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 21, 2003

¹

1520

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

Ms. Deborah Jeffrey (Co-Chair, Minister's National Working Group on Education, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

¹

1525

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter (Child & Family Services Coordinator Social, Assembly of First Nations)

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

¹

1530

The Chair

Chief Gibby Jacob (Squamish Nation, First Nations Environmental Assessment Technical Working Group)

The Chair

Chief Gibby Jacob

¹

1535

¹

1540

The Chair

¹

1545

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

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

¹

1550

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

The Chair

¹

1555

Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

º

1600

Chief Gibby Jacob

The Chair

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

º

1605

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

º

1610

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

º

1615

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Mr. John Finlay

º

1620

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Ms. Anita Neville

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

º

1625

Mr. Sébastien Gagnon

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

º

1630

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

The Chair

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

The Chair

Chief Gibby Jacob

º

1635

The Chair

Chief Gibby Jacob

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

º

1640

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Pamela Hunter

The Chair

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey

The Chair

Chief Gibby Jacob

º

1645

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 019

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): Welcome to everyone, of course, starting with Amy, who is adorable at five months and has a view she seems to be expressing.

    As is the way of Parliament, parliamentarians come as their schedules permit, so you may find that people drop in, and we hope they drop in to stay. But we also don't like to keep witnesses waiting, and we like to take advantage of the time we have.

    Let me just say a couple of things by way of introduction. You know from the letter we've sent that we've been doing a series of studies on aboriginal children. We started with those from ages zero to six who live on reserve. Then we did a study on urban aboriginal kids from ages zero to twelve. By the way, I point out to committee members that we're due to have a response from the government on that report by November 7 at the latest, because they have to table it within a certain amount of time. So you'll be getting that response.

    Now we're undertaking the third and last study of this series concerning on-reserve aboriginal children from ages six to twelve. We've been trying to organize our work so we have a bit of an understanding of things that have taken place fairly recently, like the Minister's National Working Group on Education.

    We're delighted to have with us the co-chair of the Minister's National Working Group on Education--and I have to say, mother of Amy--Deborah Jeffrey. If any committee should be child-friendly, this is it. If we can't handle this we shouldn't be here.

    Also from the Assembly of First Nations we want to welcome Pamela Hunter, who is the child and family services coordinator social; and Chief Gibby Jacob. We welcome all three of you.

    I'm going to suggest we hear from everybody, if that's okay, and then get into questions. That way we'll have a full understanding of what you have to tell us.

    Ms. Jeffrey, would you like to begin? If you get distracted, we'll understand.

    Ms. Deborah Jeffrey (Co-Chair, Minister's National Working Group on Education, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Good afternoon, members and guests. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you this afternoon. My name is Deborah Jeffrey, and I was co-chair of the Minister's National Working Group on Education.

    Our working group submitted our report entitled “Our Children--Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge” to Minister Nault and Minister Owen in December last year. According to the terms of reference for our working group, our mandate was concluded once the report was complete. As such, we have not really been kept apprised of the status of the recommendations.

    However, I would be pleased to offer you my perspective on the progress of the recommendations from the Minister's National Working Group on Education, as a first nations educator in B.C. I am also president of the First Nations Education Steering Committee, a provincial organization committed to promoting quality education for first nations learners.

    The recommendations in “Our Children--Keepers of the Sacred Knowledge” are consistent with recommendations in a multitude of previous reports and studies. Highlights of the third survey of first nations people livingon reserve indicate that education is one of the most important challenges facing aboriginal children and youth. This same survey also indicates that almost half of those surveyed say that the quality of on-reserve education received by aboriginal children and youth is worse than that received by other Canadians.

    The results of this survey and other socio-economic indicators highlight the need to proactively address first nations education by implementing the recommendations under first nations' direction and leadership. First nations' control of first nations education is a consistent theme in our report, and is critical to the successful transformation of first nations education.

    Since the report was released, I am aware of two INAC initiatives directly related to the recommendations. First, $8 million nationally has been earmarked to address the inequity of teachers' salaries in first nations schools. Another $2 million nationally has been identified to support parental involvement in education.

    In July of this year in B.C. we signed a memorandum of understanding on first nations' jurisdiction and authority over education. I believe the recommendation in our report supported the negotiation of that agreement.

    Since the report has been tabled, little or no communication has gone out concerning the status of the recommendations. As co-chair, I hope the report results in positive change in first nations education at the community level, particularly concerning the three primary recommendations made on jurisdiction, infrastructure, and funding, which were to be implemented simultaneously. A great deal of work was done in a short period of time. Excellent research helped to guide the deliberations, which we find quite useful in B.C.

    I would also like to comment on the role of INAC in first nations education. INAC is to have a diminished role in first nations education, as first nations assume jurisdiction. An increased role for INAC would hinder progress in first nations education. The development of a comprehensive strategy must be under the direction and leadership of first nations.

    I was directed that the presentation was to be brief, so I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today. It is through the development of quality education that we will build healthy and sustainable communities with culturally and linguistically competent young people who are able to participate fully in the economic life of their communities and in Canadian society as a whole.

    We need to heed the multitude of reports and studies that call for change in first nations education. This change must respect the diversity that exists among first nations in Canada. In other words, one model will not fit all.

¹  (1525)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Jeffrey.

    I'll perhaps do a little introduction now that we have four members here.

[Translation]

Mr. Gagnon's presence.

[English]

    I think you've already met Mr. Spencer from the Alliance Party, and Ovid Jackson from Owen Sound. They're all my friends, by the way.

    Are you going to go first, Chief Jacob, or Ms. Hunter? Is one going to go and not the other? What's the deal?

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter (Child & Family Services Coordinator Social, Assembly of First Nations): I'm here to pass a message also on the education topic. Chief Jacob is presenting on the national policy review.

    The Chair: Good. Do you want to begin then?

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: Sure.

    The Chair: Then we'll move on to Chief Jacob.

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: This was prepared by our education sector at AFN, which is guided by a chiefs committee on education and a technical committee on education.

    In terms of the national working group on education, the AFN commends the federal government for placing first nations education as a high priority. It also commends the members of the working group for their research, input, and recommendations to the minister.

