---

Proceedings of the Special
Senate Committee on the Arctic

Issue No. 20 - Evidence - February 4, 2019

---

OTTAWA, Monday, February 4, 2019

The Special Committee on the Arctic met this day at 1 p.m. to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).

Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Unnusakkut.

[Editor’s Note: The Chair spoke in Inuktitut.]

Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. I am Dennis Patterson. I’m the senator representing Nunavut, and chair of this committee.

I would ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, please, beginning on my left.

Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.

Senator Boyer: Yvonne Boyer, Ontario.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.

Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba. I’m deputy chair of the committee.

The Chair: Colleagues and members of the public who are here or watching us, today, as part of our study on the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and impacts on original inhabitants, we are wrapping up our study of Arctic culture, language and the arts as a pathway to strong peoples and communities.

I’m pleased to welcome, first, from the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation, Bernadette Dean, Chair; and Debbie Brisebois, Executive Director. From Taqqut Productions, we have Neil Christopher, Director and Producer; and Nadia Mike, Producer.

We had hoped to hear from Alethea Arnaquq-Baril, Director and Producer, Unikkaat Studios, today by video conference, but a raven flew between us and the satellite or there was some other problem, and we have not been able to get adequate video facilities. I’m sorry, but we’ll have to find another way to hear from this very talented woman.

I would like to mention, before we hear from the panellists, that Debbie Brisebois is a friend of mine for many years, and she has just been exalted on Facebook with the announcement she is retiring from the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation after 30 years, if I’m correct. I posted a tribute to you. I just want to thank you for your long service, and thank you for being here with us today.

Without further ado, let us hear from the panellists. We will begin with IBC, please.

Bernadette Dean, Chair, Inuit Broadcasting Corporation: Qujannamiik. Good afternoon. It is a great honour and privilege to present to you today.

As your chairman said, I’m the current Chair of the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation. We have five board members and a vice-chair. We are a volunteer board. With me is Debbie, who has been our wonderful executive director since the beginning of IBC.

Significant and rapid change has been part of the story of IBC. For any members of a hunter-gatherer society, the ability to adapt and respond quickly to change is essential.

Since the beginning of Inuit rights in this country, protecting the Inuit way of life, culture and language always been at the forefront. When CBC introduced the Accelerated Coverage Plan in 1975, it basically allowed communities in Canada with populations over 500 to have access to CBC television.

The then Inuit leadership thought it would pose a threat to our language, with southern-based attitudes and languages going into the living rooms of Inuit. Personally, I have vivid memories of this, as it was in 1978 that the small community of Coral Harbour, where I grew up, had television for the first time. It changed our community almost overnight. There were no longer children playing on the streets or sliding on the hills. We were all glued to the television that was in a language we did not really comprehend or understand. We were watching soap operas and sitcoms or sports in a language we barely understood.

I remember watching “The National” with my parents who couldn’t speak or understand English at all, and how watching the news with all the tragedies and conflicts reported from around the world was quite frightening, and with parents asking you to translate for them. With the creation of IBC and different programs like the Inuksuk Project in the late 1970s, early 1980s, I remember the joy and excitement my mother had in being able to see Inuit from other places and broadcasting in a language that she understood.

Furthermore, in the early 1990s, I remember my children’s excitement and being star-struck with being on the same plane as “Super Shamou,” and how well-behaved they were on that flight. However, IBC, or Inuit Takunak Siluit, has experienced many changes and challenges in almost 40 years of its existence. The CRTC first granted ITC, which is now known as Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, with a broadcast licence in 1983. That was with funding from a federal government program called Northern Native Broadcast Access Program and is currently called NAB, Northern Aboriginal Broadcast.

Over the years, we have seen TVNC, a pan-Arctic channel, where many elders were excited to watch programs like “Denen Da” and other programs from other regions of Inuit Nunangat. IBC no longer holds a broadcasting licence since all of our programs are not broadcast through APTN. Over the years, funding for IBC has fluctuated and decreased. Our current budget is about $2.6 million, with 25 employees either permanent or on contract. $1.2 million comes from NAB, and the other sources of funding IBC is able to access is from the Aboriginal Languages Initiative, Canadian Heritage. We compete with other Aboriginal organizations for this funding. There has been an increase in applications to that program. That funding amount has never really increased.

We also receive some funding from the First Nation and Cultural Education Centres Program from what used to be called AANDC, but I don’t know what the current acronym is.

The Chair: Nobody does.

Ms. Dean: Additional funds from the Nunavut Government Culture and Heritage for specific programs that we produce.

We currently have five programs that are broadcast through APTN. They are “Nunavummi Mamarijavut” or “what we find delicious to eat in Nunavut.” “Uakallanga!,” which is “Wow, impressive.” It is an innovative show that shows artists or craftsmen who are impressive in the work that they do in their art or skill. “Qanuq Isumavit” is the only live broadcast we produce. It’s on Tuesdays every week. It focuses on current events. People phone in about different topics. One of our most popular ones recently was on elder care in Nunavut, or lack thereof. And we also have “Takuginai” and “Pituqait.” “Pituqait” is about archives and the old ways. We also have two online programs, “Takuginai” and “Pituqait.” They can be viewed on Isuma TV any time.

We have had a lot of success showcasing musicians over the years. At the same time it’s hard not to mention that, even though we have had success, we still see the effects of English-language television. As a grandmother, it was heartbreaking to see my grandchildren learn “Hola” from a show called “Dora the Explorer.” I embrace other languages, but it is a sad reality that many of us face in our society today.

The Inuit language, like many other Indigenous languages, is rooted in oral traditions and oral storytelling. It has transitioned really well with film and television due to being rooted in that oral tradition. I want to mention that one of Canada’s greatest filmmakers, Zacharias Kunuk, started his career in IBC.

We sent a hard copy of our presentation to your clerk. We were advised that we have five minutes to speak. I’m better at answering questions. If I can’t answer them, Debbie is here to assist me. Thank you for listening.

The Chair: Qujannamiik. What you were saying brought back a lot of memories, Bernadette. Thank you.

From Taqqut Productions, Mr. Christopher and Ms. Mike.

Neil Christopher, Producer and Director, Taqqut Productions: That’s wonderful to start with IBC. They have a long history, and they have done groundbreaking stuff and opened many doors.

We have a much newer company. We are a commercial company. We are part of a group of three sister companies. You invited Taqqut Productions.

The owners of Taqqut Productions have formed three sister companies. They all work in coordination.

I will explain Taqqut first. Taqqut is an Inuit-owned production company. We were incorporated in 2012. It has a focus on educational, children’s, television and film productions. The three owners are educators. We come to film through an educational lens.

Taqqut Productions was not formed because we aspired to be filmmakers. Two of the owners worked at the Nunavut Teacher Education Program. We recognized that southern television and film, as Bernadette well said, was contributing to the loss of language and culture in the Arctic. I would argue that children’s programming, other than IBC with Takuginai, is the least focused area of film and television production, and the most important. It is in childhood that we learn foundational literacy skills, develop sets of values to take us through our lives, and develop cultural identity as a person. It’s much more difficult after the fact to try to reclaim a lot of this stuff. We are focusing on early childhood and the younger years because that’s a need for our community that we saw.

As we were not filmmakers, we spent the first few years of our company’s life doing short films, and we were interested in animation. We were interested in doing things that resonated with the new generation of Nunavummiut, so our mindset was how to capture their interest. Our first foray into film was through animation of traditional stories, working with storytellers and traditional stories. We had a lot of success right off the bat. I think you have a sheet that shows somehow the awards that Taqqut’s firms have been honoured with. We started getting awards quickly and receiving recognition.

Our first commercial endeavour was with APTN to produce an Inuktitut preschool television program for young children, called “Anaana’s Tent.” I don’t know if you have heard of it; it’s kind of like “Sesame Street.” We shot it in two languages. It has been completely shot separately. We have a completely immersive show in Inuktitut, and then the English show for the national broadcast teaches Inuktitut to children like “Sesame Street” taught Spanish. It’s an educational show that privileges Inuktitut with the recognition that across Canada the exposure to a second language is only beneficial. Why should not all Canadian children learn some Inuktitut vocabulary? This is one of the languages of Canada that we should be proud of. That’s the way we took it. The shows are not exactly the same because the Inuktitut show doesn’t teach English; it’s just Inuktitut. Nadia Mike is one of the producers of the show. Maybe I can let her speak about that.

Nadia Mike, Producer, Taqqut Productions: I have been involved with “Anaana’s Tent” and Taqqut Productions for about four years now. Dipping my toes in a production was very new to me, because my background is in education. I also truly value incorporating different art forms so that children in Nunavut have access to Inuktitut literature, TV, and educational books.

It’s very hard for a parent who is battling against mainstream television and not having Inuktitut television to offer your child. “Anaana’s Tent” is another avenue for our children to learn Inuktitut, especially because there are different genres out there that children are more interested in. Opening the doors for more Inuktitut television is crucial and needed, especially with the language loss being at 1 per cent each year. “Anaana’s Tent” is needed. Also, having more television series for young children needs to be accessible as well, but having the capacity is another issue because we need trained individuals. We need more storytellers, and I think having that access can be limiting.

Mr. Christopher: I think Nadia makes an important point. Ourselves and IBC and Qanurli, there are very few series in the Arctic. As they have said, IBC have probably started so many people’s careers, and it’s through series that people have sustained employment. It helps us build capacity. When you do a feature film or a one-off, it’s one-off. People go back to government jobs. It’s only through series that people can have sustained employment. I think that’s really important. I feel that children’s programming is really important. But exactly as Nadia said, all of us were educators. It is through an opportunity to work in series where you have years’ worth of work, and then we’re in our second season and that’s where we can build as a community. We have done this program our way in our community with the mind that we’d rather work with people who have less experience but commitment, that we are going to build together. And that’s been really important. We are really proud that “Anaana’s Tent” is filmed on location in Iqualuit. For the first two seasons, we had to clear out a living room, build a tent set and shoot inside there. You would laugh if you saw how it was produced, but you would not laugh if you hear the response we get from the community of parents saying, “When they see your show on Saturday morning, they are speaking more Inuktitut at home.” It’s been really important to us.

Where we started is the first sister company. It’s Inhabit Media, which incorporated in 2006. Inhabit Media is unique in that it is the first and the only independent publishing company recognized by Canada Council’s block granting system in the Arctic. We are the only one; we are the only true trade publisher in the Arctic. There is another functioning publisher, which is an academic publisher, Arctic College, and I recommend speaking to them if you are interested. They have done incredible work. But we are the only true trade publisher. We publish books primarily in Inuktitut and English. We do some publishing in French and some in Inuinnaqtun, but that’s growing. We have published over 300 titles in our 13 years. All of the titles except for one are available in Inuktitut, all of the titles except for maybe one are available in English. We keep every title in print. Many times when the government funds a print run of a book, when it’s done, it’s done. But we are a commercial publisher and keep everything in print.

We currently distribute across North America, in warehouses in Ontario and in Minnesota in the U.S. We just started export sales in Europe and we have a warehouse in the U.K. We have started investing in foreign rights sales after these 13 years, and we just sold Italian and Spanish rights. Some Nunavummiut-authored books are now available in Italy in Italian and in Spain in Spanish. We are working hard to bring international money to artists in Nunavut.

Also, I have been asked to be involved with the rewriting of the arts and crafts policy in Nunavut. One of the things I’ve realized when looking at people who represent carvers, visual artists or performers is that publishing is a unique industry that I think should be paid attention to. Artists maintain the copyright of their work. Artists get royalties and royalty reports twice a year. The publisher and the artist enter into a partnership, and both benefit from the book’s success. The publishing industry in Canada is an interesting partnership between a public subsidy program, a commercial company and an artist. The government outlines priorities, modern business practices and encourages investment of a private company to promote the work of an artist and become more financially independent. Also, the funding is fairly stable and predictable. It’s not enough, but it’s predictable and stable, which allows multi-year planning. When I sit at the table with other industries, I realize we are unique in that we have this and in the way we represent artists. Galleries are not regulated or subsidized in the same way, but the publishing industry is very interesting.

Nadia is also a published author of a successful book. I don’t know if she wants to speak to that. We are publishing Nunavummiut authors and people with lived experience in Nunavut to make sure that in the next generation of children’s books Nunavummiut see their lives, culture and place represented in the books they read and realize that it is privileged.

We also want all of Canada. A lot of Canadian children’s literature is European folktales. Why do we learn Pinnochio and Cinderella? Why are celebrated Canadian stories not part of children’s literature? Inhabit Media has fought hard to do that. Unlike the current trend of wanting to celebrate Indigenous authors, which we applaud, we have fought for the opposite, for our books to go out of the Native studies section and into the regular children’s books section. We told the three owners that we want our books recognized as Canadian children’s books and not Native studies books. That’s something we fought hard for.

Recently we were at the Frankfurt Book Fair, and it was so good to see that Nunavut books could stand up against books from anywhere in the world. They didn’t look like just Arctic books but like books that contributed to the world. We’re still negotiating many foreign rights for our authors because of this. Do you want to speak to anything?

Ms. Mike: Yes. When I was in teachers college, this is how I met Neil. He was one of my instructors. One of my courses was in literature and teaching reading and writing. Being in that class, I remember, like you said, all those books that we were learning to use to teach children weren’t northern books. They were, like you said, just mainstream Canadian books — Dr. Seuss and stuff like that. I was thinking there has to be more Inuktitut content because if we’re going to be teaching in Arctic schools, especially for Inuktitut teachers, we need to have that foundation.

I didn’t know that he had a publishing company. I was telling him, “Look, we need to have more books in Inuktitut.” And he said, “Yes, we should.” That’s when I pitched my first book. It was a baby board book all in Inuktitut. Since then, I’ve published three other books. One of them has been converted into a short animation that I wrote and directed.

Mr. Christopher: You’ve published four books, not three.

Ms. Mike: We’ll argue about that later. It’s really important to me as an educator, as a mother, a parent and someone who is passionate about Inuit and our culture, those are the things that our children need to see in our schools, on our bookshelves and in our stores. I try really hard in my home to create a foundation and environmentally friendly print so they’re immersed in more Inuktitut and more culture. That’s all I can do. It’s very small.

Mr. Christopher: The third company, the newest company, is Inhabit Education. It’s an educational publisher that is very different from a trade publisher. Because of the capacity we developed through Inhabit Media and because of some of the stuff we were doing with Taqqut Productions, the Department of Education and the Government of Nunavut asked us to come work with them on various projects. We realized it was a totally different skill set.

So we formed Nunavut’s first educational publishing company. We took our understanding of distribution networks and editorial practices that we developed through Inhabit Media, and applied them to create resources that targeted curricular goals. The department wanted Nunavut-made resources for Nunavut schools and Nunavut students that again reflected the lived realities of the students.

We’ve done service work and consulting for the government, but we have also created two educational imprints, Nunavummi and Arvaaq. You have two items that were forwarded to you about that.

The Government of Nunavut Department of Education created what we understand is one of the first, if not the first, true Indigenous language levelled reading program in the world. If it’s not the first, it is probably the most significant. I was talking to people in Greenland, and they said their reading program was just translated from Danish, whereas Nunavut took the idea of a levelled reading program but started with Inuktitut, hiring linguists and language specialists to build incremental steps in literacy and create a reading program. It is a huge success for Nunavut and for Canada.

As far as I can tell, this program is, as I said, unmatched anywhere, with over a thousand Inuktitut books and teacher supports that are helping reverse the loss of language and culture. In certain focus groups we’ve had, we’ve heard teachers saying that things are changing immediately with this reading program. We’re now beginning to reach out to work with Nunavik and N.W.T. in trying to do what Nunavut has learned, which is sharing with our neighbours. Those are the three sister companies where Taqqut is from.

The Chair: Really very useful presentations. Thank you very much.

