SCYR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

¹

1520

The Clerk of the Committee

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.))

Ms. Julie Cool (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

¹

1525

¹

1530

The Chair

Mr. Gilles Rochon (Director General, Community Development Branch, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1535

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

¹

1540

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

¹

1545

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Michel Smith

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

¹

1550

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

¹

1555

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Michel Smith

Ms. Anita Neville

º

1600

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

º

1605

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

º

1635

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Michel Smith

Mr. Gilles Rochon

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Gilles Rochon

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Gilles Rochon

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Gilles Rochon

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Michel Smith

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Children and Youth at Risk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 018

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first order of business is to elect a chair. Do I see a motion?

    Ms. Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I nominate John Godfrey.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: So, Mr. Godfrey, you are duly elected. Please take the chair.

    The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): It was a hard-fought campaign!

    Thank you very much, and let me say that since the last time we met, we have attempted to plan our work plan.

    May I ask first that the witnesses come forward, and as they come forward, I'll just do a little review with Julie.

    You will recall that when we met we were constrained by time, and we were further constrained because we couldn't meet last week, as the main committee didn't meet.

    To put into context what we are about to receive, so to speak, would you like to give us a quick sense of the work plan overview. It's just going around now, and it is basically a document that.... Do you want to just have a word about it, and then we'll move on to what we're up to, just to make sure everybody's comfortable.

    Ms. Julie Cool (Committee Researcher): Given the small number of meetings we have for the start of this study, one of the possibilities was to look at some work that has already been done on some of the key issues for aboriginal children on reserve.

    There have been two recent reports, one dealing with education and the other with child welfare. They involved aboriginal people and came up with lists of recommendations. So one place you may want to start your study would be to look at those reports and the recommendations emerging from those reports.

    We have today two people from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada who can speak to the reports as well as to the programs the department has for aboriginal children in the six to twelve age group. This will give you a sense of some of the work that has been done to date on these children and on the two systems, child welfare and education. It will take up the first three meetings, leading us to the beginning of November, as you had specified last week.

    The Chair: That will... [Technical difficulty—Editor]... perhaps guide us in our future deliberations,and perhaps return after that. There are lots of caveats.

    With that, we welcome Michel Smith and Gilles Rochon. Soyez les bienvenus. You understand what we're trying to do here. You're the kick-off, and we're trying to go from, I guess, the knowns to the unknowns, so tell us about the knowns.

    Mr. Michel Smith (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Monsieur le président, members of Parliament, good afternoon, bonjour.

    My colleague Mr. Gilles Rochon, director general of the community development branch at Indian and Northern Affairs, and I are pleased to be here this afternoon to answer your questions regarding the recommendations of the minister's National Working Group on Education, and those of the first nations child and family services joint national policy review.

    I will begin with brief opening remarks regarding first nations education as well as first nations child and family services.

    The primary goal of the education programs of Indian and Northern Affairs is to ensure that first nation students have access to educational programming and attain academic outcomes comparable to those of other Canadian students. In order to take an in-depth look at the state of first nation education, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Honourable Robert Nault, announced the establishment of the minister's National Working Group on Education in June 2002. The working group's mandate was to summarize existing research and to provide advice to the minister on how INAC, in partnership with first nations, could better foster excellence in first nation education, celebrate some of the successes in first nation education, and help narrow the unacceptable gap in academic results between first nation students and other Canadian students.

[Translation]

    On December 12, 2002, the working group submitted its final report entitledOur Children - Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge.

    The final report contains 27 recommendations on a wide range of education-related topics that are intended to facilitate the development of a holistic, high-quality education system grounded in indigenous knowledge.

¹  (1525)  

[English]

    Throughout the report, three key things are emphasized: jurisdiction, infrastructure, and funding. INAC has formed working groups on a number of topics with the Assembly of First Nations to address the recommendations of the National Working Group and help determine INAC's priorities and directions vis-à-vis first nation education.

    In regard to jurisdiction, a number of initiatives are already being undertaken as pilot projects. For example, in British Columbia, a memorandum of understanding was signed on July 24, 2003, between INAC, the B.C. Ministry of Education, and the First Nations Education Steering Committee. The MOU will provide opportunities for first nations to exercise greater control over the education of their members and will establish a framework to improve educational outcomes for aboriginal students in British Columbia.

[Translation]

    While many of the topics being addressed are at a macro level, the AFN and INAC have agreed that the outcomes of our joint work must ultimately have a positive impact on the child on the classroom. Thus, the department and first nations have also targeted teacher recruitment and retention, parental and community involvement, and special education, that is, students with learning disabilities, in the hopes that they will have an immediate positive outcome in the classroom.

[English]

    The purpose of all these initiatives, as well as the working groups formed with the AFN, is to close the gap between first nations and other Canadian students and ensure that first nation learners have the opportunity to achieve their educational aspirations and meet their full academic potential.

    Let me now turn to first nations child and family services. As you may know, child welfare is a provincial or territorial responsibility. INAC's participation in child welfare is not legislated, it is policy driven. First nations child and family service agencies are mandated by the province or territory and, as such, must follow provincial or territorial legislation and standards.

    Having said that, let me assure you that INAC does not minimize the role it plays in child and family services, nor the effect our policy has on the lives of Indian children living on reserve. As recently stated by my minister, INAC's current one-size-fits-all first nations child and family services policy, developed in the late 1980s, has simply not kept up with provincial development in this area.

[Translation]

    In 1999, INAC, in conjunction with the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Services Agency Directors, conducted a joint national policy review of the first nations child and family services policy that identified 17 recommendations for change.

    In 2001, INAC started working with the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Services Agency Directors through the National Advisory Committee to respond to the recommendations.

[English]

    In 2001-02, in response to one of the recommendations of national policy review, the department, the Assembly of First Nations, first nations child and family service agency directors, provincial governments, and other federal departments that have federal mandates for children's programs on reserve--for example, HRDC and Health Canada--initiated the regional tripartite table process to commence dialogue amongst all the stakeholders. Due to a lack of resources, many of these tables have ceased to operate, while others struggle to continue.

