Proceedings of the Special
Senate Committee on the Arctic
Issue No. 18 - Evidence - November 5, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, November 5, 2018
The Special Senate Committee on the Arctic met this day at 6:30 p.m. to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants; and in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, great to see you. Unnusakkut. Good evening. Welcome to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic.
I’m Dennis Patterson. I’m a senator representing Nunavut. I’m privileged to be chair of this committee.
Please, can I have senators around the table introduce themselves?
Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Tonight, as part of our study on the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and impacts on original inhabitants, we begin our study of a new topic, Arctic culture, language and the arts as a pathway to strong peoples and communities.
Tonight we invited Indigenous Services Canada to talk about their First Nation and Inuit Cultural Education Centres Program. We welcome Margaret Buist, Acting ADM, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector; and Susan Irwin, Senior Policy Manager, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector.
To talk about the Museum Assistance Program and Aboriginal Languages Initiative, we can’t wait to hear about that, we welcome from Canadian Heritage, Claudette Lévesque, Director General, Citizenship Participation Branch; Guylain Thorne, Acting Director General, Heritage Group; and Vanessa Mckenzie, Director, Aboriginal Affairs Directorate, Citizenship Participation Branch.
Thank you for joining us tonight. I invite each of you to proceed with your opening statement, after which we will go to a question-and-answer session.
Canadian Heritage begin first, please.
Claudette Lévesque, Director General, Citizen Participation Branch, Canadian Heritage: I’m pleased to be here with you to share some information on the Aboriginal Languages Initiative, known as ALI, and its support for the preservation, promotion and revitalization of Indigenous languages in the Arctic.
Language is an essential element of culture. Indigenous people have used and continue to use their language to describe the world they live in, to make sense of it and to teach their cultures and values to their children.
That said, we know that Indigenous languages were deliberately suppressed through the residential school system and other policies, which has directly contributed to the levels of endangerment these languages face today. Supporting these cultures in rebuilding and repairing the damage done is necessarily linked to the preservation and revitalization of their languages.
[Translation]
The Aboriginal Languages Initiative, or ALI, is part of the Aboriginal peoples’ program at Canadian Heritage, a suite of programs with the objectives of promoting, revitalizing and preserving Indigenous languages and cultures; strengthening Indigenous cultural identity; and increasing Indigenous participation in Canadian society.
ALI projects consist of a broad range of activities that include the development of digital and print learning materials; language classes and master-apprentice pairs; preschool programs designed to mirror Maori language nests; online learning tools such as DVDs and websites; language camps for children, youth and families; applications; and much more.
From 1998 to 2016, the program was funded at $5 million annually. In Budget 2017, the government increased the funding to $19 million annually until 2019-20, more than three times the previous allocation.
[English]
Moving more specifically to the Arctic, there are approximately 20 Indigenous languages and dialects spoken in the North. Of these half are First Nations and the others are Inuit languages spoken across the Arctic. We know that according to the UNESCO’s classification, all Indigenous languages in the Arctic are considered unsafe. Inuit languages are safer than other Indigenous languages in the territories and are amongst the strongest Indigenous languages in Canada. For example, in 2016, 64 per cent of Inuit reported speaking an Inuit language well enough to conduct a conversation; however, there are important regional variations. In Nunavut, this number is 89 per cent; in Nunatsiavut, 21 per cent; and in Nunavik, 99 per cent. In the Northwest Territories, 31 per cent of First Nations speak an Indigenous language.
[Translation]
Given that ALI is proposal-based, the projects submitted reflect the communities’ priorities forsupporting their languages.
In 2017-18, the program supported 183 projects, which helped implement participatory activities and develop resources in Indigenous languages. Over 79 languages or dialects received support from ALI in that year.
[English]
Some examples of projects funded by ALI in the Arctic: In Nunavut, funding to the Qikiqtani Inuit Association for the production of three children’s books in Inuktitut, both fiction and non-fiction, whose contents reflect the lived reality of Inuit children, Inuit traditional knowledge and science. I have them here. They are beautiful books. I thought I’d bring them to show them off. I was going to pass them around.
[Translation]
In the Northwest Territories, funding was provided to the Yamózha Kúé Society for the preparation and delivery of 180 hours of language instruction in Dene Suline and South Slavey, in addition to the translation of language resources into these two dialects.
In Yukon, funding was provided to the Liard Aboriginal Women’s Society for the preparation and delivery of 158 hours of Kaska language instruction to 20 youth and adults, in addition to the production of a workbook to be used for online language lessons.
[English]
ALI is also funding a multi-year project by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami supporting the unification of the Inuit language writing system.
I hope you found this information useful in supporting your analysis on the development of the Arctic Policy Framework. I’m now pleased to turn the floor over to my colleague, Guylain Thorne, Acting Director General of Heritage Policy and Programs, who will provide some information on the Museums Assistance Program.