[Editor’s Note: The Chair spoke in Inuktitut.]

We have a little less than an hour. Our senators are bristling with questions stimulated by your presentations. Can we limit it to two questions each so we can hear from everybody?

Senator Bovey: I want to thank you. This is very impressive and inspiring. I think we’re all bubbling over.

I thought I had been well aware of the work you’ve all been doing. You made me realize what I thought I was well aware of was really only my toe in the water, so congratulations. Bringing lost cultures back and turning lost languages around I know for many is virtually impossible but for you it’s been a dream that you’ve made a reality, so I thank you.

My question is really very broad. With all due respect, it’s one question that touches on everything you talked about. We are charged, as you know, with coming up with an Arctic framework policy. You’re well aware that language and culture is one of the important bases that we’re looking at.

Based on your experience, accomplishments, challenges and the challenges you have going forward, what would you recommend that we highlight in our report, which is obviously going to our colleague senators and then to the House of Commons? Senate reports have to be responded to by the powers that be in the House of Commons. What would you like to see us take forward so that you can do what you know you need to do next?

What are our next steps? What do we need to do to make sure you can live those next steps?

The Chair: Let’s ask each of the two panels, beginning with IBC.

Ms. Dean: That’s a very good question. I was thinking that the 94 calls to action from the TRC really have to be adopted and implemented. Four of the calls to action are on language. For recommendations, you have starting on page 8 to page 9 in the hard copy that IBC provided to you. What was the other part of your question?

The Chair: Just on that, I understand copies are available. Is it agreed that copies be distributed without translation, subject to having that done later? Is that agreeable to the committee?

Senator Bovey: Yes.

The Chair: We’re just distributing your presentation, Bernadette. You referred to the recommendations on page 9?

Ms. Dean: Starting page 8, the bottom of page 8, just five recommendations; and on page 5 — no, page 9; sorry.

The Chair: Pages 8 and 9?

Ms. Dean: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Can we turn to Mr. Christopher?

Mr. Christopher: It’s very interesting because we’re very different. They’re publicly funded and we’re a commercial initiative. I think it’s going to be interesting for you to get the two perspectives.

For mine, as I said, I really like the publishing industry. I like how — and I think it’s worth looking at — a public subsidy program helps direct business practices and priorities. All three companies are trying to wean ourselves from funding. But the way publishing works is you’re not penalized to remove the funding until you get past a really healthy spot business-wise, and then you’re no longer eligible for that funding. I realize — and Louise, Danny, Nadia and all of us realize — that funding year to year is not a way to live and expand. We’re always looking for other revenue. We’re trying to get international money and bring it back. We would not have been here if it wasn’t for the subsidy programs that exist. They’re very successful.

In publishing, we’re very grateful for the Canada Council. In Nunavut, we’re very grateful for partnering with Inuit orgs, and they access certain funding programs. We feel so lucky to be in Canada, because when I talk to other international colleagues, they don’t have this investment to help mitigate risk. Canada and Nunavut have helped mitigate the risk of our expanding.

When we went to Frankfurt, Economic Development and Transportation Nunavut paid a little bit of that bill. They didn’t cover all the costs, but we had to invest our profit into this initiative as well. I think it’s a very good model.

Interesting things are happening in our territory. We’re seeing a lot of designers, clothing manufacturers and jewellers. They probably would say the same thing. They’re probably accessing a bit of business start-up that’s happening up there, but this is their own initiative and they are benefiting commercially from the success. Aakuluk Music, the music industry that’s happening, these are again an examination of public-private partnerships, and you guys encouraging business to happen, and then hopefully we don’t need it anymore.

In Nunavut, we always try to get American, southern Canadian and European money to come back so we can invest in Inuktitut. We don’t try to make money off Inuktitut; we try to make money off the rest of the world that’s interested in the content and bring that money back and invest it at home. That’s our model for long-term sustainability. We don’t want to be dependent. We want to recognize that we’ve been given an opportunity, and then take it, someone else can access that, and that could be their stepping stone.

Senator Bovey: I want to applaud what you said about series. As a mother of two daughters and two sons-in-law, three of the four of them work in British television as producers of series. I cannot underline enough the importance of the training and the career progression as a result of the series. The one-offs are great, but they don’t do it. I applaud your insight into that.

Mr. Christopher: Can I say one point on that? I recently had a similar discussion with Nunavut Film because the way the subsidy program works right now in Nunavut, your next season you get less funding. In a way, it encourages productions in Nunavut to move to the south, in Ontario, where they don’t try to dissuade the next season. Instead, they support it at the same level. The CEO of Nunavut Film recognized that’s true. The film industry is going to build through series, as you’ve said. We need to recognize that.

Senator Bovey: Congratulations.

The Chair: Did you have a comment, Ms. Brisebois?

Debbie Brisebois, Executive Director, Inuit Broadcasting Corporation: Basically to echo what Neil said about series and what you’ve said about how important that is, which is what IBC has been doing for almost 40 years. Being able to have that predictable, dependable shot on your screen and those words in your ears I think is extremely important.

In a broad sense, to your question about recommendations, our recommendations that we’ve got here are fairly distinct to our situation about the Northern Aboriginal Broadcasting program, how diluted it has become. When you talk about series production, we’re doing five series and our budget is $2.6 million. It’s nothing, really.

Neil talked about building a tent in a kitchen or a living room. It reminded me of “Super Shamou,” when we first created that show. They basically went to Baker Lake and got all the materials at the dump — his cape and his rubber boots that he borrowed from somebody. Basically, that’s how IBC has had to do things.

Again, our recommendations are pretty specific, if you want to discuss them further. In a broader sense, the Indigenous language legislation, which we’ve just recently heard could be introduced this week now —

The Chair: A quick question: Has IBC been consulted on the development of the language legislation?

Ms. Brisebois: Yes, we did. It was a very quick consultation. I attended a session here in Ottawa. Bernadette attended a session in Iqaluit. It was a very rushed consultation, if we may say so, but we did have some input and were able to bring forward some of our concerns.

The Chair: Chair’s prerogative, if I may. First of all, I want to thank IBC for the excellent presentation. I remember when TV came into the North, into what is now Nunavut. I remember when the hamlet of Igloolik refused to have television come in for several years, and they fought it successfully, for reasons of cultural and language preservation. I remember when the CBC offered one half-hour a week for Inuktitut language programming in the Nunavummiut program in collaboration with the National Film Board. You developed the Inukshuk program, it became TVNC. Now you don’t have a broadcast licence and you are reliant on APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, to broadcast Inuktitut-language programs to the widely scattered people of Nunavut.

My question is this: How has it been dealing with APTN? You’re a minority language in Canada, and how many hours a week do you have? Would you like more? How has it been having to use that model now, as television has evolved? The Inuit were the pioneers in the North. Now it’s evolved to other Aboriginal languages, which is great. But how is your minority language faring in access to ours? Can you describe that?

Ms. Dean: I can only say it’s been a challenge when APTN started. I like the idea of APTN broadcasting in Aboriginal languages across the country. Part of the challenge for IBC is that all our programming has to have subtitles in English or French, on top of producing, as part of the production. Often we hear complaints from elders and others that they don’t see enough television in our language now. At the time there were some elders that understood other Indigenous languages from their TB sanatorium experience. It’s been a challenge because of time slots.

The Chair: How would it get fixed?

What’s the fix if it’s not enough programmed hours?

Ms. Dean: One of the ideas we’ve been working on for five, six, seven years or more is to have TV Nunavut. I remember that idea came about when the late Jose Amaujaq Kusugak was still there. There was an industry meeting some years ago when he became the first KIA president, so after ITK. The idea of TV Nunavut has been there. Debbie can speak more about that. I’m on the board for that also. We haven’t had a conference call or a meeting in over a year.

The hope is that TV Nunavut will be educational and broadcast in our language. I know from other interactions with other Inuit in Greenland and Alaska, Alaska would love to have APTN broadcasting in Alaska. We can’t go there, but that’s possibly a way to protect our language and culture.

Presently, all I can say is TV Nunavut is a dream and a hope we’re trying to work towards. Working with what we have now is restrictive in a way, having to broadcast through APTN.

The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Ms. Brisebois?

Ms. Brisebois: Yes. As Bernadette had mentioned earlier, we’re producing five series. There are only two of our series that are broadcast on APTN, plus the phone-in show as an exception. APTN has a rule that any one production company can only have two series.

We still want to continue, of course, to produce “Takuginai” and “Pituqait.” What we’re doing with those series is broadcasting them on isuma.ca.

The Chair: That’s a cybernetwork that streams, am I right? Is that the way forward to increase Inuktitut programming in Nunavut?

Ms. Brisebois: I think that’s one way going forward. There are limitations. Probably most of us are aware of the bandwidth issues, the cost and the reliability. As we see, we couldn’t get Alethea by video conference today.

It’s not a bad solution. I don’t think it’s the total solution. As Bernadette was mentioning, TV Nunavut, IBC and other independent producers in Nunavut, we’ve been getting together for many years now, and we’ve taken some concrete steps. There has been a technical feasibility study done. It’s perfectly possible to have a Nunavut channel.

The Chair: Could you make that study available to the committee, please, through the clerk?

Ms. Brisebois: Absolutely. What’s stopping us is we’re a loose group of people trying to do our day-to-day work.

The Chair: The environment.

Ms. Brisebois: TV Nunavut really hasn’t been resourced, and that’s one of our recommendations in here about distribution. It can happen. It’s a dream, but it’s right there. It’s only that far away. It can happen with just some resources put into it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Coyle: Thank you all for your very informative and inspiring presentations. I have a question for each group. To the pioneers —

The Chair: They’re both pioneers.

Senator Coyle: Ms. Dean and Ms. Brisebois, the work that you’ve been involved in, it really was pioneering in this whole area, in the world in which the Inuit live. I’m very impressed with your work.

We met Super Shamou when we were up at Baker Lake and then at Meadowbank Gold Mine, and had a good visit with him. I saw the cartoon of him in the indoor playground at Baker Lake, so I know the outfit you’re describing very well.

One of the things we are dealing with and you’ve mentioned is the Indigenous language legislation that’s coming in. I’m also on the Aboriginal Peoples Committee, so I’m doubly interested in your point here.

What I understand you’re saying is make sure that one size does not fit all. Is that pretty much what you’re trying to say with your recommendation, that Inuit languages be addressed specifically and not lumped in with all other Indigenous languages? I get that.

You also say, though, that legislation must be supported by action. Could you speak a little deeper to both of those things, about the distinctiveness and how it needs to be treated distinctly, the Inuit language; and also the kinds of actions that you’re talking about?

Ms. Dean: Thank you for your question. Our language situation is very dear to me. No matter what language, all of us — whether it’s English, French, Inuktitut, Spanish or whatever — learn language through hearing it first. That’s how I learned my Inuktitut.

That’s a very tough question you’re asking. Inuktitut is a language that we don’t want to be lumped into one size fits all.

I used to do a lot of proposal writing and, with that, a lot of researching and having to prove to funders about Inuit and educating about Inuit. One of the things I came across, one of the stats in 2013, was Inuit made up 0.02 per cent of the Canadian population. I often say we’re a very small population, but we’re very famous because we live in the Arctic.

I’ve seen with my own eyes the loss of language in one generation. I can say for myself and my own children, my children understand Inuktitut, but we had to move from community to community, and their dialect that they speak would often be corrected. That’s kind of painful, but it’s the reality.

How do we reverse that trend? I’m grateful there are people like Neil Christopher and Nadia Mike and Taqqut. I’m happy that those things are happening. There’s still a trend we have to reverse somehow, and we can through music, film, television, and all of that. But we also have to change attitudes. How do we change those attitudes?

One attitude is that for so long the message was sent that your language, the way you think, is not good enough. English was shoved down our throats.

I’m still learning English, by the way.

We used to sing “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” and we had no clue what a lamb was.

I know we have much hope with this technology. There is a lot of promise with this technology, but it is constantly changing. You have to upgrade your skills on the latest software, the latest computer. But commitment, changing attitudes, and no matter what the statistics you read about how much of the language is spoken, if it is no longer the language of the home and playground, you can produce all the books you want. My hope and dream is let’s have an Inuk “Dora the Explorer.” We have to reverse it somehow. Inuit can’t do it alone.

Senator Coyle: As you have said, and we have heard from others, language is such an important bearer of the culture. Thank you very much for that answer, which I know is not easy.

Ms. Mike: What you said about your children knowing many different dialects but always trying to be corrected, as a growing child, it impedes them and they become self-conscious and very intimidated that they don’t want to speak Inuktitut anymore. What they felt is what I have felt, too, because I moved around a lot in Nunavut and N.W.T. You are taught to respect your elders and people older than you. When they tell you, “Oh, you need to say it this way and not that way,” because they want you to learn their dialect, it can affect a child in that sense.

Senator Coyle: That really helps to round that point out. The fact that one size does not fit all even in the Inuktitut language. Thank you, Ms. Mike and Mr. Christopher, for your presentations. Of course you are also pioneers. I did not mean to say that you were not, but certainly new-generation pioneers, which is what we need.

It’s lovely to have a panel that represents people who are still on the cutting edge but who pioneered this work, which is amazing, and you folks who have come in in a new way, different from public perspective, of your production company and publishing companies.

It’s music to the ears to hear all of the innovation that’s going on. So often we hear not such great news out of the Arctic and Nunavut. There is really good news we need to build on. In our report, where we are looking at the Arctic policy framework and trying to make recommendations, it’s important to back those who are already doing innovative and effective things. That’s what we are hearing here.

This work in educational television and publishing is very exciting to me. My grandson started his school career in Baker Lake. I was shocked at how there was a complete lack of resources that you are now actually creating both in terms of written material as well as the televised material. I’m really happy to hear this is happening.

I’m also excited at the international scope and the fact it’s not just Inuit language and culture for Inuit, which has to be the priority, but it’s also mainstreaming in Canada and beyond. You are absolutely right. I think you said it, Ms. Dean, that people in Canada’s Arctic are very well known around the world. There is a curiosity and respect for the resilience and the people, which is what we are all talking about.

My question to our second group here is you have told us what you are doing, but what are your big dreams for the three businesses? Where do you see this going? What impact are you forecasting on the young generation of the various Inuit territories of Canada and beyond? I want to know your big dreams.

The Chair: What we have to say is that being a Senate committee making recommendations to the federal government, it would be how the federal government can help.

Senator Coyle: Yes, and you started with that question, and Pat started there.

Mr. Christopher: In publishing we always want more money, but I’m happy where it’s going. In the film side, IBC doesn’t get enough, but we don’t have one dollar guaranteed every year for our staff team. We have to fight every year to pitch productions.

APTN has been absolutely the best partner for us. When we pitch things to CBC, or anyone else, no one else respects the Northern sensibility. Everyone wants everything cut really fast, but that’s not the sensibility of the North. We have a calm way of telling stories. No one else will be interested in the language other than APTN. But APTN has to serve a lot of Indigenous communities.

Nadia and I recently went to speak to them. We basically said that to survive as a company we need two series triggered every year. We can’t survive on one. They said that’s a big ask. We said this is what we need to be sustainable. We are working ridiculously long hours, lots of unpaid hours, so we need TV Nunavut. Even though we have an international focus, if we don’t make content for our own community, no one else will.

Our publishing program, we recognize this is for our community. We will identify a few of the titles that might have international interest and take those forward. We do not only look at commercial success; we look at community success. We are building something for the future.

The same thing on film and television. “Anaana’s Tent,” “Sesame Street” in Inuktitut. There is not a giant market for that. It doesn’t matter. This is what we wanted to do for a very specific reason. We are building something for our community.

We have about five or six children’s productions in various stages of development. One is very much like an Arctic “Dora,” a cartoon where you speak to the audience. We developed several apps. The beautiful thing with our three sister companies is with “Anaana’s Tent,” we can then licence the property to the publishing company and produce books with the same characters. We want the same recognizable properties as we have in English.

