to provide his opponents with equal time.

I would like to ask the national chief if he would agree that the agreement referred to by Madam Crowder was in fact defined as an agreement. Would he agree that it had a signature page associated with it and was in fact an agreement?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Our understanding, Mr. Chairman, is pretty clear. It was a process that was before the country. The process spoke to Canadians. The commitments achieved at the first ministers meeting were presented to the country. It was an agreement that was endorsed by 14 jurisdictions and five aboriginal organizations.

It's true, as I understand, because we've been told this, that we didn't have consensus within our organization. In fact, the Quebec region took the position that this process wasn't going far enough. They agreed with the outcomes, but they wanted us to go beyond them. They wanted us to talk about land, resources, and jurisdiction, and of course they had some serious problems with dealing at the same table as the Province of Quebec.

Our understanding is that what was achieved and how it was expressed was consistent with how other such agreements have been transmitted to Canadians. For example, at the first ministers meeting on health, $41 billion was committed. There was no signed agreement at that particular first ministers meeting. There was a communiqué issued that set out the federal government's commitments to provincial and territorial governments for health.

We've done due diligence on this, and we've come to the conclusion that this matter was dealt with as other such important matters have been dealt with, and you'll recall that we shook hands with every first minister present in that room. In our culture, shaking hands with someone is very, very important. It signifies that you have agreement or that you have a deal, and you shake hands on the agreement or the deal.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'm not disputing that you see it as an agreement. I'm just suggesting that the terms “agreement” and “accord” have been thrown around a lot and have various definitions, some of which are legally binding, some of which are recommendations to a government. There is no question that the Government of Canada sees the objectives, the targets, and the strategies laid out at Kelowna and at the first ministers meeting as very important.

I'd like to ask you if you would say that money and investment is the only issue. I would like to ask if you think that perhaps the means by which services are delivered to the people who need it the most needs to be improved.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Mr. Chairman, I believe--and I'm sure most of the people I represent would agree--that money isn't the only issue, but it is one important element. Process is also an important consideration. Structure is also an important consideration.

By structure I mean, for example, institutional development that gives true expression to first nation governments, whether we're talking about a public institution responsible for housing or new governance structures for the delivery of first nations education to our students. All of those are important considerations.

I don't want to trivialize this, either. We may quibble about what we call it or what brand we put on this, but the fact of the matter is that we have a plan, a plan that is a direct result of 18 months of long, hard work. I recall, by the way, a very important discussion I had with Minister Prentice, when he acknowledged to me and to my chief of staff, Bob, that he recognized all the hard work that went into the 18-month process, and he wasn't prepared to just discard all that hard work, and we needed to build on it.

Our position is that we know the challenges that are before us as a country. We know, because we've worked on this, how to address those issues and how to meet the challenges, and we're prepared to sit down and figure this out so that, in fact, we can give full effect to the plan.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I know we have another witness. I don't mean to extend this any longer, but at the same time I want to thank the national chief for coming today. It's very much appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

As the chair, I'll do that on behalf of the committee.

We do have another witness on the orders of the day, Chief Fontaine, and since everybody has had an opportunity, we thank you very much for your attendance.

I think you should know that this committee did table a support of the Kelowna accord. I did that on behalf of the committee and it was put forward to the House, and the Minister is aware of that. I think the only reason some did not support the motion was not necessarily on the spirit of the accord but because of some of the mechanics with which we had challenges. The chair was feeling that issue a little bit--where the figures came from and whether it's enough to address the issues of priorities set in the accord.

In this committee we did bring forward our priorities. It was interesting because the priorities set forward by this committee were identical to those that were set out in the accord. So I think I can freely say that we are working with you and with the objectives of the accord.

Thank you very much for your attendance.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Perhaps I may be permitted to have the final word on this. We're encouraged by your closing comments that there is in fact a willingness, a goodwill on the part of this committee to support the accord; that you agree with the plan; and that you see it in the same way as we do--that it's a reasonable plan and the best opportunity we have right now to fix something that's broken. We desperately need to deal with the terrible situation that continues to exist in far too many first nation communities. I accept the fact that it's not just about money, that there are other considerations, but money is an important consideration and $5 billion is not a bad start.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much for your attendance.

We will break for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Committee, could we please come together.