    It is agreed that immediate action is required in three areas: transferring jurisdiction of education to first nations; creating a first nations educational infrastructure with supporting mechanisms to enable first nations to exercise educational jurisdiction; and revision of educational budgets that reflect the actual costs of a comprehensive first nations educational renewal and reform.

    The recommendations were not anything new to first nations. They did reiterate the literature that has been developed in the past by first nations. However, implementation is key. Canada must commit to jurisdictional discussions supporting first nations infrastructure, and provide adequate funding to support first nations schools and children.

    First nations schools provide educational and cultural support to first nations children and first nations communities. However, first nations schools have been chronically underfunded for a decade or more. The quality of first nations education is continually eroded by this lack of adequate funding. First nations have had to provide quality education programs and services comparable to the provinces, with far less money than any provincial system.

    Double standards exist between the first nations school system versus the provincial school systems within the present funding mechanism. Present funding is inadequate and does not meet the real needs. Segmented program dollars do not support infrastructure development.

    First nations believe the education of our children is a fundamental tool in developing and strengthening the well-being of our children, families, and communities. First nations intend to prepare our children to carry on our culture as productive, healthy citizens.

    The right to quality education is a human right. Education is indispensable as a means to unlock and protect other human rights. It provides the base necessary for the achievement of the rights to good health, liberty, security, economic well-being, and participation in social and political activities. Where the right to quality education is guaranteed, people's access to an enjoyment of their rights is enhanced, and the imbalances of life chances and poverty are lessened.

    The lack of adequate funding for special education in first nations schools often means that first nations students with high-cost special education needs are required to leave their homes to attend provincial schools to obtain the needed services. To deny a child with special needs the right to enjoy a full and decent life in conditions that ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community is to deny article 23 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The special education needs of our first nations children must be resourced by the federal government as an integral part of the non-discretionary first nations education program.

    Thank you.

¹  (1530)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We're pursuing the twin track we began last week, looking at both education and services for children in care, and that sort of thing, so we're shifting gears now.

    We welcome you, Chief Jacob, and invite you to make your presentation.

    Chief Gibby Jacob (Squamish Nation, First Nations Environmental Assessment Technical Working Group): Thank you.

    Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the subcommittee.

    My ancestral name is Kákeltn, and I am one of the hereditary chiefs of the Squamish Nation. I'd like to introduce one of my colleagues, Chief Bill Williams, Telalsemkin siyam, who's also one of our hereditary chiefs.

    I'm glad to say that I've recently been appointed to the organizing committee of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and I'm proud to carry the banner on behalf of first nations.

    The Chair: I just have to ask you whether your home is under water. I'm almost afraid to ask the question.

    Chief Gibby Jacob: Fortunately, we have a dam above us, but we have three communities that have been evacuated. We're here under some distress, but our people are safe. We made sure of that before we left. Thank you for your concern.

    I want to thank the subcommittee, on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, for the invitation to be here today, and to relay regrets from National Chief Phil Fontaine, as he very much wanted to be here. The national chief is hopeful that he will have another opportunity to meet with the subcommittee in the future.

    I am appreciative of the opportunity to be here today to discuss with the subcommittee the “First Nations Child and Family Services Joint National Policy Review”. This project was driven by first nations. First nations pushed for change in the policies governing first nations child and family services agencies. We wanted to make the policy better, to make it more effective for our communities, our families, and our children.

    The well-being of first nations children is an issue that forms an integral part of the future plans of the Assembly of First Nations, and is an issue that National Chief Fontaine has spoken about publicly on numerous occasions since his re-election in July.

    As first nations leaders, we realize it is our responsibility, to the children and families who have entrusted us to represent them, to advocate for change on their behalf. This is a responsibility we are very serious about, and we will continue to pursue this matter in order to level the playing field for our children.

    The 17 recommendations that resulted from the joint national policy review speak directly to measures that must be implemented jointly by first nations and the Government of Canada to level that playing field. The majority of these recommendations remain outstanding, and they have not been acted upon. Frankly, they have been pushed aside while the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has pursued its own agenda.

    It is critical to note that all 17 recommendations were agreed to by consensus of all parties that participated in the joint national policy review. The report and its findings were unanimously supported by the AFN chiefs and assembly, and were ratified by resolution. It is also important to note that the final report of the national policy review was released in June 2000, three and a half years ago. The fact is that there has been very little progress to make any kind of substantial improvement to the policy.

    The key recommendation, which continues to go unaddressed, is the need to develop a new funding formula for the first nations child and family services program. There has been a lot of talk about acting on this recommendation, but the fact remains that it needs to be acted upon immediately. It is long overdue.

    National Chief Fontaine is well aware that the national policy review was initiated during his previous tenure as national chief. Implementing the recommendations from the NPR final report is an issue that he is taking a keen interest in. The national chief and first nations leadership across this country realize that the issue of child welfare is a fundamental one that profoundly impacts upon our communities. The funding formula, as it currently exists, is severely limiting and restrictive on the First Nations Child and Family Services Agency.

    A key issue for first nations is that the resources for the provision of targeted prevention services are non-existent. Resources do not flow until a child has been apprehended and placed into care. FNCFS agencies do not have the means to provide prevention and in-home family support services. Yet in most provinces these prevention services are mandatory ones that agencies are required to provide. Our agencies struggle to comply with this mandated requirement. Many times, as a result, they have incurred deficits in order to provide some type of service, where possible.

¹  (1535)  

    These agencies are delegated to provide child welfare services by the provinces and territories, but are funded by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. The federal funding does not adjust with provincial changes in legislation and standards. It does not provide resources for family support services, even if a provincial government has shifted its focus to prevention rather than protection services. Where does this leave the FNCFS agencies? Where does that leave first nations families and children?

    INAC will claim that, technically, funding for prevention dollars is factored into the formula. However, practically speaking they have acknowledged time and again that the resources are not there. The bottom line for first nations is that we want to be able to identify and assist families that are high risk and in need of family support services before the crisis. We want to intervene prior to a situation where a child must be removed from the family home.

    FNCFS agencies want to have the ability to provide family support services. We want an end to children being placed into care, in order to access services for families. Children are being taken into care unnecessarily, due to the fact that the resources are not available up front. We need the support and resources within our FNCFS agencies to do this.

