Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 5 - Evidence, February 11, 2003
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 11, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:02 a.m. to study issues affecting urban Aboriginal youth in Canada and, in particular, to examine access, provision and delivery of services; policy and jurisdictional issues; employment and education; access to economic opportunities; youth participation and empowerment; and other related matters.
[English]
Senator Thelma J. Chalifoux (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Good morning and thank you for appearing before the committee today, Mr. Bell. This is an important study and action plan for change. We are listening to the Aboriginal agencies to learn about the gaps that they see in their organizations that hinder them in their work with Aboriginal people.
The movement of Aboriginals into the cities is significant and is becoming more so as time goes by. Over 50 per cent of our people live in the urban centres. We are talking about a migration of people within Canada, and yet there are no social services for them as they move in. That is why this study is so important — not only to give ammunition to the agencies to help them in their negotiations for project funding, but also to assist government in addressing the serious issues facing our people. Mr. Bell, because you are so prominent and have worked so hard throughout the years for the betterment of Aboriginals, I think your words will be important to this committee and to this study — this action plan for change. Welcome to our committee.
Mr. John Kim Bell, Founder and President, National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation: Good morning and thank you for inviting me. Over the last 20 years, I have given some thought to some of these issues through the building of our organization, the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. It is a complex issue, in that no singular remedy will create a structural change in the negative statistics affecting Aboriginal people. If you will bear with me, I have prepared an overview of inter-related issues that may contribute to the amelioration of the social maladies facing Aboriginal people. Initially, I will work backwards on this overview.
What is our purpose in talking about the well-being of urban Aboriginal youth? When we look at the issue, some people say it is relevant to better health and to reducing poverty. Yes, this is true. We need to achieve these goals, but to me, they are partial goals. At the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, we ask these questions: Why are we giving scholarships? Why are we holding our career fair series, Blueprint for the Future? Why do we produce the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards? The obvious answer, to me, is that individuals need to be inspired, to have information about the world around them and to have access to opportunities to help fulfill those aspirations. These are partial goals.
The overarching goal is to enable individuals to achieve his their full potential and, in doing so, express themselves in such a manner that they are employed and able to benefit themselves, their families, their communities and this country. We need to begin to structurally address the ability of Aboriginal people to make a contribution, rather than the perceived notion that we may be a liability. In short, I believe that family nurturing and education lead to employment, which in turn leads to better health, less poverty and crime, more emotional and mental stability and better families. When these young people grow up and have families of their own, their children have a better chance of success.
It is a simple notion, but it is one that eludes us as an Aboriginal society and as a country. First, the role of government for Canadians: When we look at the broad context, we feel that the two major entitlements are health care and Aboriginal services. There are other entitlements, of course, such as pensions and other services. Somehow, the role for Aboriginal people is slightly different, and that is the beginning of the analysis. Second, Aboriginal society has been altered, by design. I hate to use the word ``traditional'' because it has lost its context, but we have been altered from our original design — our modus operandi — for social interaction within and without our own communities. Until we break this cycle of thinking and the current government policy, we will not progress as a people. I believe that the effort has to take place on both sides. There must be a meeting of the minds, to create a sense of making progress, from the Aboriginal community and from the outside world, including the government.
In respect of Aboriginal services, many of them are reactive rather than proactive, in that we react to suicide and to other problems rather than envision and build what the future should be for Aboriginals. The old saying, ``if you build it, they will come,'' is true. When we started the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards 10 years ago, everyone said that we would have three major obstacles: One, your people are not ready for this and they do not support each other on any single effort. The Metis are different from the First Nations and from the Inuit. They do not agree on anything. Second, corporate Canada would not provide support because it does not support Aboriginal projects. Third, they wondered what network would be crazy enough to televise a special about Aboriginal people in this country. It just would not happen, they said, but I knew it could.
I knew it was only a matter of time, of hard work and of effort. This year, we will celebrate our 10-year anniversary and the United Nations will attend to commend the effort as one of the single most successful efforts in the indigenous world that they will recognize throughout the decade. I believe that envisioning and building the future in the way that we imagine it should be, to be proactive rather than reactive, is more beneficial.
At the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, we identify the issues. We have fashioned our three working programs to meet the youth issues. We currently award about $2 million in scholarships per year.
What is notable about it, even though it is not a large amount of money, is that half the support comes from corporate Canada. We have worked for 18 years to build an interest in corporate Canada in providing educational support.
This support goes beyond the providing of cash. It is a matter of connecting to a community that provides the majority of employment for Canadians. It is a matter of building understanding, partnerships and a long-term relationship between the parties, which then provide extenuating benefits to the Aboriginal community.
Our scholarships are different from treaty entitlements. In some ways they are stronger. If you receive a scholarship from the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, it is because you have earned it. Often, we ask students to take a loan, or to work, so we actually negotiate with them. The scholarships are bestowed by an independent jury of educators, people working in industry, and on a case-by-case basis. Often, students will provide half the tuition or half the living costs; it is a matter of self-determination and self-help.
Concerning our career fairs, Blueprint for the Future, I am surprised we do not have more of these in this country. Globalization has created increasing competition in the workforce; everything is now driven far more by technology than ever before. When you drive into a parking lot, there is no longer a person there. Instead, there is a machine into which you put a credit card. As a result, the job no longer involves a person who can take your money and give you change, but a person who builds or maintains the machine.
Everything is driven by technology. In television production — I am a television producer of the achievement awards — we have a job called ``Dyaxis editor,'' which is a digital sound editor for film and television. It pays about $100,000 per year; yet how would an Aboriginal youth — or any youth for that matter — even know that job exists? How would they know to pursue it when they do not know what it is?
Yes, we know what a bank teller or a car salesman is. Every young native person in a remote community knows what a bush pilot is, but do they know what an air traffic controller is? They do not, because they do not see it; the jobs are highly technical and no one is bringing in the information in a practical way.
We held a career fair through Blueprint for the Future last week in Vancouver — we brought in 2,000 high school students and had 100 corporate presentations. One was to present information on what is a Dyaxis editor. Where do you go to school for that? How much money do you make? What is the lifestyle like? It provided the practical information that so many young people require.
The National Aboriginal Achievement Awards are more than a television show. The event is a cultural institution — a connecting fabric between one generation and a future one. It is an illustration that, amid the mass media reports of constant negative stories, there are Aboriginal people who are succeeding in all walks of life; and that our potential equals that of any other community, given the same opportunity.
The achievement award is connecting the Aboriginal community to the broader Canadian community. It is providing role models; it is battling stereotypes and racism; and it is creating unity in a body of people who need it at this point in their history.
Taken together, the three programs introduce young people to potential careers of which they probably are not aware and provide them with scholarship information, contained in the small red brochure in front of you. We then help them fulfil their aspirations. Of course, the achievement awards provide inspiration as well; we ask the recipients to come and speak to the young people at the career fairs to give them a tangible, one-on-one experience in relationships.
Our activities are interrelated and there is a logic to them. We talk about ``the circle'' in the Aboriginal community. This is the circle of the accomplished Aboriginal people who come to participate and inspire the young people and provide them with practical information. The scholarships help complete the circle. There is something very culturally appropriate about the way we designed our programs.
I read the AFN's submission to you, but I was disappointed by it because it contained no singular idea at all. I noted that the AFN created a youth council but claim that they could not get the funding for it. Well, 50 per cent of everything we raise comes from the private sector, and I can tell you it is not easy. However, raising that money has inflicted — and I use the word ``inflicted'' carefully — a discipline on our organization. We have to deliver tangible goods, and we have to meet goals on a budget and on time.
