Cent

Shi

Drastic education
cuts for Natives
‘assimilation tactic’

By PAUL OGRESKO
___ First of two parts
Ata time when record numbers of Native
Reve are entering post-secondary educa-
son, the federal Department of Indian
airs (DIA) is making drastic funding
8. In 1988 alone, spending limits will
“hy educational opportunities to thou-
ands of Native students.
the = First Nations were only notified of
‘ atest alterations to DIA educational
Nding in late August, although the pro-
pie changes had been worked out by the
“partment months earlier.
bes € new program means a net loss of
ees of dollars for each Native student
“Sing assistance. And while the scenario is
fak now, the future looks worse as the
aulroney government continues to “down-

Cut:

Si

) He Indian Affairs” — a strategy which has
_ “Mplemented wholesale cuts to almost every

“deral social service for Natives, with edu-
tion among the hardest hit.

Ne history of Native education in Can-
'S Not a pretty one. From the previous
ury until recent decades, Indian child-
Were taken away from their families and
co to residential schools — in most
oie Tun by the Catholic church. Indigen-
tion anguages were banned, cultural tradi-

Signored and the philosophical outlook

Ten

0) ; ; ;
Of the Colonizer was imposed upon Native

Children.

The 80al of the DIA’s educational policy
. chilgy sumilation: to strip away from Native
tn Ten, generation by generation, what it
“ant to be Native. In a letter to Prime
i ‘Mister Brian Mulroney protesting the
sent DIA cutbacks, Assembly of First
ations leader George Erasmus described
* Policy of assimilation.
Bore Or over 100 years (the Canadian
Bien has made waffling attempts in
Dok; ating Indians that were motivated by
Itical colonial intent on one hand, and a
_~ ,iStian religious altruism on the other.”
€ recent cutbacks are only the latest
‘on Utes in a restraint program embarked
the both secretly and publicly — since
‘Prim, orles commissioned _then-deputy
Dolic, minister Erik Nielsen to undertake a
Nie = review of Native programs in 1985.
‘ineg €n's report called for massive cutbacks
on ee funding, the closing of reserve
Hties ¢, Sand the transferring of responsibili-
fo the provinces,
thin € Nielsen report was a harbinger of
Bove, to come. In 1975 the Trudeau
ie had adopted, in response to
called Te from Native organizations, what is
Step j the E-12 circular. E-12 was a small
ieee the direction of correcting more than
pligg of educational apartheid. It
aid ao Native students to receive financial
and Cover the costs of books, tuition fees,
travel and living expenses.
reat a the geographical diversity and
comp Istance separating many Native
this Munities from post-secondary schools,
Pow, a Was crucial. With the Tories in
ing» t, “fiscal restraint” and “cost account-

P _%€came the new catchwords and it

Meas

;

n became evident that the E-12 pro-
Pen, Inadequate as it was, was in danger.
nthe Spring of 1987 the DIA announced

educational policy, which included a
a funding for higher education as well
a application deadline of Nov. | for
Doubl Students wishing to apply for aid.
the in Insulting for Native people was that
5 IA failed to inform many Native
Cut ftnities of the new policy until the

date had expired.

In January 1988, documents from a
secret top-level meeting of DIA officials —
leaked to Canadian Press — revealed that
the Tory government was embarking on a
total freeze on all Native services, with edu-
cation high on the list. The meeting recom-

mended that DIA build fewer Native.

schools, cut back on funding and pass on
responsibilities to the provinces.
Of particular concern to Native leaders is
that the new federal policy comes when 52
per cent of the Native population is under
the age of 20, the Native birth rate remains
twice the Canada average, and most First
Nations are finding their resources stretched
to the limit in attempting to deal with the
demands of an increasing population.
Gerry Trudeau, spokesperson for the
Native committee of the Ontario Federa-
tion of Students, is one of the more vocal
critics of the new Tory policy. He sees it as
having essentially two aims — to negate
federal responsibility for Native education,

and to carry on the process of assimilation.

“(The federal government is) taking
advantage of the situation,” Trudeau told
the Tribune. “On one hand the provincial
governments are saying Native people are
the responsibility of the federal government

and yet the federal government has turned
around and told the provinces they have

control of the education process.

“The ball is being tossed back and forth.
Meanwhile Native people are losing in the

process.”

Child care bill means cutbacks

The federal government acted with dis-
patch last week in an effort to add new
child .care legislation to. the list of
“accomplishments” it plans to parade
before voters during the fall election the
pundits predict.