    The federal government has stated many times they want to ensure that programs and services are accessible and beneficial to all children and families, and that no child is left behind. First nations are expecting the federal government to live up to these commitments.

    As a result of the funding inequalities in the FNCFS program, first nations children and families are not receiving services comparable to those that are routinely provided to families and children off reserve. This is a discriminatory practice that must end.

    First nations have waited long enough for substantial changes to be made to the FNCFS policy. It has been almost five years since the review phase of the national policy review began, and it has been repeatedly acknowledged by the federal government that this discrepancy in funding FNCFS agencies exists. The time for talking is over. It is time for action and substantial change.

    It is imperative that the foundation for the case for a new formula be built now by INAC and first nations for additional dollars, with both cabinet and Treasury Board. Investments in child welfare are not cost-neutral. To provide the system and way of conducting business requires substantial investment initially, with longer term benefits down the road. The political will to make the necessary changes must be demonstrated by INAC and the federal government overall, in order to make the policy changes and secure the resources to implement the changes adequately.

    Until the new funding formula can be developed and approved by the government, the first nations are seeking the immediate reinstatement of the cost-of-living adjustment for FNCFS agencies. This clause of INAC's current policy has been frozen since 1994-95, and has not been provided to agencies. The reinstatement of this clause is a decision that can be made within INAC. However, the political will has not been there to identify and allocate the necessary resources. This is an interim measure that could alleviate a portion of the budgetary pressures facing FNCFS agencies.

    There are measures that can be moved on now. It is a matter of setting priorities, and a matter of whose priorities are taking predominance and why.

    I want to point out that we have reviewed the report that this subcommittee released in June 2003 entitled “Building a Brighter Future for Urban Aboriginal Children”. I want to commend you for including a recommendation on the joint national policy review recommendations. Your support is appreciated. I want to encourage this subcommittee to assist first nations in continuing to push for the development of a new funding formula for the FNCFS program.

    All the efforts we have made are about building a brighter future for our children. It is well documented that first nations and aboriginal children comprise the large majority of children in care. It is estimated that there are 22,000 aboriginal children in care across Canada. This is disturbing and alarming.

¹  (1540)  

    It is a cycle that first nations leadership is committed to breaking. Our community members are telling us that this is an issue of utmost importance. Our families are the building blocks of our communities. If our families are not healthy, our communities will not be healthy. The health of our families impacts every aspect of community life, including the future prosperity of our nations. First nations people want what everyone else wants for their children: a good start in life, assistance when they need it, and opportunities that enable them to reach their full potential.

    As first nations leaders, with the AFN spearheading our efforts, we will continue to advocate for change at every turn in order to assist our community workers to be able to access the tools and resources necessary to meet this goal.

    To close, I want to state that the implementation of the recommendations from the joint national policy review is obviously important to us as first nations. However, our ultimate goal is for first nations to have full jurisdiction over child welfare for first nations people. We will continue to pursue this goal, bearing in mind that it will take time and extensive dialogue with the federal government.

    I want to once again thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the first nations child welfare issues, and specifically the FNCFS Joint National Policy Review. I would be pleased to discuss further or address any questions you may have.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Jacob. That's extremely helpful.

    This is going to be a surprise for the two members who have just joined us. This is Ms. Neville, and that's Amy with her mother. Mr. Finlay has just joined us.

    I had a whole scheme worked out to focus on children in care when you returned, but you were out there all the time so that's perfect.

    We are pursuing two tracks that were developed last week--one on education, and one on child welfare issues and children in care. We had a presentation from the department last week, and now we're building on that in terms of people who were involved in the education survey, the responsibility of the AFN, and also on the child welfare side.

    The floor is open for questions and interventions on either of those topics. I invite Larry Spencer to begin.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank each of you for your contribution here today.

    Whenever we sit down with a group of witnesses like this, the subject matter is always so overwhelming that it's very difficult to figure out where to begin with our questioning. I'm going to start in the order that you testified, and just ask a couple of questions of each of you.

    First to Deborah, you mentioned that in the educational system it's very important to have first nations leadership. Are you concerned about the administrative leadership in an educational system, as well as the teachers? Do you have enough first nations teachers available, or is that a problem as well?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your question.

    The direction and leadership of first nations education is very crucial, from our perspective as community members, because education is a means by which society perpetuates itself. So in order for us to survive in the long term as a culture, we have to be the primary decision-makers in that area.

    On the administrative leadership that's been exercised in British Columbia, an organization has been in existence for about ten years now, and it's driven by communities. Communities drive this infrastructure, the first nations education steering committee, and say what needs to be done in the area of research, policy review, and all of those kinds of things. It is well supported because it's community driven, and first nations participate and control the initiatives.

    I would agree that the number of first nations teachers in Canada falls far short of the mark. As part of the working group, we looked at a national report. In British Columbia, for example, I believe 1.3% of the teaching force is first nations, where almost 8% of the student population in the public schools is first nations. So there is a definite inequity. We really need a large number of first nations teachers. But in the absence of that, working in partnership, and having a number of variables in place in training teachers to be better educated to deal with first nations students would also be helpful in the interim, while we increase the number of first nations teachers.

    In British Columbia, we have created an aboriginal teachers education consortium, comprised of members from the degree-granting programs, to actively strategize about increasing the number of first nations teachers. It's working well and is supported by the department to the tune of $420,000.

    So we can address this at various levels, but I don't think we have to wait for teachers. I think we need to make some key decisions in first nations education now.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I moved to Regina in 1974. One of the first families I became acquainted with and became friends with was a first nations family. The young man of that family at that point was just newly married. He is now the vice-president of the First Nations University in Regina. It's the Stevenson family, whom you may be aware of.

    That university is a beautiful facility there. How do you anticipate that facility assisting you in teacher preparation. Are you aware of that?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: I think we need to work with all existing organizations to train more first nations teachers and address the issue of recruitment. We also need to support the development of first nations post-secondary institutes. We have very few of them across this country that are accredited and can educate more teachers for not only first nations communities, but for the public system as a whole. So we need to utilize all of the existing agencies to help us move forward with this agenda.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay, how much time do I have?