As Aboriginal people, we do have legitimate entitlements, but the idea of entitlement has also, in some cases, destroyed our incentives. When the AFN creates a youth council but says they cannot operate it because they cannot get the funding, to me that is not an excuse. My question is, why does the leadership not go to the private sector and say, ``Support our youth council activities.'' It is a matter of writing letters and making phone calls; it is a matter of effort. I do not understand why now, when corporations are far more concerned with recognizing our rights and are far more interested in the well-being of Aboriginal people than ever before, they are not going to build that program.
I find it is necessary in our society that there should be tangible goals in place by March 31 of every year. However, because there are not — because band councils do not have to produce widgets by March 31, or be measured in terms of profits or the quality of something — we lack the kind of discipline that you see in the private sector, and which would contribute to our progress.
Most federal programs reflect our egalitarian sensibilities as a country and they are wonderful, but sometimes they skim the surface of the issues. I would like to cite these programs, not as a criticism, but simply as an illustration. Canadian Heritage has a multi-purpose Aboriginal youth program aimed at the urban environment. We studied it, interviewing the people who dispense the money and questioning departmental officials. We outlined that in our report called ``Taking Pulse,'' when we held a national consultation to ask the same questions that you are asking. Ours was related more to Aboriginal youth in general, not just urban youth. We found that the most helpful way to use the money seemed to be through a tutoring program.
The money, as you may know, is dispensed through the friendship centres. It is not a lot. It is $12 million to $20 million per year divided among 130 or 140 friendship centres. There is no specified use for the money — every place uses it in a different way — but it seemed that the most helpful one was a tutoring program. Perhaps that should be looked at.
After 19 years of working in the community, my overall feeling is that Aboriginal people lack a connection to the various systems of broader society. There is not enough access to opportunity, development or understanding outside of the Aboriginal world. I do not mean just location; I mean things that every youth needs to be introduced to at an early age — architecture, math, science, music, literature, dance and philosophy. We do not seem to be doing that. We have narrow parameters of operation, and I believe that limits us as our youth progress through life.
Also, the other broad system that I am talking about is that we seem to have very little relevant connection to business and industry. I am talking about the kind of economic necessity that defines a healthy nation. Aboriginal leaders think of corporations as evil polluters; we as Aboriginal people are very holy when it comes to the environment. Of course, the reality is that we pollute proportionally as much as anyone. No one that I know in the Aboriginal community wants to give up paper products, electricity or cars. I believe the solution is a world issue, one that we will have to find together, but we have used it to dismiss corporate Canada as evil.
The social consensus on how traditional Aboriginal units operate is in direct conflict with capitalism, and that is also a negative factor. The one thing we have to remind ourselves of is that traditional cultures have always changed and continue to change. Culture is always dynamic, always in flux. No culture remains static. The only constant is change.
When I look at the history of our people, although we no longer hunt buffalo, we still have a little of that mentality. However, the reality is we do not. Society has changed around us and we have suffered from cultural lag. That has been quite purposeful. We were never intended to participate in the economy.
Therefore, our goal needs to be sustainable economic development, and we need to get over the view that corporate Canada is entirely evil. Often, Aboriginal leaders want endless amounts of money from government as treaty entitlements — and we do have treaty entitlements — but they do not often make the connection that the money comes from business, industries and the wealth creators of this nation that are necessary to provide the tax dollars for the treaty entitlements. We do not seem to get back to that absolute source of the cash. The simplistic notion of entitlement is passé, and not because we do not have entitlements. Legally we do, but these entitlements and government programs will never solve the problem on their own. There is never enough money for health care, for education, for broader society, and simply saying money is the answer is not the answer. We do need money for programs, but I believe that we need fundamental change as Aboriginal people.
As an example, Aboriginal leaders say that the current $330 million for training programs is not sufficient. When you break it down into who gets what, it becomes very small amounts of money going to very sparse areas. It does not cover the whole country.
However, imagine if the private sector matched every dollar of that $330 million, which is how we operate at the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. Every public dollar is matched by a private dollar. We have to work harder for that, and everybody is constantly scrutinizing what we do. It increases the discipline, and we have to deliver a product.
In the eighteen years of our operation, we have raised more money every year, we have given out more money every year in scholarships, and we have never had a loss or deficit. We have developed private support to an all-time high in this country for any Aboriginal issue. It is a matter of hard work. Imagine if the $330 million, which seems to be insufficient, was matched by private dollars to become $660 million.
The question is why that is not happening, given that the majority of employment for Canadians resides in the private sector. Obviously, there are two reasons: The government needs to do more to encourage the private sector to participate, and Aboriginal people need to do more to curry favour and to see the well-being that it would provide in the future growth and development of the Aboriginal community.
Partnerships do exist, especially where there are resources to extract from Aboriginal land, but that is not the only thinking that should exist. Recently, I gained the support of Mr. Frank Dottori, President of Tembec, one of the pulp and paper giants in Canada. On the question of how to improve the situation, he was the only corporate president to agree that perhaps government might consider imposing a two per cent payroll tax on corporations. If they spent one per cent of payroll to train disadvantaged people — not just Aboriginal people, but people in a certain socio-economic tax bracket, or single mothers, or a particular characterization or definition that extends beyond Aboriginal people — it would in turn exempt the corporations from a two per cent tax. The incentive would be real, and they would agree.
Very few corporate presidents would agree that this is a good idea because nobody wants to be taxed, and taxation is being flattened in democracies in light of globalization. However, there are still a huge number of tax incentives of all kinds for Canadians, and it is a quite viable measure if we want to change the structure of the country in the Aboriginal community. That is a partial suggestion.
Another problem in our community is the Aboriginal view, mostly from the leadership, that higher education is elitist. Mr. Coon Come recently wrote me a letter in which he said he feels that higher education is elitist. I believe that that is a facile view, based on artifice. I feel that way because, in the 1950s, one could find a well-paying job with a high school diploma. That was the reality then. Now, 50 or 60 years later, higher education is mandatory in order to achieve well-being in a career. We have a dramatic shortage of Aboriginal doctors in Aboriginal communities, and, of course, a doctor's training of five to seven years is considered elitist. Therefore, do we want the doctors or not? Do we say that doctors are elitist, and therefore we should not have them? I bet every Aboriginal community would say it wished it had an Aboriginal doctor. That is the reality.
Every chief carries a cell phone. Today you can call anywhere in the world with the GPS technology. However, saying that our people should build them, sell them and economically benefit from that is elitist. The chiefs have no problem using a cell phone, but to achieve the higher education necessary to build it and reap the exponential benefit from that is elitist. That is a facile and false view that we have to get over.
I want to briefly examine traditional societies to support my contention that when we lived in the harsh environment of this country — as witnessed by today's weather — hunters had highly refined skills, and those who developed agrarian societies had to develop specialized expertise in planting a variety of crops. Feathers on a war bonnet were awarded for achievements in war and hunting or acts of bravery. You were commended for being the best you could be, and your survival depended on it. Therefore, our traditional societies were very much composed of high achievers. You had to be one in the rugged environment. We have lost that notion. Now high achievement is elitist, and that is a false view. Our history supports the view that we had to be achievers and specialists and had to have refined agrarian expertise. Therefore, dismissing higher education as elitist is the first misperception.
One problem is that the goals of education for Aboriginal people seem to be different from the goals for other Canadians. I believe that the strategic goals that Aboriginal leaders want lie in the restoring and fortifying of identity and culture, with little priority given to academic or specific skills achievement. That is understandable because much of our culture was taken away from us. Speaking your own language was outlawed, and so the reaction has been a backlash and a huge effort to restore culture. There is nothing wrong with that because studies show that the outcomes for students are better when they feel grounded in their culture. When they have a connection to and pride in it, studies show that they do better.
However, we are ignoring the issues of standards and real skills. That is exacerbated by the lack of parenting skills, a key factor in the positive development of any child. The parents do not seem to be able to support and nurture the children. That has to be taken into consideration, and it is a cycle that we must break. We also need to have standards and goals. In our ``Taking Pulse'' report, when we asked Aboriginal teachers and educators, they said that the standards have been lowered. The community said the standards have been lowered. When a child graduates with a grade 12 diploma, he or she can only read or write at grade-8 level, and that is the reality. We deny it, but that is the reality.