    These discussions must be an ongoing priority. INAC, with the help of our partners, intends to revitalize these to ensure effective federal, provincial, and first nations working relationships capable of producing results.

    In 2002-03, in response to another recommendation, the federal government, through the voluntary sector initiative, provided start-up funding to support the first two years of operation of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society. Earlier this year, the department obtained policy authority to implement flexible funding that will support the use of some least-disruptive measures. Work on this item is ongoing, and we expect to implement flexible funding within six months.

    While additional funding for least-disruptive measures has eluded us to date, a subcommittee of the national advisory committee is currently focusing on a revision of the first nation child and family services operational funding formula as the means to address this issue. Additional financial resources will most likely be required once the new funding formula is completed.

¹  (1530)  

[Translation]

    By reviewing the operational funding formula, we will be in a position to address other recommendations as well. For instance, cost of living adjustments, phased in funding and least disruptive measures can all be incorporated into the redesign of the operational funding formula.

[English]

    There is still a lot of work to be done. We are aware that redesigning the funding formula will not be a panacea. However, a new funding formula will help alleviate the pressures on first nations child and family service agencies and allow them to efficiently and more effectively serve children and families in their communities. Our funding formula must also support good social work practice.

    In closing, let me assure you that we are working closely with the social development secretariat at the Assembly of First Nations, and we have both identified child and family services as our number one priority. As such, Jonathan Thompson from the Assembly of First Nations and I have convened a meeting of the national advisory committee for October 27 and 28, later this month. It is our firm intention to show progress on this critical issue.

    Thank you,merci, meegwetch.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Rochon, are you making additional remarks, or are you here as a resource person as required?

    Mr. Gilles Rochon (Director General, Community Development Branch, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): No, I will not be making additional opening remarks. My understanding is that Michel will be doing that.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Before we move to the go-round and ask for questions and comments, just remind us.... I think we've dealt with this before, but sometimes when we see these phrases, we need to be reminded. I think “least-disruptive measures”, in fact, sounds very much like a recommendation we've put forward in previous reports of our own, but would you like to just review what that means? It's obviously shorthand, and we need to remind ourselves what it's shorthand for.

    Mr. Michel Smith: It is exactly what you had in your recommendations. So we are talking about prevention. In essence, that's what we're talking about. We're also talking about being able to provide funding before having to go in and intervene and take a child out of the home, which would be the most intrusive. So as I said previously, we're talking about prevention.

    The Chair: It was good to hear the echo.

    Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

    I have just a couple of questions here, thanks to your putting it down in hard copy so that we could see what we heard. You mentioned that you have initiated a regional tripartite table process. Could you enlighten us on the members of that, how that is set up and who that involves?

¹  (1535)  

    Mr. Michel Smith: —[Technical difficulty—Editor]—

    Sorry for the delay. It was all a ploy to prepare my answer.

    Actually, what we are talking about in terms of the regional tripartite process was one of the 17 recommendations put forth by the joint policy review of INAC's policy on children and family services. The intent was to begin a dialogue where first nations people, first nations leadership, first nations technicians in the field of child and family services, provincial governments as well as federal departments, not only INAC but other federal departments involved in the field, could come together and discuss the various issues pertaining to, for example, comparability. How could we ensure that a child on a first nation reserve was receiving equitable services to those nearby? How could we talk about divergence of scale in terms of services offered and services available? How could we talk about the federal government providing services for which we had the mandate and the authorities, and if we didn't, then could the provincial government pick up what we couldn't provide? There were all those issues. So it was meant to be a forum to bring issues forward and to find solutions together.

    As I indicated in my opening remarks, there was an initial start-up in a number of regions, and due to lack of funding, the money stopped. But some persevered and scraped up enough money to bring the group together. For example, we have one that will be going on in Saskatchewan, actually, later this month.

    So my commitment since coming on at DIAND—my regular position is as director general for social policy and programs—is to revitalize this process. We've been discussing and meeting with the Assembly of First Nations and have their support. We will be meeting with the national advisory committee, as I mentioned, on October 27 and 28 and will be kick-starting the process again.

    Does that answer your question?

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I think so. If I understood you right, it's first nations leaders. Technicians, I take it, is what you're calling service providers on the ground.

    Mr. Michel Smith: That is correct.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: And then provincial government representatives.

    Mr. Michel Smith: And federal departments.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Is the meeting that is coming up in Saskatchewan this month, by chance, in Regina?

    Mr. Michel Smith: It's not confirmed yet, but we could get the information to you.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Sure. I was just interested in it. I'm from Regina.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Yes, and you have a large aboriginal population.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Yes.

    There's another term, in the next section of what you've said here, that I would be interested in having you describe. [Technical difficulty—Editor]... within six months. Could you describe for us what you mean there by flexible funding?

    Mr. Michel Smith: Okay. The problem right now is that we have very strict authorities. We have spent time working with the national advisory committee and the Assembly of First Nations on looking at how we could broaden the flexibility. So we went back to Treasury Board.

    Actually, we went to cabinet and first got the policy approval to expand our authorities to allow for more flexibility, to allow, for example, for block funding, whereas right now, as part of our funding formula, we have a maintenance envelope and an operations funding envelope. The operations envelope is for salaries, everything related to running the child and family service agency. Then we have maintenance, which actually reimburses dollar for dollar the expenses of, for example, taking a child into care or putting him or her into a foster home.

    By providing block funding, we will in essence combine both and allow the first nation agency more flexibility in what it does with its dollars, to be able to use savings in one area to augment services in another, to provide more, as we said, least-intrusive measures.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: As I understand it, then, this is an assistance for the first nations people more than an assistance to the service-providing people under the direction of the government. Is it to benefit the first nations group in making more decisions as to where the money goes?

    Mr. Michel Smith: It's for the people who run the first nation child and family service agency, yes. They're constituted with a board of directors made up of community members who are first nations people from that community.