The Chair: Not Dick and Jane anymore.

Mr. Christopher: Not Dick and Jane, exactly. Ukaliq and Kalla, if you haven’t seen that, a rabbit and a lemming. So we have that, with Vinnie Karetak and Anguti Johnston. We want to do stuff for our home. If it works outside, wonderful. If we can bring in money, wonderful.

The Chair: Can I ask you about the federally owned Crown corporation, the CBC? What are their policies? You dismissed them as being difficult to deal with, if I understood that right.

Mr. Christopher: I’m not interested in them any longer. They told us straight off that they are not interested in educational children’s programming anymore.

Senator Coyle: It’s not in their mandate?

Mr. Christopher: To me it’s ludicrous for a public broadcaster to give up on children. I cannot accept it. I have been a vocal supporter of CBC, but now CBC television, until they change that, I’m not interested.

They can do productions. They don’t have the same financial risk as all of us. If they don’t invest in Canadian children, who is going to do that? I have had no productive meetings with them. It’s only APTN that will say, “In our community, we want to cut it this way. This is the cadence of how we want to tell a story.” We had to fight, and they had the same thing. They wanted subtitles in English. Unfortunately, Louise Flaherty, one of the other owners, is now on a blind trust because she is the Deputy Minister of Education in Nunavut and can’t be here. But at that time, she sat down and we fought. We said, “We cannot be speaking Inuktitut and then showing English text. It doesn’t make any educational sense.” APTN finally said, “You are right. That makes sense.”

They might have ideas that don’t work with us, but they have listened. They don’t have enough money to trigger enough productions for us, but we need TV Nunavut and someone who can say, “100 per cent Inuktitut.” The North needs to decide for the North; the Arctic for the Arctic. That’s what the message should be. If there is a program like in publishing, you invest in companies that are following correct business practices, and the subsidy is based on the level of productivity and innovation and bringing new people into the industry. I would love that. But at the moment we have no stability on the film side. It’s really difficult.

The Chair: We have Inuktitut speakers in Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Northwest Territories, Inuvialuit and Alaska. Could TV Nunavut reach a larger audience of Inuktitut speakers?

Ms. Dean: Definitely. All the languages from Alaska, Nunavut, Greenland and the Inuit languages have the same root words. In having conversations with other Inuit in those countries, there is a definite interest in learning about other cultures and ways of doing things.

Recently, about three weeks ago, there was a young Iñupiat girl on Facebook and Twitter who mentioned that even if she wants to watch “Qanuq Isumavit” online or “Takuginai,” because of some laws, she cannot access them because of licensing issues. Because she is American, she cannot access them even online.

There is so much interest, and there have been similar experiences with Iñupiat and Greenlanders. We all have the same or similar experiences. We are all struggling to revitalize or regain our language. No matter what you see in black and white, that Inuktitut is one of the languages expected to survive, I think those studies are not a true reflection of what the reality is today. There is great interest amongst other Inuit.

I hope I answered your question.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Christopher: The largest bulk buys of our books are from Alaska. So it must resonate.

The Chair: Very good.

Colleagues, we have about 10 minutes more. If you can govern yourselves accordingly.

Senator Dasko: Thank you all for your presentations. It was really interesting and valuable.

I have a couple of questions. First, with regard to television in general, it’s well known, let’s say for those of us in the south, Americans and Canadians and Europeans and so on, that television viewership in general has been declining as the population is switching to online and streaming and so on. Fragmentation of television and decline in television viewership is sort of endemic. We have seen that as a general trend.

Is this the case in the North? We all know about the problems with broadband. Is television still a huge medium? Has it maintained itself as an important medium? Certainly, part of the future of what you are all doing, you seem to look to television to be a means of distribution into the future. I want to ask about television in general. Is it still a dominant medium in the North? Has it suffered from what we have seen in the South? I ask this of all of you.

Ms. Brisebois: It does seem to be different in the North than in the South. There is still a dependence on traditional television and radio partly because of bandwidth issues and the reliability and the cost.

If you walk into a house in the North, it’s just like — and I’m aging myself now — in the old days when radio was on constantly. Now, if there are Inuktitut programs on, everybody has their TV on for that block where those shows are.

Senator Dasko: So they are not all on their computers like my kids?

Ms. Brisebois: No, definitely not. I think we have all taken some steps where we have created podcasts for kids. Often, they can only use those when they are travelling in the South, and it’s much easier.

What is interesting is that there are no statistics about television in the North. APTN does not have any numbers on viewership in the North because all the companies that do measure broadcasts, they don’t measure in the North because the population is too small. They don’t measure on reserves either.

Senator Dasko: I’m not surprised to hear that at all.

Ms. Brisebois: There is no statistical information.

Mr. Christopher: I think exactly what Debbie has said. It’s not the same, but we are seeing some decline in the North. It’s not the same as the South. We are also investing in app content, and we’re starting to invest internally on web series.

IBC has already been doing that ahead of us. We are putting content online, and we are getting ready. We are not waiting for the world to change, but when the world changes and the Internet is better up North, there will be all this content. There is also Inuit not in the North, and a lot of them access our content all the time. We are trying as many strategies as we can.

Senator Dasko: To try and keep on top of what’s happening and use what is there.

Mr. Christopher: Exactly.

The Chair: We are holding this meeting on Algonquin land. This city has the second-largest Inuit population in Canada. There are no numbers, but there could be 3,000 Inuit in Ottawa.

Senator Dasko: Mr. Christopher, I want to clarify something you said earlier. I want to make sure I understand what you were saying about subsidies. You were talking about start-up subsidies and how they disappear as the company gets larger and more successful.

Are you calling for continuing subsidies for successful firms, or are you arguing for the maintenance and continuation of the model of start-ups and then decline, the subsidies falling off?

Mr. Christopher: We have benefited from business start-up funding. I don’t expect it to continue forever. As a company, we have to wean ourselves from that and recognize the advantages we have been given in Canada. But in publishing, if Canada didn’t invest in Canadian content, we would not have it. It’s just like in television.

Look at the Canadian model for how the block-granting system works. Basically, our company was audited. We had to do certain steps to get into it. There was a merging publisher fund, and then we get into it. Basically, our contracts are audited, our business practices, and there will be paying of royalties and all of these great things. Are we bringing in new authors? How are we representing? Are we being innovative? This subsidy, there is a certain amount and there’s a formula and it’s divided amongst all the contributors in Canada to Canadian content.

After a certain point you leave that program. It’s still quite significant. You have to build business strength. It takes a while to do that. I just like how publishing is done because it only rises by 17 per cent and it will only decrease by 17 per cent. The rug will not be pulled out from under you the next year. Even if you have a bad year, it will start declining, but you have a chance to pick it back up.

I think it’s a really good model. We have a lot of great Canadian authors because of this. Maybe we should look at that model for the other arts industries.

Senator Dasko: What you are seeing now in terms of the structure of subsidies you find it to be a really good model?

Mr. Christopher: We wouldn’t be here without it, for sure.

Senator Dasko: Yes, that’s clear.

The Chair: We have to wrap up. If I may, I know Senator Bovey has a supplementary question on that issue. I’m even going to guess what she will be asking about.

Senator Bovey: I’m an open book. I was going to ask you all about the authors, artists, filmmakers, designers, writers and publishing. What has your access to the new programs of Canada Council been like?

The Chair: Canada Council has redesigned its programs. As of when, Senator Bovey?

Senator Bovey: The first grant run was last fall. The first results came out last fall. They are all online applications. I gather their Inuit department is no more. I’m not asking a negative question. I’m just asking, to your knowledge, what was the success rate out of the North? We’re meeting with Canada Council later this afternoon. They know I’m asking everybody this question, and they know I have all their stats. That’s one question, if you can think about that.

The other, as one who has been involved in the publishing industry a lot, distribution of books, publications and films has had its ups and downs. Maybe you would like to marry those two questions.

The Chair: We are going to have to ask you to respond quite succinctly to those two questions. Who wants to answer the first question about access to Canada Council?

Mr. Christopher: The publishing side is okay. With everything else we have had difficulties. Taqqut has been determined ineligible for certain ones. We are trying to resolve that. There is not an easy person to speak with. It’s not intuitive.

Ms. Mike: I had to do an online application to get validated, and it takes about two weeks. I haven’t heard back yet.

Mr. Christopher: This transition hasn’t been easy for us. Maybe that’s just because we haven’t invested the time.

The Chair: You are a more sophisticated applicant than many others.

Mr. Christopher: We need someone to be able to call and say, “This is confusing. Why did you deny us? Can you explain?” We don’t get that.

The Chair: Was there an Inuit focus in the Canada Council previously?

Senator Bovey: There was a department. There is not now.

Mr. Christopher: It hasn’t helped us, that’s for sure. Any people we represent have not benefited, not including the publishing side, which is quite functional and has been working out well.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for your enlightening, helpful and stimulating presentations.

I’m pleased to welcome, from Qaggiavuut!, Rhoda Ungalaq, Chairperson; and Ellen Hamilton, Executive Director; and Mr. Guillaume Saladin from Artcirq, President, Acrobat, Co-Founder and Co-Artistic Director; and Jimmy Awa Qamukaq, Vice President, Acrobat/Clown and Chief Coordinator at Igloolik.

We’re getting copies made of your presentations. I would like to begin this panel by video conference from Banff, Alberta and representing Akpik Theatre, Reneltta Arluk, Artistic Director and Founder. Thank you all for joining us. I invite you each to proceed with your opening statement. We’ve given a time frame and ask you to stick to that so that we have an opportunity for questions afterwards. Ms. Arluk.

Reneltta Arluk, Artistic Director and Founder, Akpik Theatre: I am originally from the Northwest Territories. My mother is Denesuline and Cree, from the Fort Chipewyan and Fort Smith region, and my father is Inuvialuit Gwich’in from the Inuvik Aklavik region. I’m here as a representative of Akpik Theatre, founder and artistic director. Our primary goal is to develop stories, mentor, and professionally present and produce scripts that are Northern Indigenous focused for audiences — regional, national, and global.

All of this was done with the focus on creating space for Northern Indigenous voices so that we are able to tell our stories our own way.

One thing I noticed, becoming an artist later on in my career — I didn’t start until I was 19 or 20 — is that when I went back into my community in the North to create arts, there was nothing there to house me. I realized that each community has a sports arena, but no other communities have a space where artists can gather to create and show their own work to their own community. Sports in the Northwest Territories are heavily funded by the Government of the Northwest Territories, and as well have access to a lottery system, whereas arts in the Northwest Territories do not have access to that same pool of money.

There is a great need for artist funding. We do have the NWT Arts Council, which does provide funding for artists. However, the need is so great that they’re unable to meet the demands to offer secure artist funding for all the communities.

When we think about art and its importance, language and culture are integrated into art. Art is a voice for culture and for language. Art asks for culture and language to be able to create that work. To be able to create art asks for it to be responded to. Art asks for audience and it asks for your community to engage in that voice. It creates a greater need to connect community wide but also to be heard as an individual.

When you create a disconnect for youth and members in these small, isolated communities, and when you create a place for them to do sports but you don’t create a space for them to do art, then there’s an immediate disconnect in that community. If you’re not inclined to do sports, what are you offered to do otherwise?

On my father’s side, the Inuvialuit side, my great-grandmother and great-grandfather were avid drummers and dancers. They taught that to all of their children. Their children are still drummers and dancers. They also still have their language.

I think about my great-aunt Lillian Elias. She’s one of the last-remaining language speakers in our community. I know that’s because language was such an important part of their culture given their connection to song and dance.

The beginnings of my language were taught to me through song, and that’s how important that has been to my practice.

When we think about this being the Year of Indigenous Languages, I reflect on how strong language is in Alaska, I think about how strong language is in Nunavut and Greenland, and I think about that disconnect of language between our territories. I ask why that is happening. I think it’s happening because there’s not a lot of support for art. How can we ask to engage with our culture and our language if we aren’t able to connect that to our practice to be artists?

To do that, we need financial support to be able to create art that has the ability to impact communities.

When I think about financial support, I think about not just one artist, but a space to create that art, then to support that artist to grow. We look at arts leadership, and I speak to you from Banff Centre. I’m the director of Indigenous arts here at Banff Centre. It’s vital that the work that we create be led by us so that we’re able to determine how that story is told from the ground up.

The big disconnect of the arts I find in the North is that there’s no education in arts in the school system either. So, again, becoming an artist and coming back into my community, where I never learned theatre, singing or dance, and if you’re not even taught that in the education system and then you do your community and youth outreach, which Akpik Theatre does, you’re not coming into a space that even understands art and how vital that is to voice.

What art asks for is a voice to be heard. When we think about voice, we think about as a person what’s important to that person. We think about what’s important in the voice of a community and what the community has, the impact on environment, that they’re all interconnected with each other. And they have great impact. And we think about mentorship.

Artists naturally gather, but if that knowledge isn’t being passed down. For example, a lot of our arts, if you think about traditional arts — my mother is an amazing traditional sewer — theatre, all that knowledge is happening in the home and that’s incredible that that knowledge is able to have that sustainability where people gather, but they’re gathering in places that aren’t able to really pass that down or share that in a greater capacity. That’s why it’s powerful to be able to do moose hide tanning in a public space, so people are exposed to it and then understand where the journey of that moose hide goes into the home and how that creates art and sustainability. If we don’t pass that down, then we don’t understand why the artistic practices exist. Again, that has to do with creative space and gathering.

The Chair: If you could wrap up, Ms. Arluk, please. Did you have any closing comments? There will probably be questions.

Ms. Arluk: I’m just really grateful to have even been asked to be here and to be able to speak on this. Akpik Theatre is a very small company. We were founded in 2008. It was founded because I just wanted to create an umbrella for a voice for people to come and just share their stories. It’s successfully been doing that. I’m happy to be able to speak about it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now welcome to Rhoda Ungalaq and Ellen Hamilton from Qaggiavuut!. Please go ahead.

Rhoda Ungalaq, Chairperson, Qaggiavuut!: Thank you for my being able to be here.

[Editor’s Note: The witness spoke in Inuktitut.]

Qaggiavuut! is a non-profit society based on Iqaluit. It was founded ten years ago by those who believe in the importance of stories and songs. Qaggiavuut! builds wellness, culture and language by supporting Inuit performing artists. Inuit artists who are established and those just starting out thrive on being together to share ideas and skills. Most importantly, artists love to collaborate and learn from each other and create new work. By working and consulting with artists, Qaggiavuut! enacted a vision and dream of building modern-day Qaggiavuut!, a space for performing artists to create. When Inuit lived in camps on the land they would build large, magnificent igloos so that people who live in far-off camps could gather together. Inuit always took the time to celebrate life with a song and story and the Qaggiq. They knew that by doing so they made their culture strong and their values would be passed down to the youth. They knew that performing artists were not frivolous.

Qaggiavuut! is a traditional term to call people to the Qaggiq. It means come into the Qaggiq we built together.

Ellen Hamilton, Executive Director, Qaggiavuut!: We are trying to build a contemporary version of the Qaggiq. We are a group of artists and people who love artists in Nunavut. We came together because, as we started to gather artists together, one thing came clear: Artists had no space. In isolated communities across Canada’s Arctic, there was no space to work on their ideas and stories, and certainly no space to come together so they would see each other, meet together, train and build skills. All artists want to build skills.

We’re an Indigenous organization but with no core funding. Every year we raise revenues to deliver programs to performing artists. They are our clients. We bring them together to create new work, to maintain the traditions of Inuit performing arts. We are often moving gears between a soup kitchen and a church hall, often on the same day with the same group of people. We talk and our artists talk about what was lost during colonization. One of the great collateral damages of colonization was the loss of songs and stories, how the elders were made silent, how they felt unsafe to sing their songs, unsafe to tell their stories because they were considered shamanic by the missionaries. Quickly, often in one generation, a whole library of songs and stories has been lost and, with these, the language, the values, the spirituality and the history of the Inuit.

