AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 17, 2000

• 1536

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): I'll call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to order, please.

This afternoon the committee is dealing with, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of chapter 4 of the April 2000 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, “Indian and Northern Affairs Canada—Elementary and Secondary Education”.

I want to welcome our two witnesses, Sheila Fraser, the Deputy Auditor General, audit operations, and Mr. Grant Wilson, the principal, audit operations. Welcome, both of you. We're looking forward to some enlightenment in this area. I'd ask you to carry on.

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Deputy Auditor General, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of Auditor General Denis Desautels, who unfortunately had previous out-of-town commitments, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to discuss chapter 4 of our April 2000 report to the House. This chapter deals with our audit of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada that looked at elementary and secondary education for Indian students living on reserves.

The audit was significantly different from most of our audits in that it dealt with the well-being of children, the future of any country. It is therefore especially gratifying to appear before you to deliberate fundamental issues and opportunities available to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for improvements in education.

The department's mandate for elementary and secondary education stems from its authority and obligations under various statutes, treaties, agreements, and government policy.

The department's objective for education is to assist first nations in achieving their needs and aspirations. To do this, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada allocates some $1 billion annually to first nations for elementary and secondary education. This amount does not include additional funds for on-reserve school construction and maintenance.

Departmental funding is for the benefit of Indian students who live on reserves and who attend on-reserve or provincial schools. Education for Indian students who live off reserve and attend provincial schools is funded by the provinces. Other arrangements involving Indian and Northern Affairs Canada are in place for post-secondary education, which was not included in this audit.

It is important to note that the department has delegated its authority to first nations and the provinces for the design and delivery of education. Departmental data show that almost 60% of the 117,000 Indian students living on reserves are enrolled in over 450 Indian-managed elementary and secondary schools. About 39% are enrolled in provincial schools and a small number attend eight schools operated by the department.

[Translation]

Regardless of the approach used, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada retains responsibility for the cost and appropriateness of education. Against this backdrop, we asked the following questions in our audit. Does the Department have reasonable assurance that it is meeting its objective for education? Is the Department exploiting existing opportunities for operational improvements? Has the Department demonstrated accountability for results?

We found, Mr. Chairman, that the Department is undertaking several initiatives to help achieve its objective for education. However, the audit disclosed two broad areas that are cause for concern.

• 1540

First, there are fundamental issues that have remained unresolved for many years, related to the Department's role in education, the need to develop and use appropriate performance indicators.

The Department has not articulated its role in education , despite the fact that it has been devolving education to First Nations for at least 30 years. We believe that a complete articulation of the Department's role, consistent with the nature and extent of program devolution, is essential to success and accountability. Clarification of the role is needed so that the Department can reasonably determine whether its existing capacity and resources are sufficient to achieve its objective.

We have reported in other audits that successful program devolution must be accompanied by four key elements. First, each First Nation needs to have adequate capacity to deliver such programs successfully. Capacity includes such things as strong governance and financial and operational expertise. Second, the parties must be willing to support devolution. Third, the Department needs to identify and manage the risks associated with devolution. And finally, satisfactory accountability is required. In particular, this requires a clear understanding of the expectations of each party, namely the First Nations, the provincial authorities and the Department, of the roles and responsibilities of each party and of the reporting of results.

[English]

The lag in academic achievement of first nation students behind other Canadians is a serious gap. The dropout rate of Indian students before grade nine is six times higher than that of the Canadian population. The proportion of the on-reserve population with a high school education is significantly lower than in the general population. At the current rate of progress, it will take over twenty years for Indian students to achieve parity with other Canadians at the secondary school level. Moreover, it is questionable whether the education received by Indian students meets their cultural needs. In our view, this picture reflects a Canadian tragedy.

The department is not oblivious to the situation. It is aware of numerous studies reported over many years on the state of Indian education, yet it has failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.

With respect to performance indicators, we found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada collects some basic data on education, such as nominal roll information and other operational statistics. However, it has not developed indicators of performance and of results to demonstrate accountability and to provide assurance that it is achieving its objective.

The second broad concern is the need for operational improvements, including how the department administers education funding. The audit identified a need to gather cost information for comparative purposes and for determining potential problems associated with levels of funding; a need to better manage education funding arrangements by ensuring their existence and use; a need to consult more on curriculum and instruments of delivery to benefit first nation students who have a variety of academic, cultural, and special needs; and a need to obtain and use school evaluations to assess overall school performance as well as specific issues that may apply to a particular school.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the department must significantly increase its efforts to help improve the record of educational achievement by first nation students while addressing their cultural needs. We recognize that resolving these issues will be a challenge; however, remedial action is urgently needed, and the urgency will be intensified by the growing demand on education services because of demographic trends in first nation communities. In the absence of satisfactory progress, there will be an increased waste of human capital, lost opportunities, a high financial cost in social programs, and a degradation of the relationship between the government and first nation peoples.

We hope that with the committee's agreement and encouragement the department will expeditiously develop and implement an appropriate action plan for improvement for the benefit of Indian students and all Canadians.

Mr. Chair, we would be pleased to respond to any questions or comments.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.

Mr. Konrad.

• 1545

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, witnesses.

I don't know where to start, it is such a depressing report. I've read through the larger report, and your summary here doesn't bring anything to light; it just restates it. In your report you note that there are 27,000 students in post-secondary education. Just for a starting point, I would like to know how many graduated from school on reserve and how many graduated from off-reserve provincial schools.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, this is a figure we received from the department, and we do not know the composition of that number. We do not know how many graduated from on-reserve schools and from off-reserve schools, and neither do we know the nature of the post-secondary education in which they are enrolled—if it be, for instance, university, a trade school, or adult education.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: We really have no way of knowing whether the on-reserve schools were more effective or less effective than provincial schools in educating aboriginal kids? We have no idea where they're going once they get out of school, and yet there's $1 billion being pumped into the education system? These are the facts?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Grant, would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Grant Wilson (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you.

Yes, indeed, the number of 27,000 was a number that obviously from the department's point of view was an indication of success, because 20 years ago the number of Indian students in post-secondary education was quite small. So in a sense the fact that there are 27,000 students in post-secondary education is encouraging.

The problem is, and we report it throughout the audit, there's very little information in terms of what role the department has played in enabling this to happen, whether in fact the number, 27,000 can be attributed to the Indian children who live on reserves who are either going to school on reserve or off reserve, or whether they're Indian children who are living in urban centres who are not living on reserves.

