Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning to everyone. Welcome to the 24^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

We have three representatives today from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. We welcome back Christine Cram, the assistant deputy minister under the rubric of education and social development programs and partnerships. We also welcome Kathleen Keenan, director general of the education branch, and also Céline Laverdière, director for policy and intergovernmental relations.

Members, this is a continuation of our consideration, you will recall, from Tuesday's meeting, at which we heard from the First Nations Education Council. We'll continue with that consideration this morning and begin with ten-minute presentations, and then go to questions from members.

Madam Cram.

[Christine Cram, Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I am pleased to be here today and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of first nations education.

Education is the key to personal success and Canada's continued prosperity in today's knowledge-based economy. For this reason, there is growing recognition of the need to overcome the achievement gaps that persist between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada.

Minister Strahl sees improving aboriginal education outcomes as a top priority and is putting particular emphasis on improving education for first nations, in partnership with the provinces and first nations communities.

The good news is that we are seeing a great deal of interest across Canada in improving the educational outcomes of first nations students and a growing debate about how best to achieve this goal. Increasingly, research notes the importance of family and community factors on student outcomes. One recent study concludes that between 40% and 50% of a school's impact on student achievement can be attributed to factors beyond the school's control. The persistence of poverty, poor housing, unemployment, single parenthood, and poor health are commonly reported challenges in some first nations communities, and we mustn't overlook these factors in efforts to improve first nations education.

Nevertheless, some stakeholders have singled out inadequate federal funding as the primary reason for an achievement gap between first nations students on reserve and non-aboriginal students. This argument stems from the view that greater investments in education lead to improved school quality.

While funding is a key issue, identifying appropriate levels is a highly debated issue. In fact, research does not consistently conclude that higher levels of investment lead to improved student outcomes.

I would like to provide some context on how INAC supports first nations education on reserve. Commencing in the 1970s, the responsibility for the delivery of elementary and secondary education services to first nations learners on reserve was devolved to individual first nations, reducing the federal role to that of a funder. The exception to this is the seven federal schools that the Government of Canada continues to run at the request of the respective first nations communities.

In 2008-09, INAC invested approximately $1.3 billion to support the elementary and secondary education for approximately 120,000 first nations students living on reserve. Approximately 40% of these students attend provincial schools off reserve, for which first nations pay tuition, generally to the school board that the students are attending.

INAC provides each community with funding for instructional services. Traditionally these amounts were based on a funding formula comprised of a range of factors. This formula was called the band-operated funding formula. However, with first nations assuming control over the delivery of education on reserve, INAC allows greater first nations flexibility to establish and meet local education priorities and needs. All first nations receive a base per student funding amount, which is then supplemented to reflect the local realities such as school size, remoteness, and socio-economic conditions. This methodology varies from region to region.

In addition to hiring teachers, first nations have the ability to use the funding provided under the instructional services stream to purchase new classroom equipment, including computers, textbooks, school supplies, computer software, or library books. They can hire library and other resource persons, invest in new physical education equipment, and develop in-class course work around language and culture. The flexibility is there for first nations to manage the design and delivery of education programs and services within their communities.

In addition to instructional services, funding is provided for student services and transportation, as well as targeted initiatives such as special education services, cultural education centres, teacher recruitment and retention, parental and community engagement, youth employment, and connectivity services.

When you move beyond the debate about whether and how strong the relationship is between investments and outcomes, what becomes evident is the need for any investment in education to be supported by a sound performance measurement system.

Many first nations schools lack the tools to undertake the activities which are well advanced in most provincial systems. Implementation of province-wide standardized tests, school success plans and performance measurement systems can be used to improve student achievement over time.

When used effectively, these activities equip educators with the information needed to make strategic adjustments to the curriculum, teacher training, and allocation of other resources to respond to student need. In a Canadian report that describes 10 successful aboriginal school case studies, the largest gains in aboriginal education were found in provinces that use assessment programs for schools and student improvement planning.

To this end, since 2006 the Government of Canada has engaged with first nations through the Assembly of First Nations and regional first nations organizations to undertake a series of key reforms in first nations education. Two new education programs were launched in December 2008 to set the foundation for long-term improvement in first nations education. These programs are supported by an investment, set out in Budget 2008, of $268 million over five years and ongoing funding of $75 million in each subsequent year.