One of our current board members is Julia Ogina from Cambridge Bay, originally from Ulukhaktok. I used to know her when she was a teenager when I lived in Ulukhaktok. At that time, the drum dance had disappeared from that community; we never saw it. But Julia took the time to learn the songs and the dances that had almost become extinct in Ulukhaktok. This was relating to residential schools and Christianity. And she says, “Now I drum and I sing to take back everything that was taken from my mother.”

We are working hard and urgently right now at Qaggiavuut! to document the last-remaining knowledge keepers, to train younger artists to come bring them together with the elders to learn the songs and the dances. In the last few years, we’ve now documented and filmed 100 songs and stories, trying to capture them before they’re lost forever.

Last year we created an Inuit-language play called Kiviuq Returns. It was based on only four of those stories. One of the elders who shared them with us told us she had 200 stories about Kiviuq, but she was starting to forget them. We got as many as we could from her. From those four stories, a group of young Inuit created an Inuktitut-language play. That play performed in 11 communities across Nunavut. Everywhere they went they worked with children for a week and taught them the songs.

This year we brought Kiviuq Returns to the Tarragon Theatre for a month of shows, eight shows a week, and they performed to standing ovations and packed houses every single night. No one in the Arctic will get to see that show like that with lighting and sound because we have no performing arts space. It shows you there is an appetite even in southern Canada to hear Indigenous languages.

The cast that performed in Toronto and performed side by side and shoulder by shoulder with professional performing artists from Toronto had to rehearse in a soup kitchen in Iqaluit and move their gear every night after rehearsal back into a sea can.

Ms. Ungalaq: Next week, a group of 12 Inuit musicians from across Canada’s Arctic will travel to Montreal with a performance of Inuit drum songs, taught to them by the knowledge keepers, now revitalized for the new generation through a digital app we have designed. The show called Arctic Song will perform to hundreds of world music festival directors.

This group practised by moving over the course of two weeks between the soup kitchen and the church hall, sometimes in the same day.

Most importantly, the Inuit musicians of Arctic song will begin the Nunavut tour in March. They will travel to small communities that have never experienced professional show and where the Inuit drum has not been heard for many years. Those young musicians teach the performing arts to youth and will perform a show for the community with the children. There will not be a dry eye in the house as the children sing Inuktitut songs that have not been heard for more than 50 years.

Ms. Hamilton: I’ll try to wrap up here. We’ve been advocating for about 10 years at Qaggiq for an Inuit learning cultural hub and a performing arts space for artists. We’ve campaigned, fundraised, consulted and planned. We have cultural leaders in southern Canada who have joined forces with us, led by the Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Karen Kain and Veronica Tennant. We have one of Canada’s leading architects in performing arts giving us pro bono drawings and consultation. We have a business plan. We’ve raised $100,000 in one year from Canadians just donating. But we can’t do this alone. We need the federal government to be our partner.

We need to enrich the lives of Arctic children and youth with their performing arts. We have to return to them their heroes from song and story. We have to be a beacon of hope. It can’t just be about homelessness, suicide and prisons and building yet one more Band-Aid solution. We need to create hope. With governments, the philanthropic sector, the private sector and all of our friends in the performing arts, we know we can do this. We know we can give children and youth a sense of belonging. There is nothing in this world that helps children retain their language, understand who they are and have a sense of belonging more than the performing arts. Thank you so much.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Now I’m delighted to welcome Guillaume Saladin and Jimmy Awa Qamukaq to tell us about Artcirq. I’ve been privileged to see many of your absolutely stunning performances over the years. Welcome.

Guillaume Saladin, President, Acrobat, Co-Founder and Co-Artistic Director, Artcirq: Thank you. There is so much to say in five minutes. After years of doing interviews, people always give me five minutes to try to explain what is the North. I think that’s why we don’t understand. Every project is little by little for years. That’s the way we achieve things.

Artcirq this year is 21 years old. Twenty-one years ago I never thought I would have seen this far. It was just for one summer, 12 artists, six from the North and six from the South, got together to work in Igloolik to try to develop a show where southerners would teach the local performers circus techniques and then bring that group out on the land — where the students teach the teachers, where the students become teachers. We created an equal relationship where people share knowledge and where one is not on top of the other.

I think this recipe makes sense in the North because that way everyone feels they can stand up and be proud of who they are. They can look someone in the eyes and they don’t feel inferior or superior.

That was just for two months in 1998, before Nunavut existed. It was very rich and powerful. We all came back to our little own lives thinking, “What’s next?” Then another year. Then after five years it was a month and a half to two months during summer. During my school holiday I would come up, go out on the land, hunt, be taught and then go to town and teach circus.

After a while, I thought where is this thing going? If I just come for a month and a half, I think I make people feel good, but when I leave, it creates a hole because again nothing is happening. With that, I thought I’m going to move and try it for six months. At that time, when we started, Jimmy was 10. Long hair, kind of a troubled dude, very active running on houses during the summer because it’s daylight all the time. Kids invaded the streets during the night while adults slept and they slept during the day.

I moved to Igloolik into a very crappy house with no bathroom and no running water, a house no one wanted. I thought I would do it for six months and work with the kids who said the year before they’re ready to move another step. In the course of a year and a half, we created crazy performances. Everyone was so dedicated. As I say that, I have goose bumps.

Then we were invited all the way to Timbuktu. We made it and came back, when the festival existed over there. Then we started touring the world, a little group of eight or nine performers from Igloolik. Only one had kids at that time, so it was easy to travel. I never would have dreamed that. In three years, we were professionals and we were being invited by the Queen to perform at her castle and by every embassy in the world.

The Chair: You performed for the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit. I remember. I was there. Very notable visibility and success.

Mr. Saladin: Yes. It started to move fast. We all started to experience a crazy and beautiful life with generous people. We were Inuit ambassadors, arriving with our culture as luggage and giving it to people. Every time we would go back home, it was hard because home was not changing, only us through those beautiful trips. It was even depressing to leave because you knew you would come back home and it would be harder because the reality there is the same.

People started to ask, “Why don’t we have more of a local impact instead of travelling around?” Then we started to decline invitations and give free hours to build a space because, like Ellen was saying, there is nothing in the North dedicated to performing arts.

We asked the hamlet to give us half of their old curling rink that was unused at the arena. We took half of it, built a wall, insulated it, brought in heating, lights and a blueprint and we made our own Black Box. The name comes from Greenland. They have a space called the Black Box where every artist in town can go and perform. There is always an open mic. It’s a beautiful place of celebration.

When we went there, we said that’s what we need. Now it’s been six years that we’ve been running that space. We are providing training to young people six days a week. We invited over 125 artists from the South to the North to teach us. We then bring them out on the land and teach them.

Jimmy Awa Qamukaq, Vice President, Acrobat/Clown and Chief Coordinator at Igloolik, Artcirq: Thank you for your time. I am currently a manager at the Black Box, and what I focus on is keeping the language strong, to maintain our language in Amittuq.

Moral traditions are my main focus for having a healthy group in body and mind. We’ve been teaching kids to follow the moral traditions. We also have to sometimes correct our language due to losing the meanings of our sayings. We are at a point where we feel like the last ambassadors in Amittuq.

As artists, we are privileged to help in whatever way we can.

Also, as workers, we are still learning even today that we still have a lot to learn, and we have a way to go. As we teach, we still learn.

For teenagers, it’s different for them. The lifestyle of today and what we had when I was a kid is very different. We are struggling at a point we are understanding each other. Even when we speak to each other, they are struggling to understand due to the loss of language.

We always tell them it’s okay, because in the future it won’t matter. To be honest, from my point of view, it’s okay. As long as you understand what I say, that’s important. Some day you are going to have to teach it to your kids.

For us teaching teenagers, we need a lot more time to teach the art of performing. It’s not just that you go on stage and show what you can. For us, we want to know where we come from, and we want to be heard about who we are. So far they have said it, most of them.

I was thinking for a long time. I think that most of my words are covered, but in my own point of view, it’s been a long time that I have wanted to be part of such a meeting like this. I am very humbled.

I’m running in my mind what else I have to say. To be honest, I need two days’ time to talk.

Myself, with kids, I also have to teach them. They like the circus. They like Artcirq, and they like the place where I work. Whenever I have time, I tell them, “You can come with me,” or, “Come after school.” There is an after-school and also an evening program.

The age group, for us it’s easier to work through the steps that we want to teach.

Also, conserving Inuit games. It is one of the main points that we want to keep going, because during Qaggiq, every year there is a gathering for us to celebrate the return of the sun. For us, keeping sports strong is like cultural differences. Competition is important. It keeps our bonds very strong. The sports we have will keep us alive during the hunting times, and also prove to one another we are strong together and can help each other out.

Artcirq, it’s not just traditional and modern. It has a lot more meaning. We exchange cultures and collaborate.

In my own experience, when other artists from different countries come, I always tell them, “Don’t expect anything. You are getting whatever it is in front of you. Your expectations will be shattered, but don’t worry, we are here. We’ll take care of you.”

That’s who we are. We have to look out for each other, because in the Arctic, it’s very cold. Back then, everybody had to share their knowledge and whatever food they had with other people, because they used to live very far apart. That connection has to remain strong.

For us as young artists, we are looking at new ways to keep that strong. We still need a lot more time.

The Chair: Very well spoken. Thank you very much, all of you.

We have an excellent panel on a clear theme. I’m anxious to let senators interface with the witnesses.

Senator Bovey: I want to thank you all very much. I certainly hear what you are saying. I think it’s important to understand that the capital funds required for a space are different from the funds available for the presentation of your art. My questions are going to come to that, but one more comment before I ask those questions.

I loved the line “The arts are a beacon of hope.” Just to put a few things on the record, we know that those who engage in visiting the arts, not necessarily performing in them but even attending, live two years longer, cost the health system less, and get out of hospital earlier after elective surgery by a couple of days.

We also know the importance of engagement in the arts for our youth as members of a team in terms of crime prevention and suicide prevention.

I would like to say that what you have said adheres to that research. I’d like to underline that it is an approach we should be following up as we write the report.

I have a sense of the presentation funds that you have all had from the Canada Council over the last couple of years. I don’t know about the latest grant run after they changed their process.

Could you talk a little bit about your sense of accessibility to the new funding model at the Canada Council? Is if helpful? Is it equal? Is it burdensome? I’d like you to talk then about where you are. Just give us a sense of where you are.

I have read a lot of stories about the quest for performing space and this collective creative space. Where are you with your work on that front? I’m after the numbers.

The Chair: We’ll go to every panellist, beginning with Ms. Arluk, about access to the Canada Council.

Ms. Arluk: Akpik Theatre is similar to what I heard about Qaggiavuut! and Artcirq; it’s project based. We are really just two people until we get a project, and then we are 10 to 15 people.

There is no sustainability to be able to continue this work. Unfortunately, I very rarely get funded by the NWT Arts Council. They are under a new strategy. I’m working as a consultant on how to change that perspective.

For the Canada Council, I haven’t had any trouble before accessing project-based funding. I actually prefer that. I did receive a new chapter grant for my big production of Pawâkan Macbeth. I’m still working through spending that. Because my infrastructure is so small, that’s a big amount of money, a lot of responsibility, so I haven’t pursued any new creating-knowing-sharing funding.

I guess my hesitancy with it is because it’s all encapsulated, I’m a little overwhelmed. I have a big vision. I don’t have big infrastructure. I like being able to apply for pools of money to know that I’ll be able to budget and balance it and do it. As far as that big vision, I find it intimidating.

I will be applying. I will keep Akpik Theatre running, but I won’t be doing that until my new chapter funding is finalized.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Can we turn to Qaggiavuut!. There are two questions there.

Ms. Hamilton: In terms of Canada Council project funding, the same as Reneltta, we applied for a specific project, Kiviuq Returns is an example, and we said we wanted to create the first full-length, Inuktitut-speaking show based on legends by living elders who would teach the actors. We received a project grant but, for the same reason, we struggled with the lack of core funding and the ability to hold the team together. It’s now mid-February. This is about the time when we will probably have to lay off everybody in Qaggiavuut! until we receive another project grant to allow us to put people together.

What is important is we want to build arts leaders in Qaggiavuut!. We want our young artists or young actors coming in to help us run a children’s puppet show or learning stage management in Kiviuq Returns. They need to continue working in this field so that they can become the next generation of leaders. That is one of the issues.

The Chair: Where are you with your capital project, and how can we help?

Ms. Hamilton: I thought it would be easy. I thought nobody would think it was at all political, but was I in for a surprise. We tend to get criticized in Nunavut more than anywhere else for possibly taking resources away from the other needed infrastructure. We say, over and over again, we are talking about a different type of funding. Nunavut is the only territory or province in this country without a performing arts space. Iqaluit is the only capital city in North America without a performing arts space.

We see this as a hub. You don’t put on your pearls and fur — well, you can wear fur — you don’t have to put on pearls to go to the performing arts hub in Iqaluit. You are going to go there to scrape sealskin in the atrium. You are going to go there to sing with children and tell stories. You are going to go to hear your language.

And children, just like Reneltta said about the hockey rinks, we love them and it’s great. Right now we are sending children across Nunavut to do badminton and hockey in Iqaluit to come together and compete. We want to be doing the same thing with children in the arts. We want to start bringing kids to a hub where they can be with the finest throat singers in the world and the finest drum dancers and acrobats in the world and learn from their own people.

It’s so important because of the need. Often, a young person in the Arctic never receives an education or even one year of schooling from someone in their culture, an Inuk teacher speaking in their language. Artists are Inuit and they speak their language. A great way to solve the education problem is to get more artists teaching children.

Where we are right now is we have a budget submission to the federal government in this budget, a pre-budget submission. We are hoping to get a big private sector partner. We have our friends in the South helping us with that. We also have to convince our government. We have recently changed our name. We used to call ourselves “Qaggiavuut!,” a Nunavut Performing Arts & Cultural Learning Centre. We now are saying “Qaggiq,” an Inuit Performing Arts & Cultural Learning Centre, because we think this should be national and we should be connecting all Inuit in this country. It really doesn’t make sense that there are lines.

The Chair: Can I take that a bit further. In your pre-budget submission — maybe you could share it with the committee through the clerk — did you identify a source of capital funding that you thought might be possible or promising for such an enterprise?

Ms. Hamilton: Yes. It was from the Department of Canadian Heritage in the Creative Canada Strategy.

Senator Bovey: It’s going to be a while before that is going to be successful.

Ms. Hamilton: Yes. I noticed a Senate committee recently made a recommendation that the federal governments could work directly with Indigenous organizations in the case of cultural infrastructure and cultural hubs. I think that’s a great idea because our governments are not necessarily experts in the arts, and our officials don’t necessarily go to any of our shows. They are the ones creating policies that, to them, a stage in the middle of a lobby of a hotel is a performing arts hub. They don’t know what it is to create art. And why should they?

We are saying no, it’s a lot more than that. A performing arts hub is mostly a campus for learning, for artists to come together to learn, build their skills, create, be provocative and sometimes to be even critical of the government.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Saladin: Core funding to key artistic organizations in Nunavut is what we need. People could define themselves and not be told who they are. Neil, IBC, all those guys earlier were saying the same thing. I was talking with Isuma this morning, in Montreal, in Igloolik, and they were telling me the same thing, “We need core funding.” It has been 20 years. There are government programs providing training, we are applying for the training and then what is there after? Nothing. That makes no sense.

