[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 24, 1995
.1010 
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Our witness today is Chief Blaine C. Favel, of the Office of Education, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
Welcome, Chief Favel.
We invite you to make your presentation to the subcommittee on aboriginal education.
We have 50 minutes left, so preferably use 20 minutes for your presentation, and half an hour for questions. If 20 minutes isn't enough time, you will be able to integrate the balance of your report within your answers.
Chief Blaine C. Favel (Office of Education, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): What if 20 minutes is too much time?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Well, then you will have more time for questions, and we prefer that.
The floor is yours.
Chief Favel: Thank you.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Could you, for the record, introduce your colleague?
Chief Favel: This is my director of education, Kevin Tootoosis, with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Chief Favel: Well, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to make a presentation this morning, on the critical issue of Indian education.
The organization I represent is called the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. It represents 73 first nations in the province of Saskatchewan, reflecting approximately 85,000 to 90,000 first nation citizens.
I think two of your members from Saskatchewan will be well aware of the organization and have worked with it quite cooperatively in the past.
Next year the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary as an alliance of different nations: the Saulteaux, the Cree, the Dakota, and the Dene.
The FSIN when it was first pulled together as an organization had the primary focus of being the advocate for...what was then, and is still perceived to be, a lack of commitment by the government of Canada on fulfilling treaty obligations and treaty rights of the treaty first nations of that province.
We are celebrating our 50th year in a spirit of renewal. We are renewing the organization, but are also focusing on identifying those areas we need to move forward on, particularly those commitments made by our people in the treaties, which spoke to the schoolhouse and the need to have first nations people have equal access and equal opportunity and equal levels of success in the field of education. We are also reaffirming the statement of treaty in 1972 with the policy paper of the National Indian Brotherhood, ``Indian Control of Indian Education''.
Our present education structure has the chiefs coming together in a legislative assembly five to six times a year, for a multi-day period, where the different laws of the first nations of Saskatchewan are addressed to the framework laws, including our Education Act.
Servicing or sort of fueling the legislative assembly are our chiefs' commissions. The education commission, which I am responsible for, represents all the tribal councils within the province. It is highly rigorous and highly structured.
All the tribal councils - for example, the Prince Albert Grand Council, the North Battleford Tribal Council, the Yorkton Tribal Council, and a vast number of other tribal councils - are represented on this education commission.
The education commission is the policy arm of the legislative assembly, with representative chiefs sitting on that commission much like your committee is organized here today, representing a broad cross-section of the province, and putting forward issues relating to policy, particularly in the area of education.
The education commission and the chiefs' legislative assembly also has a number of institutions of which we are quite proud. Canada's only Indian university, the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, operates in conjunction with the University of Regina. It also has a campus in Saskatoon, where this summer I participated with one of your members in announcing the expansion to the city of Prince Albert, which will be our second satellite and the third office of the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College.
We also have a technical institution called the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies, which serves as a training ground for developing technical skills and trades in the areas of mechanics, carpentry, and the general trades that one would pick up at a trade school.
The curriculum of the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College itself focuses on business administration, teacher education, social work, human justice - areas that our chiefs have determined are priority curriculum areas for the development of first nations governments and first nations citizens.
.1015
Just a bit of background to the federation. The federation is identified and recognized as probably the most highly structured, highly organized, and most effective Indian organization in Canada.
As we look to the issues relating to education, we see a number of deficiencies. I think it's incumbent upon this committee to work cooperatively with first nations people to try to redress and correct some of these inequities.
My presentation will focus upon two primary issues, the first being treaty rights for first nations people and, the second being the areas of jurisdiction and some general commentary.
In the area of treaty rights, the position that our people have taken and will continue to take is that the treaty right to education includes elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. If you look at the records of treaty, the commitment that the representatives of the Government of Canada made to our people was that education would be available in perpetuity for first nations people at a standard equal to the standard being experienced by non-aboriginal people, non-first nations people at the time.
If one is to take this century-old commitment into the modern context, it would mean funding for our schools all the way through to post-secondary education. But in talking about funding for the schools, it's not talking about funding for the mere existence of a school. I think the commitment of our elders and the expectation they had when they signed a treaty was not equal opportunity but equal opportunity for success and achievement.