Part of the problem is that there is a general lack of information, both to the department and to the public at large, on the attribution and success this particular program has had.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: A good place to start, then, is having some reasonable statistics that would tell you something about whether things are succeeding because of or in spite of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We fully agree with you. One of our recommendations is that there should be indicators of performance, and we don't believe that would be particularly difficult to do. It's something that can be done now.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: All right. In my riding, I come from a small town of 5,000 people, and there are a number of other smaller towns surrounding it in the same school board, and of course a lot of agricultural and forestry-supported communities. The director of education—prior to the one who's there now, for whom I don't know what his educational attainments have been—had a doctorate in educational administration, I believe.

We're handing over $1 billion a year, much of it to bands to determine the use of. Is this inappropriate, then, to expect people who do not have the background in educational administration to actually administer programs and budgets, and really direct the lives of people in respect of their education? Is that unrealistic?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: The whole issue of devolution is accompanied by a question of capacity. I think the department has made strides to attempt to evaluate the capacity of first nations to take on the responsibilities. There are self-assessments that are done. Unfortunately, as we've noted in the chapter, the exercise isn't as rigorous as we would like. Assessments are missing, evaluations of schools are not completed. So there needs to be more rigour put into the system in evaluating the capacity, and then the corrective action that needs to be taken to correct situations that are not acceptable.

• 1550

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I won't ask you how that should be done. We'll save that for the department, how they're going to comply with that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I am going to ask the same question as the one I asked Mr. Desautels. I was surprised to see that the Auditor General separated the area of education. When I say separated, I mean that he took only elementary and secondary education into consideration. He did not say a word about post- secondary education. He answered me that he might take it into consideration in a future report.

Thus, I am surprised that he did not take it into consideration to talk about education as a whole, because there is also a problem in the field of post-secondary education. There is even a budget of 287 million, I think, which is not negligible. There is a major problem, namely that in Canada, we are saying to some aboriginal people living on reserves that we unfortunately do not have the money to send them to study at the collegial level this year.

Thus, this is a major problem. My first question would perhaps be why did you not include post-secondary education in your analysis?

I hope that you will be able to make a note of my other questions because I have only a few minutes. I remember that the Committee on Indian Affairs had recommended, which was by the way an unfulfilled electoral promise of the Liberal Party, as I say to my liberal friends, to create an Institute of Aboriginal Education. Do you think that this could be a solution to this problem?

In that report, there was another recommendation which was to consider school authorities as distinct from band councils because, in spite of all the confidence I have in them, I know that in some areas, the money allocated to education can be used otherwise. Do you think that this would be another way of solving the problem?

I will have other questions later on, but I will put them aside for the second round.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, to answer your first question, we recognize that post-secondary education is also a very important area worth of consideration. However, we thought that elementary and secondary education were a sufficiently broad area for us to make an audit. Considering the resources available to us, we restricted our audit to those two areas. We intend to examine post-secondary education in another audit which is already planned.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Your answer just like Mr. Desautels.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: One has to be consistent. It is already in our planning.

I am going to answer immediately your third question concerning school authorities as distinct from the band councils, and I would ask my colleague to talk about the Institute for Aboriginal Education.

You will notice that in this chapter, we mentioned the case of the Mi'kmaq Agreement, in Nova Scotia. I think that it is a first case. We raised the issue simply as a practice which can be used. We do not want to propose that it be applied to all First Nations because each must have an arrangement and an agreement which suit their own needs. But it can also happen to be a solution for others.

As to the Institute for Aboriginal Education, Mr. Wilson can tell you about that.

[English]

Mr. Grant Wilson: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, before I answer the second question, I just want to elaborate a little bit on Sheila Fraser's first comment.

One of the reasons we took a look at elementary and secondary education was because of the extremely high dropout rate. The achievement in post-secondary is going to be, to some extent, influenced by the number of graduates from grade 12 or grade 13. Obviously there are other mechanisms, the technical schools and so on, but that was a critical element in this. We felt that if there were more emphasis placed on the elementary and secondary success, then chances were there would be much greater success in the post-secondary education field.

• 1555

With respect to the second issue—the school board, as distinct from the band—one of the issues we discuss in the chapter is where money is actually spent.

As you know from your knowledge of first nations and funding arrangements, the arrangements between the department and first nations are such that first nations may spend money provided to them for programs to meet certain standards, and where they do not need that money or where they have excess money, they may move that money from one program to another—which makes sense when you're talking about devolution.

The issue we raised in this audit is that the department does not know how much money is actually being spent on elementary and secondary education. Nobody really knows whether the $975 million that's allocated to elementary and secondary is actually being spent on elementary and secondary education. It could be something more, it could be something less.

There could be separate school boards from the band, but I think before you get there, you should know what is actually being spent, and then you can decide whether that's an appropriate amount or appropriate mechanism to consider for who delivers that spending.

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Mr. Iftody, please go ahead.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the presentation. I have lots of questions to ask, but I'll try to narrow them down to a couple.

In the analysis you use in terms of the elementary school children and what's happening, the rates of graduation and so on, your sample of course is taken from first nations children on reserve, and you're trying to find some way to track that and see if we're getting the intended results for the money.

You make the observation about the dropout rate, which I think is quite important. It's remarkably high and certainly unfortunate.

In your analysis in doing this, when you compare the educational standards, dropout rates, and outcomes of a first nations community with a rate of 80% unemployment and a majority of people on welfare against a template of a Canadian experience, which includes Rosedale and Vancouver, etc., I would think it looks much more dramatic with those kinds of proportions than if you went to east Montreal or parts in Regina where there's a large number of first nations children, or even in parts of Winnipeg and north Winnipeg, for example, where the dropout rates in those schools and throughout major cities in Canada almost reach the level you've identified in your report.

So I could argue, for example, that Manitoba receives $975 million a year in transfer payments from the Government of Canada for education and health, so why—and isn't is equally outrageous—in the province of Manitoba, in north Winnipeg, do you have dropout rates almost reaching those you've identified here for first nations children?

In other words, if the measure has to be appropriate—and I say this because you use the term “well-being of the child” and “the social context” in which that child is going to school—if you do your sample from the reserve and compare that against the Canadian context with similar social conditions that give rise to those indices, don't you think that's an unreasonable comparison?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes, we would agree there are many factors that affect the rates of achievement in schools, over and above the strictly educational mandate of a department or a provincial ministry. Adequacy of housing, socio-economic factors, and the family structure will all have an impact on children.

• 1600

What we would expect, though, is that the department would be able to identify those areas in which it can contribute to improving those rates, that it would establish performance indicators, and that it would have targets on what it thinks is achievable. Those we did not find. We think the department has to do more work in targeting what it can possibly do and how it can improve those rates.