The first nations student success program will help schools develop success plans, conduct student assessments, and put in place performance management systems to assess and report on school and student progress. The three key priority areas are literacy, numeracy, and student retention. The education partnerships program has been put in place to develop and enhance tripartite education partnerships with first nations and provinces. Partnerships will support better collaboration among first nations schools, organizations, and provincial education systems. The premise behind the new program is that while the relationship among federal, provincial, territorial, and first nations roles and responsibilities for first nations education is complex, all agree that the partners need to work together to improve student educational outcomes.

A great deal of work needs to be done in first nations education, and INAC is actively engaged with first nations on an agenda of reform. Every year the department undertakes and funds a significant amount of consultation and policy work with the Assembly of First Nations. Last year the Assembly of First Nations provided two reports on school-based performance indicators and on data management.

The First Nations Education Council is another key partner that we regularly work with.

I note that the committee earlier this week reviewed the report that INAC contributed to in 2005. INAC has funded the First Nations Education Council, or FNEC, to undertake, amongst other work, analysis of funding questions. INAC and FNEC jointly funded the research that contributed to the 2005 tuition fees committee final report entitled Analysis of Educational Costs and Tuition Fees: Pre-School, Elementary School and High School Levels.

Recently the INAC Quebec region provided FNEC with $50,000, which FNEC used to undertake a second phase of the education cost drivers study intended to design a funding formula for education that included all 21 cost drivers identified in the 2005 report. I believe you have seen both of these reports.

We are looking forward to working with the First Nations Education Council on implementing the two new programs that we launched this past year. The council's proposals to the first nations student success program and the education partnerships program were approved subject to revisions. Provided they meet the conditions outlined in their letter of decision, the first round of proposals will invest approximately $2.8 million in First Nations Education Council activities.

I would like to acknowledge the extensive work that FNEC undertook in analyzing a very complex issue in their 2005 and 2009 report. Their efforts are certainly welcome given the limited scope of research on this issue in Canada.

It bears noting that the current context has changed since the 2005 report was released, when the council based its analysis on 2001-02 data. The department has since made significant investments in first nations education.

Taking up-to-date data, the Government of Canada invests $1.3 billion every year in various elementary and secondary programs for 120,000 first nations students across Canada. This equates to about $10,800 per student. Using the latest year for which data is available on provincial and territorial expenditures, 2005-06, provincial and territorial expenditures for elementary and secondary school systems averaged $9,700 nationally, ranging from a high of $18,500 per student in Yukon to a low of $7,600 in Prince Edward Island. The Province of Quebec expenditure for that year was $9,100 per student.

However, making direct comparisons between INAC's funding and provincial funding levels is difficult, as each level of government accounts for educational funding in different ways. There are also significant variances in per-student spending among provinces, as you can see by those average numbers, and even greater variation between urban, rural, and remote communities within individual provinces.

We have embarked on a phased approach to improving first nations educational outcomes. Initial steps to improve outcomes are in place with the launch of the two new programs in December 2008.

In addition, we are reviewing current programs around first nations education with the view that subsequent phases of reform would focus on programs that target supports where they are most needed.

We look forward to continuing our important relationship with the First Nations Education Council and other first nations organizations and communities to work together to improve education outcomes for all.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue with your committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

We will begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Russell, you have seven minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. It's good to see you again, Ms. Cram, Ms. Keenan, and Ms. Laverdière.

I want to come back to a point you raised in your presentation about higher levels of investment. You said that “in fact research does not consistently conclude that higher levels of investment lead to improved student outcomes”. But can there be any doubt that if you have a population that's exponentially growing and the funding is capped, there's going to be a gap in the amount of funding that's required? I'm not saying funding by itself. I think most reports would conclude that funding by itself may not be the only indicator or the one that certainly leads to higher educational attainment. But isn't there some admittance within the department itself that there is a lack of funding for first nations schools?

It also ties into your comment on page 6, “The flexibility is there for first nations to manage the design and delivery of education programs and services within their communities”.

If there's a lack of funding, I think it inhibits the flexibility first nations would have just at the first level of services, in terms of infrastructure and delivery of programs, and then at the second and third levels of services that many people have talked about.

But is there no admittance within the department that the 2% cap has to go and that there must be an increase in funding, along with other types of reforms?

[Christine Cram]

Thank you, Mr. Russell. You're right. In my comments I was really referring to the fact that funding alone won't make the improvements. What we're interested in doing is achieving improved results. Everybody's interested in that.