At present, the condition we find ourselves in, particularly in Saskatchewan with the type of funding we get to our schools, is that we are able to keep our schools functional but many of the opportunities we receive are not comparable with the opportunities available to provincial schools. We are essentially, to a large extent, being programmed to have mediocre results and programmed to have not the large degree of successes we would like to experience.
That said, much work is going on to increase our own standards but it makes it difficult when we deal with issues of funding that our schools are funded on a per capita basis less than provincial schools - that's an historical fact - and that the opportunities our students have are fewer than the opportunities provided to non-first nations people.
When we speak of the treaty right to education at the post-secondary level, we are talking again not about the ability to go to school but the ability to succeed while in school. This is the critical issue.
I believe education - it's almost rhetorical because we hear so much about it with politicians spouting off time and time again - is the key to the future. This is something that our people have long believed in but, all rhetoric aside, it's the truth. It's going to be the difference between whether we become self-sustaining, whether we have the technical capacity to rebuild our societies, or whether the statu quo remains.
In the area of post-secondary education, we are not happy. We are very concerned by the lack of fulfilment by the Liberal Party not to follow through with its commitment on the uncapping of post-secondary funding. The promise in the red book was that this right would be recognized and that post-secondary funding would be uncapped.
This is a concern to us. We believe that if people wish to be elected and put forward a platform for election, they should try to follow through on their promises. To not do so, I think, results in the cynicism of the general population. This is something that I appeal to the Liberal members who sit on this committee to follow through on. It's very important for our people.
As we speak presently, the impact of - I believe it's called the green paper - the social security reform paper that is going forward on the whole area of post-secondary education is going to be tremendous. I think there are statistics in the package that we presented to you that for Saskatchewan at present we have approximately 3,000 university students going to the university in post-secondary institutions and that with the impact of the green paper on Saskatchewan, our analysts indicate that the cost of tuition will rise 160%.
.1020
This means in the area of 900 first nations students presently going to school will no longer be in school if the tuition increases are imposed on our peoples without a corresponding increase in the amount of funding our students receive, and unless our first nations governments have the capacity to send our students to school. This also greatly concerns us.
The last subject I want to talk about is jurisdiction. Hopefully this committee can do something about this concern. When we speak about the inherent right of self-government, jurisdiction is one of the issues we're also concerned about as it impacts on the sphere of education.
The status quo for our first nations-run schools is that we are operating under the sphere of provincial jurisdiction in Saskatchewan. The Government of Saskatchewan's Education Act and its authorities apply to Indian lands. We believe this is in violation of the jurisdiction we have reserved for ourselves under treaty, and further, that it results, at a very practical level, in some very unusual circumstances.
I'll provide one illustration. Yesterday I had the opportunity to be in the Kawacatoose First Nation in south-central Saskatchewan. The English translation for that is ``the poor man's reserve''. I had a chance to visit the chief of that community and his education committee.
This community has been implored by its elders to ensure that the Cree language, which is part of the society, continues to survive and that this language is taught to the children so it does not disappear or die, because this is in part the language of our religion, our culture, and our spirituality. The community has begun a very interesting piece of work; it has taken on the challenge of attempting to develop its own curriculum.
They have completed curricula for grades 9 to 12. They are now working on curricula for grades 1 to 3 and for the mid-years of grades 4 to 8. In establishing their curricula for grades 9 to 12 - this is what I found quite unusual - a great deal of effort was spent. There are approximately 120 lesson plans per grade for grades 9 to 12. In doing this work they went to their elders and hired curriculum researchers to put forward this curriculum development for their language, because preserving their language, as I've indicated, is their primary concern.
When it came down to teaching the Cree language to students in their school, the chief in council learned, much to their concern, that the curriculum could not be sanctioned. They could not teach it in their school. It would be dead time for their students, for which no credits would arise unless they went to the provincial minister of education, a lady by the name of Pat Atkinson, who would sanction the Cree language curriculum as part of the approved curriculum of the Government of Saskatchewan.
It was a very ironic situation. This community had to go to the provincial minister of education to seek authority to teach its own language - a language centuries old - to its own students in its own education system, which is on reserve.
I simply point this out as an illustration of where the whole issue of jurisdiction has to be tackled. The Government of Canada cannot stand by passively saying these are responsibilities not of the Government of Canada but of the Government of Saskatchewan. This is a fallacy. This is a self-serving position of the government and of INAC. It's a long-standing policy of INAC.