    The Chair: I'm a generous fellow.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: You're generous? Okay, I'll ask Pamela a question before we move on. Then I'll give somebody else a shot--and I don't mean that literally, because we have no registered guns in this committee.

    Pamela, you mentioned that one of the things that's needed is a commitment to jurisdictional discussions. How did you mean that? What do you see taking place?

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: My apologies, I can't speak in detail on the minister's working group on education. My primary file is child and family services. I'm basically relaying this information from my counterparts in education.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay, then let me ask you another question that you should have a good handle on, I would think.

    You also mentioned the lack of funding for first nations education. I know we've talked about it. Chief Jacob brought up some of that, but how is that lack of funding most visible to you as a person involved in first nations education?

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: The issue that comes to mind first is the lack of funding for special needs children in first nations schools. It's been an ongoing issue for a while now. I know in the education system they don't have the dollars to provide that kind of service in first nations schools. It kind of gets passed back and forth from the child welfare system to the educational system, wherever funding for that can be covered. But we believe that funding should be provided to first nations schools.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: You realize this is a very difficult problem, and it's not unique to first nations. My wife just retired as a teacher, and through the years, on occasion, special needs children would be placed in her class. Sometimes, when those children were needy enough, special aid was provided. One is always concerned about children like that, and the parents especially are concerned.

    But my wife, as a teacher, would sometimes come home very broken-hearted over the course of that year because she would have six, seven, or eight students in her class who were just about to make it, but couldn't quite. She knew that some time, possibly before high school, and for sure before university, those students would be weeded out because they wouldn't be able to make it. But had one aid been given to those six students, you could have saved six lives.

    It's a very difficult situation to understand how much money to put there, and when to spend the money there, rather than on the bulk of your students. I don't know if you've given that much thought, but it's certainly a problem.

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: You're right. I know it is a problem in mainstream schools as well. I think everyone knows the statistics on first nations educational drop-out rates, and the number of children with special needs or disabilities. The numbers are quite staggering. It is something that really impacts on the number of first nations kids who go on in school, and it's a big problem. Like you said, if we're able to provide that service, maybe we will be able to bring those kids through the educational system, rather than losing them along the way.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

    This table is loaded with teachers, former teachers, or people married to teachers. They're the ones who'll talk to you for about ten minutes--I'd be one of them, of course.

    Speaking of teachers, former teachers, and so on, Mr. Jackson, do you have some questions?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our guests. There's no question in my mind that our native community has a rich heritage. There's a lot we can learn from them and a lot for them to be proud of, as we look at their art work and their cultural mosaic. I'm sure their population is proud of all the things they want to do. We're going to do the three Rs and all that, but on a lot of the cultural things they do, if they can move in that direction it would certainly give them a lot of focus.

    We have the implementation plan and everything else, but what are the impediments? Why are we not just getting on with it? I don't know if our guests can point us in the right direction.

    The Chair: I'm not the witness, thank God.

    All of you have referred to the fact that these reports have been out there with the recommendations, and there seems to be some stalling. I think it's fair for you to speculate, on either of these files, why that might be. But let me just throw something into the mix.

    It was suggested to us last week that one of the barriers, particularly to child and family services, has been this decision to hold regional tables to facilitate communications between the department, the Assembly of First Nations, and the various service agency directors. These tables have had varying degrees of success and have kind of broken down. That might be an understandable reason for delay, or it might not be a justifiable reason for delay. But we would invite anyone to respond on either the educational report, or the child and family services report--to speculate.

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: It's a complex area, and the underpinnings of all of our movements as first nations people are aboriginal rights and title issues, which we hold to steadfastly. The agencies we come into contact with on a regular basis, whether they are education-related or others, don't really like or embrace that notion very well, and put up a number of stumbling blocks.

    For example, of the 27 recommendations in our report that was tabled, three related to racism--impediments put in place to block or halt some of the initiatives we are moving forward. So I think the notion that first nations people will always be different and we have constitutional protection for our rights is the unspoken discussion when we're trying to move our initiative forward. It's really unfortunate because it's necessary that we move forward with our agenda in the area of first nations education and other areas, so we can create not only healthy communities for our own people, but healthy communities for Canadians as a whole.

    I say that in light of comments like those made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1999 that the most pressing issue facing Canadians today is the situation of aboriginal peoples. Again, that statement has been ignored in a number of areas. People often don't like to deal with areas that may be contentious and that may rock the status quo, like Canadians' inability to deal with poverty and homelessness. Those are very complex issues that require a fundamental shift in how we deal with people.

    On aboriginal rights and title issues that underscore our movement forward, I think many people are unwilling to embrace those notions and what they mean. It requires a redistribution of power and control, which is very difficult to achieve. But we're certainly committed to helping make that happen over the long term.

    I hope that answers your question somewhat.

    The Chair: That's very helpful. I wonder if any of the others wish to comment.

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: I'd like to respond. I agree with what Deborah has mentioned. In addition, on the national policy review, I think there has been a lack of political will within the Department of Indian Affairs to implement some of the recommendations, specifically the recommendation you mentioned on establishing regional tables. In 2001-02, funding was provided from the department for that. However, in 2002-03.... Once we get our budget settled it looks like it will not be funded this year either. So obviously they're not having much success, because they don't have the resources to pull the meetings together. There are means, and people do have control to make some of these things happen.

    In addition, there's the issue of reinstating the annual cost-of-living allowance that Chief Jacob spoke about. That's a decision that can be made internally at the department, but for some reason it is not being made. There are impediments there that we're trying to get around, in order to make some of those recommendations happen.

º  (1600)  

    Chief Gibby Jacob: Thank you.

    I guess what we have very much experienced in Indian country is the offloading or downsizing within departments. Looking at it historically, I've been an elected leader in my community for 22 years, and I've seen the ebb and flow of federal funding. Sometimes you hit a peak, and within the next two to three years it's backsliding again. I don't know whether that's in relation to what's happening in the economy of this country or not, but it's a huge issue.

    Just thinking about the other side of this coin, in 1993 there was a freeze, and there was no more cost of living attached to the funding. What is being provided now to the child and family services is a dollar that's worth fifty cents--if I'm getting my point across clearly. In order to function and catch up to that 1993 level, we're going to have to see a huge increase in the dollars.