Many of us in Artcirq started with training in editing, training in song-making. For them to stay on the payroll, there had to be training in everything, but after that there was nothing. This is something that could improve and make us feel like everybody else, that we have a chance of defining ourselves. Three years ago, Canada Council told us about the next policy. There were 18 Aboriginal arts organizations receiving core funding around the table. We were told, “In the next four or five years your budget will double. Finally, there will be lots of money for you guys.”

For the last 10 years we have been working so hard. Right now we can’t do more. We are not going to ask for more money because we can’t. We are tired. If you want to pay us more to do what we are doing already, okay, but don’t ask for us to do more work.

I think it was interesting to try to understand the concept of being an artist. In the North, being an artist is being a social worker. You are dealing with people all the time, with their highs and lows. Going through one day having little family in the North is already lots of energy. At night you don’t have this power of, “Okay, I’m going to go from 6 to 9 and teach other kids.” No one is invading the public spaces in our small community because everybody is tired of going through their own life.

The artists, the little ones that are still believing and stretching in the groups and saying, “Hey, I trust you,” we are the ones dealing with all those emotions and big feelings. We have multiple hats. That’s part of our life. But don’t ask us to do more support for core funding for organizations.

Senator Bovey: Thank you very much. I have lived some of this with the North but not in the North, so I know exactly what you are saying.

Senator Coyle: My questions keep jumping around every time I hear each of you speak. Thank you, first of all, for your important work and, secondly, for being here with us today in the ways that you can be with us.

Guillaume touched on this. You said you are all social workers as well as artists. When we were in Meadowbank gold mine, we heard that the management of the mine considered themselves almost as social workers. It’s a reality of where you are working.

We have heard about this, and I think I hear you loud and clear about the need for funding for places to create and learn and perform art and also this point about core funding. You are tired of the same old, same old, yet you have to apply and, “Oh, this year they’ll fund training in this. Okay. We’ll make us look like we’re that.” Right?

I know; I come from the non-profit sector myself, so I know the games one has to play.

But what you are asking for, I think — all of you — is respect for what you are doing and the knowledge that you have gained over the years through doing what you do. That’s what I’m getting from you. I’m testing that a little bit with you, so I’d like your response.

I’d also like to hear, from whomever would like to speak to it, about the economic impacts of what you are doing, and about the social and health impacts, if any of you would like to speak to some of those other aspects. We have heard about education and language preservation, but if there is anything more you want to say. Because, of course, you’re making a case. There is only so much money, so why should it be spent on what you are asking for it to be spent on? I think you have a lot of reasons for that. It would be good for us to hear what those reasons are.

Ms. Ungalaq: To build a cultural hub in the region that is shockingly bereft of it; to launch an Inuit performing arts industry; to provide higher education in the arts and technical fields of the arts; to create a sustainable cultural tourism industry and high-value jobs; to strengthen language at risk. Even when they are living on the land and in the harshest environment on earth, when every seal missed is potential starvation, Inuit always took time from their busy lives to gather people to celebrate life.

Senator Coyle: Does anybody else want to add anything?

Mr. Saladin: My dad and mom are anthropologists. They’ve been working with Inuit for many years.

The Chair: Very well-respected anthropologists.

Mr. Saladin: Yes. My dad used to tell me that every time he would bring me to Igloolik when I was a kid, he would always go out on the land with this family or this family.

Ms. Ungalaq: This family.

Mr. Saladin: Yes. Once I asked my dad why we go out on the land, because those families live in Igloolik; it would be just walking to houses to ask questions. He told me that Inuit are not saying the same things in the town and out on the land where they were born. Their real home is out on the land.

That stayed in my mind very strongly. Every time I see people, I meet them in town or out on the land, they are very different. It seems like southerners just know Inuit who live in town. They don’t see the strength and pride, and what to do and when to do it. They see confused people, kind of lost, talking about and watching American movies. That’s what they think of young people. Those same young people, when you go out on the land hunting with them, they are going to save your life. This is very important.

There are different realities. There is Iqaluit, the capital, which has lots of entrepreneurship, companies and immigration, Pakistanis starting to open restaurants; and there are the other communities, which are federalized. There are one or two businesses in town, maximum. Besides that, it’s money coming from the federal government. People wait their whole lives because their government is going to do something for them. Because it’s a watch-and-learn way of learning, people wait and see, and nothing is happening. It’s hard, because you see young kids, who are now adults, who are repeating the same mistakes and who are still confused. The town is getting bigger and bigger.

There are lots of challenges. I think artists can be a voice, ambassadors and can lead other young people in town. That’s what I think.

Ms. Hamilton: I’d add that artists are agents of change more than anything else. That is what we need. The Arctic needs change, it needs to move forward, and it can’t be kept in the past.

I’m an educator myself. I have my master’s in adult education from the senator’s hometown. I went to Antigonish to do my master’s because I was a young educator in Igloolik in the early 1980s, and everything I was doing was failing. I was supposed to teach literacy, and all the tools they gave me were massive failures. There were students in that literacy program for three years who were still illiterate.

Just for fun, we started a theatre group. We did it at night. Many of the people in the theatre group were my students. Nobody got paid. Then Yellowknife found out about it and said, “Come to Yellowknife and perform.” Now we had a gig and we got the whole town making costumes. My boss said, “If you are going to go to Yellowknife, you have to make it a literacy program.” I said, “Oh, don’t make me do that.” He said, “Well, test them. You have to test them.” I tested everybody with the standardized literacy test, and every single one of the actors had moved beyond a Grade 7 level and were now literate. I hadn’t taught them anything. That’s how powerful the performing arts are. As an educator, I never do anything — and I’ve worked in prisons — without bringing in the performing arts, because it makes everything more effective.

Senator Coyle: Thank you.

Ms. Arluk: When we think about art, one of the biggest misconceptions is that art is frivolous, on the side or not sustainable. But when you look at our traditional teachings, art has always been function. If you look at all of our winter wear, if you look at how we engage with each other, our art has always been worn; we wear it. It’s never been something on the side; it’s been absolutely engaged in the practice of who we are as people in this world.

When we think about what it is, it’s about accessibility. It is about respect, absolutely. We all want to be treated with respect and be heard. But if we are not given the spaces to have that accessibility, that will never happen. It’s about accessibility and understanding that art is sustainable.

When we look at communities, I’ll use Faro, Yukon as an example. Faro was a mining town. When the mining went away, the town became empty and all the houses were super cheap. Who brought them up? Artists. Now there is a whole community of artists living in Faro and making art. They revitalized that community. Time and again, artists are revitalizers of neighbourhoods, community and culture. If you look at the health, social and economic impacts, they’re always infused with each other.

Art also heals. When you go into the communities and work with youth — I remember when we were in Hay River doing What’s Your Story? We had three young girls with us for the entire time we were there. At the end they said, “This is so great. I haven’t been high all week.” That hits you in the gut and tells you this is really important. They didn’t have to come. They weren’t told to come. They came out of their own desire because they were being heard and they were with each other, learning and growing. It’s vital.

When you talk about leaders, like Ellen — you are so wonderful — and the agents of change, we have to have the opportunity to show our communities that we are those leaders. Right now you are with performance artists who do theatre. We are like one offs. I’m quite successful in the south, but has my family in Fort Smith seen my work? No. Has my family in Inuvik seen my work? Very little of it, because there’s no accessibility to be able to really show our work to our community. How can we inspire and encourage that growth if we are not even able to show that work?

Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I would like to thank all the witnesses very much for your compelling presentations, for taking the time and trouble to be with us, all of you today, by video or otherwise. It was very stimulating and helpful. As I said, I think we assembled a very good panel.

You didn’t plan it, but you all echoed the same theme compellingly. This will be helpful to us in our recommendations on the federal government’s new Arctic policy.

Before we hear a witness from the Avataq Cultural Institute, I’m pleased to tell the committee members that we have been joined this afternoon by a senator designate who will be the new senator for the Northwest Territories — Margaret Dawn Anderson — who is quietly observing our committee hearing. She will not be sworn in until February 18. I took the liberty of telling her I hope she is, very soon after that, sitting with us in this committee.

We thank you, Senator-to-be-Anderson, for spending the time with us today and look forward to working soon with you officially.

Mr. Saladin: One thing I’ve been thinking for 15 years that if one day I have a chance to say — so that’s today — so many workers come to the North from the South unprepared. I would love to spend time with a bunch of future teachers, or whoever is coming for a year or two or five, to give them a few keys of understanding of my little understanding of what Inuit culture is because people repeat the same mistakes. They’re not bad people or bad-intentioned, it’s just they don’t know. That creates again and again that same separation between white people and Inuit in small communities. We could change that very easy.

If ever anyone needs my help, I’m going to offer to share my experience.

Senator Bovey: I agree with you a thousand per cent. It behooves us all to get out of the silos we’ve been in for these past 15, 20, 30, 35 years and start cross-pollinating experiences, ideas and opportunities. That’s what’s behind my questions about accessibility for the means for Canada’s artists to be able to do what you do so well. Thank you.

The Chair: On that very positive note, thank you very much.

I would now like to welcome Rhoda Kokiapik, Executive Director, Avataq Cultural Institute from Nunavik. The floor is yours.

Rhoda Kokiapik, Executive Director, Avataq Cultural Institute: My name is Rhoda Kokiapik and I am from Inukjuak. That’s in northern Quebec. As you said, I work with Avataq. I’ve been with Avataq since 1998. It’s been awhile since I’ve been with them as the Executive Director.

I’ll try my best to represent 13,000 Inuit of Nunavik, or northern Quebec. Fifty per cent of the population is 25 years of age and under. You can imagine it’s a young demographic. As I said, I work for Avataq. It was created in 1980 by the elders of Nunavik. Back then, they made a wise decision to charge Nunavik to create the Avataq Cultural Institute. Our mandate is to promote, protect and preserve our language and culture in Nunavik, or northern Quebec.

Almost 40 years later, we have collected and preserved an impressive archival collection. In our archive centre, for example, we have about 500 interviews from elders with very rich information about Inuit history. We also have a collection of about 17,000 photos going back as early as 1870. Just to give you an idea, we have a very interesting collection and about 1,200 drawings drawn by the late Thomassie Echalook, who was a respected elder. He was from a camp near Inukjuak. These are just examples we have or are holding at our archive centre in Montreal.

We also have an art collection that was transferred to us by the DIAND in the late 1980s. We are the said keepers of this collection for Nunavik Inuit. This incredible collection consists of carvings, drawings, and prints. These pieces are stored in a climatized space in Montreal. I hope one day we will be able to transfer them to Nunavik. The reason we don’t keep them in Nunavik is we don’t have a facility to store them safely.

We have two offices, one in Montreal and one in Inukjuak, with 25 staff members governed by five board members. Our budget is from $3 million to $3.8 million, depending on the projects that we are carrying out, just to give you an idea of the size of our great Avataq. I forgot to mention that Avataq is a not-for-profit organization.

Now to try to answer the topic here, can art, culture and languages contribute to healthy communities or somewhere along those lines? Simply, yes. In the context of culture and language, this has been proven already, where my ancestors and their ancestors many times over lived healthily based on their culture and language that was not interrupted until the last few decades. Yes, this has been already lived healthily by my ancestors.

Today, we face many other outside sources compared to our ancestors. For example, we have Internet, TV and so on. Having a strong cultural foundation is a bit harder, I think, because of these distractions, not to mention that such efforts come with a price tag because Nunavik is not driveable. We’re only reachable by air. Everything has a cost. The North is not cheap.

I’m saying this because we definitely need infrastructure in Nunavik in order for our population to benefit from learning, as stated in the report that I brought. Here, it is stated that a place of learning is needed in the communities of Nunavik. In a perfect world, meaning with proper funding, we would create 15 cultural centres or learning spaces in Nunavik.

In short, I’d like to mention two specific pieces of infrastructure that we would like to see get supported. One is our office in Inukjuak. It’s not the newest or most ideal place to work in, but there is a need to have new infrastructure for that.

The other one is Kuujjuaq. It is the largest community in Nunavik, a hub community, if you will. There is no proper rehabilitation centre. We have one in Inukjuak, but the plan now is to build one in Kuujjuaq. This rehabilitation centre has approached us to have cultural context in terms of healing and being connected to their culture and language. We don’t want people to be just put in place and, “here, you go heal,” and that kind of approach. It’s very uplifting for them to approach us because they want to come up with a program based on Inuit culture and language. This is the key thing, I think, to have a better foundation. I hope I make sense.

In terms of language, let me introduce to you this report, Illirijavut. This should be a Bible. Shortly after 2005, Avataq made a decision to undertake a study on the state of the Inuktitut language in Nunavik. This was studied by Inuit for Inuit, and this was a survey done in three and a half years’ time. The highlight in this book is the need to create an Inuktitut language authority, stated in number 57 on this. I will quote it. It says that “the creation of an institution devoted to the Inuktitut language is considered an absolute necessity.”

This one is the most highlighted finding that we have in this book. What is interesting is during the three-and-a-half-year survey, the linguists who did this review, or did the ground work, realized that Inuktitut is a national asset, a heritage very worthy to preserve with utmost efforts, keeping in mind that the three First Nations languages in Canada are declared to have a chance of survival. This is very important.

As for arts, I think it’s quite worthy to create a funding envelope within the Canada Council for the Arts because we are intermixed with other First Nations people. I know it because I was a jury member last year for funding applications from across Canada. I believe a separate envelope for Inuit artists would benefit Inuit very much.

Are my five minutes over? I’m done.

The Chair: Feel free to wrap up if you like, and we’re going to open it for questions from the senators.

Ms. Kokiapik: Okay.

The Chair: We’re not finished with you by any means, so if you want to wrap up your comments.

Ms. Kokiapik: Those are the three main things I wanted to present today.

On arts, I listened to what the four said earlier. I think I can share some of what they said earlier about arts in the North. We do see struggles for artist support in Nunavik. It’s interesting to mention that James Houston started buying carvings from my community around 1949. From then on, it has evolved and, yes, today art needs support because it could instill pride in one’s outlook on life, young and old. Soapstone carving has passed. We have very few soapstone carvers, they’re getting old, and today we see different kinds of art mediums.

One thing that really could be improved is theatre, but we’re not in that stage yet. We’ve started something, and it emerged during this survey in which our aim was to find out where Inuktitut is.

But along the line they realized that theatre was important for the youth to preserve their language and culture. Yet we need to put more effort into this medium of art.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to follow up on your comments before we go to questions.

The committee travelled to Kuujjuaq in September of last year. We heard about the healing centre, Isuarsivik, I believe, is the name, and we received a presentation about the healing centre. I should put on the record that since that visit Minister Philpott announced that the federal government would be committing $6 million to that facility. It looks like it’s probably going ahead.

You told us that Avataq has been asked to have a role in the cultural content of the program. I wanted to put that on the record before I turn to our deputy chair.

Senator Bovey: Thank you for coming and thank you for speaking. It’s such a treat to see you again. I want to applaud the work that you have done over these years. It’s hard work. It’s a lot of work. When you mentioned James Houston, I guess George Swinton and Jerry Twomey were up at the same time collecting those early pieces and making those connections between Winnipeg and the North, Montreal and the North, and Toronto and the North in terms of the artistic endeavours.

You talk about the huge collection of material that is sitting in Montreal, the archival material, the photographs, the art collection. I know you were on a Canada Council jury last year. You are not going to be surprised that one of my lines of questions is how you feel the access was for the change of program. I hear, very loudly, you saying that there should be a dedicated funding stream for Inuit artists, and I think we are meeting with Simon Brault later this afternoon, so we’ll pose that to him.

How would you like to see these archival, photographic and art collections being used? I appreciate they are being stored in Montreal, but when we have things in storage, it doesn’t mean they are not able to be used. What kind of voice would you like to give them by way of access? What is it you would really like in addition to a space? But to get you the space, what kind of profile would you like to give those collections?