As we look towards renewing education, if there is to be true renewal, if there is to be a change from what we have now, we have to build on successes. It is not fair for me to come here and denounce the government and be critical without also acknowledging that we have had successes in the area of education.
Our successes have not been so much due to the willingness of the Government of Canada to make sure we have successes as to the determination of our leadership to ensure those successes by making sure the commitments our people have received from your government and your peoples - commitments that relate to treaty and that go to the issues of good faith, honesty, and following through on your promises - are fulfilled when it comes to the treaty right to education.
.1025
Working together in partnership to ensure that we build on the successes we presently have is the only way to go in the future. We do have successes now, but I believe we have a great deal more work to do because the levels of suicide remain the same; the levels of solvent abuse are increasing in many communities. So although we have an increase in the number of post-secondary students, we also must continue to work to improve the circumstances we presently function within.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I'd like to leave my comments at that. I think I've taken up a large part of your time, but I believe in the summary of my presentation I've tried to illustrate the need to focus on fulfilling the commitments of the Government of Canada that come to the treaty right to education.
Many people say the treaties are irrelevant, the treaties are not something we should deal with in 1995, and let's deal with reality.
As I pointed out to one of my good friends from the Reform Party, whom I met while I was at the justice standing committee, non-Indian people have treaty rights too, particularly in western Canada. He stepped back astounded and said he didn't, that he was not a first nations person. I asked what constituency he represented. He said he represented one of the ridings in Edmonton. I said, well, the city of Edmonton is located on lands that were shared under Treaty No. 6 and told him that he was occupying those lands only because of treaties, so therefore he had treaty rights too.
Treaties are a two-way street. Your people have taken the advantage of them; your people have benefited from them; your people have thrived under them. But our people have not. Our people struggle to make sure this government fulfils the commitments they've made, and we will continue to do so. But in fulfilling these commitments to equal access and equal opportuntiy to education, a lot of it will go to naught, and a lot of it will not be as useful as it could be, unless the whole issue of jurisdiction is also tackled.
There is a two-pronged approach here. It must maintain a two-pronged approach, and this is the position we tabled before the committee today. Thank you very much.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Thank you. I will not invite your colleague to make a presentation because you used up the 20 minutes. He is invited to respond to questions, and that will be a way of getting his 2¢ worth in. We'll do two rounds of five minutes, and we'll keep three minutes for Mr. Taylor at the end.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Favel. I know that the whole issue of treaties is quite a complicated one. I had an opportunity to meet with people covered by Treaty no. 7. If I understood you correctly, Saskatchewan comes under Treaty no. 6. Is that correct?
[English]
Chief Favel: It's under five different treaties.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Five different treaties? Are they all numbered?
[English]
Chief Favel: Yes, they are.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I know this is a complicated area. In Quebec, we have the James Bay Agreement, with which I'm sure you're familiar. I would certainly like to discuss the complicated issues of treaty modernization and interpretation with you, as well as the question of negotiations on self government. However, since I have very little time, I will simply ask you some very specific questions, which were in fact prepared by the Library of Parliament Research Service.
.1030
The notes we were given refer to summer science camps. Could you tell us more about them? In our travels across Canada, we learned from our discussions that science was not very important to young aboriginal students. Could you tell us about these summer science camps, how they operate and the impact they have in encouraging young aboriginals to take more of an interest in science?
In addition, Ms Atkinson, the Minister of Education, said in her speech that the dropout rate among young aboriginal and Métis in the province was 90%. I find that very high. Could you tell us what the dropout rate is in aboriginal schools and in provincial government schools?
[English]
Chief Favel: Thank you. I'll answer your first question first. I'll answer them in the same order as you presented them to me.
With respect to the summer science camp, I pulled out my bag here, which is part of our promotional bag for the summer camp science, and if you'll notice, on the bag we have a number of corporate sponsors, corporate partners in putting forward the summer science camps. A lot of the crown corporations, a lot of the large corporate donors and corporate sponsors in the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, particularly the crown corporations, have been very supportive of the summer science camp.