    I can only speak of my community, but we have a lot of children in care. We have delegated agreements with the provincial government. You might have seen in the news that we're trying to get two of our children back from Toronto. They were taken into care here, and we're trying to get them back home to their extended family. They come from a big family.

    We're trying to move forward as communities and provide the best for our people. I've had cousins come home who were adopted 30 years ago. They came home when they turned 19 and were very angry. We told them they were important to our community and they told us we were liars. “How come you didn't look for us?” Now you've probably heard this in other testimonies, but I've experienced it in my own community. They felt a loss the identity. They didn't fit in the outside community. When they came home, they knew nothing about their own people. So that's one of our main reasons why we want to keep our children at home. Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Neville, or Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

Mr. Gagnon skipped his turn.

[English]

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my apologies for coming in late. I had another meeting, and I'm sorry to have missed all of the presentations.

    I'm interested in all of this, but I'm particularly interested in the education area. I am from Winnipeg. I've been very involved in the community in aboriginal education in a number of different ways. I'm interested to know how both the federal government and the communities can, from your perspective, and looking at the jurisdictional issues we have to deal with, get involved in the education system in the urban setting. I've got lots of questions, but I'm curious to know if you have any thoughts.

    Don't mind the baby, because she's lovely. That's why we're here.

º  (1605)  

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: Thank you for your patience.

    I would say that in British Columbia we've got a long way to go in improvements, but we've made some serious in-roads in terms of relationship building. A couple of years ago we established and signed a memorandum of understanding that involved all the education players in British Columbia: the trustees, the teacher's union, and the college of teachers. All nine signatories pledged to increase the academic success of aboriginal learners. We still meet quarterly.

    We have identified priorities and action plans to move forward with our agenda, but from my perspective as a teacher, one of the single most influential factors has been the publication of data on first nations students. Right now they publish every school district's results in terms of graduation, enrollment in special needs, and transition. Quite a bit of data is published, and that has acted as a catalyst for districts to begin more conversations with us.

    In British Columbia, we're also moving toward an enhancement agreement, where every school district has to sit down with first nations to identify goals and priorities as to how we're going to improve aboriginal education. In addition to that, every school district is now required to put together an accountability contract, within which the enhancement agreement will be embedded.

    So we have a number of accountability factors that come into play to really move the conversation along, and help us put in place better strategies. Our graduation rate is still poor, with only 43% not graduating compared to the national average of about 30%, but it's coming up. I feel quite strongly that those accountability measures that have been supported at the partners' table, and certainly supported through policy at the provincial level, have really helped significantly.

    Ms. Anita Neville: I know that British Columbia has a different funding arrangement, or at least taxing authority, from what I'm familiar with. I can't speak for other jurisdictions. How does the funding flow? Who pays?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: Well, that's a complex question--

    Ms. Anita Neville: I know that.

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: --depending on what you're asking me. But I would concur with my colleague, Pamela, that first nations are definitely underfunded in relation to provincial schools. I consider that to be a crime. Our children should be placed on equal value with all other children in British Columbia.

    If you're talking about the $75 million that's transferred to British Columbia, there was a court case in British Columbia about a year and a half ago. It cancelled the direct tuition option, so that school districts no longer had to talk to first nations about negotiating a local education agreement, because the funds would flow directly to the ministry and then to the school district.

    Right now, through other options we're putting in place, we are requesting that the provincial government revisit their policy on local education agreements and embed it within the school act, so that school districts must talk with first nations. The only way we're going to move forward on first nations education is through building that relationship. Sometimes we need a little more support for those relationships to happen.

    Ms. Anita Neville: When you talk about first nations and local school districts, are you speaking about first nations that are located within the school district, or where children travel from another community into the local school district?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: We have both. In British Columbia, about two-thirds of our students attend provincial schools. We have schools on reserve that are provincial schools, but if they only go to grade 10, their grade 11 and 12 students will come into an urban setting to attend school. So there are different options.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Okay.

    I was reading through the summary we received of the document on education, and it struck me as having a lot of similarities to the document that came out of the Winnipeg school division in 1990. That's what I know best. But I know that all of the moves in aboriginal education--and there have been many--have been funded by local taxpayers, not by provincial grants or dollars from first nations communities.

    I'm just interested in how one increases the educational opportunities for aboriginal children in the urban setting, and where the support comes from.

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: I think that requires a sustained commitment from educators--

    Ms. Anita Neville: Yes, no question.

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: --because I heard a professor once say that we can judge the quality of an education system by how the least of its citizens are treated. We're not the least of its citizens, but we are certainly the least in terms of support services.

    In the 1960s, the Hawthorne report said that teachers had low expectations of aboriginal learners, and those low expectations are still very prevalent across this country. So making inroads with educators to celebrate the diversity that exists, and celebrate the fact that we have first nations students in our school system would be nothing short of miraculous.

    Right now I would say that my colleagues in the provincial system, for the most part, see being of aboriginal ancestry as a hindrance. That is unjust and we need to change that. I think it's part of the colonial legacy that still exists. To enlighten us and lift us out of who we are is still at play, unfortunately.

    So we need to be honest about the racism that exists, that's institutional and systemic, and address it in a way that's proactive and ensures that it doesn't happen again. As an educator, I think we're still on an agenda of conformity. We need to be honest about how we educate children, and be a little more proactive about it.

º  (1610)  

    Ms. Anita Neville: How do you see the federal government becoming more involved in this?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: I don't see the federal government being more involved in first nations education. You have people like myself, educators who are very committed to our communities, who want to work on behalf of our communities. I will speak from the British Columbia experience.

    We have a board of 55 educators and technicians, and we make decisions on policy and first nations education. I am president of the organization, and we conduct regional sessions to hear back from communities how our priorities are to be determined, and what we will move forward on.

    We have a good working relationship with the department in British Columbia. It supports the initiatives we've identified because it knows that we come from a position of strength that the communities have endorsed, and that they've directed what we are about to undertake.

    As I indicated in my presentation, we do not see an increased role for INAC; we see a diminished role. But we want to be adequately supported on the community side of things. We have submitted studies to regional headquarters in British Columbia that prove we are dramatically underfunded. Based on that, we've been able to make some inroads in that area, but we need to adequately address the inconsistency of national funding that exists.