In its haste Ottawa is willing to circum-
vent public debate on an initiative which
will substantially alter federal responsibil-
ity for the delivery of social services.

Rarely has a spending commitment of
$7 billion to a single social program
jumped so spryly up the parliamentary
steps. The Canada Child Care Act, or Bill
C-144, was first introduced in the Com-
mons in early August. (There had been a
few well-timed false starts where we were
left to anxiously ponder if Jake Epp, the
minister responsible, would be able to
wheedle the money out of his stingy
cabinet colleagues.)

The bill then flashed through to second
reading by late August, and by Sept. 5
public hearings were already underway.
But the Conservative-dominated commit-
tee will meet for only 2+ days. .

Laurel Rothman of the Ontario Coali-
tion for Better Day Care urged the com-
mittee: ‘““We must be given ample time for
preparation, an opportunity to present
comments, and money for travel to
Ottawa,”

Only eight of the 60 witnesses scheduled
to appear before the committee have been
provided with travel assistance. Evelyn
Gigantes of the National Union of Provin-
cial Government Employees accused the
Tories of freezing out groups from rural
and small communities.

“But even for larger groups, it is very
difficult to throw together a submission on
the legislation.”

It is not that the Child Care Act has not
been studied. Activists, unions, women’s
organizations and churches have supplied
Ottawa with detailed critiques of the con-
cept.

Bat this government has long dropped
consultation from its style. On this issue it
has the media advantage, and plans to run

with it. During an election campaign,
party leaders, particularly the prime minis-
ter, are quoted, not analyzed.

Just saying it’s going to do something
about child care racks up pollsters’ points
for the governing party, and when it
throws out billion-dollar figures and talks
about hundreds of thousands of new day
care spaces, the total package fits quite
snugly into a 30-second news clip.

That makes it considerably more diffi-
cult for the government’s critics to explain
that under the proposed bill Ottawa will
actually be paying less for child care than it
does now, that fewer spaces will be
created, and that once the program is fin-
ished in 1995, it will have shed its child care
responsibilities.

“Who looks after the kids?” is a debate
that has evolved considerably since the days
of either being for or against day care. It
now requires an informed grasp of a bevy of
federal, provincial and even municipal
laws, and an understanding of the future
of federal-provincial relations — particu-
larly in a free trade/Meech Lake era.

Child care in Canada is currently a wel-
fare program. Under the Canada Assist-
ance Plan (CAP) the federal government
matches whatever the provinces contrib-
ute to subsidize the child care require-
ments of needy families. Families with
incomes of up to $45,000 are eligible.
Because of vigorous lobbying at local lev-
els, some provinces have made good use of
open-ended CAP funding.

But the new act would create a spending
ceiling. The maximum federal contribu-
tion over the next seven years could not

top $4 billion, nor would this money be
assured since it would be subject to the
annual appropriations of Parliament. In
belt-tightening years child care funding
would dry up. ,

Equally scary is the precedent the pro-
gram sets by opening the door to revamp-
ing along the same lines the host of other
welfare programs financed by CAP.

Tory spokesmen will tell voters their
program will create 200,000 new spaces
over the next seven years. They won’t say
that under the current legislation funding
would be available for more than 300,000
new spaces.

Nor is the child care debate simply a
question of money. “Stuff your nuke subs,
more day care now!” is good sloganeering,
but activists agree that $7 billion is not a
niggardly sum — it’s how the money is
spent.

For the first time commercial operators
would have access to federal dollars. This
complies neatly with the free trade agree-
ment which frowns deeply at government
money going exclusively to the non-profit
sector. Access to public funding for pri-
vate operators will act like a magnet
attracting the large American chains into
Canada.

And in a direct concession to the fun-
damentalist, women-belong-in-the-home
lobby, $3 billion in tax credits for both
working and non-working parents would
be axed.

Even the Tories have dropped any pre-
tense that the Child Care Act isa program
which will equally serve the needs of all
Canadians. With the Meech Lake Accord,

there are no country-wide standards. Pro-

vinces are free to take the money and run,
Or opt out of the new program entirely.

By 1995 more parents will be thrown
into the child care scramble, the quality of
care will have declined and another Cana-
dian social program will have been sacri-
fice on the pyre of free trade.

To explain this takes time — time the
Tories won’t spare.

Pacific Tribune, September 14, 1988 ¢ 5