Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 5th, 2006

[Paul LeBlanc]

If I understand you correctly, I think the key challenge therein is the 2% limit, as you mentioned, that came from a program review era on the federal side.

The federal government honours, if you will, the portability or transferability of education rights, providing choices to parents and young people to study on reserve or next door or to travel to study in the provincial system. By and large, that's provided for. In some cases, the department will directly pay the provincial tuition through its regional office. In some cases, the allocation is fully transferred to the first nations, and the first nations will in turn pay tuition for their students.

The issue, of course, is that the cost of education in some provinces escalates disproportionately to the resources the department has. This is particularly evident in provinces that are able to invest more heavily in education. The tendency, at least on the surface, is that they seem to outpace us and the resources we have available.

This can result in tougher choices at the community level for how much they'll support. Will they support transportation as well as tuition? They may be crunched and not be able to. It may in fact cut into limited resources if they pay the full amount.

These comparisons are difficult to make because when you get the unit cost in the province, you're comparing a tuition rate that flows out of a system that has elaborate secondary and third-level support mechanisms or support structures, which the first nations schools don't have. It takes a lot of work to find true comparisons to make the argument on whether or not this is overfunded or underfunded. It's usually to try to make the argument that it's underfunded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We'll move on to the Bloc, please, Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc, I have a specific question to ask you, and I would like a concise answer. In a document from your department entitled Education Action Plan (in response to the observations and recommendations in Chapter 5 of the Auditor General of Canada's Report, November 2004)”, it says, in the third paragraph on page 1:

The policy framework, to be completed by June 2006, will be based on a common understanding with First Nation representatives on a strategic vision for First Nations education....

It is now June 2006. Imagine how surprised I was to see, in the document you tabled for us, that we are looking at 2007. That is on page 8.

Is it due to a lack of funds, a lack of cooperation, or to the fact that it took too long to do the translation into French or English? What caused the one-year delay in the implementation of this strategic framework, with all of the costs that entails?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps there was a lack of clarity in our explanation in the text. In the first action plan that the member is referring to, we talk about 2007 as the completion date for both phases of the action plan, the policy framework and the management framework. In the text, I was referring solely to the second date. That does not mean that all of the aspects won't be completed until 2007. We expect the policy framework to be complete in 2006, well before the final date in 2007.

So we did not clearly explain the details for the timelines. For example, the first plan talks about a document to clarify roles and responsibilities. It was done in 2005, I believe. A good draft was completed in 2005. We will continue to work on it throughout 2006. So our priority is the policy framework. We will have excellent drafts well before June 2007, but we indicated that 2007 would be the closing date for the entire exercise.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In that case, I would like to understand something else. I have the same impression again, but I hope you will prove the opposite. Page 6 of your text says:

In 2004-2005, the Government of Canada spent about $1.1 billion [...] $950 million for elementary/secondary [...] $101 million for Special Education [...]

Do you stop educating them after that? Is your objective to see aboriginal students obtain a high school diploma and then stop their studies? A little further on, it says:

[,...] the Post-Secondary Education Program provided approximately $305 million to support nearly 25,000 First Nation and Inuit learners [...]

I want a good understanding. There appears to be a structured program for elementary and secondary education, but after that, the department simply helps those who want to continue. Have I understood correctly?

[Paul LeBlanc]

We place tremendous value on post-secondary education. That is why we invest such significant sums of money in it, over $300 million. I must clarify that the Indian Act covers basic education, in other words, the elementary and secondary levels, but not post-secondary education. The first nations and the department began discussing the issue a long time ago. We consider program policies at the post-secondary level discretionary, as the result of government policies to support first nations. It is different from the elementary and secondary levels.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I will stop you right there. What you have just said is very important. Are you telling me that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act, that old thing, obliges you to provide elementary and secondary education to aboriginals, but that nothing in the act enables you to go any farther? Is it really a discretionary program for the department? We should make a recommendation or, at the very least, start discussing that seriously.

At any rate, it is the first time I have heard that. Yet I believe that I am quite up to speed on issues relating to Indian affairs. Is it really a discretionary program? There is nothing in the act for post-secondary education?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Our interpretation is that there is nothing in the act that requires a contribution at the post-secondary level, and that there is nothing in the act that limits the possibility of contributing at the post-secondary level. The government determines its priorities and ensures the considerable amounts of money are well invested.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That is fine, but on occasion our good governments — I have often had respect for them — decide to announce cutbacks. This $305 million amount is not announced anywhere, as it is discretionary. Post-secondary education is discretionary. Perhaps that should be entrenched in the act somewhere.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Indeed, it is discretionary.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do I have a bit of time left, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have one minute.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Fine. Why hasn't the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development considered setting education standards for first nations? Is the department about to establish any?