The purpose of the summer science camp has been to increase the degree of information and to increase the degree of enthusiasm and involvement that our primary and secondary students have in the whole science field. There has been a disparity and a lack of involvement in the sciences, the medicines, the engineering academic fields. So the purpose of the summer science camp is, first, to make them more familiar and involved with the sciences in the hope that this enthusiasm they generate over the multi-week summer program is carried over into their school year and is acted upon when they attempt to enter university. This is the purpose of the summer science camp.
I'll turn it over very quickly to Kevin Tootoosis, who will touch very quickly on the whole process. He's responsible for coordinating it.
Mr. Kevin Tootoosis (Director of Education, Office of Education, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): Thank you. The summer science camps are but one method of addressing the need to increase the number of first nation students in science, math, and health-based professions. We do have a strategic plan that we've submitted to many of the members already, particularly from Saskatchewan, making them aware of the need to work on a number of different areas to increase the number of students in these professions.
The science camp, of course, is but one small part of it. It runs only in the summer. There has been a need to follow up on the program, and we've been actively seeking funding from many different sources to have a full-time coordinator so that we can continue the momentum of the camp, so that we can continue this throughout the schools where the students attend, so that it can be part of the curriculum. There have also been discussions involving putting some of the program, once developed, onto the SchoolNet.
One other comment from one of the questions you asked was in regard to drop-out rates. It's very difficult to determine what exactly the drop-out rate is, because it really depends on your statistical source, whether it's Stats Canada, INAC, or whatever.
.1035
A community where I taught before, the Onion Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan, is a good example. We looked at students in grade one and looked at them again in grade 12, and out of a class of approximately 20 kids, two were at their regular grade level. They were graduating on time. That gives you a good example of how the system is working. As Chief Favel indicated, we're operating with a provincial curriculum within our communities.
Along the way, many of those students dropped out. Many of those students were one, two, or three years behind. That's what I wanted to say on that.
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): Thank you for coming.
I don't quite have my head around a couple of things here. You stated that the opportunities are not the same in the aboriginal schools as in the provincial non-aboriginal schools. Also, when you spoke of treaty rights in relation to elementary, secondary, and post-secondary, post-secondary was separated by not requiring funding for the ability to go to school but by the ability to succeed in school. I believe that is what was stated.
One of the things confusing me is that when we look at the education system we keep coming back to the social aspect of things such as housing, counselling, individual expenses and things that are necessary to survive, but don't necessarily relate to the actual education or academic component of it.
Is there a correlation between the requests or comments we're hearing in relation to the housing and other kinds of social needs and this definition of the ability to succeed? I don't quite understand what is involved in creating the ability to succeed. The first thing that comes to mind is individual counselling, but we're talking about more than that, aren't we?
Chief Favel: I think we are talking about more than that. We're talking about more than bricks and mortar for the buildings. I think we're talking more about the sense of making education a priority from within our own communities.
As Kevin indicated, there's a difference between having a school and allowing the kids to go to school and making sure those kids finish school and have opportunities. I don't think the statistic he used as an illustration is exclusive. I don't think it's just for Onion Lake. I think it's a statistic that is shared across many communities.
Whether a student succeeds or doesn't succeed turns on a number of other variables. It turns upon the health and well-being of the community as a first nations community, and how far it is along its path of healing and renewal. I think those are critical factors, but when it comes back to the whole area of education it speaks to issues that are very important to us - involving curriculum, for example.
We need to prepare our students to go to post-secondary institutions, either our own institutions such as SIFC or other institutions such as those I attended outside the province. Success has to be geared for success and the only way to do that is to ensure that the children are properly grounded in the basics of education and that education is made relevant for them. This goes back to my illustration about the Kawacatoose First Nation. Having a school and having it funded inadequately is the first problem, but it's compounded by the fact that much of the curriculum is completely irrelevant to the students. It goes to the issue of jurisdiction and the capacity and ability to define our own curriculum. Those opportunities are not there to establish your our curriculum and have it sanctioned as part of the educational process. They have to go to the provincial minister of education.
That is one case where they're attempting to make their culture alive and relevant in the classroom. They are trying to make education interesting and ground the students in first nations education, culture and language, as well as in the basics of education, so that they can succeed at a higher level.