Ms. Kokiapik: First of all, space. Although you said it, it’s unfortunate that these collections are stored in an acclimatized building in Montreal on Peel Street, simply because we cannot transfer them, and we don’t have adequate infrastructure in the North. However, we are trying our best to provide access, for instance, to students or people who are down South for business, because one cannot just go to Montreal to see this collection. We try to make this available to them. We have website access, but it’s sort of outdated now as well.

Senator Bovey: They are not all digitized and online?

Ms. Kokiapik: Not yet. Not all of them anyway.

Senator Bovey: Have you been able to access money to do some of the digitization?

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes, we have done that. I don’t know where it’s at, at the moment, because I just came back to work on Monday after being off for six months.

Senator Bovey: That program is through the Department of Canadian Heritage?

Ms. Kokiapik: Right.

Senator Bovey: The digitization one?

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes.

Senator Bovey: You are looking at piecemeal funding to do what you want to do. Archival funding is through the Department of Canadian Heritage contemporary through Canada Council and building through infrastructure.

Ms. Kokiapik: Also with provincial funding.

The Chair: Can you tell us about the Indian Affairs and Indigenous Services departments’ art collection? Do you know who is paying for the cost of the temperature and humidity controls? I think it’s probably expensive to take care of them. Do you know who is paying for that and how much it’s costing, or could you send that to us?

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes. It’s the ministry.

The Chair: The ministry in Quebec?

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes. It’s an agreement we made with them. Yes, we could send you the information.

The Chair: I think it would be interesting for us to know how much is going into temporary storage when we are talking about recommendations for building something permanent in the North.

Senator Bovey: Can we have a copy of the report you showed us?

Ms. Kokiapik: I could leave this one.

Senator Bovey: Thank you.

Ms. Kokiapik: As I said, this collection was given to us, I thought, in 1992, but the report I have seen is late 1980s. They were given to Avataq. They were stored here in just cardboard boxes. For a number of years we kept them here. About seven or eight years ago, we were successful in securing funding for the rental of this acclimatized building. At least they are in a safe place. We need to make them more accessible to Nunavik somewhere down the road.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Ms. Kokiapik. We very much appreciate the work you are doing and your presentation. The collection and preservation of heritage and arts materials is absolutely critical. I applaud your work there. The research you describe on the Inuktitut language is also something of great importance to us.

I want to drill down a little more on this space. It’s been a theme that we have been hearing about, space for not just continuing to preserve, but also to have the community interact with the collection that you have.

When we were in Kuujjuaq, we visited Makivik and other places. We saw they had a top research centre. What it demonstrated, to me anyway, was that you can have, in a place like Kuujjuaq, a very sophisticated scientific research environment. Why could you not have a sophisticated environment for the preservation as well as display and interaction with the cultural materials that you have, and hopefully will be developed over time, particularly when you are also looking at providing arts and culture interaction with the new rehabilitation centre, which is right in the same place?

Is there currently a detailed plan in place that has been costed and has been designed in terms of not just its physical plan but its purpose for the future for what you are describing, which would, in part, serve the same purpose as that temporary space in Montreal is playing but also play a larger role in the ways you have described?

Ms. Kokiapik: Recently, we attempted to build infrastructure in Inukjuaq because, in my opinion, it’s better to disperse.

Senator Coyle: Spread it out, wherever it is.

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes, to major organizations and to answer jobs, if needed. My opinion is to not concentrate in Kuujjuaq.

Senator Coyle: I’m sorry, I misunderstood that it was Kuujjuaq.

Ms. Kokiapik: That guy was mentioning Iqaluit. Anyway, that’s my opinion on that.

Last year, we attempted to partner with our municipal office or municipal councillors in Inukjuak because Avataq has been in this community since 1980. They need a new office building, as we do, so we tried to merge.

In that new building, we were hoping to have a small climate-controlled space for our archaeological collection. Right now we are trying to move Avataq to the North. It’s a slow process because it requires funding. It needs proper planning.

We tried to answer that last year, but it didn’t work out. We are looking at avenues to go in that direction.

Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.

Senator Boyer: Thank you very much for that presentation. I have a question about the language, heritage and cultural programs, particularly the language program you had described, and the health of the Inuit people.

I would like you to describe how much impact your work has had on the health of the Inuit people and what kind of health benefits you have seen. You have been doing this for a long time, so you probably have seen the impact it would have on their health.

Ms. Kokiapik: The health of the Inuktitut language?

Senator Boyer: Yes, the health benefits when people are immersed in the language. How would it affect their health, and the other programs as well?

The Chair: Health and wellness.

Ms. Kokiapik: I believe culture and language are together. I believe when one has a strong, healthy language and culture, the outlook in that person’s life is stronger.

We have a high suicide rate. It’s a fact as well. In terms of pride, having a strong culture and language could lead a person to have strong pride, and that leads to a healthy outlook in life and being active in life.

Senator Boyer: You would see some very positive impacts.

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes, I think so.

Senator Boyer: Thank you.

The Chair: We are just about to wrap up. Following up on Senator Bovey’s questions, could you tell us about your participation on the Canada Council jury, what your role was and what you saw there that makes you recommend a category for Inuit artists. If you could give us a little more detail, please.

Ms. Kokiapik: Locally speaking, there are advanced artists and emerging artists. If you are not aware, some Inuit are not used to funding applications that require a lot of filling out, tedious work, if you will. I think an approach that will be very approachable to Inuit, would benefit Inuit in terms of art funding applications —

The Chair: What would you like to see?

Ms. Kokiapik: An Inuit-specific art.

The Chair: How about access? You are saying the forms are difficult or challenging. I think it’s mostly more about the emerging artists that you are talking about, the people starting out. Is that right?

Ms. Kokiapik: Emerging and non.

The Chair: How could it be done differently?

Ms. Kokiapik: There are four regions of Inuit land: Nunavut, Nunavik and so on. If we find a major organization in Nunavik that would be responsible for dispersing these funds, I think that would work.

For instance, with the Aboriginal Languages Initiative, it was done in the past, but we shied away from that as well because the funding requirements were just too detailed.

The Chair: If I understand, you would recommend that a representative Inuit body or organization be given the responsibility for overseeing a portion of the available grants to Inuit artists across Inuit Nunangat. Could you recommend a particular organization that could do that?

Ms. Kokiapik: In Nunavik?

The Chair: For the whole Inuit Nunangat.

Ms. Kokiapik: Maybe ITK would be the right organization to do that.

The Chair: Or a panel?

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes.

Senator Bovey: I don’t think it could be a separate organization, just knowing how the Canada Council gets its money.

The idea of having a senior staff member who is responsible for Inuit affairs could be very helpful — they have it for First Nations — and ensuring that for emerging artists, there are people like Rhoda on the jury to make the selection of who gets the funding.

You were the only Inuit person on the jury, right?

Ms. Kokiapik: Yes.

Senator Bovey: I think it’s a matter of constructing the program and the jury. It could come up with the results you want but keeping it at national level, which will give the pride and substance to the artists who are getting the money.

There were a number of individual artists. I have the list from the last three years. There wasn’t a lot, but there are some.

I think we have to throw into this mix, as we heard in the earlier panel, the lack of broadband and the kinds of images artists have to submit, that there is a technical issue as well as writing. Those are good questions for the next panel.

The Chair: Yes. If you are able to stay, we are going to be hearing from some Canada Council representatives here. I’m sure you would be interested.

I would like to thank you for your presentation based on all your years of experience. It’s been very helpful. We appreciate having access to the book that you brought.

Before we close, colleagues, the previous witness — I believe it was Ms. Hamilton from Qaggiavuut! — referred to a recommendation from a parliamentary committee. With the help of our capable researchers, we have found the recommendation. I thought I would just read it for the record. It comes from the Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Recommendation 5 on their recent report:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Canadian Heritage study the benefits of cultural hubs regarding the protection and promotion of Indigenous languages and cultures.

That’s the key recommendation there. There are some other companion recommendations.

It’s a very recent committee report. We’ll maybe try to have it circulated. I don’t have the date, but I wanted to put that on the record.

Senator Coyle: Thank you.

The Chair: I am now very pleased to welcome Simon Brault, Director and Chief Executive Officer; and Steven Loft, Director, from the Canada Council for the Arts.

I do want to publicly apologize. We kept you waiting during turbulent times and late-night votes in the Senate before Christmas. Thank you for your patience when we had to cancel the meeting at that time and for being here today.

We have a panel from the Canadian Museum of History, but we are going to start right away with you folks. You can expect questions from senators afterwards. Please go ahead, Mr. Brault.

Simon Brault, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Council for the Arts: Thank you. I will try to respect the five minutes.

The Chair: We have been a little loose on that today.

Mr. Brault: I must say it’s a challenge. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to introduce my colleague Steven Loft who is joining us today. He is of Mohawk and Jewish ancestry from the Six Nations of the Grand River, and he is the director of a program that I will mention many times today called Creating, Knowing and Sharing: The Arts and Cultures of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples. We affectionately call that program CKS at Canada Council. It is a program that was created in 2016, so it’s very recent. It is in the context of the new funding model of the Canada Council. It’s a program that was really a decision by the council to move from quite a Eurocentric perspective on how to fund the arts in the North to a program that is clearly informed by the notions of self-determination and cultural sovereignty. This program is completely administered by staff of Indigenous descent and has quite a high level of autonomy within the council.

The idea of this program is also to contribute to the renewal of the relationship between the Canada Council and Indigenous artists in trying to support them on their own terms as opposed to trying to convince them to fit into our boxes.

I will focus today on the work we do and the intentions and actions we are conducting towards Indigenous artists in the North, knowing well that there is a population that is non-Indigenous in the North, but we will focus on Indigenous artists in this presentation.

I think it is important to say that the Canada Council supports artists, arts groups and organizations at all stages of their creative process. The lens through which we provide that support is very far from a commercial or market perspective. We are really trying to support arts, artists and organizations in terms of developing their creative capacities and in terms of serving the need for self-expression of Indigenous or Inuit people. It’s different from other instances subsidizing cultural activities in the North. We have this very special focus.

This is why we have a very big focus right now on building capacity in cultural leadership in the North, especially Indigenous-led organizations. Even though this program is only two years old, we try to have a perspective that is mid- and long-term in terms of developing partnerships that will be sustained over a number of years. We realize that things cannot happen overnight.

We have an emphasis on both what we call contemporary practices and customary practices, which is different from the rest of the Canada Council, because the Canada Council is really about contemporary work. In the context of support to Indigenous artists, we understand we cannot make a separation between supporting what we could call generally the cultural transmission from supporting artistic practice. There is a continuum that is really important, and not valuing it would be a terrible mistake.

We made the commitment — in the context of the doubling of the budget of the Canada Council happening over five years between 2016 and 2021 — that we would triple our investment to support Indigenous arts in Canada. As of today, we have more than doubled that investment since 2015-16.

In terms of the Arctic region, we are now moving with some organizations from supporting them through what we call project grants to core funding. We had a recent round of decisions for core funding. I understand that even some people who presented today do not know they will get core funding. I can announce it today, because the letters are in the mail and they were told, “Don’t tell anyone.”

The Chair: We’re going to hope to get credit for getting really quick results.

Mr. Brault: You could. Organizations like Qaggiavuut! and Artcirq are core-funded organizations. They will learn that, or they already know it. It’s very recent. We’re proud that we could do that in a year and a half, actually into the new funding model. Again, all that is quite new. It’s the same thing with Nunavut Independent Television.

Canada Council is also investing and supports core-funded organizations in the North, where the leadership is mixed between Inuit and non-Inuit artistic leaders. When we imagine the future of the work and the investment we make in the North, we realize there are gaps that need to be addressed. They cannot be addressed by the Canada Council alone, but they are very important gaps. Some of them are related to what we could call the arts infrastructure. Clearly there are needs in terms of having facilities, having places where the work can be done, where arts can be taught, and where leadership can grow.

We realize there are many different issues related to the context in terms of accessing materials for creation. Obviously, there are environmental factors that you have to cope with — large distances and Internet connectivity is a problem in many parts. Revenue generation, where we realize that the model in place is favouring, first and foremost, the dealers and intermediaries more than the artists themselves. There are systematic inequalities and this huge, important quest for renewed leadership — leadership that is developed among the Inuit artists and cultural workers.

In terms of addressing these gaps, what we feel is really important is that clearly there is a need for rethinking how we see development and where we see the arts in that development. We don’t think the arts are the answer to all problems, but we think it’s difficult to imagine real, long-term development without the specific contribution of the arts.

In terms of the future, skills and leadership development, as I said, are really important. Support for gender equality is also key. We think that to address those gaps and advance our work, one of the surest ways is to partner with other organizations in the North and South. Selecting the partners we will partner with is for us a critical question now, because we realize that if we want to be true to the notions of self-determination and cultural sovereignty, we need to have partners who are able to advance and deliver that. There are shifts in terms of who we can partner with. We’re proud to say that even though our program is very recent, we have been able to achieve promising partnerships, both in the North and in the South.

We are very interested in the conclusion of your committee. We understand that, because you are examining the large spectrum of issues, possibilities and challenges in the North, there will be for us a lot of things to learn. You can count on us to try to understand, decode and analyze your findings to do better work.

That’s my five-minute presentation. Thank you.

The Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much.

We’re going to now welcome, from the Canadian Museum of History, our second organization in this panel: Dr. Karen Ryan, Curator, Northern Canada; Dr. Matthew Betts, Curator, Eastern Archaeology; and Mr. Jean-Marc Blais, Director General. Welcome. We’d like to hear from you now, and there will be questions from senators of both panels.

Dr. Ryan.

Karen Ryan, Curator, Northern Canada, Canadian Museum of History: Thank you, chair, and good afternoon, senators. I’m honoured to be here on behalf of the Canadian Museum of History. The museum appreciates the importance of your work and welcomes the opportunity to contribute to your deliberations.

Our mandate as it relates to the Arctic is to enhance public understanding of the region’s human history and the cultures of its Indigenous peoples. The museum has been fulfilling this mandate for over a century, through research, scholarship and public exhibitions.

Our research in the Arctic began with the pioneering anthropological work of Diamond Jenness, long associated with the National Museum of Canada. Jenness lived for three years in the North as a scientist with the Canadian Arctic Expedition. Two of those years were spent in the Coronation Gulf region with the Inuinnait, better known in the South as the Copper Inuit.

Jenness lived as the adopted son of one of these families, allowing him to learn and better understand his new family’s language and way of life. He conducted important archaeological excavations and shared his observations about Inuinnait subsistence and social activities through numerous popular and scientific publications.

Over the past century, many other museum specialists have followed in his footsteps, enabling the museum to compile, preserve and disseminate an enormous wealth of knowledge about the Arctic and its peoples. It has also built one of the world’s most important collections of artifacts relating to the region’s human history. Much of the knowledge of Arctic prehistory was in fact developed at the museum.

That legacy is reflected prominently in two of our two largest exhibitions: the First Peoples Hall and the new Canadian History Hall. Both tell compelling stories of ancient and enduring ties to the land, of cultures rocked by enormous change, and of communities resilient and proud.

Today, the Arctic remains an important focus of our research. Like your committee, we recognize that profound changes are occurring in the region. We want to work with northerners to explore those changes and their impacts, and we want to share the resulting knowledge with community members, as well as with Canadians around the country.

One matter of particular urgency relating to our Arctic is global warming and the loss of Arctic sea ice, which is speeding erosion along northern shorelines, threatening important archaeological sites and differentially affecting Northern peoples.

Much of the world’s knowledge of the Arctic prehistory is based on archaeological work undertaken by our museum. Information crucial to a deeper understanding of the Arctic’s prehistory is now in danger of being washed out to sea. Also in peril are more recent archaeological sites.

The Chair: Please slow down.

Ms. Ryan: I’m from Newfoundland so this is part of how we speak.