This committee has considered the 2% cap before. I think even most recently, when the minister was here on the main estimates, there was discussion of the 2% cap. The 2% cap is a challenge the department faces.

I mentioned about phase two. We're hoping that the work we can do, working with first nations in terms of building a business case for what is required for education, will succeed in obtaining more resources. That's part of why we got resources in Budget 2008. We will continue those efforts in our phase two work to obtain resources.

It's challenging, as I mentioned. There's the issue of provincial comparability, but then there's also the question of what it would take to get comparable results. I think I also mentioned the fact that there isn't consensus about what would result in those improvements.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It seems to me there's some sense within the department that the 2% cap is challenging and problematic. You're making the case for more resources based on maybe some consultative work and things of that nature. Now in terms of the two new programs you announced, they're competitive programs, are they not? They're proposal driven. They don't apply in a broad way to each first nation. They have to compete on a proposal-driven basis.

[Kathleen Keenan, Director General, Education Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

It's true that they are proposal driven, but that's not so much to foster competition as it is to engage with those who are ready to move to a different way of doing education. They're meant to drive towards results. There are a number of conditions first nations communities take on when they enter into the proposal-based process. It is seen very much as foundational.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

How many proposals have you received? And how much money has actually gone out the door?

[Kathleen Keenan]

There were two programs, and a total of 60 proposals were submitted. All proponents have been advised of the results of the decisions that were made by a national selection committee. Virtually all of them have required revisions. Work is under way now with the proponents to revise them, particularly around definitions and detail in the budget components. They're linked between the budget and what they're undertaking to do, because there's a fair bit of variability in what different communities could undertake. Those discussions are going on now. We've asked all those proponents who can to revise their proposals by June 23. We would undertake to have the funding agreements in place. If some feel that they don't have enough time to make the kinds of revisions the selection committee asked for, they are eligible to come back in round two. The call letters for that will go out in September, with a deadline....

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Has any money actually gone out from these particular programs?

[Kathleen Keenan]

The money hasn't gone out yet because the revisions have to be made. Then funding agreements will be put in place.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It's a three-year program, though, isn't it?

[Kathleen Keenan]

No, it's ongoing.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It's ongoing?

[Kathleen Keenan]

It's ongoing.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Okay.

There's been a big discussion around this table, and particularly with the last witnesses we had, about the fact that they don't have enough resources to put in place libraries, library supports, and things of that nature. How do you reconcile the fact that the department says and the government says that they can do that, and groups such as FNEC and first nations come before us and say they just don't have the money to do it? How do you reconcile those two particular positions, if I might put it that way?

[Christine Cram]

I'll speak to how it actually works, and then Céline is going to talk about how it specifically works in Quebec.

You're right, Mr. Russell, in the sense that as part of the funding first nations receive, libraries are an eligible expense. The operations of libraries are an eligible expense. It's then up to first nations to decide what the priorities are. They make the decisions as to whether they will devote resources to that versus other activities.

Maybe I can just turn to Madame Laverdière to speak about Quebec.

[Céline Laverdière, Director, Policy and Intergovernmental Relations, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

If I may, I will respond in French.

As far as the Quebec region is concerned, first nations, as Ms. Cram said, decide what their priorities are. Our program guidelines allow first nations to use the money to buy supplies for libraries or to hire librarians. We are aware that first nations often use money from elsewhere to put together a library within their school or community. But this is a priority which is established by first nations themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, that's about it, Mr. Russell. You're just about right on time. You're slightly over. This is a good time to remind members, and in fact our witnesses as well, that our time limits are for both questions and answers. So in light of keeping our members' questions in queue and giving them the time they need, good, short, concise answers are terrific.

Mr. Lemay, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you for being here.

I will follow up on the issues raised by Mr. Russell. Can the money you send to the communities, be it Kitigan Zibi, Maniwaki, Pikogan, which is near Amos, or the Timiskaming First Nation, be spent at the discretion of the community? These communities receive an overall amount which they spend on administering the school, teachers' salaries, the library, diving courses and so on.

Is that correct?

[Céline Laverdière]

I would like to briefly explain that there are two types of contracts, or funding agreements, with our first nations: the one-year comprehensive funding arrangement and the five-year funding arrangement.

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

For education?

[Céline Laverdière]

They apply to all the programs of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Other departments are even sometimes included in the five-year funding arrangements.

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

Let's just talk about education.

[Céline Laverdière]

Well then, education...