[Translation]
Guylain Thorne, Acting Director General, Heritage Group, Canadian Heritage: It’s my pleasure this evening to speak to you about the Museums Assistance Program, or MAP, and how the program is supporting museums and heritage institutions in the preservation and presentation of heritage collections in Canada’s Arctic.
MAP is a relatively small federal grants and contributions program. It has an annual budget of $6.7 million, which is spread across five components that concern the whole country. The objectives of MAP are to facilitate Canadians’ access to cultural heritage, including Aboriginal cultural heritage and its preservation, and to develop professional knowledge, skills and practices related to key museum functions.
According to the 2017 Government of Canada Survey of Heritage Institutions, there are approximately 61 heritage institutions across the territories, including 31 in Yukon, 18 in the Northwest Territories, and 12 in Nunavut. The majority of these institutions are small and have budgets of under $1 million.
[English]
Over the past five years, MAP has provided over $1.5 million for 15 projects across the territories, five in the Yukon, three in the Northwest Territories and seven in Nunavut. The majority of these projects are being funded through the Aboriginal heritage component of MAP.
MAP regional program officers have established strong relationships with a number of heritage institutions in the North, in urban centres such as Yellowknife, Iqaluit and Fort Smith, as well as in remote locations, for example, with the Kitikmeot Heritage Society in Cambridge Bay and the Nattilik Heritage Centre in Gjoa Haven, Nunavut. I would like to share two examples of projects currently being supported through MAP.
The Kitikmeot Heritage Society is receiving MAP funding for the project “Patterns of Change: 150 years in the Life of the Inuinnait Parka,” a series of five inter-generational workshops in which participants will produce period-appropriate patterns and sewing tools to recreate five Inuit parkas in the style of one of five distinct time periods in Canadian Arctic history. An exhibit and bilingual website will be developed to display the parkas and situating them in the context of the historical events that shaped Inuit culture at the time.
In the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho government is receiving MAP support for the project Reviving Tlicho Knowledge: Traditional Arts and Tools, a series of 14 short documentaries of community elders sharing their knowledge and skills related to the production of traditional tools and clothing.
These will be made available online and within the community, alongside a collection of traditional tools and clothing for display.
I welcome any questions you might have on the Museums Assistance Program. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Buist.
Margaret Buist, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Good evening, and thank you for the invitation to speak about our program tonight here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin.
[Translation]
For many Indigenous peoples, language and culture are an expression of nationhood and identity, and a way to transmit values, beliefs and histories from generation to generation.
[English]
The First Nation and Inuit Cultural Education Centres Program supports First Nation and Inuit communities in expressing, preserving, developing, revitalizing and promoting their culture, language and heritage through the establishment and operation of cultural education centres. It also ensures culturally relevant programming and services are available to First Nation and Inuit students at those centres.
The program funds about 100 First Nations communities in every region in Canada, and eight to 10 Inuit cultural education centres on a yearly basis in the Arctic, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Since 2008, the program has had ongoing funding of just over $9 million.
In addition, Indigenous Services Canada funds three national recipients who provide services to communities. There is the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres, which acts as a flow-through and funds the majority of First Nation cultural centres. There are approximately 40 regional centres funded at $5.2 million.
As well, we fund Tungasuvvingat Inuit, or TI, and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. TI is funded at $150,000 and provides accessible, community-based, culturally relevant activities for Inuit communities in the National Capital Region. It focuses on the development and dissemination of cultural skills and traditional knowledge.
One of the main priorities of the program is cultural skills development. Some of the traditional and contemporary cultural skills in the program are things like afternoon tea, Inuit 50 and over, monthly community gatherings to revive the sense of community here in Ottawa and in the Outaouais, songs, drum-making, instruction and guidance on traditional sewing, and training cultural educators.
ITK is funded at $250,000 and publishes two issues of the Inuktitut Magazine per year. This magazine is an Inuit periodical that documents the culture and language of Canadian Inuit. It’s translated into several languages and distributed via hard copy text and online communication in order to reach a wide audience, including Inuit youth, elders and the general public.
We have additional funding distributed by the department to regional offices for allocation.
In addition to the cultural education centres, Indigenous Services Canada’s education programs provide ongoing funding to Inuit through Indspire and the First Nations and Inuit Youth Employment Strategy.
Indspire assists First Nations, Inuit and Metis students with the financial support they need to complete their education, become self-sufficient and contribute to the economy.
The First Nations and Inuit Youth Employment Strategy is a component of the larger Youth Employment Strategy and part of the Government of Canada’s effort to assist First Nations andInuit youth to get the skills and work experience they need to succeed.
The department has also been working with Inuit stakeholders on a comprehensive Government of Canada review of funding for post-secondary programs for Indigenous students. This has produced a 10-year strategy to advance Inuit post-secondary education and reduce the attainment gap between Inuit and non-Indigenous Canadians.