    If you look at school districts, they have resource centres, ministries of education, and millions of dollars for the secondary and tertiary levels of infrastructure to support learners. In first nations education, we do not have similar bodies, nor the funding to create them.

    Those are the kinds of gross inequities that need to be addressed to help us move forward.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay, have you any questions?

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too want to welcome the presenters, and I apologize for being a little late. I had a guest from the riding. We didn't get together in the scrum after question period for some time, but we did find our way here. I'm sorry that I missed your presentations, Ms. Jeffrey, and Ms. Hunter. Chief, it's good to see you again.

    I spent 36 years in education, so I have many questions. I think I have to try to understand where the situation is different for aboriginal people and for others. Although we had some transfers of staff to the Grand Valley schools, to the Six Nations--we had a teacher from there come to our board, and had various joint efforts along the way--it was very little, and I don't think it was enough.

    My question follows what Mrs. Neville has said. I wonder whether somebody would give me a little outline of what you feel. It may be in this documentation--and I make no bones about the fact that I haven't read all of it.

    What things do you think aboriginal teachers need to know and be trained in to help break down, as you say, these barriers or this discrimination? There's no way I could teach the Mohawk language; I don't know it. Yet I take it that English is the major language, or French--I'm not sure--in aboriginal schools. It seems to me the language barrier is of some real importance.

º  (1615)  

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: First of all, the responsibility for first nations education doesn't just rest with first nations learners. As educators and as a well-respected society and country in the global world, we all have a responsibility to ensure that education is balanced and holistic.

    One glaring example is that in today's day and age, in 2003, grade 10 history students are still learning that the French and the English founded Canada. From where I sit, that's a blatant lie, right? Aboriginal people are the founders of this country, yet we still teach that in the education system.

    So these are the kinds of things that we, as educators, need to begin to be honest about. As Chief Jacob pointed out in his presentation, what first nations families want for their children is no different from what any other families want. We want options and opportunities. We want them to be linguistically and culturally competent. But they also have to be able to walk into McGill and the University of British Columbia with the necessary skills to be successful in those environments.

    So we need to look at addressing over the long term how we educate teachers, to better prepare them for the society we have in Canada, and particularly regarding the needs of aboriginal learners. First nations teachers shouldn't teach only first nations children. We, as educators, need to be in all areas of the public education system, to better equip them to deal with all learners, not just us. As an example, out of the almost 40,000 teachers we have in British Columbia, maybe 400 are in the system, and of the 400, I would bet my right arm that the salaries of 300 of us, like me, are paid out of targeted first nations dollars.

    That speaks to the issues of inclusion and respect, from my perspective. Sometimes we're only hired for the first nations programs, yet we have the same credentials as other teachers, and I should be able to be hired for a grade seven position in Prince George, or a grade four teaching position in Kelowna. So those are the kinds of much bigger things that we have yet to address and embrace.

    I just want you to know a little bit about my background. I was co-chair of the B.C. Teachers' Federation task force on first nations education for two years. In addition, I'm in my fifth year of being president of the steering committee. I was on a national committee for the Canadian Teachers' Federation, in addition to co-chairing the national working group. So when I talk about my perspective, it has been formed based on my experiences in those areas, as well as a lot of experience at the local level in first nations education in my home community.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's very good to know.

    I have a little direct experience of my own that I just want to briefly tell you about. It happened in northern Ontario. I went canoeing on the Albany River with three friends. We put in on the Kabinakagami River just north of Hearst, and canoed to James Bay. It took us about seven or eight days.

    I was supposed to fly out of Fort Albany, on the Albany River, to Winnipeg to go to a national caucus--this was two years ago. We didn't make it to Fort Albany in time, but we got to Kashechewan, at the confluence of the Albany River and James Bay. I was sent up the bank to see what we could do to get some help, because I needed to phone my wife to let her know I hadn't drowned, and so on.

    In the course of that, we stayed with some teachers. The school year was just starting, and about half of the teachers in the elementary school and the secondary school were from Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, with one from P.E.I. It was their first teaching experience there, and they had been trained as teachers in the maritime system. The principal of the high school was a first nations person, the principal of the elementary schools was first nations, and about half the teachers were first nations.

    It seems to me that kind of experience and situation would go a long way toward solving some of the problems you've been talking about. These were keen young people, and it was a delight to talk with them and spend several hours getting to know what they were up to.

    Now, I take it that doesn't happen to the same extend in B.C.

º  (1620)  

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: In varying degrees it does, but for the most part I would venture to guess that of all of the educators, including support staff and senior administration, less than 2% of us are represented across the board. We have no first nations superintendent, and we have very few first nations administrators, at least on the public side of things. But I think we're making some serious inroads in addressing that through various initiatives.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Ms. Neville, do you have a follow-up question?

    Ms. Anita Neville: What's needed to move the recommendations forward from the working group on education? How does it have to go forward? Where is it at right now?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: In order to move the recommendations forward, there would have to be meetings with first nations in the various regions across the country to determine the course of action. I think the biggest mistake would be an imposed method for dealing with something. In British Columbia we have a provincial infrastructure, but that was community-based and community-created. To impose a structure on one of the other regions would be an error. We need to bring together the constituents within the respective region to determine how they would undertake to do something.

    I would say that people who have read the report, educators I've chatted with, for the most part agree with the recommendations. There isn't anything new. All that is required is the political will to make that happen, with the infusion of new dollars for equitable funding for education issues.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Where is this at right now, and what kinds of dollars are required?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: As I indicated in my report, once our report was tabled, our mandate as a working group concluded. As co-chair of the working group, I have never been contacted in any capacity on the status of the recommendations. But based on my work as an educator, and through my involvement in first nations education provincially, I have been kept apprised of some of the initiatives. So the department would have to give you that specific answer.

[Translation]

    The Chair: It's your turn Mr. Gagnon. I don't know if you have questions for Chief Jacob, but he will certainly come back.

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): No, my questions are for Mrs. Jeffrey.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Gagnon.

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon: Thank you for being here today. You deserve our admiration, Mrs. Jeffrey, since it is a real feat to be able to answer our questions while taking care of a little baby. I have a fourteen month old baby of my own and I have had several times to give speeches while taking care of my baby, so I know what it's like.