Information crucial to a deeper understanding of the Arctic’s prehistory is now in danger of being washed out to sea. Also in peril are more recent archaeological sites. Many 18th and 19th century Inuit and European sites have disappeared due to coastal erosion and rising sea levels.

The Canadian Museum of History is now working with Indigenous communities and archaeologists from across Canada to plan a coordinated response to this serious threat to our country’s heritage. As I mentioned earlier, the museum deeply values its relationships with Northern peoples and the work we do together to share northern stories. I’ll offer two recent examples.

Last year, our museum presented “Death in the Ice,” a special exhibition exploring the fate of the 1845 Franklin expedition. I was the exhibition’s curator.

In developing the exhibition, we relied heavily on Inuit sources, voices and artifacts as the Inuit were the last to see the Franklin ships and their crews. Those encounters preserved in oral histories helped lead to the discovery of the HMS Erebus and Terror. As part of this work, we were privileged to interview the late Louie Kamookak, renowned for his knowledge of Inuit oral history. The museum also worked closely with the Inuit Heritage Trust and the Government of Nunavut on the telling of this story.

The second example relates to Nuvumiutaq, one of the most notable exhibits in the new Canadian History Hall. He was an Inuk man who lived and was buried near Arctic Bay in Nunavut approximately 800 years ago.

We worked closely with Arctic Bay to tell the man’s story and in the process reconstructed his likeness based on analysis of his physical remains. Community members gave Nuvumiutaq his name, provided historical photos for reference and created the clothing in which he was attired, many using traditional methods and material.

These are but two examples of Northern stories the museum was able to share as a result of close collaboration with Northern people.

The Canadian Museum of History would also like to share more of our exhibitions and artifacts with the Northern communities. We are working with the Inuit Heritage Trust to develop a two-dimensional version of the Franklin exhibition for travel in Nunavut meaning this version does not include artifacts.

The museum looks forward to sharing its rich collections with Northern communities once there are venues equipped with the environmental conditions required for safely displaying fragile materials.

Our museum is proud of our long history of working with Northern communities to document, preserve and disseminate knowledge about the region and its peoples, past and present. The museum remains committed to that work and to the process of empowerment and community building in the Arctic for today and for the future.

I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much to all of you.

Senator Boyer: Thank you. This question is for the Canada Council for the Arts. I notice you’ve got an 11-member board. I’m wondering how that structure that would be reflective of First Nations, Metis, and Inuit, and reflective of local priorities and community priorities. If you could explain that would be appreciated.

The Chair: Knowing that you’re not responsible for appointing the board, Mr. Brault, but you can tell us, I’m sure.

Mr. Brault: You’re right. Canada Council has no say on the making of its board. It’s a completely new process, independent and transparent. That’s how they qualify that process where anyone can apply any time there is a position open on the board level, including for the CEO, actually. But we have been lucky because we insisted on having Indigenous representation. Out of the 11 members right now, there is Jesse Wente, who is a very recognized Indigenous leader and he is knowledgeable of our field. We also have someone from the Northwest Territories who is on the board, Ben Nind. At least there is a presence and an understanding at the level of the board. The making of the board is entirely the responsibility of the government. They appoint the board. We insist all the time to have a reflection of the making of our country. But so far, we have strong voices on the board. They are knowledgeable, arguing and informing the discussions in a great way.

Senator Boyer: Thank you.

Senator Bovey: Thank you all. Again, I’m sorry we were caught voting. Don’t ask whether we voted the right way or not. Of course we did.

Mr. Brault, I’d like to take a minute to summarize some of what we’ve been hearing. You’ve addressed some of the concerns. We’ve heard loud and clear the need for core grants. The fact that some of these smaller Northern organizations will be getting core grants will move the pendulum very positively.

The Chair: It is very welcome news.

Senator Bovey: Thank you. We’ve also heard the very real need for space to learn, create and to present as you have in the museum of history. You said the same thing, you’re sending a three-dimensional exhibition two-dimensionally because of spacial issues.

How do we as a society and as a country deal with that when our history of cultural funding has been pretty siloed for Indigenous work? The Canada Council has been dealing with the contemporary work and the museum’s assistance program, and Canadian Heritage has been dealing with more of the historical and touring exhibitions, and the infrastructure money has come from infrastructure programs. How can you as the Canada Council try to effect positive action in that really positive need up in the North so that people can explore their own treasures and stories as well as elsewhere?

Mr. Brault: In the North, we need both core grants and special grants. I will give an example. We recently created an important program to support the digital transition of the arts sector in Canada. One of the first big grants that were awarded was to the North. With that grant, they did things that even a core-funded organization could not do. It could have been out of reach. In that case it was about bringing elders from different parts of the North and registering their songs. They created an app and it’s presented this week in Winterlude. We need the flexibility of large project grants when we see that there is the perfect configuration to do something that normally would not happen.

We also need core grants. The Canada Council’s decision was to establish core-funded organizations that are Inuit-led. In the past, we would give core grants, but to organizations where the leadership was not Inuit. The thinking was that a lot of the work was to produce work for the South. And we realized that, yes, there is a market, it’s important. But first and foremost the reason why, as a public funder, we should support artists in any part of Canada is to make sure that people have an expressive life and they can reflect, create and share their work with their fellow citizens. It should not be dictated by the needs of a market, especially a market that is outside of the region.

We’re exploring that. All that is quite recent. But in less than two years, we made huge progress. However we want to make sure we also talk with other funders to explain the necessity for training and leadership and all of that.

You’re absolutely right, it’s really siloed, but we think that as the Canada Council we have a responsibility that goes far beyond just giving a grant. We need to amplify those artistic voices and talk to our colleagues in the portfolio.

We do work together more and more. We worked with the museum recently because we presented for the first time in Venice, at the very important Venice Biennale of Architecture. It was the first exhibition with 13 Indigenous architects in a project called Unceded. Frankly, it would have been impossible for the Canada Council to make it happen alone and move it subsequently to Canada without partnerships from other organizations in the portfolio, in this case, notably, the museum.

We’re partnering now a lot with CBC. It’s a new trend and I must say that the renewal of leadership in many of the institutions like Telefilm, Radio-Canada/CBC there are many openings to partner, work together, go beyond our silos and our specific programs to tackle that, but at Canada Council we feel that we need to remain constantly true to the importance of developing artistic practice and leadership from an Indigenous perspective.

Steven Loft, Director, Canada Council for the Arts: Further to that, I’ll give you a framework about the new program and why it is. It’s based on two things: Indigenous rights, based on inherent rights, treaty rights and the rights as articulated in the United Nations declaration; and responsibility — the responsibility of the federal government and the nation state to the Indigenous peoples, the First Peoples of this land. CKS has created not just as a mechanism to fund, but to renew a nation-to-nation relationship based on those two ideas.

That’s why it goes beyond and it goes to responsibility. That’s why CKS differs greatly from the other programs at Canada Council in very significant ways. One of the ways it differs is that we accept and acknowledge that as part of the federal government we have an obligation to treaty rights, inherent rights and the rights as articulated by the United Nations. That means we have been part of the problem in the past. We have been a barrier, and that’s why, as much as there’s been an amazing resurgence of Indigenous culture on this land, infrastructure is still a big problem. We acknowledge we have to be part of that solution, in many of the ways that Mr. Brault already talked about.

One of the other areas is that CKS, unlike the other programs of the council, is not just contemporary. We see a much wider view of art and culture. The other way is that we have our granting programs, but we also have our partnership initiatives. That allows us to be more forward thinking in terms of addressing real needs in Indigenous communities and in the Indigenous arts and culture ecosystem.

That’s how we engage in the types of partnerships we do and we hope to increase that. It’s a way that we can proactively work with Indigenous-led initiatives to really address some of those gaps that are there.

Senator Bovey: Thank you. I find this very exciting, as you can appreciate, having worked side by side with you for many years.

There are some other things we’ve heard and other concerns, and maybe you’ve addressed them and the world just hasn’t caught up with how you were addressing them. One of the big issues is access for artists in the North, and obviously Inuit artists but maybe not just Inuit artists, because of the broadband basis of downloading 20 images and the high resolution you need. We were hearing it takes days to do. I know the Canada Council isn’t responsible for the technical aspects, but what can you do to address that and help?

The other thing we’ve heard loud and clear is that many Inuit artists have made it very clear that writing grant applications and the art speak that artists have to be able to do and figuring out the buzzwords of the year, whatever they may be, that that’s not part of the culture these artists come from. What can you do to address the access to the program?

Mr. Brault: I would say there are two aspects of access. One is related to logistics. For instance, at council, yes, we have access through the Internet and we know it’s problematic in many regions, especially in the North. Therefore, we kept applying on a paper basis, the traditional way.

In terms of grant writing, we also know every project that is submitted to CKS is assessed by a jury of Indigenous artists. On this question of culture — What are you expecting? How do you judge? How do you assess? What is realistic to ask? — people are really informed because, again, they don’t go through the regular Canada Council process. There is a special process at council.

Access is also a question of personal relationships and networks. It’s probably even more important than anything we can publish. This is why we’re really investing time now to visit the North more often and have people with us to establish partnerships that are meant to be long-term partnerships. We realize that no matter how great our discourse could be, or our intentions, we are an organization based in the South. We’re not in the North. We need to recognize that and build a network. I would say that one of the top priorities right now is to build that network. Having staff who are of Inuit descent at the council is important, but having the people to deal with and having those networks is key.

We’re building that and we’re investing in that direction to provide more and more access because at Canada Council we are demand-driven. We respond to the demand we get. Our job is to ensure we nurture the demands by making people aware of what we do.

One of the big commitments the Canada Council made when we learned our budget would be doubled — and it’s a huge commitment — is that 25 per cent of all the new money we’re getting needs to go to first-time recipients. It means in real dollars something like $135 million over five years. Over the next two years it’s $60 million that needs to be awarded to individual artists or organizations that never got a grant from the council. It means that we have a huge incentive at council to reach the population of artists who are normally not reached easily by the Canada Council. Most of the outreach we do right now is outside of downtown Winnipeg or downtown Montreal or downtown Toronto. We are everywhere because we want to reach them and not make a false promise. We have real money to spend and we want to get that money out the door because we realize the renewal of the artistic sector will not happen if we’re not able to bring many new people into our tent.

For us, success is not only finding logistical solutions but it’s being proactive in terms of pushing the access. It’s a complete priority for the council and we will be very intensively doing outreach over the next two years.

Senator Bovey: Mr. Chair, maybe in our report, because we’ve had so many questioned allied to this, given the priorities and the processes that the Canada Council is putting in place, perhaps we should be highlighting this when we get to the point of writing our report.

Mr. Loft: To add to what Mr. Brault said, on a more practical level, one of the things that is new within the CKS program is we have a specific component called “small-scale activities,” where artists can get smaller grants. It’s a simple application.

It doesn’t have to be project-based. If they just need artistic materials, they can get up to $3,000. It’s a really good access point. It’s brand new. It only exists right now in CKS, but we are finding good uptake. We have to get the word out.

We are developing specific communications and outreach strategies for the whole council but also specific ones for Indigenous and, as he mentioned, northern communities.

Senator Bovey: Great.

The Chair: Maybe in that connection I can ask a question. The Inuit are a very small minority in Canada. That means they have unique needs. I know they are being addressed. It also means that it’s hard to find people. I know that well. Good people are hard to find and hard to hire and terribly in demand. You don’t have a lot of Inuit experts in art administration and curatorial matters. I’m not describing the qualifications you are looking for properly.

We have heard people say they would like to have access to an Inuk staff member. You have a division or a department — I’m sorry, wrong term. You have capacity at Canada Council CKS with lots of Aboriginal employees. Would it be your object to recruit Inuit? Can you comment a bit on that?

Mr. Loft: You are absolutely correct about the need to really invest in cultural leadership among Indigenous and specifically Inuit communities.

We have been actively recruiting. It is very difficult, as you mention. Again, we are going to have to change some strategies. It’s difficult, especially for a couple of reasons. One is that we have a very generalized hiring process at the Canada Council that is government-based. It isn’t always the most encouraging way to speak to Indigenous communities. We understand that. My team and I are working with the council’s human resource team to see how we can develop strategies to better mould how we look for people but also the job itself because there are some very particular needs of Indigenous communities. I think that we need to acknowledge that. We need to have it acknowledged in our hiring, retention and recruitment processes. We are actively working on that.

Again, it also speaks to outreach. We have to do more of it and have better communication strategies, especially with more remote communities.

The third part is that we really have to be part of the solution in terms of getting more Indigenous people into roles of cultural leadership. For example, we are partnering with a large SSHRC-funded project that is Inuit-led, which will be developing Inuit cultural leadership programs. We are also working with the Banff Centre in terms of their cultural leadership and how we can help them and they can help us build that infrastructure.

We have to take a large view of this. I agree because institutions don’t change by themselves; people change institutions. That’s what we have seen at the Canada Council, having over 20 years of Indigenous people working there, and we do absolutely need Inuit people there as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Thank you all for your presentations, for being with us today and for your patience in coming back after having been here before and us not showing up.

I have two questions. My first question is for our friends from the Canada Council. I think Senator Bovey has covered most of the important points, but we have been hearing over and over again this issue of access. It’s not just about bandwidth. I think as Senator Bovey has said, it’s also about levels of sophistication — one might call it sophistication — in dealing with this type of arts bureaucracy, for lack of a better phrase.

We have been hearing about the issues around access. We have heard them again and again. This is not just one person. We have heard the issues that you have addressed today about core funding. It’s great to hear that’s coming. It’s actually upon us right now. That’s wonderful. A great breakthrough there. And we have been hearing about spaces.

We have also heard about absorptive capacity of some organizations that are being encouraged to take more money because you have more money and you’d like to invest more, but some of them are quite worried about their absorptive capacity.

The other thing I want to say before I go any further is I’m very impressed with the thinking behind Creating, Knowing and Sharing because in this time when all of us have to be concerned about reconciliation — you mentioned UNDRIP. We have a bill about UNDRIP before us in the Senate right now. Some of us will be speaking about that very soon.

In this time of reconciliation, I’m pleased to see the flexibility and the frameworks that are emerging here. What I’d like to hear from both of you or one of you, whichever one is willing to talk, is about this issue of space. It has come up again and again. Spaces for creating, teaching, sharing and for performing, depending on what kind of arts we are talking about. That’s one question I have for you.

The Chair: Is that for both the Canada Council and the —

Senator Coyle: No, it’s just for Canada Council.

The Chair: Let’s stop there.

Senator Coyle: I have a small question for them as well. In this process that you are in, which is exciting, how are you going to monitor and evaluate so that you continue to adjust as you learn?

Mr. Brault: First, three things. On the question of space, obviously we are not responsible for that. It comes from the money from infrastructure. You can be absolutely convinced that with the people we work with in the North, we are coaching, meeting, helping and communicating with them to make their case stronger. There is only so much I can do, as you know, as head of the Canada Council to pressure the minister to go there.

It’s clear that it’s impossible to sustain a real artistic hub anywhere without space and without capacity. When I went there, the first thing I realized is everything is happening in the same room. Everything is happening at the same place. There is an absolute need there. I won’t dispute that. I completely agree with you. Anything we can do in terms of advocating but respecting our responsibility, we will do it.

In terms of access, for me to hear that people are saying they want more access is very good news because Canada Council is not in the position we were in before, when we had no money. We were under siege. In fact, we did not want anyone to have access because there was nothing to offer. We have money to offer and a desire to fund, so the question of making sure we translate desire for access to real application at the Canada Council is important.

Just so you know — these are very recent numbers — from last year to this year, as we just did a round of grants, we have 56 per cent more successful applications. There has been growth within a year. We think there is room for growth, we are committed to it and we want that to happen. We don’t hide. We want to develop that access.