We’ve worked closely with ITK, who have created a special committee drawn from their human resources and youth committees to design and lead the work on the Inuit review and the development of an Inuit post-secondary education strategy.
ITK reaches out to individuals, communities and governing bodies to gather information. They also hosted a national post-secondary education gathering in May 2018 to inform the 10-year strategy.
The ITK strategy is designed to build on existing structures stemming from the Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements. The strategy is structured around four main components: direct student support; complementary student support, such as peer mentoring; national coordination and organizational development, which provides capacity for understanding student and community and needs analysis; and Inuit community engagement.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this committee about the department’s work in the Arctic on behalf of Inuit students, parents, teachers, elders and communities, through the Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses. Before I open it to questions, it’s the chair’s prerogative.
Ms. Lévesque, you had some of us, or one of us, excited when you said you were going to talk about Aboriginal languages. Having heard the Prime Minister’s announcement in December 2016 about the development of an Indigenous language bill — Senator Joyal introduced a bill in the Senate and held off awaiting the federal bill — I heard from a senior Aboriginal leader recently the bill was almost ready and we would be seeing it soon.
We know there’s an election in the fall, if not earlier. I know you’re an official, and I don’t expect you to make an official announcement. Is that a priority that’s being worked on still within your department? Could you give us an idea?
Ms. Lévesque: It is a priority. I’m not leading that part, a colleague of mine is. That’s related to the Indigenous languages legislation.
It is ongoing. I know they’re working hard on developing this. As you know, they’re working towards a co-development with the three national Indigenous organizations. I know there are discussions with them at the moment to have that development finalized. I honestly can’t give you anymore details. I don’t have that.
The Chair: Thank you for that candid answer.
Senator Bovey: Thank you all for your presentations. I have a couple of questions. One is regarding education, and one is regarding the Museums Assistance Program.
As far as education is concerned, I’m delighted a strategy is under way to advance Inuit post-secondary education and reduce the attainment gap between Inuit and non-Indigenous Canadians. That said, you can imagine how shattered I was as a mother and grandmother to meet with young Indigenous students when we were on our tour of the Arctic, who had finished Grade 12 with A pluses and top of the class, and came down full of hope for post-secondary education, were lost very early in the game, and were tested and found they were at a Grade 5 level.
I appreciate closing these gaps takes time. Can you tell me if the Grade 5 southern level equalling a Grade 12 Arctic level is an improvement of what it was? Are we going in the right direction?
Ms. Buist: As I indicated and you noted, we’ve begun the work with the Inuit to try and develop an Inuit strategy. As I said, it’s based on forming components, including direct student support, complementary student support and national coordination. You’re absolutely right; in order to get to post-secondary, you need to have the adequate K to 12 education. That’s also a part of the reform the department is looking at and working with First Nations, Inuit and Metis on. It’s a full review of our education programming in the department.
It depends on where we’re talking about in the Arctic. With the comprehensive land claims, we play a different role with Inuit than we do with First Nations, for example.
I can’t answer your specific question about Grade 5 versus Grade 12. I’m not familiar with that statistic.
But you’re right; closing the attainment gaps for K to 12 and for post-secondary is an important focus of the education reform.
The Chair: I think the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency funds adult basic education in the Territories, your sister agency.
Ms. Buist: CanNor? I can’t speak to that either.
The Chair: They do fund adult basic education.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for that. I think it’s a big goal. I think we collectively have to keep on it. I can’t imagine how shattered those young people must have been when they found they were so far behind when they thought they were top of the class — and we talk about mental health.
Let’s move on to the Museums Assistance Program. Having worked it since its inception in 1982, I perhaps know it all too well. Thirty years ago, I can tell you, its budget was $8 million. I’m very perturbed to see it’s only $6.7 million now. And 35 years ago, it was supposed to grow to $24 million. I think that one has been going in the wrong direction.
I’d like to know if the success rate of the northern applications is assessed by a jury of peers or by museum assistance staff. I wonder if you can talk about the criteria? Do the exhibitions have to tour? What languages are they in? I have to tell you I asked that question and was very impressed with what we learned when the chair and I were at the Arctic Council meeting about the Sami culture and language and the work they’re doing pulling language instruction together with some of the other cultural museological aspects.
Can you talk a bit about how the MAP program works up North? With budgets going down, I can’t believe there’s a lot of money for the few northern institutions.
Mr. Thorne: Thank you for your question. In terms of the analysis, you know how it’s done. The program is delivered through our five regions in Canada. We have one office in the West, which includes the Yukon Territories. We have the Prairie and the North, which includes the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Since the Arctic is concerned more with those regions, the way it works is usually the requests are sent to the department through their offices. It’s a committee of officials who review those projects and allocates the money where it’s feasible.
For the last few years, there was a priority for Indigenous files. Usually we tend to put them on the top of the pile, when the project is eligible, et cetera.