    Now, I am willing to listen to the message you are delivering, but I also want to make my colleagues aware of wall-to-wall policies and programs. Quebec has always protected its rights for a province-wide education system, guarding it against interference by the federal government. During all the meetings we had, many panelists spoke indeed about the lack of flexibility and about the type of flexibility communities like yours should get from federal government in order to be able to better accommodate the needs of the community, and promote knowledge communication through the type of education you have the ability to deliver.

    Would you tell us about these flexible programmes that would allow you as a teacher to more specifically accommodate the needs of your community in this respect?

[English]

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: As an educator, I would say we need to move forward on the implementation of the recommendations indicated in the report. But I also want to offer the comment that Quebec jealously guards its jurisdiction in education, and as first nations people we jealously guard our jurisdiction in all areas, again speaking in reference to aboriginal rights and title issues.

    There has to be some flexibility demonstrated in order to put in place the initiatives that are called for in the report--flexibility that calls upon post-secondary institutes to be more open to reflection, in looking at their teacher training programs. There should be at least one course, as was recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, that looks at first nations people's history and culture so we work, at least to some measure, to improve the climate of first nations education and the needs of our community.

    It requires the political will that has been lacking to date to move forward on those recommendations. How that unfolds, of course, will be up to each respective department and government agency. At least in British Columbia, since we signed our memorandum of understanding, we have been moving forward with our jurisdictional talks, which are interim until our first nations conclude treaties or self-government agreements. We have seen some movement, at least on the federal government side, through our negotiations, to be a little more forthcoming in supporting our agenda.

º  (1625)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Sébastien Gagnon: In my view, Mr. Chairman, it would be important, as we write this report, to mention this flexibility. I would also propose as a model the province of Quebec who gives first nations groups a good measure of flexibility in many respects.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: I'd like to first of all just comment on the number of capable parenting persons in the room. I'm just terribly impressed. This baby is going to be extremely flexible socially, given her ability to respond to various adults. I think it's great.

    I have a feeling, Chief Jacob, you've been around babies.

    I'd like to ask two questions. I first want to turn things around a bit and say that in the areas of child and family services for first nations people, and education, I'm always interested in communities that beat the odds and actually show success, despite all the problems with the system. I'm wondering, in your experience, whether we can point to certain first nations that are really doing exciting things in either of those areas where, despite all of the disincentives, something good is happening. I'd like to find out a little bit more why that's the case, if that's the case.

    I don't know if you have something to say.

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: I can think of a couple, off-hand. One of our success stories is the West Yellowhead Child and Family Services Authority just outside of Edmonton. I was in the news a couple of months back because there were some funding problems with the province, the Department of Indian Affairs, and the agency. However, it has one of the most successful custom adoption programs right now, which started as a pilot project.

    I has basically been able to find adoptive homes within the communities in its catchment area for about 30 first nations kids. It's based on traditional concepts of the family--true custom adoption. It has had the flexibility to do that because of its pilot project--it received dollars just for that.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: From whom, by the way?

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: I believe the cost is shared between the Province of Alberta and the department.

    The Chair: DIAND.

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: Yes.

    Another agency that has done really well is the West Region Child and Family Services in Manitoba. They are also on a pilot project for a block funding arrangement, which basically means they have more flexibility through the block funding arrangement to develop alternative family support programs that other agencies aren't able to do because they're not block-funded.

    So one positive that came out of the recent cabinet decision was that Indian Affairs put in a cabinet submission to have block funding as an option to agencies. The terms and conditions have just been finalized by Treasury Board for that, so we're not sure exactly what that's going to look like yet. But some agencies are quite happy about that.

    The Chair: I think we need to pay attention to these examples, because we're so often caught by the other side.

    I wonder, Chief Jacob, if you can add anything on either of these files, because you have a lot of experience.

    Chief Gibby Jacob: I have a lot of experience, but not really in either of these areas. In the child and family services area we've been running a program for our membership for the last ten-plus years. The traditional name that's been given to our group is Ays Men Men, and that means taking care of our children and families.

    We run several successful programs. We run nutritional programs. As in many other first nations communities, we have many young parents who are just barely out of their teens themselves. We're looking at preventative programs for our people. The best place for our kids is with their parents, not in care, or being looked after by the grandparents or the aunts and uncles. We're pretty successful in that area, and I'm pretty proud of our staff people who run those programs.

    As I mentioned earlier, we have a few children in care, but they are in homes that are by and large on reserve with extended families. We have a facility that was the home of my late sister and her husband, so we can look after our young people who are in care and don't have extended families with whom they can be placed.

    Education-wise, I went to a Catholic school until grade eight, and had no real background with non-native people, even though we were surrounded by them. We lived in our community, and they lived in theirs. We moved out of that system into a public school, and the difference in the kinds of values and things we'd grown accustomed was like day and night. It was a quick about-change.

    I'm 52 now, and of the group of about 50 that I started school with, I think three or four of us graduated. That rate has become a little bit better, but it hasn't changed. I'm saying this because we've waited a long time for nursery school for our children. We had facilities, but they were old dilapidated trailers. We have successfully completed funding arrangements with the Department of Indian Affairs, and will be opening a new school in January. It will be from pre-school to grade five. Our children who will have the opportunity to attend this school will be learning our culture, number one. I agree with Deborah that the culture is the way of salvation for our people.

    A lot of areas in this country have lost their languages and their way of living, not particularly through any fault of their own, but it's just gone. Every little chip from the granite that is our culture disappears. We believe that by providing schooling from pre-school to grade five we'll have that ability, culturally-wise, and will not have 50 students to one teacher; we'll have maybe 15 students to one teacher. By doing that, the three Rs will come into clear focus for our young people. That's where we need to go.

    For those of us who are my age, all you ever learned were the three Rs, and now they've got this, they've got that, they've got study blocks. We never had that kind of stuff in my time, and that's going back a way too.

    On success stories, I can only speak of my community, and I'm pretty proud of the things we do. We pump a lot of our own source revenue into those two programs. I'm not too sure of the exact percentage, but for every dollar that comes into our nation we generate 75¢. That goes to the 130 programs we run on behalf of our membership.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: You're in the Squamish area, which normally, when it's not flooded, is a fairly prosperous area. So I assume there are more opportunities for your first nation, in terms of jobs, partly because of your location.