I will give you an example. In non-aboriginal communities, schools are grouped under school boards that manage them. Some aboriginal communities have them too. I believe there are some in my colleague's riding among the Cree, for example. It does not appear to be generalized. It should be. That would help administer these programs.

[Paul LeBlanc]

You are right that it is not generalized. It takes several shapes. A little earlier, I gave the example of Nova Scotia. In that case, the priority is on certification, numbers, standards, etc. The conditions in the contribution contracts signed between the department and the first nations on education, we also deal with the need for standards and talk about compatibility with provincial standards.

So it is dealt with indirectly. We recognize this initial fundamental point, the transfer of responsibilities. The department has finally transferred these responsibilities to the first nations community management and leadership. In fact, first nations have a general obligation, in accordance with the conditions of the funding contract, as well as considerable latitude to establish their priorities.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the department for coming before us.

I have two questions. I'm going to ask them both and then I'll let you respond.

The first question is around terminology. I noticed in your presentation that sometimes you refer to “aboriginals” and sometimes you refer to “first nations” and “Inuit”. When you refer to something like this, for example, “more than 50% of aboriginal population are under 25 years of age”, or “according to the 2001 Census, 71% of aboriginal identity population...are not on reserve”, my understanding is that your department is responsible for first nations and Inuit. Aboriginal is broader.

I'd like you to comment on that. When you say that 71% of aboriginals live off reserve, that's actually not first nations, so that's a misleading number, in my view.

The second question I have is around consultation. I weeded through a huge amount of material that was kindly prepared for the committee, including the report that was tabled in 1996. Implicit in one of the recommendations was that the department should work together with first nations and financial institutions to develop new arrangements for obtaining capital.

Then there is the 2000 report that talks about finding a departmental mechanism that would ensure all 600 first nations are being adequately represented or that an opportunity for their effective input is provided.

Implicit in the 2004 report was the fact that first nations needed to be included in developing responses.

When I come to your educational action plan under roles and responsibilities--and of course roles and responsibilities, it seems, would hinge on adequate consultation--in your own report it says, “In February 2005, a departmental working group was established to draft a statement....”, and so on. And then:

Dialogue with First Nations will be engaged in order to arrive at a mutually agreed upon statement of respective roles and responsibilities.

I guess what I'd like to know is, what has this consultation process looked like to get us to this point? I understand you have various draft agreements in progress and a policy framework that's going to come forward. What does that consultation process look like, and how have you ensured that 600-plus first nations communities have been adequately represented in this discussion?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Perhaps I will say a little bit about the first question. I would ask my colleague, Line Paré, to elaborate on the second point, because she's working closely with it.

I certainly hope we haven't misled anyone. We certainly don't want to mislead in our various uses of “aboriginal” versus “first nation”. You're indeed correct that the department's primary program and investment focus is first nations. Recognizing the role that the Office of the Federal Interlocutor primarily plays, we added to the broader picture of aboriginal people more generally, but by and large, in terms of the relevance of the stats and the relevance of the investments, we are focused on the first nations learners.

So it's not intended to distract, and if we have, I would certainly make efforts to provide data that is more easily interpreted and has more clarity. We'd be glad to do that.

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

The department's spending on education?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Yes.

With that, I will ask Line to respond on your second point.

[Line Paré, Director General, Education Branch, Socio-economic Policy and Regional Operations, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

With respect to consultation and involvement of first nations in the area of education over the years, the department has worked with the Assembly of First Nations. We have established a number of working groups.

One example I would like to provide to the committee is with respect to special education programs. As the department designed the special education program, the first nations, through the Assembly of First Nations, were involved and continue to be involved.

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

Sorry, can I just interrupt for a second?

I understand that part. My question was more specifically about developing the framework and the policy that the department has been mandated to report on in 2006 and 2007.

I'm sorry if I was not clear enough on that question.

[Line Paré]

No, no. Perfect.

These working groups with the Assembly of First Nations continue. We are developing the policy framework right now. We're working with the Assembly of First Nations through a joint steering committee, facilitating regional dialogue sessions across the country so that first nations educators, first nations leadership, and community members can provide input and feedback to the policy framework.

And we want to take--

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

So will they be involved in drafting? Will there be a joint drafting mechanism for that policy framework?

[Line Paré]

Yes, with the Assembly of First Nations, we have a joint steering committee. From the first nations there are 10 representatives and from the Government of Canada there are 10 representatives. Within the steering committee, we have decided on a core drafting team, so the joint steering committee is really responsible for the overall drafting of this policy framework.

We're receiving feedback input through regional dialogue sessions that are taking place this week, and there will be a second round of regional consultations towards the end of the summer so that we can have a final policy framework.