I don’t have the data in terms of the rejection rate in terms of the Arctic per se. As I said in my opening remarks, over the last five years we supported 15 projects in the three territories for about $1.5 million.
That gives you a reference in terms of the money that is there.
Senator Bovey: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I might ask for the success rate, the statistics.
I would like to know why they’re adjudicated by department staff as opposed to the juries made up of peers from across the country working in museums with the museological expertise in the actual field that the applications are for. I’d like to know when that change was made. I’m aware it was made. Can you give us statistics as to how that changed the success rate of that work? Could you clarify whether the exhibitions funded under the program have to travel to three districts as they do if they are southern programs?
The Chair: I have noted those questions, which are on the record.
Can we ask, Mr. Thorne, if you could kindly get back to the committee? That was quite a bit of information that was requested.
Mr. Thorne: Yes.
The Chair: I don’t expect you have it at your fingerprints.
Mr. Thorne: I don’t have all the details because it’s a few years back. The only thing can I say about the review is I know at some point there was a peer review committee of the program. I’m not sure exactly when it started or stopped. It was before my time. I am just talking about what we are doing now in terms of assessing the projects.
The Chair: If you could find out and kindly let us know.
Senator Bovey: That’s very fair. On the other hand, I will also say there are more museologists from the Arctic who know the work that needs to be done. I’m going to be watching to see what those success rates are for the North.
Senator Oh: Thank you, panel, for being here.
The Indigenous communities are increasingly interested in securing funding through the Aboriginal Languages Initiative. Proposals submitted for funding have grown every year. According to the 2015 evaluation, between 2011 and 2012, and 2013 and 2014, seven Inuit projects were funded by the program.
Can you describe to us the Aboriginal Languages Initiative, and how the program balances the needs of communities and the limited funding?
Ms. Lévesque: I will start answering and then turn to Vanessa who will complete the answer.
I’ve been leading this group for three months now. I don’t have all the answers. That’s why I have Vanessa who knows a lot about the program.
It is a very in-demand program, even since we got the increase in funding. From 1998 to 2016, it was $5 million per year; the demand goes up and up. When we got additional funding of $19 million, the demand was still $28 million for projects. The demand is there. There is a need for this money.
With regard to the projects, it’s community-based. It’s how they submit what they believe is important in their community with regard to the various projects. Vanessa can maybe speak about the areas where we see some trends with regard to what those needs are, if that’s what you’re looking at.
Vanessa Mckenzie, Director, Aboriginal Affairs Directorate, Citizen Participation Branch, Canadian Heritage: Let me back up a little bit. As Claudette said, communities submit proposals to us and then we assess the proposals. It is a difficult and challenging exercise to be assessing far more proposals worth far more money than the program currently has. We make the assessment and try to do it based on the merit of the program, on the number of recipients, on the reach of what the activity will achieve.
We see a large range of different types of projects that come through in the program. It is designed to be able to be very broad. You’ll see we provided some books. We also have a lot of participatory activities, classes, camps, language nests and things of that nature.
We also support app development and that type of thing, which has a certain reach and certain value to it.
We try to assess the projects as they come through strictly based on the viability of the project to be delivered rather than on the merits or status of the language. There are so many different languages all in different stages of need. We don’t want to be in a position of making a judgment on that basis.
It is a difficult part of the program, given the funding challenges we have. We try to ensure we share the money as broadly as we possibly can and that we are delivering as well as we can to the best projects that are submitted to the program.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of you. I have questions for both sides of the panel. I’ll just ask the first one on language programming.
I think all of us were aware, even before we travelled to the Arctic, how important the Indigenous languages are not just for the preservation of culture but also for the revitalization and future of culture in the Arctic region.
I’m very impressed with the various programs described here.
What’s hard for us to know from what you’re telling us is: What’s working? These are very interesting things that are being funded across the Arctic on the language initiatives. Canadian Heritage has been funding things for years. What are your evaluation findings? What are people telling you? What investments are actually achieving good results, in terms of language acquisition and preservation?
Ms. Mckenzie: For those of you who are familiar with our most recent evaluation, one of the findings was that our data collection was not as strong as perhaps it could have been. We have been working hard to improve data collection over the past two or three years to make sure we can get funding along those lines. We know, for example, the range of different things that work in different communities varies significantly. We are not yet at a point where we know all of the things that work. We’re seeing communities trying new projects and initiatives coming forward capturing different groups and different members of the population as they test them, try them and learn. We know with building second-language speakers, immersion is a valuable tool. With anything that allows for greater immersion rather than simple exposure to language, we tend to see better results.
It’s important, though, to keep in mind we have a limited amount of money. We don’t always have continuous funding going into a given community. To track progress in that way is not something we’re always able to do. We are still learning and at the early stages of learning.
Ms. Lévesque: I would add as well ALI is a great program, but it has been a sun-setter for 20 years. So it’s difficult —
The Chair: You have to just tell us what a sun-setter is, please.