Mr. David Iftody: But if the Deputy Minister of Education and the Minister of Education in the province of Manitoba, for example, were sitting in front of you here—and they do have these kinds of problems with similar rates, and we do transfer, in social policy transfers, taxpayers' dollars for this with the same kinds of outcomes—would you ask them those same kinds of questions, or do you know whether they have those same kinds of measurement tools available to the Auditor General from the different departments of education across the country?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I can't respond to that because we are obviously not auditors of provincial ministries of education. But we are aware that many provinces are introducing quite sweeping changes to address some of the issues that are evident in this chapter, and we would expect the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be aware of those changes to see if they're applicable to them and how best to adapt them to the needs of Indian students on reserves.

Mr. David Iftody: Can I ask a final question? If you've made that comparison.... Let's go to Toronto now, for an example. In one part of Toronto the dropout rate is extremely high, there are high crime rates, and there are all the rest of those social indicators related to it.

If you're suggesting in part of your chapter that it's a social context that gives rise to these things, would you say to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or to the provincial minister in Ontario, “Is it more important to develop an indicator in terms of success, or to look at building capacity within those communities?”, and that the antecedent for the problem really is not an educational indicator, but other kinds of templates within the community that prevent those kinds of things from happening?

In other words, a much more detailed instrument and analysis would come to the conclusion that measuring these outcomes in grade six, seven, or eight is perhaps not that useful if the hemorrhaging and leakage of these problems is occurring in a much broader base that deals with the social context. If we even fixed that problem and gave you those measurements, the problem is still going to occur because it's at a much broader level. Isn't that what you've identified in your report?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We recognize that the problem is a very broad issue and it is going to take time to correct. There is no magic bullet that is going to correct this in a very short period of time. But we do think there needs to be a definite action plan, with steps indicated as to how this situation is going to be improved, because it is unacceptable. I don't think we should accept this as Canadians, that students are not receiving a degree of education. It is far, far from what the Canadian average is. So I think it behooves the department to work with first nations and the provincial authorities to identify causes, and there will be many, and to work where they can to improve them.

I would also add that it is not up to the department alone to do this. They will have to work in collaboration with the other parties concerned. But it is an urgent situation that needs to be addressed.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad, please.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The provincial auditor for Saskatchewan had a report on education in the fall of 1999, and in it she points out—and I'll quote from the report—that:

...there is “substantial mobility between systems” (i.e., provincially and federally funded systems) throughout the province. Mobile families tend to move their children among various provincially-funded schools and federally-funded band schools...and back again. Highly mobile families register their children in several schools during a single school year. Some children may not be enrolled in school at all.

Now, what they are talking about here is vulnerable children. One assumes those are homes with single parents, poor social skills, no income to speak of. And from speaking to a couple of school boards in my riding, I know they see this as a major problem for school boards. For one, they're high-cost kids to manage who come from these homes. You need a very high ratio of teachers to students, rather than the other way around. Also, they find it almost impossible to get funding for the schools once the kids have been to one or two different schools in a year, so the cost is thrown back on the local taxpayers.

• 1605

In speaking to an Indian woman who was a representative on the school board, it also works two ways. If they've paid the fees to one school and then another school comes to them and asks where are the fees for the kid, by the time they've paid it once or twice, they also are in a financial deficit position.

One of the recommendations the provincial auditor for Saskatchewan makes is exploring the feasibility of setting up a comprehensive monitoring system to track student movement through the various schools and school systems. It doesn't sound like a bad idea. There are several reasons it would be difficult to implement. Do you think that is something that should be handled federally, or would it be better to set something up provincially? Would it help?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: As I understand it, the funding in the provincial system is based on the presence of a student at a certain date and time, generally the end of September, and the number of students physically in a school determines the funding that school will get during the next year. That is the same formula that is used for the on-reserve schools as well as schools that are operated by the department.

We've made certain recommendations on the monitoring of certain agreements with the provincial authorities as well as the verification of what we call the nominal roll, the number of students who are actually enrolled at a certain date and time.

I can't really comment on comprehensive monitoring throughout the year. I think that would be more in the provincial system. Perhaps Grant might have a comment on it.

Mr. Grant Wilson: As Mrs. Fraser said, we did raise issues with regard to the nominal roll and suggested that the department establish a comprehensive strategy for essentially verifying that nominal roll over a period of time. We didn't get too specific, other than set out the kinds of issues you would want to consider in a strategy for the nominal roll.

I would say that one of the issues, which has always been an issue with regard to the Department of Indian Affairs and the funding of first nations programs in a general sense, is mobility. When an individual who lives on a reserve moves off the reserve, that person no longer is “the responsibility of the department”. When an Indian student who lives on a reserve goes to a school off reserve, there are arrangements to ensure that money is provided to the province for the education of that student. But when the family moves off, then it becomes a question of who is responsible.

I know that first nations certainly in Saskatchewan, and elsewhere, I'm sure, take the responsibility and obligation of the federal government to be much broader than that relating only to reserves.

It is an issue that is not solvable at this committee, because we obviously are looking at the responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs for Indian children who live on reserves. But this is a broader issue of who is responsible for the general funding and well-being of Indians, whether they live on or off reserve, or aboriginals, Métis, and Inuit.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I understand that—

The Chair: You'll have another round. Did you want to say something?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just wanted to say that I know that the Métis and Inuit are not “the responsibility of the federal government”.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, please.

Mr. Claude Bachand: First, I would like you to convey our congratulations to Mr. Desautels. Unlike the parliamentary secretary who has learned the lesson taught to him by the government, I think that when the Auditor General uncovers a problem in the federal government, it is not his fault; it is the government's fault. Whether we like it or not, the Auditor General is there to be the watchdog of government decisions. I think this is important.

• 1610

I think that such an attitude is related to the will to put aside criticisms which are made with regard to the government. I am one of those who think that it is important to be criticized and to be shown the shortcomings in our administration to be able to correct them. I do not want to criticize or to say that I would like you to compare your observations with the dropout rate among the youth of East Montreal or with the Quebec government data. This is not your jurisdiction. Your jurisdiction is to investigate on federal government actions. I think therefore that this is important for me to say it. I would like you to tell Mr. Desautels that I find he does a good job in this regard.

I would like us to read a quote from a document together, because the remarks that the parliamentary secretary has just transmitted to us reflect the attitudes of both the Auditor General and the government. There are elements in it which make me say that the two views on the ways to correct the situation are different.

I am going to begin with the vision of the government. I am reading from page 4 relating to the Main Points. In 4.6, the government response is printed in bold characters:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada acknowledges the importance of the issues identified in this chapter. It believes that Gathering Strength - Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, and other planned education initiatives involving the Department, First Nations and provincial governments, will help close the education gap cited in this chapter.