Moreover, we have no connections to the systems of industry and business in our education system. This country faces a skilled labour shortage. The goal of education in a liberal society is to establish and create a healthy, well- rounded individual. That is the stated purpose of education in a liberal democracy. Business will say that is wonderful, except we now have a shortage of skilled labour. There must be a greater connection in education to industry-specific curricula, which we suggest in the report is one of the three major outcomes for the community and structural change in the country.
In the last 20 years, I note that the official 70 per cent drop-out figure in secondary school has not changed at all. It is still 70 per cent.
This is a sad commentary. I had suggested that perhaps there could be a special incentive grant to Aboriginal communities — not that this would ever happen. I simply would like to give you a sense of what I think. If a community could reduce their 70 per cent drop-out rate to 30 per cent, they would be eligible for an infrastructure grant or an economic development grant. That would put pressure on the entire community and would raise their sense of responsibility. The teachers, the parents and everyone else would want the new cultural centre or the new hockey rink, et cetera. Everyone would pressure everyone else to keep the kids in school.
Additionally, it is not just to keep the kids in school, but also to ensure that when they graduate from grade 12, they can, in fact, read and write and have the necessary skills to progress. It would create a positive pressure in the sense of a heightened responsibility that currently does not exist.
Millions of dollars are being spent on secondary education for Aboriginal people. Look at this analysis: 70 per cent of the young people drop out of school. That means that two-thirds of our population are illiterate — they do not have basic reading skills. That means that as a business proposition, it is a failure, because two of every three students drop out even though we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars.
We then create training programs to the tune of $300 million to do what the education millions did not do. The answer is to fix the problem in the education millions being spent so that young people will progress to higher education.
I have nothing against the training dollars. The truth of the matter is that if you are a 30-year-old with a lack of basic literacy, you need the training that the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy, or AHRDS, money is providing. Although that training leads to short-term, seasonal or entry-level jobs in fewer disciplines and sectors of the economy, it is helpful because two-thirds of the population need this kind of training. The bottom line, though, is that it is not the answer to structural change for Aboriginal people. It is not the answer to poverty. In a world that is increasingly competitive and more sophisticated, with much more technology, becoming a hairdresser is a short-term solution. Everyone needs a hairdresser, but the point is that it is not the true answer to change. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in one area and it is not working; so we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in another area. That kind of training will not provide a grade-12 literacy level.
This training, although we call it ``human resources development,'' is not linking to the private sector. We interviewed over 100 corporations for our ``Taking Pulse'' report who said they never heard of the AHRDS. No one ever called them because there is no incentive to do so. The kind of training that the people are receiving does not qualify them, and therefore, supply does not meet demand. The supply of the Aboriginal population is not meeting the demand of the private sector. There is a ``disconnect,'' which is a fundamental problem.
The money is political: It is what the leaders want and that is what they get. It does help Aboriginals to a certain extent, but I believe that 20 years from now, we will need a different formula and a different strategy. The goal is to fix the education system. Once people move on to higher education, they will be fine when they graduate.
Why do we need to do this? We all know that our population is doubling and that if we do not do this, the cost for health care, welfare and the judicial system will exponentially increase. It is either pay now or pay later. It would be better if we could build the future proactively rather than wait for another tragedy such as that which occurred in Davis Inlet and then spend $100 million to move the residents a matter of 20 blocks. The move is nice, but it will not work either. That is the reality.
We need to raise the standards in our community. I wish every young person would have to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, British parliamentarian, soldier and superb author. However, that is not on our agenda in the Aboriginal community. We need to go beyond our cultural identity. Everyone will hear what I said in a different way. They will say that I do not think cultural identity is important, but it is fundamentally important. I believe the community is addressing that, but we are lacking the skills in math, science and business. That is where we must focus our efforts.
Much research has already been undertaken. A great deal of research exists on the issues that you are studying, but the real problem is that the leadership in our community does not seem to want to make the fundamental change. For example, we know that, statistically, parents are not nurturing the children. Parents and other adults suffer from high levels of dysfunction and other social problems and are not in an emotional position to nurture young people. That is a reality. What are the Aboriginal leaders doing about this? Is this a new problem? Have we not known about this for 20 or 30 years?
That area requires fundamental change. It is true that government cannot do this for us; we have to do it for ourselves. We have to pull up our own socks. Someone has to come forward and say, ``The parents are not nurturing the children, and these are your children. You have to make it happen.'' We are not doing that and our leadership is not doing that either. I believe that, instead of blaming the government all the time, and although we need money for programs, we need to lay the responsibility at the feet of each community.
There are too many communities for you to have an impact upon. We have to create a different sensibility — one of proactive pride — whereby we lay the responsibility at our own feet. We have a high drop-out rate, and so we have to do something about it rather than deny that it exists. The first step to fixing a problem is to recognize that there is a one. We must admit to the problem and talk about it openly, without negative connotations and criticism, so that we are able to envision building the future in a more positive way.
Recently, departmental officials from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, were talking with one of the treaty groups out West and they broached the subject of the 70 per cent drop-out rate. The technical people in one of these treaty associations replied that there was no problem at all with education. If the department wanted to do something about it, it should simply give them more money. That is not the answer. There was a denial that there is a 70 per cent drop-out rate. That is the reality and we have to admit it.
Why is the role of the private sector mandatory? I have already stated the answer: because they hold the key to wealth, jobs, technology and know-how, and because they are the major employer of Canadians. If we do not access them in a meaningful way, then when the population doubles, there will not be enough jobs in the social service sector. There will not be enough jobs, just as there are not enough jobs now, in band councils to administer a doubling population. Where does the employment reside? It resides in the private sector.
The status quo is such that I believe our current position is untenable, and we probably all recognize this. When we planned ``Taking Pulse,'' our national consultation on employment, we had to begin with education and youth, and all the connecting factors such as nurturing, to see how increased employment could be achieved.
We embraced four tenets in moving forward. First, we consider that, if the majority of employment for Canadians resides in the private sector, then the private sector must play a role in our development process because they have the know-how and the wealth and hold the reins of power.
Second, we cannot divorce education from employment. Third, the unemployment problem is so great that federal and provincial governments, corporations, educators and Aboriginal leaders must sit down together to reach a substantive outcome that will achieve results. In short, we need a balanced view that takes into consideration the views of all of the stakeholders. That is what we endeavour to do with ``Taking Pulse.'' When we went across the country, we asked federal and provincial officials, educators — who were never invited to an Aboriginal meeting — Aboriginal youth and leaders, and corporate leaders to sit down in a room and ask, ``How can we fix this problem?'' I still believe that you cannot have a community determining their own future in isolation, without looking at all the factors and having a balanced view.
Fourth, we recognize the need to identity the real barriers — the problematic issues that everyone knows about but will not discuss because of the potential embarrassment of one or more of the partners. We have to get over that and identify the real problems so that we can move forward to resolve them.
Speaking the truth is often difficult, but in this era, it is necessary.
While our focus is Aboriginal people, the political focus remains on land claims, treaty rights and self-government. We are continuing to lose a generation, with the 70 per cent drop-out rate, to social dysfunction and poverty.
It is important to recognize that in today's world, there are no longer local, regional or national standards. With globalization, and as the world grows smaller, there is only one international standard. That is the reality. We need to recognize that and embrace it.
When completing ``Taking Pulse,'' which was a provocative undertaking, one Aboriginal leader expressed the view that our report did not address tribal differences with respect to private sector employers. I believe that tribal differences is a minor issue, if one at all.