Ms. Lévesque: I’m so sorry.
The Chair: I think I know.
Ms. Lévesque: It doesn’t have permanent funding. We need to go back every two or three years to renew the funding. It is difficult to develop a sustainable group. You don’t know next year if your funding will be renewed. Last year was the first year the program administered a multi-year call for proposals, which means projects could come in over two years, which means you can track your investment and develop it over two years so there could be more impact. When it’s a one-off project, it’s a lot more difficult when they’re all one-offs in different communities.
We’re perfecting it. It’s something I’ve been looking at with regards to performance management. We’ve established a significant number of indicators so we can track how things are going moving forward.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. It sounds like there’s a lot of work to be done in this area. I know there have been significant investments and we see a significant issue. I’m glad to hear there’s a potential for multi-year funding, hopefully moving at some point beyond strictly project funding into more programming funding, which is usually something that can have a more sustainable impact in these communities.
I’ll move to the next question, and that’s for Ms. Buist. Thank you for your presentation. It was very interesting.
It’s a tough environment. We know that. There are huge gaps you’re dealing with. I had a little slice of the reality even before we went with the committee to the Arctic. My daughter used to teach in Baker Lake. She now teaches in Whitehorse, Yukon. Her husband used to be in charge of the Inuit employment program for the energy corporation there. I saw the range of the challenge. The strategy you’re talking about for post-secondary is interesting. We know NS has been quite successful here in Ottawa. I believe there’s an equivalent to NS in Montreal for the Nunavik communities. I forget what it’s called. I believe there’s an equivalent.
To Senator Bovey’s question as well, getting people through the education system with a culturally appropriate but academically sound combination requires really good teachers and more Inuit teachers in the case of those Inuit-speaking areas.
What is being done to bring up a cadre of Inuit-speaking teachers that are at the front end of this system, which then will produce the graduates that then produce the university students, that then produce the people who will close the employment gap you’re talking about? Because there are gaps all the way along.
The Chair: Did you get the question?
Ms. Buist: I did get the question, thank you. I’ll turn to my colleague Susan.
Senator Coyle: I’m sorry if it was convoluted. It’s all related.
Susan Irwin, Senior Policy Manager, Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: You’re talking about recruiting and retaining teachers, which is an issue for all Indigenous teachers. The department is working on a program to encourage First Nation and Inuit teachers. In the department’s case, we don’t deal as much with the Inuit teachers as we do with the First Nations because our education program is focused on students that are ordinarily resident on reserve.
However, we’re working with the First Nations and the communities because that’s where the teachers will come from. We are working with them to ensure their kids, their students, can get into teachers’ college. We are funding right now at least three different teacher recruitment and training courses in various academic institutions. Unfortunately, most of the work is focused on First Nations. As we are working with the North, we’re incorporating some of those approaches with them.
Senator Dasko: Thank you for your presentations today.
I too have a follow-up question. This was inspired by Senator Bovey’s question about post-secondary, following on Senator Coyle. Just to backtrack, going back in time, there have been post-secondary education initiatives to date. What are the ways and vehicles to deliver post-secondary education to the Inuit communities? What are the ways it happens? Is it by building post-secondary institutions, buildings, universities, colleges? Is it always sending students away? Is it electronic? Is it working with the territories? Or am I missing something altogether? How does it happen? How does the education happen?
Ms. Buist: I’ll give you the overview and then turn to Susan for details. Essentially, because we’re focusing on the Arctic, it’s a little bit different. We have devolution throughout the territories and the Arctic. As Susan said, the education programming in Indigenous services primarily focused on First Nations on reserves. That obviously doesn’t cover the Inuit and it doesn’t cover the land claims agreements, like the Yukon umbrella agreement. The education program is designed to provide post-secondary tuition to students. It’s also designed to support institutions. Those are the two main thrusts of the post-secondary education programming. I’ll turn to Susan to answer a little more specifically.
Ms. Irwin: Yes, the Inuit students are eligible for two separate programs in our post-secondary area. There’s the one that provides tuition to the student. It is allocated either to a community or, in the case of First Nations, it’s usually chief and council. With the Inuit it’s usually with bands.
We also have a program that funds academic institutions, both non-and Indigenous First Nation universities. This is a program that supports curriculum and additional services to Indigenous and Aboriginal students in academic institutions.
One example is a university that has a special qualifying year for Indigenous students who are coming from far away and supports them through their first year.
There isn’t as much of the e-learning as we have been working on with the high schools. That is something that has been looked at. The funding for the academic institution goes to Indigenous and regular academic institutions. It’s a proposal-based program. They apply to us. It’s a one- or two-year funding proposal.
Senator Dasko: Where are the students going? Which institutions, if they’re travelling? Tell me about some of them.
The Chair: I think we’d like to focus on the Arctic, north of 60, Churchill and Labrador.