It is the government who said that. Now, when we read point 4.29, on page 4-10, we have the Auditor General's view:

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should demonstrate how its initiatives, including Gathering Strength - Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, will successfully address long-standing issues and improve First Nations education.

This means action plans indicating how and by whom steps will be taken, as well as schedules, costs and financing responsibilities.

I understand the federal government reacts to the reading of your report by saying that it revealed a nice plan, “Gathering Strength”, which is going to address everything, without mentioning however how, and you are saying that it should maybe say how. The federal government should not only talk but it should also be concerned about acting.

Am I reading well between the lines of this paragraph?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madam Chair, I will answer by saying that the Department has several ongoing initiatives, which are interesting and which are viewed as likely to give results. The difficulty is that we do not see how they are interrelated, nor how, in the long term, there is a strategy which could correct the situation.

We thus firmly believe, as we recommended in this chapter, that the Department should prepare a long-term action plan to demonstrate how each of those initiatives is going to contribute to improving the situation, as well as a very concrete action plan.

The Chair: Any other question?

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have finished.

The Chair: Have you?

[English]

On this side, is there someone who wishes to question? Mr. Finlay, please go ahead.

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

I'm having some difficulty with what's being examined and with some of what I take to be, and perhaps wrongly, value judgments about education on the part of the Auditor General's department. I'm not trying to be difficult.

In item 4 you say:

The Department's objective for education is to assist First Nations in achieving their needs and aspirations. To do this, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada allocates some $1 billion annually to First Nations for elementary and secondary education.

Does that mean $1 billion on reserve?

You do say:

This does not include additional amounts for on-reserve school construction and maintenance.

That is something a provincial budget for education would do.

• 1615

Can you give me any idea whether $1 billion for 117,000 Indian students living on reserves and enrolled in these schools...? I guess I could do the math, but I haven't done it. Does that amount to anything near per student what the Province of Manitoba is paying, or the Province of Ontario or the Province of New Brunswick? What kind of relationship do those two figures have? The department is spending $1 billion and there are 117,000 Indian students living on reserves enrolled in 450 Indian-managed elementary and secondary schools. I presume that's what the $1 billion is for. Well, what about the 39% who are enrolled in provincial schools? Is any of that $1 billion used for them?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: The $1 billion is spent for children living on reserves, whether they go to schools on reserves or in the provincial system. So it's only children living off reserves who are not funded by the federal government.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: As for a comparison of costs, we did not do it for two reasons. First of all, we do not know how much money was actually spent on education by first nations. The $1 billion is part of a transfer payment to them and they may spend more or less on that. The department doesn't have the information to be able to determine exactly how much is actually spent on education.

The second issue is that it's very difficult to draw conclusions when you have many first nations that have small populations and are in remote areas. A comparison of the costs would have to be done with great care to make sure you're not comparing oranges and apples. Situations are very different, dramatically different. There are questions of distance. Numbers of students can dramatically increase an average cost per student. So we didn't venture into that, mainly because the cost information wasn't there.

Mr. John Finlay: It seems that we've recognized in this audit that the first nation has not only a desire, but some responsibility also, in what is taught or what they're aiming at on these reserves. I just caution us about saying it has to be the ministry alone that decides what's going on here.

On page 3, you say:

The dropout rate of Indian students before grade nine is six times higher than that of the Canadian population.

I'll accept that.

The proportion of the on-reserve population with a high school education is significantly lower than in the general population.

I guess I can accept that.

At the current rate of progress, it will take over 20 years for Indian students to reach parity.

Now, what is that conclusion based upon? Have you gone back ten years and said that ten years ago there was only such a percentage of children who were in grade nine or in grade ten? I wonder how we can.... You say that it suggests a gradual improvement in progress, but it's going to take twenty years to reach parity with other Canadians. I think that's a pretty broad statement.

I was in education for 34 years. I was superintendent. It's a little hard sometimes to explain the results of a school year to a school board in the best of regulated places. When you add distance and all the other things that are involved, it's a fairly difficult job.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: The information we use comes from the department's performance report to Parliament. I'd ask Mr. Wilson to comment on how we arrived at the conclusions.

Mr. Grant Wilson: The twenty years is an extrapolation based on improved performance over five years. The department says that improvement in the high school completion rates for Indian students went from 31% to 37% over five years. That compared to 65% for the rest. If you took 31% to 35% in five years and extrapolated that, in the best of all worlds, assuming the same rate of improvement, it would take over 20 years to reach the 65% that's equivalent to the rest of Canada. It's a simple arithmetic calculation. Of course, it may be quicker or it may take longer, but it's based on the most recent performance improvement in the past five years.

• 1620

Mr. John Finlay: Can you give me that figure again, please, Mr. Wilson?

Mr. Grant Wilson: Yes. The high school completion rate for Canadian students as a whole is 65%. That compares to 37% for Indian students who live on reserves. That 37% went up from 31% five years ago. So there has been a rise from 31 to 37%. If you continue to extrapolate that at the same rate of progress, it would take 23 years, actually.

Mr. John Finlay: Right you are.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

In evaluating this area of governance, the department has decided that it is operating on a government-to-government principle. Does that restrict the government's ability to find things out about another government's ongoing affairs and to disseminate information and to act on that information? When the funds are transferred with a few strings, does the government have the ability to interfere and does the government have the ability to inquire into how the money is used?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'd like to answer by giving two aspects to the question. First of all, we believe the department still has a responsibility for education. Even though it has delegated certain authorities, it still remains responsible. If performance is not being achieved at the levels that it should be, it has a responsibility to take corrective action or to ensure that corrective action is taken.

If we talk about government to government, I'll give you an example of a chapter we did last year on the Canada Health Act. Health is a provincial jurisdiction and we recommended that the federal government obtain more information on what was actually being spent on health in the country. It's interesting to note that on the Minister of Finance site, there is now information on health spending across the country. So even though it may be completely out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, there are still ways to get that information, we would think especially in this case, where we believe the responsibility is still with the department.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay.

I've written to a number of regional offices. So far the Atlantic region has responded but no other region has. We're looking for information on Indian education. We wondered what kind of assessment was being done in provincial schools and what the regional offices might know about those assessments. It turns out that the information was not available to their regional office. I wouldn't even hazard a guess why.

In terms of children who live on reserve who are attending provincial schools off reserve, there are roughly 2,300 in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Isn't that kind of a small number of students to obtain information on and to make some kind of an action plan on? Don't you think there has to be some rational effort to get this out, make some findings, make some decisions so we can do something about the lives of these kids?

I mean, what is this? It's 2,300 kids. That's nothing to keep track of. Many schools have more kids than that in total. They're able to find things out about them. They have counsellors and people who help them make career decisions, who look after them when their families fall apart. Why can't the Department of Indian Affairs or their regional offices get some information out of these schools? Maybe I should be hollering at the departmental officials when they come. That seems ridiculous. Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you?

