Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning, witnesses, guests and members of the Committee. I would like to call to order this 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This morning we welcome the First Nations Education Council.

Members, this was a request to appear before our committee. You'll recall from our trip to Kitigan Zibi that the issue of funding for education was raised, and in fact Chief Whiteduck was kind enough to give us the presentation that the council had forwarded on their concerns and proposal.

This morning we welcome Lise Bastien, the director general of the council, and also Raymond Sioui, assistant director. Chief Conrad Polson is here this morning and joins us from the Timiskaming Community. Also, we have Chief Ghislain Picard, who is the representative of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador.

Welcome, members.

We customarily begin with approximately ten minutes, and I understand from speaking with Ms. Bastien that it may take a little bit more time than ten minutes. We do have two hours for questions from members.

We'll begin with Ms. Bastien, for ten minutes, then after your opening presentations we'll begin with questions from members.

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Are there copies of the speeches?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We do not have a copy of your presentation in both official languages. Therefore, they have not been circulated to all members, so we leave it to the witnesses to make that determination.

Go ahead, Ms. Bastien.

[Lise Bastien, Director General, First Nations Education Council]

Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice-Chair, Mr. Vice-Chair, honourable members, thank you very much for inviting us to appear this morning.

The First Nations Education Council is an organization which, as its name suggests, works in the educational field with 22 First Nations communities in Quebec. We have been around now for some 24 years. Our role is to help community members improve the way they structure and manage their educational system both inside and outside the community.

This morning, the main focus of our presentation is a brief that you all received when you visited Kitigan Zibi. This report was distributed to you by Chief Gilbert Whiteduck. I would like to very briefly review it with you.

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

I have a copy of that and I've looked through it. Unfortunately, I left it in my office. Would you have an extra copy?

[Lise Bastien]

Yes, sure. I have two more copies of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We won't take away from your time there, Ms. Bastien. We'll continue. I appreciate your indulgence there, and we'll continue.

[Lise Bastien]

The focus of our presentation is the chronic underfunding of education, at both the primary and secondary levels. We also talk about the funding of post-secondary education, occupational training and school construction.

In recent years, there have been numerous consultations and studies done on the subject. Following our many awareness campaigns, including a comprehensive campaign mounted by our Council regarding the chronic underfunding of education, a number of ministers or former ministers or prime ministers made statements regarding the underfunding issue and the persistent gap between the funding of First Nations education and education in the rest of the country.

That is a fact that has not only been pointed to by the First Nations; it was confirmed by former Prime Minister Martin, the former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for Ontario, Michael Bryant, and the current Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest. All of them said that spending on First Nations education is half of what it is in other communities. The Manitoba Minister of Education also said about the same thing. There is quite a long list of people who have made similar comments.

Indeed, we are not the only ones pointing to the fact that the funding gap affecting our schools and educational systems is increasingly alarming; people from outside the community are saying the same thing. This is about educating our children and our future. The impact of this gap in terms of the resources allocated to secure the future of our young people is not something that should be taken lightly. Furthermore, this funding gap has very grave consequences for the ability of our school system to achieve results that are similar or comparable to those associated with the other systems. Indeed, the lack of funding in our communities makes it extremely difficult to provide comparable services.

We have reached the conclusion that, if nothing is done in the very near future to reduce that gap… There is a desire to integrate the First Nations into the Canadian educational system, which is not something that any nation wanting to assert its independence would consider desirable.

I would like now to turn it over to Raymond Sioui to give you a quick overview of the brief.

[Raymond Sioui, Assistant Director, First Nations Education Council]

I will be brief. The FNEC paper is not our first analysis of this issue. In a sense, it is a summary of all of the many analyses we have done with respect to our funding. The brief is divided into four sections and provides an analysis of the national situation as well as one for the province of Quebec.

The first section deals with the funding of primary and secondary schools. That section talks about the underfunding of education, which is primarily due to a completely outdated funding formula. That formula was developed in 1988 and has never been reviewed since. It is a formula that allocates funding to certain items that are completely underfunded and for which only paltry amounts are provided.

For example, as regards language instruction, the amounts allocated are laughable. This is also a formula that ignores a number of different costs. There have been developments in the provinces which were never included in the formula, such as costs for operating libraries, introducing new technologies, occupational training—particularly in Quebec, which is given at the secondary level—sports and recreation. It is also a formula which, since 1996, has not been indexed to the cost of living nor considered population increases. Of course, that has resulted in a loss of value which is huge in constant dollars, something we point out in the brief.