In this era of increased international trade and instant global communication and competition, employers are more tolerant and respectful of diversity than ever before. A person who dresses differently, eats different foods or even has different holidays is supported and respected in today's workforce. The real issue is skills. It has always been skills. Of course there is discrimination, but the real meat on the bones is that one must have the skills as a prerequisite for entering the workforce. Once you have that, the others can no longer remain an artificial barrier. We have to fight our way in.
Employers are more respectful of differences today because of globalization. When you go into a major corporation, you will see people of every ethnic background. They do dress differently. They take different days off. There is a greater respect. Skills is the issue.
If we do not accept this challenge, we will have, as I already stated, dramatic costs to pay in the future. We will simply have more people suffering from greater dysfunction and poverty.
We had interesting outcomes in our ``Taking Pulse'' report. I would like to point out some tangible ideas for you.
There is a program in the United States with the working title of ``Don't Leave Anyone Behind,'' or some variation of that. I would be happy to send the committee the legislation on it.
It is it federal legislation and it is not just for Aboriginal people, but tribal leaders in the States have embraced this program. Money is provided for young people to take courses before the age of five. They go to preschool to increase their ability to communicate. They learn to write before they go to school, and they start learning basic math and social interaction skills. Money is also provided to parents who need to upgrade their education, and the parents work with the children.
The grant is twofold. It is to the child for preschool, and to the parent as well. They are in school together, taking different things. The tribal leaders have endorsed it.
As you know, we enacted the Aboriginal Head Start Program. It too took us 30 years in Canada to decide it was a good thing. The U.S. enacted it in 1965. Here is another good thing, and perhaps we should move a little faster on it.
After completing the ``Taking Pulse'' exercise across the country, we talked about a sectoral urban-based school system. You will note yesterday in The Globe and Mail that John Richards, who was one of the members of our committee, talked about this. Mr. Richards assumed that we arrived at that conclusion because he arrived at that conclusion. We actually arrived at that conclusion without ever knowing about him or his work.
We thought it might be beneficial, given all of the concepts that we have put forward to day, to have a sectoral high school system that would be run with a similar structure to that of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which is a billion-dollar organization with an overarching board of directors. They have separate institutes — one for kidney, cancer, heart, lung, and so on. There is an Aboriginal Health Institute on which I sit as an adviser.
As we describe in our report, there would be a national board of directors composed of Aboriginal leaders, educators and corporate leaders. This already exists here in Ottawa. I am not inventing something new here. This exists in the Francophone school system in Ottawa.
The province has a basic core requirement. You must have a certain level of math, reading, and so on. In addition to that, there would be five or six extra courses offered at a particular high school related to one specific industry.
Since the 1950s, you have all heard of high schools of performing arts, where kids who have a particular artistic talent go. They are still taking math, science, and so on, but they are offered specific training in the interest or talent that they have, which results in a better outcome.
I am talking about a high school of performing arts, but in the industries. For example, you would have the one in forestry in Vancouver and the one in oil and gas industries in Alberta. The one in medicine and health would be akin to the University of Alberta because that institution has a very advanced and progressive Aboriginal health program, and the University of Alberta are leaders in heart surgery and research. I would put the one on transportation in Winnipeg because of CN, or in Montreal. I would put the one on manufacturing in Ontario and the one on information technology either in Ottawa or in Mississauga or in Toronto.
Given the labour shortage and the need for specialized skills, four or five courses would be offered that would be developed by the industries themselves, working with educators and Aboriginal people. The information would be put into a context of Aboriginal language and culture.
The private sector industry partners would help pay for the school. Parents would be on the board of directors as well.
Young people would be introduced to greater technology and more specialized skills. Whether your talent and interest is in medicine or in manufacturing, you will have a better outcome and receive more information.
I was a musician. My years of musical study before I went to university greatly aided me in working on Broadway when I was 18 years old. It was a rare for a person that young, but I had had specialized training as a child in an area of interest that I had. It is a matter of nurturing that interest.
Every young person has a different interest. In the native community, often the interest is suppressed. If you have ambition, you are criticized instead of being encouraged.
However, in an urban centre such as Toronto, for example, you would find a sense of community because there would be many other Aboriginal children. You would have the cultural connection. You could have Aboriginal language in the school. You could have someone teaching the history of certain Aboriginal nations. You would also learn about technology related to oil and gas, or there would be increased biology courses for those interested in medicine and different sciences.
I think that this approach is practical. In the Francophone school system in Ottawa, a student who wants to take five extra courses in information technology can go across town to a school that offers it. The model is already established, and I have already cited the high schools of performing arts.
This approach would provide a cultural cohesion in an urban environment. The friendship centre is fine, but what do you get there? You get some services, and it is a wonderful thing. In particular, it was a wonderful thing 40 years ago, but these schools would be houses for transmission of culture. They also need to be houses for transmission of standards, pride, and specific and refined education.
There should be a sectoral high school system where industry helps to pay for part of the cost and helps to design the curriculum. Industry is working with the Aboriginal community.
The great thing about out ``Taking Pulse'' was having government, corporate leaders, educators and Aboriginal leaders sitting at the table. It was hard for any group to abdicate because you were in the service of something greater. You are in the discussion of concepts and ideas. It is hard for someone to say, ``Well, I do not want to take part in this.'' It is a fortuitous discussion that results in benefits and positive direction.
As a follow-up to our report we are also looking at an Aboriginal youth corps. In the 1990s, we had a stay-in-school program. It was successful, but it is not what we need now. We need a back-to-school program. If 70 per cent of kids are dropping out, we should have something that gives them an incentive to go back to school, such as courses on building pride and self-esteem. We need to give them some opportunities. Perhaps there should co-op work placements, after which kids go to a back-to-school program.
Another way of characterizing that is a youth corps. We need an Aboriginal youth corps where you get kids used to the reality of the adult world at a younger age.
We are working on concepts of that now. We have continued our process of having corporate and Aboriginal leaders and expert youth workers in the Aboriginal community discuss this. This is part of our follow-up to the ``Taking Pulse'' exercise. We want to see what has worked in the past and what elements can be stitched together to make some progress.
We need a more vigorous connection to corporate Canada. Our organization has developed the greatest corps of corporate support in the history of this country on Aboriginal issues. The interest is soft, but it is there far more than it ever has been. Given that a focused effort to organize it took place, they could do a lot more for us, and would, given the current environment in our country. However, there is a vigorous, focused effort now.
I will leave you with the thought that it is an issue of self-determination. Again, no amount of government money will change this problem until we as a people decide that we want to change and that we want to make progress. We cannot remain in a state of denial. We must admit that there is a 70 per cent drop-out rate and that parents are not nurturing their kids — and that is unfortunate.
We do not need to cast blame, but to ask, ``What can we do to solve it?'' Until we do that, it will not work.
I started the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. I had worked on Broadway. During the first award year, someone at the CBC, of which I am now a proud board member, said, ``John, you are a nice young man. We will produce the show for you, because what do you know about television?''
We had produced a ballet at a cost of $1 million called ``In the Land of Spirits.'' It was the first full-scale native dance production. I believe it was in 1998. People at the CBC said, ``John, we know you know how to put on a big stage show, but what do you know about a television show? We will produce it for you.''
The public broadcaster's view of what a television show should be was quite different from what you see now. The show that you see now is far more ambitious. It is on a greater scale.
In the first year, the CBC wondered what the design of the stage should be. What do Indians recognize? They recognize a teepee, so we had a quasi-teepee. After the show, all the people in the East called me and said, ``How stereotypical to have a teepee.'' The Cree and the Plains groups thought that it was appropriate.
I realized that our set designer was British and knew nothing about Aboriginal art and culture. I began to take over as a producer. I had much to learn technically, but each year we took a little more responsibility for the production.