The next witnesses are the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami of Canada, and we have with us Richard Paton, director of the socio-economic development department. Welcome, Mr. Paton.

[Richard Paton, Director, Socio-Economic Development, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It certainly gives me great pleasure to appear before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development today. I do have with me English copies of the presentation I'm going to speak to today. Unfortunately, I did not bring with me translated versions into French, nor did I bring with me translated versions in Inuktitut.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It's the pleasure of the committee.

Madam Crowder.

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

Mr. Chair, we do have a policy around two official languages, and I think, with respect, perhaps we could leave them with the clerk for translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

It is the procedure of the committee that we need to have any documents that are tabled by witnesses in both official languages and so we cannot receive those documents unless they are, but I would ask the committee, as far as the document is concerned, do we want to have the oral presentation?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay, and I'll instruct the clerk to please translate this and distribute the documents to the committee. Thank you.

[Richard Paton]

Thank you.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, has represented the interests of over 53,000 Inuit of Canada at the national level since its incorporation in 1972. ITK is embodied by four regional Inuit organizations: the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Makivik Corporation, and the Labrador Inuit Association, which is now the Nunatsiavut government. These organizations represent all Inuit regions identified under land claim agreements, and Inuit land claim agreement areas cover over 40% of Canada's land mass and marine areas, and 100% of the Arctic archipelago.

ITK continues to be active in a number of policy areas to ensure that Inuit rights and interests are both protected and promoted. Priority policy areas are identified through initiatives or concerns originating from the community, regional, or national level, or in response to specific government actions. ITK keeps apprised of concerns at the community and regional levels through its board of directors, as well as through more direct consultations with regional and community-based organizations.

Ensuring that the two-way flow of communication is both open and smooth is a priority for the organization and a key means by which it can respond to the needs and aspirations of Inuit across Canada. Certainly there are a number of broader priorities for Inuit that we would like to present to the committee at some point. However, we are here with the understanding that the topic for discussion and interest to the committee at this time is education.

Thomas Berger summed it up nicely in his report to the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when he said:

So it all leads back to the schools, to education, for it is Inuit high school graduates and Inuit graduates of university and other post-secondary programs who will enter the public service. There will have to be major changes in the education system in order to vastly increase the number of Inuit high school graduates; in my view a new approach is required, a comprehensive program of bilingual education

Seventy-five per cent of Inuit in Nunavut are either failing high school or dropping out altogether, and on average in the four regions it's about 70%. Mr. Berger described the current situation in Nunavut as nothing less than a crisis, and he is right. We can't sustain a modern, productive Inuit society that contributes to Canada as a whole in this situation.

While Mr. Berger's report deals primarily with the Nunavut land claims agreement, the context itself is transferrable to all Inuit in Canada. Education is a major area of focus within the Inuit land claims settlement regions. There are many reasons why Inuit do not finish elementary school or high school. Language can be one of the barriers for children when they enter into the school system, as a lot of the children are taught in Inuktitut at home. This can cause confusion for the child and frustration for the teacher.

Inuit children under the age of 14 make up 38.7% of our population. It is clear to see that we have a very young population, and the need for them to complete elementary and high school, as well as carry through to post-secondary education, is a key role in the growth of Inuit communities.

In 2001, the percentage of Inuit aged 25 to 44 who did not complete high school was 43%, compared to 15% of all Canadians of the same age. The percentage of Inuit adults overall who have not completed high school studies is 57.7%, compared to 31.3% of all Canadian adults.

A barrier to youth not completing high school is the need for them to support their families and to work. Approximately 23.3% of Inuit adults have completed post-secondary education compared to 43.8% of Canadian adults, which is almost double the Inuit level. When students enter into post-secondary education, a lot of them have to travel to bigger communities or cities. The culture shock alone and homesickness are often unbearable, so students return home.

While there are several other barriers to education, the key to moving forward is a solid action plan.

One of fundamental principles in Canada is respect for the Constitution and democratic institutions, processes, and conventions. As Canadians have been reminded by both their politicians and their courts, the honour of the Crown is at stake in all dealings between governments and aboriginal people. There can be no room in contemporary history for sharp practice.