.1040
I think this is the whole point of what we're trying to do in the area of education. I think the answer quite often is inadequate resourcing, but also that all of the tools we need to have available to us are not available to us, particularly in the area of jurisdiction.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I think most of the comments we've heard and the material I've had a chance to look at from what you handed out deal with Indian education on reserve, or does it address strictly your own communities? What improvements can be made towards integrating your peoples into the general educational stream of the province, for instance? Do you have any comments?
Chief Favel: Can you be more specific?
Mr. DeVillers: Are there any problems in the first nations people attending non-Indian institutions? Do you have any concerns or comments? Is that a problem area for you?
Chief Favel: I think the position we would take is jurisdiction. I don't exactly know the point of your question.
Mr. DeVillers: I just want to know if there are any problems in this occurring, or do you think it's necessary for it to occur? Would you prefer that it not occur?
Chief Favel: I think we'd all prefer that it not occur, but there are things such as racism in the system that you deal with. I don't know exactly...you're being very general.
Mr. DeVillers: No, I'm asking the question, would you prefer your educational system to be run by your first nations for the first nations as separate institutions or do you see a role for your people going into the existing provincial institutions?
Chief Favel: I think the whole purpose is for it to be a separate system. I think that's the jurisdictional scope we have, and that it's the jurisdictional scope we need to work on. I think at some point there has to be a connectedness. I think a lot of deliberate misinformation that occurs when it comes to the inherent right of self-government is about how we would like to design our own systems, but we recognize as pragmatic people that there's no point educating our children in Greek if they're going to go school in French or if they're going to go to school in English. Chemistry is chemistry; biology is biology. If they're going to succeed as engineers they have to know the basics of math and sciences.
That said, we need to be able to define the relationship that we have with the curriculum as equals, not as clients, not as subordinates, but as equal levels of government defining our own curriculum, determining what will work, what we need to program our children for. I think this is part of the concern that we have. People ask, why do you want a separate system? Isn't it going to lead to disarray and confusion and lack of connectedness? My answer is, give your head a shake there, ladies and gentlemen, because we're not attempting to program and to take over our institutions for failure. We're attempting to program them to succeed. And you can't program them to succeed if you're teaching something that they're not going to make use of when they get to university.
I think we're talking about separateness, but at some point there has to be a degree of connectedness worked in interrelationship with the mainstream education system. But this should not be as it is now, which is that we are presently in a position of a lack of equality, a lack of ability to sit down with the ministers of education, federally and provincially, and say this is what we would like to do in your curriculum development; this is what we would like to do in the area of standards; this is what we'd like to do in your teacher accreditation for our communities. We would like to perhaps have higher standards when it comes to non-aboriginal teachers teaching in our communities to make them more culturally sensitive. These are the types of things that we're talking about when we're talking about establishing our own system.
That said, once a system is established, once our own standards are defined by ourselves, there will have to be a connectedness, because if my daughter wants to be an engineer, I can't program her not to succeed.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): One thing we never hear about is the responsibility of parents and communities. I know in my community - and I was a school trustee for nine years - it was made very clear in public, the responsibility is the parents' responsibility. With all the presentations we've had, no one has addressed the responsibility and the commitment of parents and the communities.
Is it only the government's fault if it's not going well now? Is it only because there's not enough money?
.1045
I think we need to get something in the report to address that.
I'll give you an extra minute. I'll steal it from our next five, I guess.
Chief Favel: Will you give me an extra minute to tell you what you want to hear?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): If we're going to compare your systems to provincial systems -
Chief Favel: I don't think the fact that you've not heard about it means that it doesn't exist. I think that seems to be what you're saying, and I disagree with you entirely.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Don't put words in my mouth. I want to get something on record.
Chief Favel: I'm just letting you know how I feel.
The point is, I don't think there's a lack of parental support. There is a lack of parental involvement in education, but the reality is that, when you're dealing with a cycle of despair, poverty, and lack of hope, it's tough sometimes in some of these communities to have some of the education as focused as it should be. This is given the fact that there's unemployment. Also, on many occasions, the opportunities that are available to non-aboriginals in the workforce are not available to Indian people because of racism in Saskatchewan. It's just a fact. It's a reality, and we'll keep on saying it.
However, I think it would be the opposite. Leadership has been so adamant about ensuring that the treaty right to education is guaranteed and protected because of the communities, governments, and people themselves.
The focus of Indian society is to take care of the next generation. That's always been our teaching. It is a teaching that I have received. It is the teaching that the leadership I serve has received.