Ms. Irwin: I don’t know if I can answer that question really well. My program expertise is from K to 12. We can try to get the statistics for you. You want to know where the Inuit students are attending university?
Senator Dasko: Just generally, where do they like to go? Are they going together to certain institutions? Are some more popular than others?
Senator Coyle: Does the NS program, for instance, drive more of them into the Ottawa universities?
Ms. Irwin: I can’t answer that question, unfortunately. I can get the data and find out from the post-secondary manager and also find out the funded institutions. I’m sorry I don’t have that answer.
Senator Dasko: Right, because you’ve got your funding programs. There are particular institutions getting the funding and would be the most popular universities or post-secondary colleges for students to attend.
Ms. Buist: We came prepared tonight to talk about cultural centres. I added in the other information as basic information. But we’d be happy to come back and give you a fuller piece on education in general rather than the cultural centres because I don’t want to stretch Susan out of her comfort zone.
Senator Dasko: I understand.
Ms. Buist: You’ve been in the job three months; I’ve been three weeks. I can bring the folks from the post-secondary education program, if you’re interested at some point in your study.
The Chair: Thank you. I think it’s a little hard for us to narrow down on the topics you were asked to prepare for, having just had an east-to-west tour of the Arctic. Forgive us for broadening the scope.
I’m sure you have taken note of the questions. We would be grateful if you would get your colleagues in the appropriate department to give us the information that was asked about.
I’d like to append one other request: There is a circumpolar network of post-secondary institutions called the University of the Arctic. Senator Bovey and I were at a conference of Arctic parliamentarians and we heard a lot about the University of the Arctic. I think the committee would like to get details of the support provided by Canada and the commitment of Canada to the University of the Arctic. If you can provide that information through the clerk, it would be appreciated.
Senator Boyer: Thank you, panel, for the discussion. I have a question for Vanessa. It has to do with the ALI program and your description of what it’s like to assess these proposals. When you’re assessing them, do you have a panel of Indigenous input that’s representative of the area you’re looking at? Also, how much focus is on Indigenous languages in the home? If you can answer those two questions, it would be appreciated.
Ms. Mckenzie: With respect to the assessment process, in three regions in the country we employ third-party delivery organizations who do the assessment themselves and submit a full proposal to us. That’s in British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan. In the rest of the country, the assessment is done in-house by the Department of Canadian Heritage. Unfortunately, we don’t have a panel that does the assessment at this point with the program.
Funding for programs in the home, what we have that we fund to a great degree across the country is something called Language Nests, which is a program that originates from the Maori in New Zealand and has been very successful at language revitalization there. This is not necessarily in the home because often parents don’t have the language to speak but is with elders or speakers within the community, with parents and children simultaneously working and learning the language and going about day-to-day activities in the language. That represents a reasonably significant proportion of what we fund.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you for being here. My question is similar to the question just asked.
When the department makes decisions, what involvement is there from Indigenous people? Is there any? There must be some. You must talk to the communities you’re providing programs to. Do they have some say? Is it just decided in Ottawa? Is that what happens?
Ms. Mckenzie: As I said, we are currently running third-party delivery in three regions of the country where we are able to do that. That is an increase over what we have done in the past. Previously we had one third-party delivery organization and we have now moved up to having three, kind of a pilot to see how this will work over time. In the past we’ve had third parties with varying success.
Senator Neufeld: From 1998 to now, we’ve managed to get to three. Is that correct?
Ms. Mckenzie: We have had more over time. The numbers have increased and decreased over time. We are now increasing again. We are now at three. The rest of the assessments are done in Ottawa.
The Chair: If I may, Ms. Mckenzie, I think the committee was interested in finding out whether there’s a way to involve communities or Indigenous people. Does the third-party process incorporate that kind of input?
Ms. Mckenzie: It does. The third-party organizations are cultural centres in two of the regions where we do them,. The third is an organization in British Columbia that is a provincial Crown corporation that does Indigenous language and cultural programming. They used a panel of Indigenous language experts in their assessments.
Senator Neufeld: Help me here a bit. You say UNESCO’s classification of Indigenous language in the Arctic is considered unsafe. Tell me a little bit about what that means. What do you mean by “unsafe”?
Ms. Mckenzie: That’s a definition UNESCO puts in their categorization of Indigenous languages. I don’t have the number in front of me, but “unsafe” is defined by the number of speakers and the instances of the language being used. I can provide you the measure of the state of languages that UNESCO uses.
Senator Neufeld: If you can provide some more information. I don’t think I’m much clearer right now than when I asked the question.
“Unsafe” meaning it’s not a language that is useful? It’s not a language that is used? Tell me.
Ms. Mckenzie: No. “Unsafe” refers to the level of risk of the language. There are a series of different classifications — severely endangered, unsafe, safe, et cetera — and this is where these ones fall, in the category of unsafe.