There is another section dealing with the funding of educational systems. In general, educational systems comprise three separate levels. The first is the schools. The second is the school boards—they may have different names, depending on the provinces. And, the third level is the departments.

However, for the First Nations, the only funding officially available is the funding allocated for First Nations schools. There has never been any officially recognized funding provided to regional organizations such as the FNEC. This is a significant problem in terms of our ability to provide support services to our schools that are comparable to those available in other schools in Canada.

The third section deals with the funding of post-secondary education. Your Committee produced a report on that saying that the highest priority is post-secondary education for First Nations people in Canada. Indeed, we would like to thank the Committee for that report. It clearly documents the underfunding of students. Primarily because of that underfunding, waiting lists have gotten longer over the years. Today, there are more than 10,500 students on waiting lists. There is also the problem of underfunding of post-secondary institutions. The report mentions that these institutions are nevertheless somewhat successful and have greatly increased their graduation rate, even though underfunding puts them in a precarious position.

Finally, the fourth section presents recommendations regarding underfunding and talks about the need for a funding framework for First Nations education that reflects true cost factors.

I would also like to mention the other work being carried out by the FNEC. Last week, I sent out a study carried out in 2005 on the costs of primary and secondary education. I would particularly like to talk about the work we have been doing over the last two years to develop a funding formula.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs had promised to update the funding formula. That was mentioned in the 2005-2006 Reports on Plans and Priorities prepared at headquarters, which was intending to develop an adequate financing mechanism. It was also part of the strategic planning exercise at the regional office between 2005 and 2008, and the latter was expected to contribute to the development of a new funding formula, even though that never happened.

About five years ago, a national joint group composed of representatives of the Assembly of First Nations and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs was struck to review the funding formula. Unfortunately, its own funding was cut back or cancelled before it could complete its work. Its task was to review the formula, after conducting cost studies. In addition, the funding formula and authorizations were supposed to be renewed in April of 2008. However, there was no review, and the status quo was imposed.

The FNEC truly believes that school funding should be determined on the basis of an adequate funding formula which reflects all costs. In that regard, we share the concern of the Auditor General who stated in her 2004 Report: « The Department does not know whether funding to First Nations is sufficient to meet the education standards it has set and whether the results achieved are in line with the resources provided”.

There are also a number of independent researchers, including Mr. Mendelson of the Caledon Institute, who said that the recognition of First Nations' jurisdiction over education requires a funding mechanism based on a clearly defined process and principles that are not subject to arbitrary or unilateral decisions by the federal government.

[Lise Bastien]

Thank you, Raymond.

I would now like to ask Chef Conrad Polson to briefly review with you the actual impact of this on his community and what it means for current education management regimes.

[Chief Conrad Polson, Timiskaming Community, First Nations Education Council]

Good morning. My name's Conrad Polson. I'm the Algonquin chief from Timiskaming First Nation.

Rather than revising the funding formula, the federal government has instead financed initiatives under contribution agreements. However, these initiatives are not based on any serious or reliable cost analysis and fail to take into account all the recent developments in the provinces. Moreover, this is very demanding on the school administrators of our communities at several levels: multiplication of project presentations and activity reports; non-flexibility of programs; allocations based on the fiscal year, which is different from the school year; delays in funding allocations; impossibility for long-term planning.

The department's public servants themselves admit during meetings that these ways to proceed create an overwhelmingly demanding and intricate accounting, but they have to apply it in the rules. The two new INAC programs equally launched under contribution agreements are perfect illustrations. The first announcement was made in February 2008, and the guidelines of these new programs were released only in December 2008, nine months after their announcement. The first nations organizations had until February 16, 2009, to present complex submissions. They were given less than two months, Christmas holidays inclusive.

The department took more time than scheduled to give its decision, as late as mid-June, despite having the commitment to do so in mid-March. In addition to this three-month delay, the decision will be announced at the end of the school year, when the schools are closing for summer holidays—a typical example of INAC inefficiencies.

It is more than obvious that the gaps in funding and the administrative abuse and requirements seriously thwart our capacity to provide the services that provincial schools are able to offer, or comparable working conditions. If such restrictions continue to be imposed on us, I have reason to fear for the future of our schools. How can we be competitive under such conditions? How can our education system survive and ensure survival of our cultures and of our languages?

Meegwetch.