    I must say this is only step one. We're also looking... [Technical difficulty—Editor]... funding formula simply does not reflect reality today. We need to address it and we—first nations and the government—both agree on this issue. But we need to do a lot of research, and once we've done the research within first nations and with provincial governments and have done comparability studies, then we will need to look at testing. First nations are asking us to allow them to test a new model. After that we'll be seeking new authorities to be able to ask for a new funding formula that will....

[Translation]

In French, we say “qui tiendra compte de tous les facteurs“.

[English]

It will take into account all of the realities we face today.

    Let me also add to what I said earlier in my opening remarks, that our funding formula—“one size fits all”—had simply not kept up with the development in provinces. What we mean is that for a variety of reasons, some very obvious enlightened, as I would call it, thinking led some provincial governments to want to put in place good social work practices. Others were prompted into wanting to look at prevention services because of unfortunate and sad incidents regarding child welfare in their provinces. But for whatever reason, most provincial governments have moved to a more preventive approach that is supported in social work and child welfare literature. We have not been able to keep up because of our very inflexible funding formula, which is why we are moving to making it more flexible.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you for your presentation. I have to admit that as you were speaking I was reading ahead in your presentation just to get a feel for it. I was pleased to hear you say that you were brought to the task to try to push the process along. But as I read through your presentation, I was struck by the fact that we seem to be lurching along in a committee process that's not having much impact on children in their communities. Is that a fair comment?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Michel Smith: I would say yes—strictly off the record.

    A voice: Nothing is ever strictly off the record.

    Mr. Michel Smith: If we're saying we're spending a lot of time in committee rehashing issues and wondering how much of the resources are actually going to children, some would make the argument that not a lot goes to children. I would make the argument on the other side--that in order for us to eventually be able to provide the quality of services we want to provide to first nations children, we need to do this preliminary work. Otherwise, we will continually be going around in circles and will continually be talking about anecdotal evidence.

    We need to begin doing the comparability study. For example, people are asking whether services are comparable to those for a similar non-native community in the same geographic vicinity. In some instances it's yes, in others no, but it's all anecdotal; we need to actually be able to do the work, and all parties need to be involved in that process.

    So while I agree with you—I came in two months ago and looked at it and said “Wow! That was 2000, and we're now in 2003 going on to 2004; processing is slow”—believe me, a number of issues and a number of the actual 17 recommendations have been acted upon, and we are working closely with the Assembly of First Nations and the actual first nations child and family service agencies to move faster. Can we go faster? Yes, we can.

    Ms. Anita Neville: I'm pleased to hear what you're saying. It still gives me concern. I understand the importance of structure and process and whatever. What always concerns me is the children who are not being served or not being addressed, or the issues and needs that are not being addressed.

    What I'm interested in is what you've said about the lack of resources. Where do the resources come from? Is it from the department?

    Mr. Michel Smith: It's from the department and from Treasury Board.

    Ms. Anita Neville: And have the resources been confined because they've been too prescriptive or because they've just not been there?

    Mr. Michel Smith: I would say it's been an issue of competing priorities, and our budgets are full. It's been an issue of having to balance competing priorities. We simply don't have the moneys in our budget. Right now without the evidence, which seems to be taking a long time to gather, we can't make our case. We can't tell the story to Treasury Board.

    As we were going through this whole process, to set the context a little bit, it was also a period of time when accountability and all of the issues around grants and contributions came into effect. We had to spend time as well, as a department, in managing those issues. Now we have to be able to go to the centre to make our case and tell our story with proper evidence. They don't want anecdotal evidence. If I'm saying I require more money, if I'm saying we need to provide services that are reasonably comparable, then I need to explain what “reasonably comparable” means.

    So I need all of that data, that research, that analysis, but I can't do it myself. I need to do it in consultation with first nations and with our provincial counterparts, as well as learn to work more effectively horizontally, within the federal government.

¹  (1550)  

    Ms. Anita Neville: I have lots of questions.

    When you say INAC's participation in child welfare is not legislated, that it's policy driven, tell me how that relates to what's being done by the provinces. I'm from Manitoba. I know what's happening there in terms of first nations and Métis communities taking ownership of child welfare. How are the on-reserve children and families affected by provincial activity and perhaps, in my view, the lack of federal activity?

    Mr. Michel Smith: How are they affected? It's on a number of different fronts. First of all, are the services offered off reserve to first nations people or Métis people similar to those offered on reserve? Right now, I would say there are a lot more preventive services available off reserve. In many ways it is a draw. Some first nations communities who are close to urban settings may seek services off reserve. They shouldn't have to do that; our services should be comparable. That's one influence.

    Second, what happens to a child and her family in need of services who do not have access to the services on reserve? Can we not develop, in consultation and working closely with the first nation and the provincial government, means of ensuring that those services are offered to them as well? In some instances we are able to do it; if we don't have the services, then we can have an arrangement with off-reserve child and family service agencies to provide the service. But again, will it be culturally appropriate or not?

    So the impact is on many fronts, and going back to your initial comments, it is policy driven. What I mean by that is that under the Constitution, child welfare and education and other matters are provincial jurisdiction, not federal.

    Another reason we need to sit down at those tripartite tables to discuss these issues is that the federal government is saying child welfare is a provincial responsibility, while the provincial government says, no, wait a second, first nations children on reserve is a federal responsibility. We don't want first nations children and families to be caught in the middle. We need to resolve this issue. We need to sit down and ask what we can do to ensure the full gamut of services is available to first nations children the same way as to children off reserve.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Anita Neville: I really appreciate hearing what you're saying and the intent you're moving forward. What concerns me is a concern I have with the federal government frequently--that either the absence of service or the nature of federal policy or practice for first nations communities people living on reserve in fact forces people to move into the urban setting, when they might choose to do otherwise. Regarding the lack of services and resources, whether it's child welfare or health—sometimes employment, but we can't legislate jobs—what I'm hearing you say is just another example where, when the services aren't available, people have to move into an urban setting in order to access them.