Before, during, and after the most recent first ministers meeting in Kelowna, all the senior governments in Canada and the national aboriginal organizations gave their word to undertake a set of initiatives that had a realistic chance to begin to deal with the crippling gaps in housing, health, and education that Inuit and other aboriginal peoples live with. In my view, and as stated by our president recently in Gimli at the western premiers meeting, acting honourably means at a minimum keeping your word.

The word that was pledged at the first ministers meeting on the federal side was not the word of a particular individual or political party; it was the word of the Prime Minister of Canada, the highest-level servant of the Crown and the people and an important custodian of the honour of the Crown and, by extension, the honour of the people of Canada. We cannot run federalism, indeed we cannot run Canada, on the basis that high-level multi-governmental commitments to tackle fundamental societal ills that are the product of mature deliberation can be summarily discarded because one of the signatories doesn't find it expedient on partisan grounds.

The last first ministers meeting in Kelowna provided a solid 10-year action plan. While we're not saying it was a perfect plan--certainly one never is--it at least was a plan, which is something the current government doesn't apparently have. We have not been privy to a replacement plan or been invited to develop one in partnership with the federal government, and neither have the territories or other aboriginal organizations who signed the Kelowna agreement in good faith along with us.

Included in Kelowna were key commitments on education. The document entitled Building Inuit Nunaat: The Inuit Action Plan is our proposed action plan. It stems from more than 18 months of cooperation and effort on the part of Inuit organizations involved in developing and signing the partnership accord on May 31, 2005, and the follow-up to the partnership accord in the development of the plan. The honour of the Crown was pledged in our partnership accord, just as it was at Kelowna. Building Inuit Nunaat covers a wide range of issues in relation to Inuit at the international, national, and regional levels. These include education, housing, health, socio-economic, environmental, and human resources.

The education part of the first Inuit action plan must address strengthening the collaboration of efforts by governments, including the governments of the provinces and territories, and by national and regional Inuit organizations; undertaking research on relevant issues pertaining to education to improve and enhance training for Inuit teachers, curriculum developers, and administrators; and increasing educational attainment levels by Inuit through Inuit-specific curriculum, while preserving and enhancing Inuktitut language and cultural programs.

At Kelowna, commitments were made to us on capacity-building funding for teachers, administrators, and curriculum developers, as well as the development of a resource and research centre. Inuit strongly believe that commitment on the part of the Crown to deal with these issues was a step in the right direction. The next step is for the federal government to respect and act on that commitment to allow noticeable improvements to begin.

In closing, I would like to ask the committee to consider the following. First, I would ask the committee to commit to inviting Mr. Thomas Berger to present in-depth his recent report on the crisis surrounding the Nunavut project.

Second, ITK is pleased to support the committee's Standing Order 108(2), which recommends the implementation of the Kelowna agreement, and we look forward to receiving a favourable response to that order.

Finally, I invite the committee to adopt a resolution for the federal government to appoint a senior representative from outside the public service to finalize an Inuit action plan under the partnership accord by December 31 of this year. I would also suggest that resolution have the official report back to this committee shortly after that date to measure progress and results.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering the questions of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Paton.

We'll start off with the Liberal Party.

Madam Karetak-Lindell.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I think we all agree that the way we have been handling education for the last 60-odd years has not worked for us as a people. We have success stories today that are slowly but surely bringing educated people among us.

I would like to thank Nunavut Sivuniksavut for being here, because they are certainly one of the projects and programs I talk about many times when I want to show people an example of what works when people are involved in making program criteria and have total involvement in a project.

I agree that we really need to make sure the Berger report does not sit on the shelf gathering dust and that the government needs to respond to that report.

Can you give us an idea of what initiatives we need to see—and I know you gave recommendations, but maybe for the sake of some members who are new here—in order to bring those recommendations into being?

We have Nunavut Arctic College in Nunavut, and we have other institutions; in northern Quebec we have their regional board of education. We do have success stories, but I think the key for those success stories is the people who are involved in the creation of the institutions and programs. It's more than just money; it's the involvement of the people.

I always say we have to remind people we had ways of governing and ways of educating our people before someone else came in and decided we needed a new system. What do we need to do to get that back? We have certainly acknowledged that we need to do things differently, and there are different ways of educating people. Sometimes they don't fall in with the plans of the bureaucracy, or whoever is making policies.

How do we get past that? What do we need?