Senator Neufeld: Okay. At one point you talked about the Yukon and the Liard Aboriginal Women’s Society, which is close to my home. I’m familiar with the Kaska. You did 158 hours of language instruction for 20 youth and adults, as well as the production of a workbook to be used for online language lessons.
How was that done? Did you take people who live there and say, “We want you to teach this”? Give me an idea. How do you start it? How do you do it? I’m not familiar with what you’re doing. It may be a bad question. I’d like to know how you decide who will do it? Who makes the decision in the first place to do it at the Kaska?
Ms. Mckenzie: There’s an annual call for proposals. Communities submit proposals to the program. It’s decided by the community at the community level what proposals to submit to the program in any given year.
Senator Neufeld: Then the department decides from there what’s going to happen?
Ms. Mckenzie: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: Who does the work? Who does the instruction?
Ms. Mckenzie: The instruction is done by the community or whoever the community employs, whoever the recipient of the funding employs, usually a community member.
Senator Neufeld: You get a submission from the Kaska that they want to do something like this, it makes the cut, and you go back and say, “You have X amount of dollars, fill your boots, do it however you want to do it”; is that correct?
Ms. Mckenzie: Well, there’s a proposal that gets submitted that describes what they will be doing with the funding. There’s a reporting requirement afterwards that they demonstrate what they have done with the funding.
Senator Neufeld: Has that been completed?
Ms. Mckenzie: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: And how did it turn out, if there’s a report? Was it successful? Was it not successful? Were there changes that could be made to make it better?
Ms. Lévesque: I don’t have the report here. We can definitely get it. Every project has a contribution agreement developed in partnership with the community and the department or with the third party that’s delivering it. It’s the same model. It’s a contribution agreement. Then they have obligations with regards to the reporting. That’s how we measure back to the success, whether they delivered what they said they would do.
Senator Neufeld: Who writes the report?
Ms. Lévesque: They do.
Senator Neufeld: They write the report?
Ms. Lévesque: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: They submit for funding, they get to do it on a prescribed level with help from the department —
Ms. Lévesque: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: Then they do a report as to how well it did?
Ms. Lévesque: Exactly, and whether they met their obligations as per the contribution agreement.
Senator Neufeld: Okay.
Ms. Lévesque: Because they could come back the next year and say, “We had a great year in 2016-17. We’d like to pursue this and move on to another type of project” or to supplement what they were doing. They might come back with another project. We need to ensure they are capable of delivering what they previously wished to do.
Senator Neufeld: It’s the community that does the report? I just want to make sure I understand. They do their own report.
Ms. Lévesque: Yes, and they submit it.
Senator Neufeld: Next year they ask for another proposal. You just go back and say, “Well, they said they did okay last time, so I think we’ll do it again”?
Ms. Lévesque: It depends on what they’re proposing, if it fits within the eligibility criteria. I mean, there’s the whole evaluation.
Senator Neufeld: Yes, I understand that part.
Ms. Lévesque: Same thing, yes.
Senator Neufeld: Okay, thank you.
Senator Oh: We were up there. The place is so big, small communities all over. You say there is a shortage of teachers. Who trains them? Is there a teacher training college that trains teachers for teaching these languages?
Ms. Mckenzie: It really varies from community to community. There are languages where there are two or three first-language speakers surviving. If they are in a position to share their language and teach, they will. There are communities where there are people with education degrees, linguistic degrees. There are people who have no credentials but who have committed their whole lives to promoting languages. There’s a real range of credentials and experience behind who teaches languages in communities.
The Chair: To wrap up the discussion about the funding for your Aboriginal languages program, which is in such short supply, I wonder if you could share with the committee some idea of the criteria for evaluating all these projects that come in. Are they prioritized according to the number of speakers, the level of risk to the language? Give us an idea of your criteria, please, if you would send that through the clerk. Thank you. That would be great.
I have on second round — these have to be tight questions, please — Senator Bovey and Senator Coyle.
Senator Bovey: I want to come back to cultural centres and Museums Assistance Program. We know from international research programs for youth led by artists, creators, craftspeople within communities, have a tremendous success rate in health, in social services, reducing costs of social services, because the youth are directed with something concrete. We know they reduce crime prevention and recidivism rates up to 64 per cent in some communities.
I’m wondering if MAP and the cultural centres — because there are not a lot of museological centres across the North, so MAP must be working with the cultural centres. I’d like to know how they engage with each other and what are the purposes of the programs you’re funding? Are they just looking backwards or are they taking the cultural roots and traditions and building platforms to move the communities forward in a safe, positive manner? I wonder if you can address that.
Mr. Thorne: Thank you for your question. In terms of MAP, we build more flexibility in terms of the Aboriginal community, because usually they don’t refer to them as a museum or things like that. It could be part of a cultural centre, et cetera. MAP is based on collection management. It could be to help build an exhibition. It could be to help them do some preservation for their artifacts, things like that. It’s really the only scope we have in terms of what we are doing.