    Mr. Michel Smith: This is why my minister has committed to moving forward on these 17 recommendations. We are serious about it. I realize one could argue it's been a long time, and my minister has gone on the record saying he's as frustrated as anybody else.

    I don't means to be crass, but I can't change the past. I can only look forward—

    Ms. Anita Neville: I appreciate that.

    Mr. Michel Smith: —and commit to what I can do.

    I've met with the Assembly of First Nations on many occasions already. I have a meeting with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs in November. I will be visiting a number of communities, including St. Theresa Point. I want to get out there and start the process and move forward.

    As I said, in many instances it is an issue of resources, but I need to tell my story, and I would say we haven't told our story well. In order to tell the story, we all need to be at the table; we all need to be part of that dialogue. That's what I'm going forward with, and that's where our minister wants us to go.

    So we are fully committed to these 17 recommendations and to going forth.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Can I just ask one or two more little questions, and then I'll stop.

    In regard to the 17 recommendations, have you looked at them, assigned timelines and projected resource requirements?

    Mr. Michel Smith: Well, first of all, out of the 17 recommendations, 13 have been acted upon. Now, given funding pressures and time, some have been acted upon more than others. Seven of the recommendations are related to the development or the design of the new operational funding formula, so that really needs to be a priority.

    As I mentioned, we will be having a national advisory committee meeting on the 27th and 28th, and we will be identifying the priorities. I don't want to sit in my office at 10 Wellington Street and decide what the priorities are. I've committed to sitting down, and we're going to do that collectively.

    So first nations, child welfare agencies, the Assembly of First Nations, and we ourselves will sit down and we'll say, okay, let's look at these 17 recommendations. Which ones have we not acted upon? What are the priorities? What can we do? What can we do in this fiscal year? What do we do next fiscal year? And we'll move forward. I mean, enough is enough.

    Ms. Anita Neville: I would agree. I'll stop.

    Do you have any grid or information on the nature and level of cooperation that goes on in each jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial government?

    Mr. Michel Smith: We have some information that was gathered from the initial tripartite process, as well as from working with HRDC and the annual meeting of ministers responsible for social services. It would appear that in the last little while there's been an increasing desire by provincial governments to work with the federal government in first nations. I think in Saskatchewan, the provincial government there for the longest time said Baby Andy was not our responsibility, that first nations and child welfare on reserve was not our responsibility. And the--I forget the proper title--ombudsman for the province, or the child protector, whatever the title is, said, “No, you're wrong. It is your responsibility”.

    So we have to begin working. We have to work together. We have to get out of that we-they thinking and we need to focus on the matter at hand, which is the safety, security, and prosperity of first nations children.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

    I was going to ask you this, but don't answer me. Why are we in this situation right now? What's gone wrong that we're at this state where what I'm hearing from you is that you're basically starting, not from zero, but from a pretty basic place to make things happen? You don't have to comment on that.

    My other comment or question is that I think it would be very important for you to tell us how we can help you.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Michel Smith: Thank you very much for your comments.

    I wouldn't dare even attempt to speculate as to why we are here today, how we got here. What I would say, though, is that I am not starting from zero. A lot of work has gone on by a lot of dedicated people both in the federal government as well as in first nations, and I think we need to build on that. I just happen to have arrived at the right time, when all the stars are aligned, and we're going to go forward.

    In terms of what you can do, again, I think the work of this committee has been exemplary. You've made a number of recommendations. A recommendation, Mr. President, that you alluded to at the beginning is one that reflects some of the recommendations we find in the 17 recommendations from the national policy review.

    The Chair: Well, thank you. Maybe I can come in with a few questions, and I'm sure with the three of us, we can have a nice, fairly informal chat.

    I want to stick to the child welfare side for the time being, because it's obviously a fascinating subject, and I want to go back in a way to first principles, and I want you to correct me if my hypothesis is wrong.

    I start with the view that probably these first nation communities are fairly high demand in terms of their child welfare needs, and because of the stresses that are on them for economic and social reasons, as compared with the mainstream, on a per capita basis there would be--quite apart from the quality or availability of the services--a greater need for services.

    Is that a fair opening remark, depending on the community, obviously?

    Mr. Michel Smith: That's right. As I think you've just stated, it does depend on the communities. There are some communities where there is not an issue. However, in general, as of March 31, 2003, 9,000 children have been taken into custody. That's out of a total child population of--I don't have the exact figure--roughly 125,000 or 150,000. So we're talking about a high percentage compared to the mainstream, which would be closer to under 1%. We are talking about significant differences.

    Again, as you said, child welfare issues are simply a symptom of the problems.

    The Chair: Even to count the number of kids taken into welfare is to admit that things have reached that point, because there were not earlier least-harmful interventions that would have stopped that from occurring. This is a dramatic measure of failure, if you like, or of a problem, and at a very high percentage rate.

    So we have a situation that has its own logic, but it's obviously not being helped...we're not producing the interventions earlier that would....

    Then you said we now have a better understanding of the literature of....

    Mr. Michel Smith: Child welfare and social work practices.

    The Chair: And we know we are in a comfortable position because of the evidence from mainstream Canada and undoubtedly from other western countries. We are now developing strategies that allow us to be more effective earlier on in the prevention department. So we're dealing with family counselling, intervention, and all that.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Parenting skills, all of that.

    The Chair: We actually do risk measurement and then intervene as soon as the parents have the kids.

    The theory is one that seems to be, dare I say, of some universal application, that all parents need to attend to certain tasks in the developmental process of their kids regardless of which culture they grow up in. It's, in a sense, culturally blind.

    How do you negotiate--whether it's through these tripartite tables or through any other process, or in your conversations with the AFN--the reconciliation between the kind of universally human, on the grand scale--these tasks need to be attended to for human development, for all children--and the cultural specifics, which will vary from first nation to first nation? I mean, there's not one cultural specific; there are several, presumably. In terms of the discussions you have with the AFN or any other group of local representatives, would the starting point be a kind of recognition by them of what is universal, understanding that some of the strategies may need to be culturally specific?