• 1625

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'll ask Grant to respond.

Mr. Grant Wilson: We did comment on that, of course. We commented in two aspects. First, there is a requirement for schools on reserves to provide an assessment, an evaluation, once every five years, and we noticed in the areas we reviewed that a lot of those were missing. They just were not done or they weren't available.

The second issue, which really pertains to your direct question, relates to the fact that the department does not generally request access to evaluations performed in provincial schools. We're concerned about that, as you've raised your concern, for the same reason, that without that information, it doesn't have the ability to determine what issues are out there and how to resolve those issues. So yes, we think the department can and should receive that kind of information. It does not have it.

The Chair: Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I'm not sure you'll understand this question, but when I look at your comments here and a little bit of what David was saying, the audit identified a need to gather cost information for comparative purposes. I'd like you to elaborate a little on your “comparative purposes”, because I'm trying to take the information you have here and apply it to what I know in the communities.

In the community I come from, no, not everyone does have a formal education. But taking this a little further and more personal, my mother works for the Department of Education in the new Government of Nunavut. She has never been through the formal education system and she doesn't speak any English, but I would like to think the knowledge she has to be able to work with the Department of Education is equivalent to somebody's masters degree or PhD. When we do a comparative thing, I think sometimes we tend to try to take the ideal way of life as recognized by a different society.

I can also think of many heavy equipment operators who have never gone through the formal heavy equipment operators trade school but were able to take equivalency courses or equivalency tests to prove that they were very capable of being qualified heavy equipment operators—again, language being a factor.

The great thing we've been able to do is to have them do oral testing to be able to qualify, and take that knowledge and transfer it into somebody else's way of testing. That's not to say we shouldn't take national or provincial standards and use those same standards to test people.

So I wonder how far your audit went into taking those types of cases and doing equivalences. I would like to think that one of the advances we will make in educating people—again, taking the Government of Nunavut for example—is to be able to take a different way of assessing knowledge and take equivalences to what the national and provincial standards are.

We've worked under the Alberta curriculum for many years under the Government of the Northwest Territories, and even in that way, we found at times it was difficult to take a curriculum out of Alberta, test the kids in that knowledge, and fit them into their way of assessing knowledge and achievements and all.

• 1630

So I'd like a little bit of information as to how you do the comparative studies. Do you use strictly the kindergarten to grade 12 and the university academic requirements? If you look at it only that way, yes, as a first nation, they're going to look very deficient in having any capability of managing their own lives on reserve.

The other point I want to make and find out is that having worked on the Nisga'a treaty—and we're going to see self-government—I know they already have their own school board. Is there any way now, within the system, to test and probably get answers to the very questions Mr. Konrad was asking: whether these kids were on reserve, and what the success rates are, let's say ten years from now, so that we can analyse the Nass Valley people—and take Nunavut, for example, even though we're not under the first nations financial education budgets—and find a way to test the progress of people again ten years after self-government versus ten years before self-government, and check the differences between the two? Are we putting into agreements now ways of tracking those types of hopefully progressive movements?

Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead, please.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to respond by saying we agree with what you've said, that the education has to be appropriate to the first nation both academically and culturally. We are not suggesting in any way that some standard or generic type of education be imposed on first nations, that first nations need to work—

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay, but if I could interject, when you were doing the audit, were you testing or looking at the level of education of people against let's say Ontario's system of education? That's one question I was asking.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We used the levels of achievement as a comparison to the Canadian average to demonstrate that there is a problem. We did not get into specific comparisons of specific first nations to provinces, and all that. That was not the objective of the audit either.

But we do try to make the point, and I would hope it comes out in the chapter, that the department has to work with first nations and provincial authorities, where they are involved, to determine, first of all, the needs of the first nation, and to develop a curriculum that would be appropriate to address those needs as a basis. After that, of course, it becomes the issue of the funding. But it's hard to determine what the costs should be if you haven't determined up front what the educational program should be.

We still believe, though, that the department should have basic information on how much money is being spent on education in first nations, even if it's as a matter of course, just to do comparisons between first nations. There may be innovative practices that are going on that could be transferred from one to another. Also, are the needs of special-needs students and others being met? It's difficult to determine whether the funding is appropriate when you don't have the cost information.

Do you want to elaborate on that, Grant?

Mr. Grant Wilson: The only other aspect I want to add is in regard to your second question. How does one test? That's a very good question. It was in 1998 that we looked at the issue of comprehensive land claims and the implementation of those treaties. And of course Nisga'a is one of the modern treaties.

• 1635

We would expect to see indicators or mechanisms to determine how successful entering into a treaty would be, so I would expect that there would be some benchmarks and some ongoing monitoring. In 1998 we did comment that there is inadequate monitoring of implementation, but I believe the department is acting on that. So perhaps for Nisga'a we will see much better information.

A question was asked earlier about where the responsibility of the department ends with regard to education. I think the Nisga'a situation is an example. Under legislation and treaty, the Nisga'a have taken responsibility for education to develop their capacity, much like the Mi'kmaq, although more so. Mi'kmaq is not there yet because that's not a treaty.

There are mechanisms and a sort of continuum where until you get to that point or as you proceed through the changing relationship, the responsibility of the department or the responsibility of the first nation becomes greater as the authority then becomes greater. That's what I would expect to see in the long term as more and more treaties are signed, that the education needs specific to the people within that treaty area are met, because the first nations people will make sure they're met under the terms of that agreement.

The Chair: Just before we go on, I want to clarify your answer, Ms. Fraser. A direct question was asked as to whether this audit took into account any equivalency. I want to make sure that you were saying no, it wasn't; it was just based on the normal academic testing in a non-native world.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes, that's right.

The Chair: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that, because there wasn't a direct answer to it. I think Ms. Karetak-Lindell made a very valid point.

I have Mr. Konrad, Mr. Iftody, and Mr. Finlay on my list. Sometime before the end, I'll have a couple of questions of my own, but I can wait until the end. Go ahead, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

I'd just point out, as I'm sure everybody here is aware, that all immigrant students are held to the same standard as the rest of society. Consequently, that may not be all that important.

Just for anybody's information, the Nisga'a have a long way to go to catch up. A report card on schools for the year 2000 rates the Nisga'a school as 270 out of 271, with a rating of 1.4 out 10. So it will be interesting to see what the Nisga'a treaty does to improve prospects for aboriginal children.