    Chief Gibby Jacob: Actually, we live in north Vancouver. We're at the north end of the Lion's Gate Bridge, for those of you who know where that is.

    The Chair: That's not a bad place.

    I guess the other question--and Ms. Jeffrey raised it--is understanding the relationship between the universal and the specific. On the one hand, to be successful we have to be culturally specific in language, tradition, and so on. On the other hand, we have to recognize at the same time the universal requirements of five-month old children, whoever they may be and wherever they may be born. In a sense, some of the most compelling arguments that have been put to us this afternoon are based simply on the fact that all children of whatever background should have access to a similar level of resources. It's part of their universal right; it's part of their birthright of being Canadian.

    In the very complex relationship Canadians have with first nations people, we always have to be able to figure out where we can seize the moment to make progress in areas that we all agree on, and not be held hostage to fortune by all these other huge areas of dispute. I think we can all agree on the importance of children and doing the right thing for them. That's beyond the specific; that is universal.

    I'm wondering whether there are any other comments or questions from anyone.

    Mr. Spencer.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Chief Jacob and each of them mentioned that the funding formula is one of the most important things that needs to be advanced and changed, so I have a question about the formula itself. I see what's in the recommendations here, and there are nine categories they list under this.

    I want to be clear on this. When hear the words “funding formula”, I think of the federal, provincial, and municipal, or whatever, governments--you know, one, plus one, plus one equals three, and that's one formula for the amount of money that comes through. Are you talking about that end of the formula, the requirements on your end to receive the funds, or the amount of funds?

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: I can answer that.

    We're talking about the amount of funds, but the way the child and family services program is funded there are two components. One is maintenance, which is the actual expenditures for children in care to meet their needs. The other component is operations. That includes everything to administer an agency, such as salaries and travel. If something does not qualify as being a maintenance expenditure for a child in care, it automatically has to be covered from operations.

    The elements of the current operations formula are not realistic, and do not include the actual cost of running an agency. For example, one huge cost that is always in dispute is our legal costs for children, in terms of going through court, agencies paying their lawyers, what have you. Right now, the department's view is that this has to come out of operations. Adequate provision is not make for that, because how can you tell in a year if you're going to have five cases that go on for months, one case, or what have you? The first nations' argument is that should come out of maintenance because it is maintaining a child in care. Right now, the operations component of it is totally unrealistic, and that's the part that needs to be reworked.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay, so you need more realistic qualifiers for funds in each category, or more flexibility at least.

    Mrs. Pamela Hunter: The operations formula is based on the population of children aged zero to 18 on-reserve, which does not meet our needs. It should be looked at from a needs-based perspective, more than how many children you have on-reserve as of December 31 of each year. It's hard to keep track of that.

    It also doesn't take into account families on-reserve with children who are not first nations members, for whom agencies are still mandated to proved services on-reserve.

    The Chair: So you're saying that the real numbers are higher.

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: In B.C. we did a joint Bill Postl study, with Indian Affairs and the provincial ministry of education, and it found that we underfunded first nations schools significantly, in relation to provincial schools. Certainly through my experience working on the national working group, that is indicative of the situation across the country.

    The federal government will pay pretty much whatever the provincial government says it should pay, but when it comes to first nations schools, we are drastically underfunded in relation to that. Not only do we not get paid for actual costs, we don't even get paid what the provincial systems get. Our systems aren't paid that. So a real inequity in funding exists that requires closer examination.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Once you receive that funding, are you suggesting that your first nations school board or administration is then too handicapped, in being able to decide where the money is actually needed, that you have to find the right category or else the funds won't come at all? Are you very limited in being able to administer the money according to where your school district needs it?

    Mrs. Deborah Jeffrey: It has only been since the release or announcement of the additional dollars for special education that we have even received special education dollars. For example, in our school district, students with special needs generate an additional $6,500. In a first nations school, prior to the $65 million nationally over two and a half years that was announced, we didn't get anywhere near that amount. So when Pamela was mentioning that our children would have to leave their communities to access.... We did not even receive funding for a blind student previous to these new dollars.

    I always refer to B.C. because that's where I work and live, and we have been preparing for those special education dollars for a number of years. Working with the First Nations Schools Association and the First Nations Education Steering Committee, once we receive those dollars we'll hit the ground running. We have our speech paths working. We're working in partnership with the post-secondary institutes to provide additional training.

    Once those additional dollars are made available to us, we'll have the ability to do the things we need to do to make significant improvements in how we deliver educational programs at the community level. Certainly there is also the will amongst the constituents to improve. We've put together some new initiatives through our First Nations Schools Association that will vastly improve how we do business.

    The Chair: Chief Jacob.

    Chief Gibby Jacob: Thank you.

    Our education and social development departments in tandem have told us that a lot of the young people are looked at as being special needs students. They need to be assessed--teachers probably know all about this--to see where they're at, what their abilities are, and how they function, both emotionally and physically.

    In some of the assessments we have found that some of these children weren't special learners. Part of the problem was dietary. The kids were going to school and hadn't had anything to eat. They didn't have lunches. As everybody knows, you need to fuel your physical side to have the capacity to participate in the kinds of things that are going on in the schools.

    One of the things our department of education is requesting of our council is further funding for the assessment of our children. That's another component that can't be lost in this kind of debate--the assessment of our young people, our learners. It's a critical aspect of that as well.

    Thank you.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: On behalf of the subcommittee, I want to say how very appreciative we are of your interventions. It's always good to get the interaction between the policies and the human...I mean, the sort of story Chief Jacob just related to us about misdiagnosing kids who were hungry, and thinking they had learning problems. I'd have learning problems too if I were hungry.

    I find it entirely appropriate that Amy was able to join us. We're so glad you brought her with you, because it's an ultimate reality check on what all of this is about. It is about Amy's future and all of our futures, really.

    So on behalf of all of us, thank you for coming. Thank you for sharing not only your official responses, but your human responses, and the stories about your communities. At the end of the day, if we're going to find common ground and be people of good will, we have to work at the human level as much as at the political or theoretical level, so thank you for coming.

    The meeting is adjourned.