    I may be a little abstract here, but do you see where I'm heading?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Michel Smith: Yes.

    First of all, I would say first nations communities know in general terms what they need, especially when it comes to the child and family service field. I would say of all of the social sector--and that would include social assistance, child and family services, ECD, adult care, all of those--the network of child and family service agency directors is probably the strongest network of all. They have a long history. They've been around for the last 20 years. They have the largest number of professionally trained social workers. Many of their directors are masters degree graduates in social work. I'm thinking of people like Joan Glode in Nova Scotia . These are leaders--intelligent, bright, forward-looking people.

    The Chair: And they interact with the mainstream.

    Mr. Michel Smith: And they interact with the mainstream. I used to work with Family Service Canada, and I worked with Joan back then, in 1987. So they know the systems, and they know what their communities need.

    When we talk with first nations, we need to sit down and be open, and not be so narrow-minded as to want to impose our traditional thinking or our own thinking, and be open to looking at how they perceive the situation and how they can make it. I would say it's culturally appropriate versus culturally specific. In many instances, as we've said, it doesn't matter whether it's a first nation or an Inuit community, as long as they own it, as long as they identify it.... Wanting to pigeonhole it afterwards into our literature around social work, that's our issue. But as long as we're able to provide the services, I would say they have a lot to teach us, if we were able to go back to traditional teachings.

    I think it's important right now too, because we were talking about the overall context.... We're talking here today specifically about child and family services, but we have to look at it within a broader community wellness backdrop. We can't invest all of our eggs in one basket and say, okay, we're going to solve the community's problem by dealing only with child and family services.

    You talked about from birth to death, or from cradle to death. That's what we need to start talking about. We need to look at community wellness; we need to look at how I, as a manager and public servant at Indian Affairs, work with my colleagues over at Solicitor General, or at Health Canada, or at HRDC, to ensure that we come in with an integrated approach to service delivery, instead of imposing on first nation communities the need to report to 25 different departments. I think federal departments are cognizant of that, and we have many examples now of where we're getting our act together.

    I was at a meeting yesterday on an integrated approach to crime prevention, and there were 13 departments around the table. Around ECD, my ADM and her counterparts at Health Canada and HRDC are looking at developing a single window approach, and we will be going to cabinet, hopefully, with a new approach in the spring. There are a number of.... We're getting there; we're not quite there, but we're definitely on the right track.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: I'm really glad to hear that. I think it is adding a huge degree of concreteness to our understanding, because this does come off as a bit abstract or a bit bureaucratic—which is fair enough. But in order to put a human face to this, what I'm trying to do is keep processing what you're telling me and say okay.

    I guess I was disturbed about the kind of breakdown of these tripartite tables. It struck me as, good God, if this is doing the right thing for these kids and it's the weak link in the chain, and this is all dried up for lack of funding, does it mean these poor kids are held hostage to our inadequacies—our inadequacies, not theirs?

    I guess what I'm trying to do is to hear the good news through all of this, which is that there is an understanding of what we have to do. You referred to the kinds of breakthroughs in the literature in social work and child welfare. We seem to have a pretty broad agreement. The department has got it, and this network of established folk in the field from the first nations community have got it. They don't just talk to each other, but they talk to the outer world; so they network out and they've got it. The provinces and territories seem to have got it, generally. In other words, we're singing more or less from the same songsheet, so that broadly speaking, there's a movement towards prevention and the least harmful, and all that sort of stuff, which is good.

    I guess the question, which is perhaps really rephrasing one that Ms. Neville put to you.... Again, part of the challenge may be that one of the negative elements of the grants and contributions story is that it has made us overly prescriptive and overly bureaucratic. It's great to be accountable, but if the net result of all this is that we just come grinding to a halt because we can't fund these processes, and we can't account for....

    I want to come back to this issue of the gap between the level of service provision, which seems to be the thing that allows you to make your case at Treasury Board.... If I hear you say it, it almost has to be parsed out on a province-by-province basis. In other words, instead of saying here's the general story across the country of what child welfare services are available to the mainstream; here's the story up here, where the big number is that we have about five times as many, or whatever the heck it is—I was trying to work out the percentage in my mind—cases that need attending to, or that are expressed in terms of putting kids into welfare.... This is an outcome indicator that we shouldn't be proud of.

    Do you actually have to do it, or prove the gaps, on a province-by-province basis rather than simply aggregating them? In other words, supposing you have a great province that is really doing a bang-up job, and you try to match what you do for people on reserve against that province, but you have a lesser province that is doing a terrible job, do you only have to meet that challenge, or is there a kind of race for the top here, as Mr. Dion would have us...?

    Have I missed something?

    Mr. Michel Smith: No, not at all. I'm going on the record as saying I have no desire to... [Technical difficulty—Editor]...

º  (1615)  

---

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I guess that was an informal suspension, which we are now unsuspending from.

    I think we were in the middle of--

    Mr. Michel Smith: I was just about to respond to your comments that I thought were right on the money.

    The Chair: About gaps between--

    Mr. Michel Smith: About gaps, and when we talk about reasonable comparabilities.

    In order to be able to manage the whole concept of reasonable comparability, we do need to look at what is available in the general vicinity of the first nation and we have to start there.

    The Chair: You mean the specific sub-geographic unit of the province.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Yes, so if we're talking about a first nation on Manitoulin Island, we compare it to a community on the island that's not first nation and try to have that be in the general vicinity, because we're talking about equity, on the one hand.

    Having said that, there are basic principles and basic standards. If it's acknowledged that the non-aboriginal community, not first nation community, has poor services, why would I want to emulate that?

    The Chair: Why would you peg yourself against that?

    Mr. Michel Smith: So I think we need to look at that. But in the same way, it becomes what is the optimum? What's the ideal? When we look at what's possible, what would be the best for the child? You end up somewhere here.

    But having said that, if you look at, for example, social assistance off reserve, mainstream, if I live in Quebec and I'm entitled as a single person to, let's say, $175, and I move to B.C. and I'm only allowed $160, I can't claim that I want to have $175 because that's what I had. I'll be told, well, don't move; go back.

