Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for coming.
I have a brief comment before I ask a question.
You talked about the K to 12 system, and I think we all would acknowledge that there are some serious problems with the K to 12 system. However, there are some serious problems in post-secondary education. Unless there's a very clear focus and some action on the numerous reports...as you probably are well aware, the researcher has given us numerous reports over a number of years that have talked about recommendations for post-secondary education and yet there isn't substantial movement. There are increasing numbers of students who simply do not have access to a post-secondary education, whether it's vocational, trades, technical, or university. So I think there needs to be some serious movement on that.
In your presentation you said there's $1.5 billion in planned education expenditure. Is it possible to provide the committee with an estimate of how much of that money actually contributes directly to bottoms in seats, to students in seats, the direct delivery? I don't imagine you can answer that today.
In your presentation you also talked about the fact that you've completed your draft policy framework--I assume that's on the K to 12 system--and you're working on your management framework. Is it possible for the committee to get a copy of the draft policy framework?
You also indicated that over time investment in first nations and Inuit post-secondary education has increased significantly. My understanding is that over 10 years the increase has been at 2%, which is significantly under the growth in the population. That's just a comment.
You also indicated that you have committed to undertaking a review of post-secondary education and that the review has involved the participation...and so on. Is there any written documentation on that or a preliminary report that the committee could have access to?
Those are some follow-up items on your presentation.
One of the things the committee has heard quite clearly, and we had the benefit of going to the Nunavut school in Ottawa, is that there is a real challenge for first nations educational institutions to have access to funding. One of the mechanisms that institutions have is the ISSP, which is project-based. That's my understanding of it.
There are two pieces to that. One is that the Inuit, as far as we've been able to determine, have not accessed ISSP funding despite the fact that they're in the criteria. That's one question. The second question is that under Bill C-48 the government made a determination to allocate some money towards capital expenditures, yet first nations institutions, it is my understanding, were not allocated any capital expenditures. I would like you to confirm that it is true that they didn't get any capital expenditures. And if not, why not?