We could go back a couple of decades and look at the reviews you've written up on the department. They're all highly critical. Have you seen any improvement, and do you see any chance of this department paying heed to the suggestions you make?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think we have to recognize that these are not easy issues to resolve and that it will take many years to resolve them. The department is concerned. The department is not disregarding these issues. There are several initiatives that have happened in the recent past, and some of them are noted here—for instance, the Mi'kmaq agreement and the Nisga'a treaty—which I think offer hope to people that many of the issues will be resolved. We would still come back and say, though, that we really think a concrete action plan needs to be developed.

I think one of the fundamental recommendations we have here is that the department has to decide what its role really is in all of this. It may even have to be on a first nation by first nation basis. Is it simply a funding organism? Does it have greater responsibilities? It needs to clarify its role vis-à-vis the first nations and other parties, such as the provincial authorities.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm sure you'd agree with me that funding shouldn't be provided without some mechanism of accountability. One should just follow the other. It's not just hand over the funds and if you don't succeed, too bad, another lost generation.

• 1640

There's responsibility to the taxpayers who provide the funding and responsibility to the students for whom the funding is being made available. The people in the middle really should be doing the job and getting the work done.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I believe we'll be coming back in a few weeks to talk about funding arrangements. I think there is room for improvement there as well. Many of these communities are very small, and they are being asked to do a lot. I look forward to discussing that as well with the committee.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think that was my first question to you: How are they going to get the job done when they don't have the ability? There's a level of expertise required to manage programs. I sure wouldn't want to get on an airplane with somebody who was not subjected to standard tests. There are reasons for them, such as to make society safer and to do a whole range of things to make our lives better. It's not just arbitrariness for its own sake. It's to make a society where after you do all your inputs, the outcomes can be known, so that we know that when a plane takes off it has been properly engineered and it's being properly flown and properly directed by air traffic controllers who know the job.

Surely in education the same is true. We're seeing the effects of leadership that just doesn't know what it's doing in the lives of the kids. It shows up in the statistics you've brought to our attention.

With regard to the Mi'kmaq education agreement, one of the concerns that was raised is that the Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey, which is the governing body, is composed entirely of the chiefs, with responsibility for a budget reaching up into the tens of millions of dollars. Don't you think it would be better to have an elected body whose job is to direct education, rather than burdening chiefs with one more responsibility? They already have responsibility for managing a reserve and to do something with justice and something with health. Wouldn't it be better to have some division of the work?

Mr. Grant Wilson: The decision as to who should be managing is of course a decision that is made between the first nations and the department. Whether as part of the Mi'kmaq education agreement the chief and council are the ones who do this collectively or individually, as they would have done in the past, I think is less the issue than performance reporting and accountability by those individuals for the success of the program, which we have commented on. In that aspect it really is, and should be, left up to the parties to decide that.

Just on a point of clarification, Madam Chair, with regard to the issue you raised earlier about the detailed comparisons, I just wanted to say that we did not go further than academic comparisons for the major reason that the department in fact uses parity as a key measure for comparability. If they use parity—that is, they expect that an Indian child who lives on a reserve would have the same grade 12 education as every other child—that is one of their standards. That's why we never looked at whether in fact there is a different kind of standard. Of course we know that there are different standards and different expectations. As Madam Fraser indicated, it is up to the department to find out what those expectations are and then to make sure that's enabled.

The Chair: Thank you.

For people who are curious, it's a quorum call. I don't know if anybody here is on House duty right now. John, maybe they need you.

On my list are Mr. Iftody and Mr. Finlay. Go ahead.

Mr. David Iftody: This is an interesting topic and perhaps a timely one.

I think most of us are painfully aware of the experiment in Canada with the education of Indian children dating back to the 1960s. Even our current national chief, who has a bachelor of education in administration, was in a residential school as a young person in Manitoba. He's been quite successful in terms of entering into post-secondary education, but was also perhaps one of those “experimental children”, if we can call them that.

• 1645

The state at the time said “Look, this isn't working, and if we want first nation children to have all the good things the rest of us are having, we need to make sure we have highly qualified teachers with strict rules and all the rest of it. Let's take the standards we have now in some of our best schools”—which were then run by churches, where many Canadians were educated—“take that model and place it in a reserve. If we do that, gosh, it has to work, because we'll be taking a successful formula and transplanting and grafting it around there, with every good intention.” Almost all of them were well-intentioned, good decent people, who were trying to do the right thing. The outcome, of course, was tragic.

The question is, why? Was it because the measurements weren't there, the accountability wasn't there, or the education standards weren't there? We had all the things we were looking for in this experiment, and it failed tragically. The question is, why? It was because of those things I spoke of earlier. If we're really looking for outcomes from the Government of Canada, the taxpayers, and so on, we want to say to the Canadian people, “We want to spend a dollar and here's what we expect”. We can't do that in a very narrow extrapolated kind of accounting practice, without looking at the whole picture, because we'll be doomed to failure.

The department could put in the most sophisticated system found anywhere in the world for aboriginal children, in terms of the tracking mechanisms we're looking for, and we could come back five years or ten years from now and say “We've largely failed. We've looked at the results and we're very unhappy with them.”

You look at the other practices on child welfare and youth justice, which are both constitutional responsibilities of the provinces, where the department engages in similar kinds of practices where general laws of application apply. Child welfare is perhaps a good example of that. We have all those measures in place that perhaps you're looking for, but that hasn't stopped the incidence of aboriginal children being taken into care of the state.

We come back to the fundamental question again of why this is happening if we have all those other measures in there now. A backward mapping in the whole logic of this, from a policy point of view, suggests to me that if we're going to do this we have to start looking at it in a much more broad-based way.

I look at your reference point in Manitoba, where the average family income is $41,000. It's difficult for me to think about that and then go to different pockets within Manitoba, where I know there's deep poverty, Indian or non-Indian, try to make a comparison, come up with a strict measurement practice, an accounting practice, and expect at the end of the day to go back to the people of Manitoba or the Canadian taxpayer and say “Here are the strict measurements we put in, the accountability practices”, and hope for a different result.

I really need to hear from you to help me with this. I was involved in doing research like this in my previous life, in addition to working in a school division for five years, where I dealt with these problems. I can't see—and I'm not making a defence of the department—that we shouldn't put in stricter measures. You've acknowledged that the department is not running away from that, but if we're really looking for a policy outcome to solve the problems, as you define them in your opening comments, I really can't see how these are going to do it.

Could you explain to the committee how we would ensure a different outcome, in terms of reading levels, level of graduation, K to six, six to twelve, post-secondary education—all the kinds of normal measurements—under your formula here?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'd like to start by reiterating that we realize this is a complex issue. There are no easy solutions to this, and the department alone is not going to resolve this. This will have to be done with first nations and other parties.