[Chief Ghislain Picard, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, First Nations Education Council]

Thank you very much. I will be completing the presentation.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of the Standing Committee, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today. Indeed, we have appeared before the Committee on a number of occasions in the past.

In Quebec, we have set up a series of institutions that represent the communities. I believe our primary duty is to support these institutions, because they were designed and established for the communities that we represent. However, on a more personal note—and I am sure I reflect the opinion of the vast majority of chiefs in this regard—I have to say that there is a certain weariness with the political or parliamentary process, because it always turns out to be a dead-end.

I want to emphasize that point because two weeks ago, we were at the UN precisely to talk about education. The process has reached the point where we have to appeal to international organizations in order to know what is going on in Canada with respect to its outdated policies, which in no way meet the real needs of First Nations. A partial explanation for that is probably the fact that the First Nations are very much at the mercy of a federal government which has complete latitude to be both judge and judged when it comes to education and its relationship with the First Nations. That means it can reject hundreds of studies and at least as many, if not more, recommendations that have been made repeatedly, without fear of repercussions for its electorate.

Education is only the tip of the iceberg. The problem is much more widespread and affects other areas that are an integral part of the everyday lives of people in our communities.

It is clear to us that no government would dare to act in a similar manner as regards education funding for other Canadians without fearing for its chances of being re-elected. I am concerned that the FNEC's work on education funding and the development of a new funding formula will meet the same fate as hundreds, perhaps thousands, of previous studies.

It is difficult for us to continue to believe—rightly so—in the federal government's desire to put an end to the underfunding of First Nations programs, particularly education programs. We have been burned too often and, as the expression goes: “once bitten, twice shy”.

I am therefore calling on the Committee to demand a formal commitment from the federal government to follow up on the Council's work with respect to the development of a new funding formula, given that it has failed to do so itself in cooperation with the First Nations, contrary to the commitment it made.

We are recommending—putting a little more water in our wine, once again—that a small group of two or three experts designated by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, as well as two or three experts designated by the FNEC, do an analysis of the Council's proposed formula, and that the federal government pledge to abide by the findings of that expert group and act on them quickly. We are also recommending that this group be put together quickly and have no more than six months to carry out its work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you. I want to thank you for your presentations.

We are now going to begin the first round of questioning.

Mr. Russell, you have seven minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to each of the witnesses. I'm glad to have you with us.

Your brief certainly outlined the funding gaps and structural problems or challenges in the system, and there's been more than one study carried out on this particular issue. In Labrador we have only two first nations schools that fall under the Quebec-Labrador AFNQL, Sheshatshiu and Natuashish. Then we have the Inuit and the Métis, which basically fall under the provincial government system.

There has been no comparison done on the output, on the completion rates in primary and secondary. There have been no comparative studies done, at least none that I'm aware of in my particular jurisdiction, but it seems as though we have not narrowed the gap with the rest of the Canadian population at all when it comes to first nations education, in terms of attainment and coming out of secondary school.

I was reading Mendelson's report, and he was saying that the statistics from 1996 to 2006 basically remained the same: only 40%, or somewhere in that range--maybe even less--graduate from high school.

He recommends an increase in funding, but an increase in funding alone will not solve the problem. This is what he advocates, and you may argue with me around this point: he says that funding is necessary--that we have to have the schools and the money for their operation--but he also says that we need a second level of services and a tertiary level of services for it to be adequate.

Is that the approach that you take as well, in terms of first nations education systems, as opposed to...? A lot of times we just advocate; we say that we have to build more schools and we need more schools. We know that. We say we have to upgrade our schools and maintain them and things like that. We need more teachers and we need money for operations. I think we all realize that. We all know that the 2% funding cap is problematic and should be removed.

I'm just wondering.... In a way, you're the second level of services, if I could make that comparison. With what you do, do you see any improvements in the Quebec experience or in the experience of those who fall under your council? Is there any improvement in terms of those first nations schools that don't have those second-level services?

I'm also trying to get to the structural issues, so I'm wondering what your feeling is on the B.C. example of first nations jurisdiction over education. I'm wondering about those aspects. Also, what is your view on a first nations education authority act, as Mendelson puts it, which would be an opt-in type of approach?

[Lise Bastien]

I'm going to try to answer some of your questions.

First of all, in reference to the B.C. agreement, we are not really involved at all in the process. We don't know about the results so far. We don't have any confirmation that the B.C. agreement is working well and has good results. It may be working well, but I don't think it's the avenue that we are looking for in Quebec.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

The B.C. agreement was only signed a couple of years ago, and they're still negotiating funding arrangements under the act itself. I'm just wondering about it as model, as an approach.