    For some of those, the sad realities do kick in. However, when it comes to children, I think there are established standards. We don't have to go looking very far to know what's good. I think we need to then ensure that we are working towards, as I mentioned earlier, child and family service being but one piece, an important piece but only one piece of the community wellness model.

    When we talk about a community wellness model, we would talk about education, what's the role of education; we talk about what's economic development in that community; we talk about how we treat our elders; we talk about how we support one another. We talk about all the elements of a sound, healthy community, not only one aspect of it.

    The Chair: I'm going to throw it back to Mr. Spencer in a second.

    You're kind of benchmarking, in a way, against the mainstream, and you're doing it at the provincial level and then at the regional level too, or subregional. Do we find huge variability in terms of availability of services from province to province, and even within provinces? Understanding that remote communities are always going to be more problematic, is there that much variability across the country in the benchmark, so to speak?

    Mr. Michel Smith: I think in some instances there are, but when we talk about reasonable comparability--and I should have made that statement earlier--we're not talking about identical; we're talking about equitable. It's the equitability that we need to look at, and it is the concept that allows us to make it culturally appropriate.

    So different variables would need to be looked at. Are we talking about identical services so they offer programs A, B, C, and D, or do we talk about the number of dollars spent on program A, B, C, or D? There are different variables that will need to be looked at so that we allow first nations to be able to provide culturally appropriate services. And there are factors that are similar. For example, if you're in a remote community in mainstream Canada, trying to get a psychiatrist, for example, will be as difficult as it is to get a psychiatrist into the first nation. I'm saying, well, how can we work together?

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Maybe we can get one psychiatrist in for both.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Exactly. There are a number of issues here; it's not one-sided.

    The Chair: Right.

    But let me not take all the time. Mr. Spencer, do you have further comments or questions?

    Mr. Larry Spencer: No.

    The Chair: Then let me carry on a bit longer.

    One of the questions relates to the evolving theory. There's one set of measures that has to do with the gap in services, sort of what's available to you. A more profound set of measures has to do with outcomes and our ability to measure those. Presumably a measure of success would be if you have a dropping number of kids going into child welfare, and some kind of corresponding positive data that says you're getting a higher school retention rate, or whatever balance of outcomes. But it does seem to me, at the end of the day, that all of this activity--and it's all necessary--needs to lead to, finally, better scores for kids.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Absolutely.

    The Chair: I'm just wondering how we're going to keep score on what constitutes an improved and successful system, other than simply more services available, because they might not work.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Let me begin by saying that first nations, not necessarily the federal government--although we are as interested--have clearly identified what they see as performance indicators, not only for the child and family service field but for the other four programs for which I am responsible.

    We recently held a two-day workshop, the fourth series of workshops that we've held in the last year, to look at exactly that issue: what will constitute performance indicators? We began by asking first nations to develop theirs, we developed ours, and then we met and looked at where we came together: What were the synergies; how could we work? Surprisingly enough, a number of them were quite similar.

    I think everyone is cognizant right now that we need to be accountable. This is what you were talking about earlier--how do we ensure that we don't go overboard pursuant to the HRDC issue? I think the way to do it is through good modern management, modern comptrollership. It's all in there.

    We talk about risk-taking and what constitutes good risk-taking. We talk about innovation. We talk about values. When we're working with first nations or any other group, what values do we transmit, do we espouse, in our dealings together? I think there is a way of finding that balance between quality services that are culturally appropriate but that are also accountable.

    The issue becomes, accountable to whom? In many of the first nations, and definitely in the child and family service area, the communities want to end up with full accountability to the community and to their government. They don't want delegated authority given by the province; they want the authority to come from their communities.

    We have examples in some of our modern-day treaties and some of our self-government agreements. For example, the Nisga'a agreement has a child and family service component to it. Other communities are working that in.

    So while we cannot intervene, nor do I think the federal government has any desire to reopen the constitutional issue around jurisdiction, at DIAND we are definitely amenable to being able to provide support that will lead to self-government for those communities, and good self-government would include full responsibility for their children.

    I don't want to sound corny, but children are their future. That's our future. It's not just first nations' future, it's Canada's future.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: As you may have gathered from my opening remarks.... Well, you read the papers; you know we're in a bizarre period of time here. We're not certain how much time we're going to have to say anything of substance. We're just dipping our feet into the water.

    As we look forward, to revert to what we're trying to do here—you know we've had these first two reports and you've seen them—we're glad we hear some themes echoed. For instance, I think it's really important to know that this work of coordination within the federal government is going on. I must say anything with any written evidence to that end would be helpful if it tells us, as I suspect....

    I don't know where we're going to go with starting our study. I don't know where it might take us. I don't even know what we might have to say on an interim basis. I guess we would want to know from you, and I think this was a question Ms. Neville asked—this is a delicate thing—what do you want us to support you in doing here, where perhaps the massive weight of the committee or the subcommittee can ease your task? It's not just a question of giving you more money. It's also a question, if we are to encourage the process of getting on with it, of whether there are certain kinds of directions in which our recommendations should tend, if we get to the recommendation stage.

    I'm trying to be a bit delicate here. Which way do you want to be pushed is, I guess, another way of putting it, less delicately. What would be helpful?

    Mr. Michel Smith: These are exactly the kinds of questions I was coached not to answer.

    The Chair: Are there any minders here? We'll simply switch off. You're just with friends.

    Mr. Michel Smith: It may sound simplistic, but I think the committee has been on the right track. It's doing its work. The recommendations I've seen in the first two reports have tended to echo what I have heard out in the communities.

    I think we simply need to ensure that it's kept on the burner. I think the issue is—I don't know quite how to put it—not just a first nations issue. We very much like to say it's a first nations issue, and it's easy to bury it that way and say it only happens on first nations reserves. It's a Canadian issue. Canadians and first nations people are part of the Canadian family. I think it's important for us to ensure that all federal departments....