• 1650

As for performance indicators, if you try something, if you put in something and you never measure if it gives any effects, how do you know if it works or not? Performance indicators in and of themselves are not a solution, but they will indicate whether things are getting better, whether they're staying the same, or if they're getting worse. In a complex area like this, there will probably have to be several indicators that will have to be tracked, social indicators as well as simply academic ones.

The department needs to track how it's performing. As we've noted in here, there have been numerous studies and initiatives to which the department has not even responded as to whether they accept them, reject them, or if they think they're worthwhile. We truly believe there has to be a plan to improve the situation. One of the ways to see whether the initiatives in that plan are working is by tracking performance, using whatever performance indicators the department, in conjunction with first nations, feels are appropriate.

I don't know if that totally responds to your question.

Mr. David Iftody: I think you could be helped in terms of your analysis. I know nothing about the internal capacity within your own department in terms of who evaluates this, how you do it, etc. I guess I have a lot of difficulty using baseline data from national standards, national averages, and so on to try to extrapolate from a first nations population. I think that's going to cause some problems. I can't see how you can mix that. You have to use a different methodology.

The second comment I would make is in terms of looking at those kinds of measures. Take, for example, other functions within the department. Child welfare and youth justice are some of the services that are delivered, along with policing and so on and so forth.

In terms of coming up with an appropriate measurement, I agree with what you say. If you don't ask for a measurement, you can't start anywhere. But before you define that measurement from a conceptual point of view, I think it's really important to look more broadly and to prepare your own protocol of reference that more realistically reflects the reality of the sample you're trying to draw, and then extrapolate from that to reach your conclusions.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I would agree totally with the comments, except to say that we are auditing this. We are not establishing the performance indicators. We would expect the department to do that. The performance indicators they have are national standards and very summary.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before I go to Mr. Konrad, you referred to a chart where you stated numbers with respect to the schooling and the ratings. I was wondering if that's something you'd want to table and share with the rest of the committee.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You could probably get it off the Internet if you wanted to.

The Chair: But you have it here, so if you gave it to our clerk, it would be copied and turned around.

We'll go to Mr. Konrad and then Mr. Finlay, then I'm going to try to do some of the questioning, and then we'll go back to Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Madam Chair, I would allow you to take your turn if you wanted to.

The Chair: Oh, thank you very much. Actually, it does follow some of the themes Mr. Iftody was following.

I've talked to a number of first nations, and one of the things they strongly say to me is that if our children had to leave home when they hit secondary school as their children had to leave home.... They don't want to. They want to stay with their families. Having a good road into where we live so we can get supplies in and educate in our own locale with people living with their families.... That contributes more to the dropout rate than many other things.

I noticed you had one paragraph in this report that talked about distance. It seems to jump dramatically once you hit post-secondary education. You didn't give any stats on that or any back-up. How prevalent is that? I'm hearing it a lot anecdotally, but when you were doing your numbers, how many thousands of kids is this affecting in Canada?

• 1655

Ms. Sheila Fraser: In the report we have an indication of the number of high schools on reserves. We'll get some more information too.

Mr. Grant Wilson: At this point in time there are 295 elementary schools and 170 secondary schools, for 465 in total.

The issue we raised on page 4-14 is one that we would agree does create problems. You may have to leave the reserve when you go to secondary school, which can be quite disruptive. In our view, that's one of the causes of the gap, either academically or culturally. Certainly the schools on reserves have tended to spend more time and effort on ensuring culturally appropriate education than necessarily the provincial schools. We gave an example where, only recently, one province had just introduced the Indian language instruction and native studies curriculum, which was long overdue. So there is a problem in that general area.

The Chair: Will it also go to post-secondary education? Again, I'm being told that we have more students who have gotten to that level who are qualified and want to go on and yet sometimes there are not sufficient funds within a group at any one time. How does that operate? Did you test for that?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: We did not look at post-secondary education in this audit. It's scheduled for a future audit.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Grant Wilson: I would just add that we've also heard that there are problems. There's something in the order of $365 million provided to post-secondary education, and that money is provided from the department to first nations. The first nations themselves decide which of the students will be funded. There have obviously been questions of adequacy of funding in this area, as there have been with most of the programs that Indian Affairs administers or manages or funds.

The Chair: Okay.

I did want you to elaborate for me. In your opening comments, in number 8, “Audit Findings,” you say:

We found, Madam Chair, that the department is undertaking several initiatives to help achieve its objective for education.

I'd like to know exactly what those initiatives were.

Mr. Grant Wilson: Which paragraph are you at?

The Chair: It's number 8 on page 2 of your notes to us. I didn't see that anywhere else.

Mr. Grant Wilson: These initiatives are the ones we've identified as part of the gathering strength exercise. We indicated in our chapter that all of these are in progress. In our view, there needs to be some reconciliation between the initiatives identified under gathering strength and how those particular initiatives will address the points we've raised here. That should not be difficult, except to the extent that there has to be some means to determine when the results will be achieved, what the timing of the completion of the initiatives will be, and so on. So those are the kinds of initiatives that we recognize are in fact being carried out by the department.

The Chair: I'll just note that I think Mr. Konrad's comments about having the department here and addressing them on these issues are fair comments. The only thing is that around this room right now, if we get sufficient quorum, we can take votes. I would think that inviting the department would be something this committee might want to look at. Having sat in a PS position at one point, I know there is often an answer to your side. We're really hearing one viewpoint and often the department can elaborate on other areas.

I can see that we'll have some time and I want to tell the committee members who are here today that we have scheduled a meeting for the Wednesday that we come back. That is a confirmed meeting with the AFN. We are also trying to get one in on the Tuesday, but that's not yet confirmed by our clerk—just so you know for your own scheduling.

• 1700

Mr. Konrad, please go ahead.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That issue of post-secondary education is one I'd like to follow up. I know this isn't the topic of your study, but many aboriginal children and young people are funded by their bands to attend post-secondary education—funds made available, I suspect, by taxation, and from revenue and other places where the bands have interest. It goes all the way up to the National Ballet School in Toronto. This is not something that's available to the ordinary population. Why do you suppose it's necessary for first nations young people?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: As I mentioned before, we haven't specifically looked at post-secondary education, but I will hazard a guess that in provincial departments of education there are often grants and loan programs for students that students living on reserves would probably not be eligible for.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So we would be looking at some type of parity between kids who are from aboriginal homes, the reserves, and the others?

Mr. Grant Wilson: There is one other aspect, and that is the view of the department and of first nations that this is a treaty right established by treaty—the provision of education, which would include such things as post-secondary education. Now, this is at this point in time a policy decision of the department, and the department through approval of Parliament provides this money for this purpose. That's why it's provided.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So it's a policy decision taken by Parliament, not necessarily by treaty. But that's something that would have to be battled out in court if it were to be clarified.