That is why education is such a priority for us. I believe education has been a focus because of that. It's not by happenstance that the first united, national public policy put together by the National Indian Brotherhood was in the area of education. That's because Indian people believe that education is the cornerstone. All rhetoric aside, this is just a reality.
The statements, as I perhaps improperly interpreted them, are such that you are saying Indian people aren't as committed to it, and therefore it's not all the government's fault.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): I'm not saying that. I'll correct you right now. I'm not saying that.
Chief Favel: Good.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): I said I want something on record that addresses the position of parents. You're doing it very well.
Chief Favel: That's always been the position of parents. The positions of parents are expressed by the positions of leadership.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): We need to get that on record. That's what I did.
Chief Favel: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: It seems clear to me that the treaties were almost never respected and that on the government side, there's often an attempt to interpret them in a restrictive manner, whereas on your side, you're trying to interpret them in a somewhat broader manner, which is perfectly normal. Nevertheless, I'm wondering where the solution lies: should we be modernizing these treaties through self-government agreements, for example, agreements under which education and health could come under the jurisdiction of certain nations?
The subcommittee is examining a specific problem which is education, but we also realize that this affects a number of things. Treaties are not being respected. Wouldn't one solution be for the First Nations to open negotiations in order to modernize these treaties? Unless you've done so already and the government turned a deaf ear, it seems to me that the solution would be to modernize those treaties in order to update their interpretation and ensure that education, for example, is taken over by First Nations while, of course, respecting the specific character of each nation.
So my question is as follows: Is the solution to the problem to simply respect old treaties or to try to modernize them?
[English]
Chief Favel: Thank you, sir. I'll try to respond to your question as best as I can.
.1050
The position we have taken quite consistently has been that the treaties be honoured within their spirit and intent. This is an important concept and one in which we're talking about interpreting the treaties and their spirit and intent. We're not talking about reopening them, modernizing them, or renegotiating them. That fact must be made quite clear at the outset.
We are and have been adamant for many years that the treaties be the basis of our relationship with the Government of Canada. But the Government of Canada would choose not to have the treaties as the underpinning for our relationship. This is something we would like to see changed and to see movement on.
To answer your question as I interpret it, you are asking me if it would not be better to try to modernize the treaty and resolve some of these issues through negotiating self-government agreements over education. The answer is partly yes and partly no.
In its true context we would hold that the treaties have commitments with respect to the scope of the right of education - the scope, the content. But the fact we did not cede or surrender this jurisdiction to the Government of Canada, particularly the Government of Saskatchewan, means we retain it for ourselves. The problem has been having the other governments recognize the scope of this authority.
You asked whether it would not be better to have the self-government negotiations cover the field of education. Given its present circumstances, I would advise my leadership no. Among the conditions the Department of Indian Affairs places upon us, when we go into self-government agreements, is that these self-government agreements are always couched in the language of ``without prejudice to treaties''. Every agreement we sign, be it a contribution agreement document at the band level or a protocol at the higher national and regional levels, is always without prejudice to treaties when it comes to inherent right of self-government. This is the exact opposite of what we're talking about.
The concern we would have, particularly when it comes to the inherent right of self-government over education, is that it is too restrictive. It restricts our authority to only on-reserve under the present policy and it restricts our ability to negotiate full jurisdiction over education, based on the present instruments for determining nominal roles, which is how our schools are funded.
Essentially, if you're asking me whether the answer is to negotiate self-government over education, the answer is yes, but the parameters now are too restrictive and I don't believe this should be pursued over and above the treaty relationship.
In Saskatchewan we're doing two things. We are presently putting forward in discussions with the Government of Canada the renewal of the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, which has been fully functional for the past five years. The mandate of the treaty commissioner is to look at treaty grievances and try to resolve them in a contemporary understanding. He's not talking about opening, renewing, or renegotiating the treaties. It's simply building on the understandings that previously existed.
It is very important to make a distinction between treaties and the self-government over education right now given the current policy climate. If the policy climate were not so hostile to the scope of the educational right, then we would be prepared to discuss it.
I am concerned about the position the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs have taken, not necessarily the politicians in large cases because they're advised by the bureaucrats. They are being advised by their legal counsel not to enter into any agreements that may give any scope or substance to the treaty right to education. This goes against the very underpinnings of the fiduciary obligations Canada has to Indian people. We're often caught in this dilemma.