Also, the public broadcaster would say, ``Here is how much money you can have, and that is the way it is.'' I said, ``No, we will go out and get private sponsorship for it.'' We built the private sponsorship. Now the show is bigger. It has greater impact. The designs are more culturally relevant, and we have trained and hired more Aboriginal people than the CBC — I love them, of course — would ever have hired. If you watch the show this year, you will see five or six camera people with whom we are taking a chance because they do not have the experience that the more seasoned camera people have. However, leadership is giving them the experience.
The CBC would not give them the experience, but on our show we have to give them the experience. We will need to rehearse a little harder. Everyone's skill level will rise through the experience.
The show has become driven more by Aboriginal people. It has become more ambitious. It has a greater viewing audience. It looks better. We are telling our stories about our people and are hiring more of our people to do it.
That is the kind of self-determination about which I am talking. The problem with that kind of self-determination is that it is hard work. When I call a native organization at 4:30, they are gone. When you call the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards Foundation at 8 o'clock at night, we are there. We are there on Sundays. Students, accustomed to our always being there, become angry with us if they call to ask for a scholarship application and no one is there. This is the kind of self-determination that we must begin to foster in our community.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That was very insightful, interesting and timely.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you for that excellent presentation, Mr. Bell. It was very insightful, as the chair has pointed out. Obviously you have really worked and put much thought into this.
The area that concerns me, being a Metis, is the lack of nurturing by the parents. You can have all the training programs in the world, but every giant journey begins with that single step.
You talked about working on the nurturing area and the preschool courses with the children and the parents. The Metis and Aboriginal peoples are coming from the rural areas and the reserves. That is where the problem lies. Your suggestion for the preschool courses would work in the urban areas, but it must take place before that. If it does not take place in Slave Lake or wherever, it is too late and you lose another generation. That is why we are losing the generations.
I was born in Manitoba; I represent British Columbia. I see vast differences among our Aboriginal peoples. As you go from the East to the West, you still see what you described as the ``buffalo mentality.'' The suffering from the cultural lag is greater as you move westward, especially into the Prairie provinces, where the natives with whom I am most familiar live because I grew up with them. I do not know how we get to that group.
You left out the spiritual aspect. Aboriginal people have had a very spiritual lifestyle. Their corporate leaders were buffalo hunters. They had a spiritual aspect to them. The spiritual aspect created pride and real strength in their communities as they sought the headbands that you described.
Do you want to elaborate on this? I found your presentation interesting, but the spiritual aspect is critical from my perspective. It may be not from yours.
Mr. Bell: Spiritual matters are a personal choice. We are largely assimilated. There are more Aboriginal people who believe in Jesus Christ today than their traditional religions. We must remember that Aboriginal people are not homogenous. Often we are taken to be homogeneous. Half of Canadians were for the Charlottetown accord and half were against it. The same was true of Meech Lake and free trade. Aboriginal people are no different.
Mr. Bell: If you say that we should have sectoral schools, some will say that is assimilation, and some will say that is a good thing. One-half will be for it and one-half will be against it. Spiritual matters are personal. There is a strong spiritual connection, and I presume that, in the fashioning of a sectoral school system, it would be taken into consideration. When I talk about putting everything in a cultural context, I am not ignoring it. It is a fundamental part of everyday life and it does not have to be legislated.
Despite this great spiritual connection, we declared war and killed one another other for decades. I would draw that to your attention as well. The way in which we have our spiritual connection is perhaps different from other cultures, but I am not dismissing it at all. I am saying that the issues are skills, denial, looking at the statistics and moving forward. Yet, we must do so in a spiritual way.
Also, in respect of the various regions of the country, no single program is the answer. I have experienced at numerous Aboriginal meetings over the years that no one can talk about anything and agree on anything. We may say that we should have chocolate cake, but we cannot decide that until we take care of the elders or until we look at health care or until we look at housing. No decision can be made until we look at every single issue. Every Aboriginal meeting is the same. Thus, we never have chocolate cake.
Our approach at the foundation is to take an integrated, holistic approach. Keep in mind that you will not solve all of these problems. The leadership, the AFN, for example, will say that we cannot talk about that until the land claims are settled. Thus, we will continue to lose generation after generation. At my advanced age, it is not tenable. Some land claims will be settled, but we will never receive the money that is due to us. Let us continue that effort, but at the same time, let us move ahead on some fundamental things.
Any one program will not reach everyone and will not serve everyone's needs. That does not mean we should not put the program in place. I was once lamenting about what our organization should do to make a difference. Some people told me to quit worrying about it because whatever positive thing I could do would help. That is the way I see it.
The other thing I did not talk about, and it is not necessarily a plug for my organization, is a concept — one of the other great malaises that we have in this country is this: Every nation has arm's-length cultural institutions. It is difficult for the leadership to go to the parents, when effecting social change, and tell them that they are not doing a good job as parents because that leadership will not be re-elected. Canada has the Canada Council, a body at arms- length from the political will that is driven by critical expertise and the freedom of expression. Those are the two tenets of the Canada Council. How far is it at arm's-length? That is beside the point. It is meant to be at arm's-length, driven by critical expertise and allowing for free expression, with no censorship. For example, there is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, and I could name a dozen such institutions, including the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute in the private sector.
In our nation, we do not have arm's-length cultural institutions. In our foundation, chiefs and leaders come and go. When Fontaine was the national chief, he started up a travel agency and a newspaper. Two years later, when he was not the national chief, all of that disappeared. At the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, we do one thing — give out scholarships, which we have done for 18 years. We have built on each success every two years and we are not changing that. Thanks to the longevity, we have managed to develop more corporate support because our stability has inspired more support. We are sort of at arm's-length.
My comments today are probably provocative because you probably will not hear what I am saying today. The only way that we can act on it is if some of our people have the freedom to speak out without repercussions. I could always get a job in a company, and plenty of Aboriginal leaders would say that my comments are provocative. I believe that I am simply speaking about reality. When I talk to corporate leaders and other people across Canada, they agree 100 per cent that these are the issues. People in the Aboriginal communities may say that these are not the issues.
Part of that is because not too many people are able to speak out, given that we are a small community and the repercussions are great.
Part of our advancement might be that while political leaders will never be able to go to a community and tell the parents that they are not doing a good job, arm's-length cultural institutions perhaps could, and there is a need for them. Universities serve as arm's-length cultural institutions. They are bodies of knowledge, or houses of transmission that evolve specific bodies of knowledge for the benefit of the country. We need those as well.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you for answering my question. To me, the issues of nurturing and parenting are key, because everything else evolves from them.
Mr. Bell: I agree with you.
Senator Hubley: I enjoyed your presentation, which was certainly provocative. Do you think that governments are overplaying the cultural aspect as a solution to Aboriginal problems? Perhaps we have the feeling that if we could ensure that Aboriginals get their culture back, that would solve the problem. Indeed, that must be a part of the process, but we need to go beyond that.
Mr. Bell: Culture is imbedded in collective rights, and vice versa. One way to respond is to recognize that we have a dilemma. As the world grows smaller, the concept of democracy grows stronger, and as all the other ideologies fall away, the ideas of democracy and the rule of law are becoming increasingly more acceptable as a bone fide means of operating a country. That means that countries with indigenous peoples are now beginning to operate with a greater sense of respect and responsibility for Aboriginal people's collective rights. That means that we are self-determining, which is not a problem.
It is good for us to take the reins of responsibility and make the right choices. I do not believe we are doing that. We are still coming back from tremendous devastation and there is healing to be done. The problem is that a group of people who have collective rights and an identity or culture should have the ability to be self-determining. The government's recognition of this is a step forward.
We are now in an era of deciding who we are as a people, keeping in mind that Aboriginal people are not homogenous. The people entering the professions as Aboriginal people think differently from the social workers. The people who represent different areas within the Aboriginal community think differently. This becomes complex and creates a collective identity and the issue of self-determination, of who we are.