    I think that message has been received, by the way. A number of years ago a lot of federal departments would say, it's an Indian issue, so it goes to DIAND; I don't have to deal with it. I think now, more and more, people in different departments are learning to work together. And yes, I can provide the committee with written evidence that this is happening right now. I would be happy to provide you that information.

    My ADM, for example, sits on two very active committees that have working subgroups that are progressing and going forward. As I mentioned in the meeting yesterday, we want to try something new where the 17 departments will come together. We will be documenting everything we do, so that hopefully we can develop a model we can use on other initiatives.

    The Chair: That's a very good specific example, because it shows both the challenge of 17 departments and also the ability to focus. If you can make sure that's part of the package you—

    Mr. Michel Smith: Yes, I'd be more than happy to provide that to the committee.

    The Chair: Clearly, we would want to encourage that and, as it were, say “Keep up the good work”, or “The committee will be pleased to note...”, etc.

    On the specifics of the tripartite thing, I didn't have a sense of the total number of tripartite exercises. Of that universe of however many there were, how many are still... You've mentioned that Saskatchewan is going ahead; others are breaking down. Is this something that needs a positive and helpful push from folks like us asking what the problem is? Is it that there are not enough resources to do this?

    It sounds as though it's an important step, because you can't do the comparability stuff and can't consult with the right people unless you do it, but you don't want it holding up the process. I don't know how many there were of these exercises, or how you measure them, and how many are still ongoing, and how many have failed. Is there anything obvious to suggest doing about it?

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Michel Smith: I'm not sure of the total numbers.

    The Chair: What's the ballpark figure?

    Mr. Michel Smith: Roughly, I would say that.... For example, there were none in the Atlantic. There was no take-up there, because when they meet.... For example—and I'll use Joan Glode because you know her—when Joan has a meeting with the provincial government and the feds in Nova Scotia, that's their tripartite table. They have it very informally, and it's going on and is working. It's not happening in Newfoundland; it's not happening in P.E.I. With P.E.I. we know why; it's a simple question of numbers. In New Brunswick it could be happening. In Ontario it didn't occur, because we have a special federal-provincial agreement, this 1965 agreement.

    The Chair: So it doesn't need to happen there.

    Mr. Michel Smith: It may, but we have to deal with other issues before.

    In Quebec it did happen, and it's continuing and is working well. In Saskatchewan they're pursuing it, and it's going relatively well. There are a number of new initiatives in Manitoba; they've gone further and have had a good relationship. It's broken down in B.C. So there are a number of places.

    But you asked if I need any support. There is a desire, as I explained earlier. The provinces seem to want to get on board; the federal government definitely wants to get on board; and first nations are simply telling us, guys, get your act together. They want in. So I think there is a desire.

    What's stopping us right now, as I mentioned earlier—and I know I keep coming back to this, and I'm not using it as an excuse—is competing priorities. Where do I put my moneys, my scarce resources? While we sit here specifically talking about child and family services as definitely an important priority—and as I said, it's the number one priority for me—I also have other areas I am responsible for. Our regional offices have their priorities. First nations have priorities.

    So when we talk about a regional tripartite table.... I remember when I came on board and told people like my colleague Vince here, “Just do it”, he said, “Do you realize how much it costs to put one of these together?” It's not the organization of the meeting. Who are we going to invite? Who's going to pay for the first nations to come in? Who's going to pay for an AFN rep from Ottawa to go to Saskatoon or Regina or Winnipeg? We have to figure that out. Once you say you're going to do it in one region, you have to do it in all the other regions. If it's going to cost you roughly $30,000 to $40,000 per round table times ten, then you're up to $300,000. If you start and then say okay, maybe we should have two a year, you're over half a million dollars already.

    I go back again to asking—we always have to balance—should that money be going directly to children and services, or do we again get together? But as I said, I think this is one step we really have to take. These tables are critical; we need the information and we need to have a forum where we come together to talk about these issue.

    The Chair: Larry Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I have a question and I want to assure you that I'm not asking you this question to be antagonistic; I just want to make sure we have a right long-range goal here.

    I'm the father of four children, and it was my main purpose early in life to be the provider of all they needed. Then it became my purpose to see that they were properly educated. Along that process, they wanted self-government. They have different levels of education. One stopped without high school, and two went partially through college and then into business. One went for a Masters degree. But there was a common thing with all of them, whether they had the Masters degree or hopped out of high school. When they became self-governing was when they became self-supporting.

    My question is, when we have these programs, are we simply looking at dealing day to day and providing the needs of that existing community, or do we have an overarching goal here of moving these people to self-sufficiency as well as self-government? Is that kept in mind by the department?

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: You mean over and above the question of the specifics of child welfare and all that.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Right.

    Mr. Michel Smith: Good question.

    I'll answer on two fronts. First of all, self-sufficiency is paramount, I would say, in any policy development work we are doing currently at the department. It is definitely part of my commitment to my ADM.

    I believe, Gilles, it's probably in your accountability agreement as well.

    Definitely self-sufficiency is part and parcel of all policy development work today.

    On the other point you made in terms of being self-supporting, that self-government comes with self-sufficiency, I think again it goes back to a community wellness model. If you remember, I spoke about it. It not only has child and family services but it has leisure projects, economic development. It's all part of a bigger whole.

    I think we also need to keep in mind that when we are talking specifically about social services, the federal government plays in many ways the role that the provincial government plays for communities in their provinces. We provide provincial-like services to those on reserve. Whether or not the community was fully economically independent, it would still need to have a child and family service agency. It would still need an array, a network, of social service agencies. I think we need to balance all of that.

    Fundamental to your question was the whole issue of self-sufficiency. As I said, that is part and parcel. Gilles could talk about it in terms of the education process.

    Mr. Gilles Rochon: Yes, I think your point is a very good one.