Ms Bridgman: When you mentioned two separate education systems, are we actually talking about two separate systems or are we talking more about perhaps decentralizing the existing systems so there's more flexibility at the local level, which would obviously provide different sorts of processes, etc.?
I'm thinking of an overall national standard where we all do our own thing in our areas but ultimately work towards the achievement of a national standard. That doesn't necessarily imply two systems, it implies a number of systems at the hands-on level.
.1055
Chief Favel: This goes back to the question the honourable member asked me, but our position has been that we are talking about two separate systems. On the issue of jurisdictional integrity we are talking about two separate systems, but the reality is that at a certain point they have to connect in order for it to be successful at the higher end. In particular they should connect on the curriculum issues and the accreditation issues.
Ms Bridgman: Okay.
Chief Favel: I'm not saying there should be a totally divorced reality with two separate systems that don't relate to each other. They have to relate to each other when it comes to the standards that our high school graduates have and the curriculum they've had to take in order to achieve those standards. There has to be similarity and balance.
Ms Bridgman: Thank you.
Mr. DeVillers: I want to leave some time for Mr. Taylor, because I know he has expertise in this area.
I want a clarification. Graduates from your system - are there problems integrating them? I think you said that there's only one Indian university in Canada. In terms of higher education, are there problems integrating students from your system into the general system?
Chief Favel: I think there are problems, but I think we can build on the relationship we have by recognizing the authority of Indian governments to make educational decisions for themselves. I think we would have more successes if we could have a higher retention rate. One of the reasons we have low retention rates is that even in the on-reserve schools, a lot of the curriculum is irrelevant to the students. So we're concerned about defining our own curriculum, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels, and making school relevant, interesting, and culturally appropriate. At the same time we must give them the three ``Rs'' so that they can succeed in university.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Chief Favel, welcome to the committee. It is a pleasure to see you here today.
You and I had the opportunity, a couple of weeks ago, to tour the Pelican Lake school on opening day. The cultural room at the Pelican Lake first nation was very impressive to me, as I believe it was to you.
It's a major achievement for that band. They struggled for 18 years to bring the school onto first nations land, and now they've integrated a cultural room into the school.
However, this is the first step in another struggle, and this is what I want you to elaborate on. The cost of providing that cultural element, language element, and motivation for young students within that environment are different from the cost of non-aboriginal students attending a provincial school. Using the example of the Pelican Lake school that I'm so familiar with, can you elaborate on why these programs, so important to successfully educating youth, are more expensive?
Chief Favel: I don't know if they are more expensive. The schools do a lot for our communities in terms of teaching about our traditional feasts, the spirituality, the language, the culture, and the traditions.
By way of example, I'll return to my previous illustration about the Kawacatoose First Nation and their efforts relating to curriculum. If Pelican Lake wanted to develop its own curriculum to teach its own language in its schools, it would cost them.... According to yesterday's estimate from the Kawacatoose chief, to date it has cost them over $100,000 to develop this curriculum. It has been a multi-year process where they've had to beg, borrow, and steal from other programs in order to get this important work done.
As to curriculum, Indian Affairs - Indian Affairs is the problem in a lot of these cases - doesn't identify curriculum as a priority. For the province of Saskatchewan, every year $100,000 is set aside for curriculum development work. I think it could easily be 10 times that if curriculum development is to be successful in making school relevant. The big shortfall has been in this area of curriculum development and making schools relevant and sensitive to Indians.
.1100
For example, this week the dean of the college of education at U of S referenced a textbook that is found in many non-Indian schools and in many Indian schools. There was a protest by aboriginal students that it was a racist book. The book is on many schools' shelves. He said ``Well, it's just used as an illustration of racism and therefore we must keep it on there.'' This is the stupidity we encounter.
To answer your question, Mr. Taylor, work has to be done in the area of curriculum and in the area of making schools relevant and appropriate for the communities.
Mr. Taylor: I have one last short question.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): We have no more time.
I will allow you one minute for closing remarks.
Chief Favel: I'll give my one minute to Mr. Taylor.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): No, I'll chair the meeting. Do you need a minute for closing remarks?
Chief Favel: I guess not, if you're not going to let me have any.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bonin): Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.