Our natural reaction is to embrace and fortify identity. We are seeing that through the school system. Our reaction to having our language, culture and customs outlawed is to make that the prime focus of defining what a well- developed Aboriginal person is. They are thus restored in their identity. On our side, we are abdicating the dual role, in addition to restoring identity, of realizing that we are no different from any other community. There are Chinese Canadians, Indo-Canadians, et cetera. They have their own culture and are self-determining. For example, B'nai B'rith and other cultural institutions participate within the greater context of Canada.
We do not, because we were forced out. We were not allowed to have any participation in forestry or any of the industries. We were removed from our land and removed from any decision-making control.
Now, after so many years of not having control and simply getting the money we have, we have the reverse problem, which is, as our rights are being recognized more and more, the money is being transferred — self-government, self- determination. The natural reaction is to restore our identity. I believe that the statistics show that we are abdicating on skills and responsibilities and that we as a community are no different from Japanese Canadians. If they have a seven per cent unemployment rate, perhaps we ought to have only a seven per cent unemployment rate; if their drop- out rate is only 20 per cent, perhaps our drop-out rate should only be 20 per cent. However, we do not compare ourselves to other communities, as we are quite different. We have been forced into an artificial environment. As I said earlier, our system was forced, by design, into a different mode of operating, and therein lies the problem.
The government knows that the school systems are not working, but the Aboriginal leaders say that it is none of the government's business because we operate our own schools. When do you step in, if you do, are you not abrogating collective rights and a people's self-determination?
There is no incentive for change. If all schools had to raise 50 per cent of their money from corporate Canada, things would change overnight — standards would go up, people would be more organized and no one would go home at 4:30. A greater discipline would be placed upon us. I believe that we must place a greater discipline on ourselves, and that is the challenge.
Government has not been exactly holy in dealing with us, but I believe that things are getting better. Instead of positioning back and forth, we have to look at the goals. The goals are to fix the drop-out rate and the parenting problems, because that will lead to the improvement and solution of the all other issues — poverty, health care, the judicial system. Instead, we will spend more money on those other things that are important but not necessarily the root problem. If the people can take care of themselves and make a contribution, we will have less fetal alcohol syndrome. If you are going to spend $100 million on fetal alcohol syndrome, you ought to be spending twice that amount on the root problems — parenting, nurturing, keeping the kids in school and raising standards — and all those others problems will be reduced over time. That is the holistic approach.
Senator Hubley: Most of our witnesses have been leaders within their communities who are focusing on a certain area. You have taken us beyond that to look at more of a global issue.
``Elitist'' is a term we did not hear in any other presentations. Where did the attitude come from that achievement within Aboriginal society is not an acceptable thing?
Mr. Bell: Our report entitled ``Taking Pulse,'' which I hope some of you will review and think about, is a compilation of comments by Aboriginal people that we heard consistently across the country. It talks about the lack of parenting, the lowering of standards, et cetera. I received a letter from our national chief saying that he felt that what we were proposing seemed elitist. Of course, I take these comments very seriously and I thought about it carefully. We then delve into papers and ask people for their opinions on how to respond to that.
In the 1950s, one required only a high school education to have a relatively good life in Canada. Now, everyone will tell you that higher education is mandatory, but we have not made that leap. When I use the word ``elitist,'' does that mean we want Aboriginal doctors or not; should people have seven years of post-secondary education or not? I gave the illustration of the cell phone.
We talk about sustainable economic development, but what is that, and how do we get there? It means more than just planting trees after you cut some down. How do we use technology? Yes, we buy the cell phones, but why should we not make them or sell them? Why should we not benefit from that technology? It does require higher education and it does sometimes require more than four years, but that is what the rest of the world is doing. That is what the Japanese Canadians, the Chinese Canadians, the Indo-Canadians and everyone else is doing. Should we not embrace that as well?
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Mr. Bell, I wish first to congratulate you on your achievements. I know that you work in the arts field and that you've been a conductor. I myself have never conducted an orchestra but I was Chief of my community, and this is what I am going to talk to you about. I have been Chief for 10 years.
The message I get from the people of my community is very different from yours. You said that the leadership does not encourage the young to pursue their studies. I receive a very different message from parents in my community. I was in charge of native education in Quebec for many years and I notice that parents are highly motivated to see their children study at the secondary, post-secondary et university levels.
On the one hand, you said that you heard provocative talk from the native leadership. I will also be provocative and say that you are very demanding toward the native leadership. I think you have to be demanding and I hope you have the opportunity to talk directly to the chiefs because the message must get through within our communities. Personally, when I talk to my constituents, I tell them what I really feel. I do it in private in order to correct things.
On the other hand, you favour the creation of institutions. When you accept more responsibilities, you need some supervision. I agree when you say you favour the creation of institutions.
Presently the band council is the only institution recognized by law. In the non-native world, there are many institutions looking after schools, arts and so on. The band council is the only recognized institution and it cannot refer issues to someone else.
We have to remember that we only get the leaders that we deserve since they are elected by the people. In most communities, there is democracy. Most members of the leadership, including the national leadership, are elected by the people.
How do you make the leadership work according to your recommendations? For instance, how do you make the leadership consider the requirements of accountability and good governance within band councils when we talk about creating institutions?
[English]
Mr. Bell: I see myself more as a social activist than an artist, but I thank you for your recognition of my past career. Yes, it is true that some parents and leaders are motivated to recommend that kids achieve higher education. Again, Aboriginal people are not homogenous. I do not know what you are hearing, but I have known Aboriginal people, parents, who encourage their children as well and recognize higher education. However, the reality is that the stats that just came out, and I read them yesterday, show that there is a 70 per cent drop-out rate. The reality is that the schools in native communities do not achieve as high outcomes as urban schools. We need leaders or parents who are encouraging, or a transition to recognizing that education is fundamental. The reality is that the present way is not working. Yes, more parents and leaders need to recognize that.
One official told me that the money given to band councils for schools often does not make it into the schools. They lack supplies and proper conditions. Yesterday, they talked in the paper about teachers being substandard. Who wants to go to the remote North and teach in a school? I would not. Therefore, an issue exists with teachers.
I think that, simply, we need to make education a higher priority. I am happy to hear that people in your community and others are speaking about it more positively, but I do not necessarily hear that everywhere. Now, you must know that last week I met with 15 chiefs in B.C. to talk about this precise issue. In Manitoba, I met with 12 chiefs two months ago, including Grand Chief Whitebird. I am meeting with chiefs to tell them quite honestly what I think, and what I think is what I have told you today.
When I look at the number of band councils that are in arrears and practically bankrupt, I believe that we have an issue of accountability. I also note that the better educated a nation is, the better democracy works. The two are interlinked. Many of our leaders do not have higher education; therefore our democratic process is compromised. I am not incriminating anyone. That just seems to be a reality.
We need elected leaders, and Canada has elected leaders, but people with critical expertise are employed for critical issues, and that is what I was talking about when I mentioned the Canada Council, Atomic Energy of Canada. Socrates said, ``Who should decide?'' He concluded: ``Let the one who knows decide.'' Let the one who has critical expertise decide. He went on to say that if your loved one is lying critically ill and you think they will die, do you get a committee together and ask what do we do, cut off the arm, cut off the leg, drain the blood? Or do you let the one who knows decide? If your ship is at sea and about to sink in a storm, do you take a vote, or do you let the one who knows decide?
Democracies work best when they are underpinned with institutions that are driven by critical expertise and free expression for the well-being of the collective. Therefore, the best thing our elected leaders can do is to allow institutions that hold specific bodies of knowledge that can benefit us to flourish, and not diminish their role. They have a tremendous role. I do not think the current way is working. I say that openly, and the stats show that.