Mr. Grant Wilson: There is an interpretation that there is a treaty obligation, but that obviously is one that is open to interpretation.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So then going back to what you said, Ms. Fraser, it may not be that there are equivalent programs for non-aboriginal kids, that what we are seeing here is a possibility of a treaty obligation that's been deemed to be there by an interpretation of treaties.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: It could be, yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. I think that's all for now.

The Chair: Okay. “It could be” is not a very definitive answer, so could you clarify your answer?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I would say yes, or it could be both as well. There could be a combination of treaty obligations as well as parity in funding.

Mr. David Iftody: I have a point of order on that question.

I think there are a number of Supreme Court, appeal court, and lower court decisions that make reference to this as a general treaty obligation available to first nations children.

I would go back to my first comments about the residential schools. It was the viewpoint conclusively, and actually expressively saying so in some of the treaties, that education, clothing, and these kinds of basic things for children would be provided in the treaties. Hence the residential school system. So I don't want any information here to be miscued about this. It has clearly been established, I think irrefutably, by successive court decisions that this is a constitutional section 35 obligation of the Government of Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I would like to respond just by asking if we could have a list of the court decisions that uphold that, please? Just a list of them—I don't want a whole pile of paper, but I would like the decisions you referred to.

The Chair: Perhaps I can ask our researchers to investigate that. We have committee researchers on staff to us. Then if there's a problem on getting that, she can let me know and maybe we'll take it further to the department at that time. Is that acceptable to you? This is what we have people here for.

Go ahead, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have just a couple of quick questions, please, to fill in my ignorance.

I mentioned this before. A small number attend eight schools operated by the department. Are these experimental? Are they because of distance and small numbers, or are they special schools? What are they?

• 1705

Ms. Sheila Fraser: There are eight residential schools run by the department. I believe there are 1,700 students, and they are in Ontario, I believe.

Grant, can we give more...?

Mr. Grant Wilson: Yes, they're a Six Nations reserve in Brantford.

Mr. John Finlay: They are run by the department?

Mr. Grant Wilson: They're run by the department. The teachers are departmental staff. These are the last remaining departmentally operated schools in Canada.

Mr. John Finlay: Did you say they were residential?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: No, no, I'm sorry. They're not residential.

Mr. Grant Wilson: No. They happen to be on the reserve, and they are operated by the department.

Mr. John Finlay: I've had teachers under my jurisdiction who went there for a year or two, and someone else came out on exchange.

Okay, but they are not residential schools.

Mr. Grant Wilson: No.

Mr. John Finlay: I think I'm concerned a little bit, as was the parliamentary secretary—and I'm going over to page 3—when on item 13, I asked you about the 20 years, and you answered that. You say in the second-last sentence: “Moreover, it is questionable whether the education received by Indian students meets their cultural needs”. I can understand making that statement, but I'd like to know what you saw or on what basis you make that statement.

Mr. Grant Wilson: Madam Chair, this is based on quite a number of studies. First of all, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples clearly sets out the concerns of the first nations on education and the cultural aspects not being met. The Ontario royal commission discussed the issues of not meeting cultural needs, as well as Mi'kmaq deliberations and others. As we referred to in the chapter references to the studies that were carried out in one region, 22 studies over 20 years had been carried out with little action. One of the issues was the need to increase special education, improve governance, address aboriginal languages, and so on.

This is not something we went out and surveyed first nations to find out, whether their cultural needs were being met. Rather, it's widely available information on the views of first nations on whether or not they felt their cultural needs were being met, language and otherwise.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you. That helps greatly.

It seems to me that conclusion is a qualitative conclusion that has very little to do with the first part of chapter 13. But that may just be my old English teacher coming out again.

When you're thinking one way and you throw something in that immediately shifts direction by about 180 degrees, or at least 90 degrees, then I want to know how you make the statement that in your view this picture reflects a Canadian tragedy. I think you're right, but the tragedy started a long, long time ago, and we're just getting around to dealing with it in the last, I submit, 15 or 20 years, really. I'm sure we're on the right track.

The only other question I had was at the top of page 4—and we've gone over this and explained it very well. It says:

However, it has not developed indicators of performance and of results to demonstrate accountability and to provide assurance that it is achieving its objective.

I find the singular there probably means the department. I don't think the department can possibly do that job without them, the first nations and other aboriginal peoples. So I don't think it's the department's responsibility entirely, and I don't think it can provide that assurance. I think we need to have, as you said earlier, some of the aims and some of the objectives laid out and agreed to. Then we can go from there, and maybe provide an education system that's going to do the job for the first nations.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1710

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Konrad, do you have further questions at this time?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No. I just have a comment that arises from page 4-9 of your report—“Observations and Recommendations: Fundamental Issues That Require Attention”. It's headlined, “Meaningful action is lacking”. You talk about studies being made over twenty years. It seems to me that we lost an entire generation while we studied the problem. I hope we can soon get to the end of that and get on with giving people a real life.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, did you wish to say anything further at this stage?

Mr. Finlay, anything further?

Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody: I would like the Auditor General's department to consider a formula for evaluating members of Parliament as to whether the taxpayers are getting a good bang for their buck and how we would measure that. We're only tested once every four years. I think that's far too long, by any standard. It may be an interesting thing for you to come up with so that we could have measurement indicators about what a good MP is and how we could convey that to the public.

Like you folks, sometimes I'm not quite sure we're getting our bang for our buck. That might be something, Ms. Fraser, you may want to bring back to Mr. Desautels. I think we really need to discuss that one.

The Chair: I don't think you have to answer that, Ms. Fraser.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Your choice is there.

Ms. Sheila Fraser: I just might like to comment that I think you do have a very rigorous evaluation. Though it may be once every four years, it is a very rigorous one.

Mr. David Iftody: But wouldn't you agree that there are no performance indicators in there at all? What's a good performance indicator of a good member of Parliament?

Ms. Sheila Fraser: Oh, I think the population judges that pretty effectively.

Mr. David Iftody: Oh, I see.

The Chair: On that note, I will say thank you very much for appearing today, and my apologies for not being here at the beginning of your presentation. I have a longstanding conflict, unfortunately.

I thank the committee members for their input, as always.

Before we see the AFN, our researcher, Mary Hurley, has sent me something saying that she took a look at the AFN site, at the accountability project and some of the things we were talking about. I've asked Tonina, our other researcher, to pass on the message to send that around. You way wish, next week on the break, to give your office a heads-up for this, because you might want it before the Wednesday meeting.

Thanks very much. We'll see you again.

The meeting is adjourned.