    Certainly the minister sees quality education as a privileged vehicle to move communities toward self-sufficiency. Education is a lever by which communities can go beyond the social economic conditions that they are in and be able to move towards standards of life that are higher than what they now have. That is why the minister did set up his working group. There were a number of reports for a number of years, starting with Indian control of Indian education back in the 1970s. But the minister wanted advice from first nation education leaders as to what we need to do now to take stock of what's going on in first nation education and put in measures that will help reduce the gap. There is a gap. It's all over. It's in the newspapers. The newspapers and media cover it very well. We acknowledge that the education achievement of first nation students is lagging behind mainstream students, and there are a number of factors for that.

    You wanted advice from the working group. They tabled their report—27 recommendations. The minister has started acting on those recommendations at a number of levels. One level is with respect to a jurisdiction and what is called infrastructure. What we mean by infrastructure is not brick and mortar, not schools, although we do build a lot of schools, but it's in terms of providing decision-making structures for first nation communities to take over control of their education—decision-making structures that allow them to better interface with provincial school boards or provincial ministries of education.

    There are a number of high-level measures being pursued, such as the ones I've mentioned. But as well, there are a number of practical measures being pursued that address or impact what's going on in the classrooms. We have spent a lot of attention and effort on three areas that first nation education leaders have indicated to us are the priorities.

    One area is teachers—allowing them to be able to recruit and retain qualified teachers. That is quite a challenge in view of the market that now exists with respect to teachers.

    The second area is the involvement of parents—getting parents involved, concerned, and interested in the education of their children.

    Finally, on the third area, we all know that the first nation population, first nation youth, have a higher rate of learning disabilities than mainstream society. We have put in place now—it's been a year—a whole series of measures in terms of looking at that specific group of students and trying to make them improve on their educational achievement.

    I've tried to give you an overview of what we're trying to do in the education field in terms of seeing that through the lens of a lever—a practical lever that has a significant impact on communities in moving towards self-sufficiency.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I must say, as I review the 27 recommendations from “Our Children - Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge”, there are things in here I would wish for the mainstream, for example, under a universal early childhood development. It would be pretty good, actually, if we could get early childhood development programming for the rest of the country too.

    It's an extremely ambitious set of recommendations. It's hard in some cases to see exactly how they would be translated into policy terms. For example, you mentioned parental participation, and then I read the particular recommendations on that, which I guess are 9, 10, and 11. It will be interesting to see whether you can mandate from on high that kind of participation at the community level.

    I don't know whether you could have policies or whether these are just good wishes or what. How do they actually work? They sound great, but....

    Mr. Gilles Rochon: It is true that those 27 recommendations.... In fact the minister initially wanted the working group to focus on elementary and secondary education.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Right. Everything's in there.

    Mr. Gilles Rochon: The working group didn't limit or restrict itself to simply that area of study. They went beyond that and they looked at education as a holistic pursuit from birth to adulthood, as a never-ending process. They ended up with 27 recommendations that are quite broad in their outlook. Those recommendations are not only aimed toward Indian and Northern Affairs, but they address or speak to other departments, be it Heritage Canada in the area of languages and culture, Human Resources Development Canada, or Health Canada with respect to early childhood.

    But what we did is sit down with the Assembly of First Nations and the National Indian Education Council and say, okay, we need to establish priorities. We cannot do all of this all at once. The overview I share with you is what we have agreed upon.

    It's basically two-pronged, dealing with broad-level structures, trying to establish what we like to call almost school-board-type institutions, because in first nation education we end up with 496 schools in first nation communities that, contrary to the mainstream, are basically each on their own. They don't have the umbrella of what a school board can provide in terms of services. So we're making an effort in trying to establish those, not only alone but in partnership with provincial ministries of education.

    The other prong is concrete measures that can have an impact in the classroom right now, because the children, we feel, cannot wait until those broad structures are put in place.

    That's basically the plan of attack, and we have a number of committees set up with the AFN and the National Indian Education Council.

    The Chair: Gentlemen, sure, go ahead. I just woke up.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I have a question on education. Is there anything being done through the federal government to encourage or facilitate the integration at the elementary school level and up? I'm just sitting here thinking about Regina, and as I think of it, it's much like what I saw in my youth, back in my very early years, as I grew up in the States—a segregated school system. I see that in Canada. We have quite a segregated school system. Is anything being addressed to try to combat that or deal with that? I don't think we'll ever see a first nations people integrated into our society comfortably if they can't be in school together comfortably.

    Mr. Gilles Rochon: No, your point is well taken. The starting point is a realization that education is a provincial jurisdiction. Obviously the provinces have a major say in this. But with regards to—I don't know whether you would call it integration—a coming together of first nation students with other mainstream students into common schools, common learning institutions, there are efforts in that direction, while we're trying to have structures that are welcoming to first nation students in terms of their languages and their culture.

    A recent one is what the minister signed on July 24 of this year in B.C., which is a memorandum of understanding. It's a tripartite one with the B.C. Ministry of Education and the first nation education steering committee for the whole of Victoria. It's a starting point in terms of the three entities trying to see how they can set up educational structures that will exactly combine and help integrate both mainstream students and first nation students. It's a start, but it's quite a challenge.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: It's a start but a very big challenge.

    The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you for bearing with us. We've learned to push buttons and jump about and do all that other stuff.

    We very much appreciate your coming. It has us off to a start, and sometimes these questions that seem to meander, I think, turn out bits of anecdotal evidence, which I know we're not supposed to do too much on—I know anecdotal evidence is not good—but I do think it allows us to make things more concrete. We can actually imagine these kids and the challenges they have.

    I think it was very helpful to see that on both fronts the right ideas are in place. That's good. The 27 recommendations make huge sense, and everything you say about the form of child welfare makes huge sense. There's a frustration between it making sense up here and it actually hitting the ground, but I think we want to wish you well—certainly Monsieur Smith just to begin with—on your new task of making this go. Clearly, with two months on the job, you have a big job ahead of you, but I'm glad you feel that the stars are aligned. I hope you'll think of us as one of your lucky stars.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Michel Smith: Thank you very much for this opportunity. I appreciate it.

    The Chair: You're welcome.

    This meeting is adjourned.