It is not entirely Aboriginal people's fault either. It is a complex issue and there are many different viewpoints because we are not a homogenous people. Perhaps we are in a transition to giving greater priority to education, but the stats do not show that. I do meet with the leaders on a regular basis and speak as openly as I do today, because I believe that even though I do receive a backlash, that is leadership. We cannot ignore the stats. What will happen in some of these meetings is we will talk about everything else, but it comes down to we know there is a problem and it is more important to talk about that, not that it is ever easy.
Again, the specialized expertise is really important. The CBC would not hire six chiefs to produce the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards. It is a matter of who has the specific skills to do the work. Education is fundamental to the well-being of democracy in any country.
Senator Pearson: I am interested in your comments about the need for institutions because it suddenly opened a door for me in understanding. When one looks at the players in the field, at the critical institutions that have these sorts of authorities, as you were saying, the band council and others have their authority, but there are not enough.
As perhaps you know, I have been working with Mary Simon on trying to encourage the development of a foundation for children in the Arctic.
Mr. Bell: I am sitting on that.
Senator Pearson: I know. That is why I say you would know. I had not heard that argument about why these separate institutions have value so well put before, because I understand some of the resistance to this is saying, ``Well, we are pouring lots of money into children's issues in the Arctic. Why should we as a government help to establish a stand-alone foundation?''
The way you have put that is a really strong argument, about what is the value-added of something like a foundation for children in the Arctic. It is the capacity to have information, research, and gather ideas that are not tied to any political process. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Bell: In part, that is what I am saying. If there is a critical problem, attack it with critical expertise. If the problem is not being solved under the current environment and with the processes and programs in place, attack it with different programs and processes. Try something new and different.
Often, governments create organizations and councils, and often they do not work very well. It has to be people of passion and vision who focus on expertise and drive it forward.
Senator Pearson: Have you some examples of other institutions in the Aboriginal community aside from yours?
Mr. Bell: We have very few. They strengthen a community and we have been prevented from having them. That is the reality. They are seen as a threat. Somehow there is still a pervading view that we will be riding down the highway on horseback launching a war, and we have been prevented from having them. There is the National Aboriginal Health Organization, which is brand new, and they are focusing on issues.
I observed from the initial board meeting of the children's foundation for the Arctic that no one knows what to do. It will take 20 years to figure out. You have to grow and learn. However, the opportunity should be provided to understand one's own self-determining future, to study an issue without the political will inflicting pain, and to have the freedom to explore the issue, offer thoughts, and to be open for comment, criticism, so on and so forth. I do think it is important. Every democracy has cultural institutions. We Aboriginal people need some of them. We have cultural centres, which is a small, underfunded program. There are eight cultural centres around the country. It is mostly about art, identity and so on, but we do not have other great cultural foundations. We do have the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, which is good.
Senator Pearson: The foundation is certainly talking about not having enough money and building on a mortgage, I believe.
Mr. Bell: Of course, it is very hard. That being a given, there are unique ways to gain knowledge. For example, we have so many Aboriginal community colleges. I believe there are 70 or 80.
Perhaps that is too many because you cannot gain capacity. Capacity is very important.
The problem we create is that every band wants one. Everyone wants one. A sectoral high school system is for all Aboriginal people, but there is only one for forestry and one for information technology because there are not enough of us if you are to have a specialized cultural school with a spiritual component.
The point is not to have a cultural institution for the sake of having a cultural institution. Have a cultural institution for the sake of improving Aboriginal life.
I would suggest we establish 40 community colleges that are owned and operated by Aboriginal people. Let us make them twice as big and filled to capacity, rather than having 80 where they cannot get the best teachers or enough money. Let us make 40 and given them the money. The politics is in who gets the 40. That is the reality of political life.
What is happening now is not working. We need a fresh start and a new way of looking at it.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. I enjoyed your presentation because what you say is what I have been saying for years. If you think it is difficult for an Aboriginal leader to say it, think how difficult it is for a white Ukrainian schoolteacher to say it.
I will make a few comments, and I should like your reaction to them.
I believe that in Canada today, we have what I call the ``Indian industry.'' Estimates of what we spend on Aboriginals range anywhere from $7 billion to $12 billion, outside of what we would normally spend; that is, Aboriginals benefit from defence and all the other government services from which society benefits.
If I were planning to destroy a culture, this is the way I would do it. I would make the culture totally dependent on me. That way, I ensure that they would become corrupt, because cash corrupts.
In my province, we are teaching Aboriginals how to get into business by giving them monopoly casinos, which is abhorrent to me because you are not teaching them anything about business, since there is no competition. If you give them a little monopoly, of course they are successful. Anyone can be successful with a monopoly. However, it is gambling. That is not a business at all. It is a licence to print money. I see it as an easy way out for a government to say, ``We are creating economic opportunity. Look at all the gambling. Everyone is making a lot of money. We do not have to do much more because look at all the money you are making.''
We must find a way for the Indian community to develop private property. I mean the reserve communities. I do not mean the off-reserve, non-status and Metis. No free market system can work without the ability to have private property — assets, cash, and a way to build an enterprise. We do not allow that on reserves, which are a white man's institution anyway. They are not an Indian institution.
Those are some of the really serious problems that we have to address, and which are difficult to talk about, but they are important to talk about. I would like to see our society working to solve these problems, not make them worse.
Mr. Bell: These comments get me deeper and deeper into trouble. There is an Indian industry. I hate to say it, but the official policy was, and probably remains, genocide. It was genocide, and we have not changed the Indian Act.
Senator Tkachuk: That is right.
Mr. Bell: That is why we have the 70 per cent drop-out rate. That is why 90 per cent of the prisons contain Aboriginal people. It is not the same kind of genocide now. It is not as overt, but it is deeply insidious.
I am not saying that to criticize the government. That is the reality.
We are very dependent and there is a huge lack of accountability. I would defend the casinos only as far as to say that if other Canadians are allowed to have casinos, then we should be allowed to have casinos. I do agree with you that it is not a noble enterprise. It creates social problems, but it does bring other benefits. However, I try to rationalize it by saying that if other Canadians can have casinos, so should we.
Senator Tkachuk: Right, spread it around.
Mr. Bell: Health and prosperity and wealth creation are based upon private property. The whole economic system of the world is based upon private property. Our problem now is that we have the Indian Act.
The United States enacted legislation to allow Aboriginals to own private property, and they promptly lost all their land that had been considered an entitlement. We were out-foxed in the States and simply lost our land because we did not have a history of being in business. Here, there is a reluctance to do that.
There is a fundamental problem in the Indian Act. The leadership speaks out against Mr. Nault's governance act. At the same time, the Aboriginal leadership said in the press this last week that we have to change the Indian Act. If you do not like the governance act, why have you not sat down and written your own governance act and proposed it? Not that it would necessarily be listened to, but the Indian Act is preventive and stifling of economic development. However, our leadership needs to come forward with proposals for change.
We are not homogenous. All the chiefs in the North will not agree to any change to the Indian Act because it is their only assurance of survival. There is no opportunity for economic development in the remote North — that is a reality — just as the fishing ports in Newfoundland are no longer sustainable. Because the communities are not homogenous, some of the chiefs want to opt out of the Indian Act or reform it, and some do not. The form of some of the First Nations is so big and confusing, no one can agree on anything, so nothing really gets done.
We need to have options for First Nations. We can say, if you want to opt out, you can have these rights, or these others, or take this responsibility. We should be a little more flexible about it, knowing that not every band council has the same dynamics. There are some who are progressive and some who are regressive. Some are well educated and some have little education. Some want to move forward, others do not. I agree with you that there is a significant, fundamental problem.
Some people have to raise private money, and it imposes a discipline when by March 31, you had better have produced something. You have a lot of eyes scrutinizing what you are doing, and you had better measure up. Whereas 100 per cent public dependency means that by March 31, you have spent everything. You do not have to make widgets or sell cars.
Senator Tkachuk: You are encouraged to spend more so that you get the same amount next year, or even more.
Mr. Bell: Yes, so half the bands are in arrears.