[Lise Bastien]

No, we did not really look at this model. I mean, we looked at it, but it's not really the model that we'd like to see in Quebec.

We also don't have the same situation as B.C., because we have a lot of band schools, schools owned by first nations. In B.C. the situation is different; they have a lot of student populations attending provincial schools. What we would like to have in Quebec is a reinforcement of our band schools.

You were talking about second-level services and all the structural aspects. We think it's really important that if we want to have good results, we need to consider all aspects of education, which means, of course, appropriate funding for schools at the community level. This is essential. However, communities alone and schools alone can't afford all the components and requirements that will make a good system, so you need second-level services.

We've been doing it a bit, you know, but as our organization is still an anomaly, we do it on a project basis, which is not good at all, because education needs to be based on recurrent funding so that you can develop a vision for your school and for your education.

We did our homework. We did many surveys on second-level services, and we have all the results, but when we presented it to the DIA last fall, in November 2008, they said, “Well, we have no money for that. It's good, thank you, but that's it.”

I think it's also really essential to improve and support communities that don't have a big population. They are entitled to quality services.

We also think that we need to go further than high school; we need to develop our own post-secondary system as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think you have about 30 seconds left, Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay, of the Bloc Québécois, please.

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

Thank you very much for being here.

There is no need for you to explain how the system works in Quebec. It seems to me that, if I did not understand that, I would not deserve to be here.

I do not agree either with the idea of coming back with a report and fresh requests year after year. We have to find some concrete solutions. The first solution, in my opinion, is to get rid of the 2% cap as soon as possible, and on an urgent basis. Whether the government or someone else does it, it has got to go. The money has got to flow.

I want to try and understand something. In many provinces other than Quebec, there are agreements in place between the Ministry of Education in those provinces and various Aboriginal communities whose members attend schools in those provinces. If I understood correctly, this is not the system favoured by the Assembly of First Nations in Quebec and Labrador. Did I get that right, Ms. Bastien?

[Lise Bastien]

That is correct.

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

I have concerns in two areas. The first has to do with education at the primary and secondary levels. As far as I am concerned, it is critical that this be developed by the Assembly of First Nations. However, there is the whole question of occupational training and I am not sure what solution you have in mind. I am going to put this in my own words, and with the greatest of respect for the Grand Chief of Timiskaming. I am not certain a machine tool will find its way into the school in Timiskaming if the Rivière-des-Quinze Secondary School already has one.

Is there a potential for agreements to be reached between the communities that are part of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and schools in some boards that provide occupational training? And, if such agreements already exist, are you responsible for managing them? Do you control them?

[Lise Bastien]

I can give you a partial answer. Occupational training also has a connection to secondary level education. Under the Quebec school system, as in the other provinces, secondary schools offer occupational training. They grant vocational school diplomas, known as a DEP in Quebec. That is something that our secondary schools and communities do not have, because of the lack of funding. There is “zero funding” for occupational training in our secondary schools.

That means that our communities are not able to introduce occupational training for our young people at the Grade 9, 10 and 11 levels. What has been proven is that different approaches, such as occupational training, are major assets in terms of countering the drop-out problem. Before we lose young people in Grade 9, we are often able to keep them in school by offering occupational training. In addition to that, there is the whole matter of occupational training at the post-secondary level.

I will give Mr. Sioui a chance to comment, because we also conducted a study on that. I believe that all of our studies have been completed now. I hope we will not have to do any more. The fact is we have the figures and models on occupational training.

[Raymond Sioui]

As part of the socio-economic forum, a commitment was made to fund two studies, one on occupational training, and the other on second-level services. We have completed both studies.

In the study we conducted on occupational training, we obviously looked at the many different types of occupational training that are currently available—training that can be provided without too many requirements at the secondary level, training that has to be provided as part of a group offering or at the regional level, and training that is far more specialized and has to be provided by highly specialized provincial centres. That is what we looked at.

As well, we reviewed the guidance approach used in Quebec, which is part of the diversified streams that are offered in all schools, and for which no funding is provided in our schools.

It is very important that students receive appropriate guidance when they arrive in Grades 8 and 9 and it is known that they will not necessarily attend university, because that is not their goal. They can be kept in school through the provision of occupational training. There are different options available. We carried out a very comprehensive study of this as well, which is ready to be released.