There are projects where they want to do something for the community. It’s a plus for the project, but it’s not really something that we either measure or look at in terms of the project per se. For us it’s really what is the museum’s key function, if it’s part of a museum or a community centre or things like that.
Senator Bovey: I think that’s fair.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I think as we go forward with our study and get the criteria from the Museums Assistance Program and more detail of the cultural centres program, I’d like us to examine not changing the mandate but what attention is being paid to the mental, social and personal health and crime rates in those communities. We know museums contribute very positively to those effects. I’d like to know if there are measurables in the MAP program. They’re not in the South, but I wonder if they might be in the North.
The Chair: You’ll let us know?
Mr. Thorne: Yes. As I said, my answer was really to answer what we are doing right now. In terms of other measurements we’re entering in a social dimension. It’s always hard to measure.
Senator Bovey: Our job is to make recommendations. Perhaps we can make some recommendations that are going to make the existing programs deeper and with more positive response.
Senator Coyle: Mine is a takeaway. I don’t expect an answer here now. We’re talking about culture, language, educational attainment leading to employment and employment parity. We are charged, as you know, with making recommendations related to the Arctic policy framework. Also, as the Government of Canada has signed on to Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, in each of the areas that you’re representing, I know there’s a lot of really good thinking going on in your departments. I’m very interested in what are the accelerators? What are the accelerators in each of those areas? What are the innovative things you are coming up with in each of these areas so we can take that dramatic leap that needs to be taken to get us to where we need to be, not be content anymore with the kind of statistics we’re looking at. This next framework that comes up is going to have to be a radical one. It’s going to have to be transformative — those are words we’re hearing from other people.
What are those accelerators? Not just business as usual in each of these important areas that you’re reflecting on with us here tonight. I know work is going on in each of your departments. We need to hear about that innovative work and the work on accelerators. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for the stirring question.
Ms. Buist: Could I just briefly —
The Chair: Senator Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: Sorry, Ms. Buist wants to answer. I want to ask one quick question, and they can send the information to us.
The Chair: Absolutely. To Senator Coyle’s question?
Ms. Buist: Very briefly. We will give what you’re asking for. It’s important you understand our perspective is that we aren’t the ones who are going to come up in Ottawa, in our offices, with the accelerators and the innovative ideas, that our raison d’etre is to work with Indigenous people, and they will tell us what they need.
I want to set that framework. It’s not us in our offices coming up with these ideas by ourselves, we’re trying to achieve the SDGs in partnership.
Senator Coyle: I really appreciate that. Of course, all of us appreciate that, but in a partnership framework, which is what we are operating within, all parties bring something to the table.
When I speak of accelerators and innovative ideas, I would expect you would have that from your partners as well. Thank you.
The Chair: We look forward to what you can come up with and send to us through the clerk. That would be much appreciated.
Senator Neufeld: Just a question I meant to ask before and it slipped my mind.
I wonder if you folks could provide to us the number of Indigenous and Inuit people who are working in the department offices here in Ottawa, where the decisions are made, who have lived in the Arctic, maybe grown up in the Arctic, that have come through the system. If could you tell us how many of those people work in the departments you’re talking to. I’d appreciate that.
The Chair: That is for both departments, Senator Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: Yes.
The Chair: I see heads nodding. We’ve asked you for a lot of information.
That brings to us a close. I have a brief, final question.
Thank you for talking about the Museums Assistance Program. I want to mention that Nunavut is the only territory, the only jurisdiction in the country, without a heritage centre or a museum. I think there’s something like 140,000 artifacts scattered across the country that want to be repatriated. I know this is way beyond the Museums Assistance Program, but the Inuit have come up with $10 million of their own money. The regional Qikiqtani Inuit Association has committed $5 million, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has committed another $5 million.
Could you tell me now, or later, is there a program that can look at capital assistance for the need I described?
Mr. Thorne: The Museums Assistance Program is not an infrastructure program. It is really beyond the scope of the program.
For the department, the program that looks after infrastructure, it’s called the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, which is part of another branch in the department. I’m sure they would be willing to send any details about their program. I’m not sure if the project you mentioned would fit in it.
The Chair: I would appreciate them sending any details about the program. More importantly, if they have engaged with the Government of Nunavut and the Inuit Heritage Trust in that direction.
Senator Bovey: May I ask a supplement on that?
The Chair: That will have to be the last question. Please go ahead.
Senator Bovey: On another project, I was told Cultural Spaces is defunct, even though on the website it’s in practice. I was told all the monies have been migrated to the infrastructure program under Infrastructure Canada, which is cutting out funding for museums, new builds and upgrades.
The Chair: That’s an important last question we would be grateful if you could follow up. I think we need verification of the significant change you mentioned.
Senator Bovey: My office is searching. Perhaps if you find out first, you could let us know. If I find out first, I’ll let you know.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your commitments to get back to us and for being here tonight.
(The committee continued in camera.)