One point of view says they are unaccountable. Some say we are owed this money from treaty rights, and you can never give us enough because you owe billions upon billions of dollars. It is not your money, government. It is our money, and we should have it. That is their perception.
We have these terrible conflicts that will never go away, just as the debate on health care or abortion will never go away. We must have a sense of moving forward. On abortion, those who see it as a benefit, who want to benefit from it, are able to do so. Those who find it abhorrent simply do not participate.
As for health care, any system does not meet the needs of all people in a given community. These are the fundamental stumbling blocks that we get hung up on and that we have to overcome.
You are right. We have a dependent culture; it is not healthy and implies all sorts of maladies. We need to derive revenue from multiple sources. We need to self-generate revenues, as other democracies and other communities do. We need to lay the groundwork to achieve that within a period of time.
The Chairman: As you know, this committee is undertaking an inquiry into issues affecting urban Aboriginal youth. That encompasses a whole lot of family issues such as parenting and all the things that you have mentioned today. We are hoping to develop an action plan for change. Aboriginals have been studied to death. This action plan for change, in my opinion, is long overdue. You and I are on the same wavelength and have been for years.
Our members are interested in learning about what types of initiatives have worked best, in your opinion, and why some have been successful while others have not. We also want to identify gaps in the funding and programming for urban Aboriginal people. What we really are talking about with this issue is a migration of people within our own country with no supports.
Do you have any ideas about what has and has not worked and what the gaps are within governments?
Mr. Bell: Everything that tries to inject a positive influence is good. The difficulty for Aboriginal society is that all of the efforts are quite small. They lack capacity and critical expertise. They are mostly reactive — for example, child and family services. They are important because we are in an environment where we need child and family services. However, while continuing with the reactive programs and services to address the high level of problems, we need to become proactive.
You will never solve all the dysfunction through child and family services and the other social service agencies. You will never be able to help or heal every single person. It has always been reactive rather than proactive. A suite of ideas, taken together to form a comprehensive strategy, is the way to go. We must arm it with the kind of money it needs, but it also must be strategic.
Let me give you an example. There are a lot of single parents. In our scholarship program, single mothers get extra money to pay for daycare. Why? The reason is that the royal commission identified a lack of daycare as a fundamental barrier preventing the education of single Aboriginal mothers. However, daycare alone is not the answer. You have to look at the development of a child, or the goal that you are trying to achieve, and tackle the three or four fundamental issues together.
For example, in terms of our national employment strategy, it is good that everyone says we must connect to the private sector. What actually happens is, first, we do not connect to the private sector, and second, the kinds of skills we have are not relevant to the private sector. We do not take several fundamental premises and aim them together at one strategic target.
There are a lot of good programs out there, but their effectiveness is always a question. They are not studied that much so it is hard to know. I would focus on something that improves the relationship between parents and children. However, we must lay the responsibility at the feet of Aboriginal people — these are your children. You are responsible. It is not the government's fault. Or if sometimes it is the government's fault, we have to be partners in this. We can give you money, but you must do the work and do a better job as Aboriginal people. That is a fundamental issue.
Education also must be addressed, which currently it is not. The schools are substandard, the teachers are substandard and the outcomes are not acceptable. Once we admit it and recognize it, we will be able to move forward.
The third area is building self-esteem and providing opportunity. Building self-esteem in a ``soft'' way is reactive; providing opportunity is proactive. When you have opportunity, that builds self-esteem.
When we started our foundation, we had an incentive and awareness program, which is now called the ``cultural projects'' program. We tried to provide financial support for young people who had a passion or interest in life — piano lessons, dance lessons, skating lessons and the like. Perhaps they were not doing well in school, but they were very good at that, so it gave them the opportunity to build pride and self-esteem. It was something they could do well.
As a child, I was a talented musician and that was my reason for living. I was not the greatest scientist in the world, but I could do this well and it gave me something to look forward to. Music became a language that contributed to skills in math, spatial relationships and all sorts of things that a child does not know and parents do not know, either. Opportunity is the key.
Everyone is hockey crazy in this country, but our kids do not have the opportunity to participate. I see other high school students who are going to Paris for the summer, or attend a private school. Our kids do not get to do that. It fundamentally limits us.
Something that nurtures the parent's relationship with the child, vastly improved education, and more opportunity for young people to express themselves in the way that they need to are important. They know what they want. They often do not know the solutions, but they know what their passions and interests are.
I do not see too many Aboriginal organizations that are successful because we have lacked the connection to any systems outside our own community. The AFN youth council is a good example of this. I have no idea why you cannot make a few phone calls and suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand dollars to run it. That is what I do. A lot of people turn me down, but a lot say ``Yes'' as well.
When I first started in the 1980s, I realized that democracies were rationalizing all over the world. I read the papers every day and understood that there would always be less money rather than more in the future. As a member of a minority culture, I realized that if I were to create a charity, its success would be ensured only if we had multiple sources of revenue outside of government.
We do need the government — 50 per cent of our funding comes from the federal and provincial governments — but we balance that with 50 per cent coming from the private sector. It creates a completely different dynamic within our organization. You have to work harder and it makes you focus more on your mission.
If you get money and do not have to produce 12 widgets, or 12 cars that actually run, there is no process to evaluate whether it is working or not. You just keep producing 12 cars that do not run. However, if you have multiple partners who have expectations of you, you have to deliver and your discipline is greater.
We must somehow address that. We have to be far more proactive; we cannot rely on governments. Part of self- determination and self-government is responsibility. If we want to take the reins, fine — we should. However, we must take the responsibility like other communities. There must be self-generation of revenue.
It will not be easy for us, but that has been the hallmark of our success. We are the most successful Aboriginal organization in the country. We have never had a deficit. We have had 18 consecutive years of financial growth and providing scholarships to the community.
Why? We raise more money. How did we do it? Unless you do well every year, sponsors will not continue to support you. Governments will support Aboriginal people. Governments must, because of collective rights or for political reasons. However, corporations will not.
If our television show did not attract 1 million viewers or if people found it objectionable if we did not give out scholarships, they would say, ``Let us not be involved in this.'' You must deliver a product that can be measured and evaluated by everyone. That is the hallmark of our success.
It focuses you on mission right away. You either immediately do the right thing, or if you do not, then you do not continue. There are many organizations out there that have emulated this model of half private funding. Very few of them survive or build to capacity because the mission is not focused and the corporations pull out. That is how you know if you are right or wrong.
It is not that the corporations are holy; they are not. If you have multiple funders with different sensibilities and coming from different points of view, you have to please many people. That forces a discipline on you to get it right and to work harder to achieve the desired outcome of your program.
Who wants to work harder? No one does, really. Look at the time people spend running their own businesses and the entrepreneurs who are working weekends. I work weekends.
That drive is required, and we need to restore it. That was part of our traditional culture. I talked about living in the environment and specialized expertise. We had to work hard to survive.
Nurturing the child is important. We must put more responsibility on the parents. We need to say, `` These are your kids. You have a job to do.'' That is what self-government and self-determination are all about.
Raise the education standards and perhaps have testing. The Department of Indian Affairs is thinking about testing. Some people find that to be a right-wing concept, but we have gone too far to the left on that and need to find a balance.
How will we know if we are successful? It is simple. The drop-out rate will come down and the outcomes will be higher. When grade 12 students graduate, they would be able to read and write at a grade-12 level. Their opportunity for success in business and in life would be much enhanced.
Our social expenditures would go down. I am not speaking naively. I am not saying that this is a straight path or that there is no opposition to it. However, I believe fully that this is what we must focus on as a country.
The Chairman: If there are no other questions, then I will adjourn the meeting. I want to thank you very much for a very interesting presentation and dialogue on issues that are extremely important to all Aboriginal people.
Mr. Bell: Thank you for the opportunity.
The committee adjourned.