In terms of evaluation, what is important to understand is we want to measure our progress with a different approach than the one used for everything else we do. I remember, when I came to the Council four and a half years ago, we did an evaluation with a consultant about our investment with Indigenous artists. The conclusion of that study was that it needed to be Indigenous-centred; it needed to be other values; it needed to have a system of evaluation that is really taking into account the Indigenous world views; and that we should move away from the strict measurements we are using elsewhere.

For us, it’s important to evaluate but at the same time we need a cycle for at least five to 10 years before concluding. We can make adjustments, but our main focus is we want to invest all that money, to build partnerships, and to invest in a sustained way in promising artistic organizations in the North. Down the road, we will evaluate, but I think the time now is to be proactive and aggressive in order to catch up. But you are right, if there is no decision made in terms of providing more infrastructure, it will be difficult to sustain.

The more we support groups like Qaggiauvuut!, who are now in Toronto presenting their work, which is being applauded in the Globe and Mail — the more people will realize that, wow, something really great is coming from the North and they deserve space to continue to create that. We think the best way to prove that it’s needed is to show the work, and to show the work not in the perspective of what the South is waiting to get from the North, but what they do have to say about themselves and their future and their understanding of this world. We think right now that’s what we have to do.

We will evaluate, but right now we are in the phase of investing and sustaining our commitment.

Mr. Loft: I’ll add to that. This large commitment we made and that was articulated in our strategic plan had many elements, but in CKS, one of the things that’s different about it is there were three very key commitments made: That it would be developed by Indigenous people for Indigenous people; that it would be implemented and run; that the authority would be in Indigenous people for Indigenous people; and that it would be evaluated based on the lived experiences, the perspective, the world views and the values of Indigenous peoples.

A lot of work and research has been done lately. In fact, I just saw a great webcast from Aotearoa where they were looking at evaluation from an Indigenous perspective. It was amazing. I think the more research and scholarships being done by Indigenous people can inform the way we look at how effective our programs are for Indigenous people and for non-Indigenous people.

Senator Coyle: Ms. Ryan, I have a question. I’m a fellow Atlantic Canadian, a Nova Scotian from Antigonish and a huge fan of your museum. I love your museum.

You said we want to share the resulting knowledge with community members. You have given us an example of the two-dimensional exhibit, and you have talked about some of the barriers, in terms of traditional museum-style infrastructure that one would need. We were up visiting the Canada High Arctic Research Station, which has gorgeous art, by the way, everywhere in it. Canada is developing a variety of incredible pieces of infrastructure for a variety of purposes across Canada’s Arctic. I’m always interested in piggybacking and sharing and repurposing and adding value, one to the other, of these very large investments. I’m not just talking about that exact one. I know there are creative ways, and you know them better than I, of getting these sort of museum-quality exhibits — and exhibit isn’t necessarily a static thing — out. I feel strongly, and I’m sure you do too, that what you have and what you have gathered and what you continue to gather from the Arctic experience is of such value to the people of the Arctic itself. I’d like to hear more about what your plans are for bringing that out to the community members themselves. I have seen a lot of partnership bringing in, but getting it back out.

Ms. Ryan: One of the things we are doing with Cambridge Bay is in the centre in the town itself, separate from the High Arctic Research Centre, they have had a display there for 10 years which has included objects from the museum’s collection — traditional boots, parkas, drums and that sort of thing. We are preparing a new loan to go out to Cambridge Bay right now that was based on selections that were made by people from the Kitikmeot Heritage Society. Those will go out to replace some of the objects currently in the centre that has to be brought back for conservation issues.

One of the things that was fascinating, because the objects were completely chosen by the Kitikmeot Heritage Society — I had no input other than to be there — is that they are not only being chosen for their beauty or things that in a southern museum sometimes we would make a selection for, it’s also for learning and teaching. It’s about recapturing some of those skills that have disappeared over the last 100 years. A number of the objects returning to Cambridge Bay were collected by the Canadian Arctic Expedition, so materials which the people who were here saw as an opportunity for people in the North to study, and to then use the patterns that they can draw from the actual objects to make new material. Talking again about room to study and produce. Part of this will be looking at some of the material to figure out, “Oh, there is a kamik that has an interesting fold in the way it’s put together,” and they have never seen that before. That was chosen specifically to understand how it was made and to bring it back to members of the community.

More broadly, I think another issue in the North is bandwidth. Sometimes we put together digital collections or exhibitions as another way to make southern collections more accessible to people in North. That becomes more of a problem in remote locations because bandwidth means some of these pictures that you need to showcase the object takes two days to download. It’s an interesting challenge we face with the lack of display facilities in most of the North. Even with the 2-D Franklin Expedition show, one of the issues we are grappling with now is transportation. If you are flying into Rankin Inlet or Cambridge Bay or Iqaluit on a jet, you can fit a lot more on the plane, but we want this exhibition to travel to all communities in Nunavut — that means Grise Fiord and Kimmirut — on these small Twin Otter planes. We are trying to develop something that fits on a plane, because that plane also carries cargo, food and people.

It’s been a challenge and something the museum is certainly learning from. It is something that I hope the people in Nunavut will have an opportunity to experience.

Senator Coyle: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. As you know, Nunavut is, I believe, the only territorial or provincial jurisdiction without a heritage centre/museum. As you may well know, Inuit Heritage Trust and Nunavut Tunngavik has launched a fundraising initiative to build a heritage centre in Nunavut. I was pleased that Nunavut Tunngavik, the land claims organization or its regional affiliate, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, which is implementing the Inuit land claim agreement, have offered to make a financial commitment to this project.

Do you have any comments about that as the long-standing Canadian museum and whether this should be the long-range goal? In addition to your outreach efforts, should this be the long-range goal?

How does a small territory like Nunavut go about getting support to repatriate some of its artifacts and have its own heritage centre museum? How has that happened historically in Canada? Do you have any comments on that initiative?

Ms. Ryan: I think it would be fantastic for Nunavut to have its own centre. It’s specifically mentioned in the land claim agreement. It’s something that would be a point of pride for everybody who lives in Nunavut. I think it’s for many people a sore point that collections which are the property of the government of Nunavut and of Nunavummiut are not in Nunavut. They are either stored in Winnipeg, in the case of the archives and art materials, or the archaeology is at the Canadian Museum of Nature. It’s an issue, I think, for people feeling ownership of their own heritage. It’s difficult to talk about your long tenure on the land and the way that you have managed to adapt and shine in an area that is really challenging for a lot of other people, when those materials are not accessible for people there.

I was talking with William Beveridge before Christmas about the centre. They seem like they’re very hopeful right now. I think it’s fantastic they have a not insubstantial amount of money dedicated from within Nunavut because it shows people in Nunavut are committed to it. There are many issues facing people in Nunavut, but the idea of having a cultural centre in a museum where people can come together, see heritage and understand the longevity of the human occupation of the area and learn how these materials were made by their ancestors, this knowledge which has been lost to some degree. Having access to materials to understand how unique they are and how incredibly proud they should be, it makes sense to me.

The Chair: I know this is not within your jurisdiction, and we understand the same with the Canada Council, but it was a theme of many of our witnesses. How do these heritage centres get established in other places? How can this happen in Canada? What’s your advice? How can Nunavut get its own heritage centre museum?

Ms. Ryan: I think part of it is what people in Nunavut are already doing, which is standing up and saying: We need this; this is important to us; our culture and heritage is important to us. It’s been outside of the North for too long, whether initially it was at the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre in Yellowknife or now at Nature. It’s pride. For example, with the Franklin expedition, we had a number of Inuit objects in the show, which for a lot of people in the South are just objects that are interesting because they tell you different things. For Inuit, those are your ancestors; those are your grandparents. For you to be able to see it and, if you go to the museum, to hold it and to understand the ingenuity and the resources that went into it, to me, it’s incredibly important for them.

As to how cultural centres are established in other territories, I would imagine it was a combination of territorial, private and federal funding, which is what Nunavut is attempting to do now through all three of those sources.

The Chair: Thank you. We have time for a question.

Senator Bovey: To the Museum of History, a couple of months ago I had the privilege of being in the storage areas in Gatineau of the Museum of Nature. I was hearing about their student internship programs with students from the North. I’m in your place all the time and I never thought to ask: Do you have similar student internships of students from the North to give them a sense of the richnesses of their cultures here?

Ms. Ryan: We have the Aboriginal training program in museum practices, which takes basically interns from various Indigenous communities across the country. They would come in and get experience with exhibitions, marketing and the research that goes into various parts of what museums do. We have had a number of people from the North participate in that.

The Chair: Can I stop you there? Could you please give us, through the clerk, some information on that program, the number of people and where they came from over the years, please?

Senator Bovey: Are they high school or university students?

Ms. Ryan: They are university-age students. We have had a range of people. Usually they all have finished high school.

Senator Bovey: Some of the other programs I have looked at also had high school students. It seems to me — if we as a society can find a way to encourage high school students while they are hungry for all of this — it may help direct what it is they want to do in university. I had the opportunity of meeting Diamond Jenness when I was a little girl. And I’ll tell you, you know exactly why I went into the museum field.

Ms. Ryan: It’s wonderful working on our collections and just seeing his handwriting on some of the collections that he made. It makes it immediate, the history that we have with the Arctic.

We also make sure at the museum that we bring in student groups. Whenever students from the North come to the museum, whether it’s to see exhibitions, we’ll make sure they get special curatorial tours that highlight different aspects of what’s publicly available. We also bring them behind the scenes, which everybody gets really excited about. You see the archaeology, ethnology and Diamond Jenness’s material.

It was really fun. In September there was a group that came in, and I said, “Who has heard of Diamond Jenness?” A few people put up their hand. I was working on Diamond Jenness material at the time. It’s a cool and immediate thing. He is important to me because of his legacy at the museum, but he’s important to people in Cambridge Bay and people in the western Arctic because of what he represented.

Do you want to talk about Arctic Bay and the students that came?

Matthew Betts, Curator, Eastern Archaeology, Canadian Museum of History: Nuvumiutaq was the first scientific reconstruction of an Inuit man who lived in the Arctic 800 years ago. We worked closely with the community of Arctic Bay. We were so honoured to have elders and students come down and see him for the first time, and what a wonderful experience that was. They received a behind-the-scenes tour. To actually see their ancestors, I have seen many community members moved to tears and having these experiences without media present, without others present, just have time to see that. It was a very special project and we are still working with Arctic Bay to showcase this ancestor to the public there.

Senator Bovey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, for a very informative and impactful session. I feel it was a good conclusion to our afternoon because you have addressed some of the concerns that earlier witnesses from the Arctic had presented, so I do thank you very much.

Just before I close the meeting colleagues, we do have Minister Bennett coming at 6:30 sharp. I ask you all to be here for the minister’s presentation.

The Chair: Welcome to the fifth portion of this meeting of the Special Committee on the Arctic. My name is Dennis Patterson. I have the privilege of chairing this committee. I represent Nunavut in the Senate.

Minister, you know our colleagues, but for the record, I would like them to introduce themselves, beginning on my left.

Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.

Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.

Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, Manitoba

The Chair: May I also say that we have a new senator in waiting, Dawn Anderson from the Inuvialuit region, who we’re honoured to be auditing our meeting today. She’s yet to be sworn in, minister, but we’re happy that she’s here with us.

Hon. Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Can’t she come down? Come down closer. Come over here, at least, so I can read your face. You can give me hints on the Northwest Territories. Take that little chair and move it so I can see you better.

The Chair: Excellent idea. Tonight we continue our study on the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants. For this segment, I’m pleased to welcome the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. She is accompanied tonight by Diane Lafleur, Associate Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations; and Daniel Watson, Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.

Minister, thank you for joining us. You will recall an early-morning meeting we had some time ago just when this committee was getting going. We talked about focusing on yours and your government’s work on the Arctic policy framework. I won’t be telling secrets out of school to say you encouraged us to do that. I’m delighted that we can now, some considerable time later, hear from you about your progress on this important priority for your government, I know.

Please proceed. As you know, we’ll probably have some questions afterwards.

Ms. Bennett: Ullaakkut, Senator Patterson and committee.

As we gather here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to report on our progress in the relationship with Indigenous peoples in the North.

[Translation]

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and your committee’s members for your important work on understanding the needs and priorities of Northerners.

[English]

We’re here to reassure you and to express to the committee that the northern mandate that is now shared between myself and Minister LeBlanc enhances our government’s ability to advance the interests of northerners. As you know, Minister LeBlanc has sent his regrets and looks forward to coming to be with you at a future date.

The first piece is we want to make clear that the government has a whole-government approach in ensuring that issues with the North don’t reside with one minister or, now, two. At the last meeting we had around the Arctic, there were 11 ministers there. We are trying very much to make this a whole-of-government approach, which means all relevant cabinet ministers are working with us to advance the needs of northerners.

The change in my title and role — and I believe we talked the last time that “Crown-Indigenous relations” means that now my title has “Crown” in it, which means I have a responsibility to make sure that all government departments are moving in a good way, not only on the recognition and implementation of rights of Indigenous peoples, but also moving forward on the TRC calls to action, that we have a number of things that we are doing, and, of course, we have the new cabinet committee on reconciliation, where again we all are working together and then reporting back to the whole of cabinet.

It is a reinforcement, really, of my commitment to the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights, but in this file, in terms of the North, it actually is the renewal of the Inuit-Crown, nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships of Inuit, First Nations and Metis peoples.

We are doing this by implementing the treaties and self-government agreements which cover a majority of the northern landscape and to settle outstanding negotiations, including those in the Northwest Territories.

As it says in my mandate letter, we’re working hard to accelerate the progress to self-determination at all the negotiating tables in the North.

As you know, on January 16, Canada signed a self-government agreement in principle that lays the foundation for the Sahtu Dene and the Metis of Norman Wells to have decision-making authority over things that affect them today, tomorrow and into the future, and to ensure that their rights are preserved and protected for generations to come.

We are advancing the negotiations with the Akaitcho Dene, the Acho Dene Koe and the Northwest Territory Métis Nation. As well, negotiations are also progressing to address the section 35 rights of the Dene and Denesuline in Nunavut and Northwest Territories.

We are engaged in self-government and self-determination negotiations with the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit, and with the other three communities under the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Agreement: Colville Lake, Fort Good Hope and Tulita. These speak to the renewed optimism on finalizing agreements in the North.

In saying Gwich’in, some were worried in previous self-government agreements that there was cede and surrender and all of those things. With the Gwich’in, we’re at two tables, one that is working on the self-determination, but one that’s on modernizing their treaty and getting rid of those languages and things that are problematic and not part of any future agreements that we are signing.

[Translation]

Additionally, we are working to ensure that the government is honouring land claim agreements and that we are all are working together to ensureaccountability, as has been advocated for by the Land Claims Coalition and was discussed last year at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

[English]

The Land Claims Agreements Coalition, I understand the first letter they sent was in 2007. There was one in, I think, 2014 and one in 2016. They have come together with very specific asks on treaty implementation and accountability. It’s very important now that we are moving on what that very important coalition of self-governing or self-determining nations has been.

As you know, we think that the relationship with Indigenous people is much deeper than negotiation and implementing agreements correctly. We also are about acknowledging previous policies that have caused tremendous harm. I think that any of us that were present at the special ceremony in Arviat a couple of weeks ago were truly moved to meet with the survivors and hear those horrific stories of what happened because of the forced relocation to the Ahiarmiut people.

As I think you know, next month the Prime Minister will travel to Nunavut to give the Nanilavut an apology.

We are now working with QIA on advancing the remaining federal recommendations from their Truth Commission. We believe that one of the most important developments has been the approval of the new collaborative fiscal policy framework for self-governments.

In the past, self-governing organizations have been, shall I say, when we form government, pretty grumpy about the fiscal arrangement, that it wasn’t enough for them to actually be able to have the capacity to run their own governments.

This policy has been developed over the past two years in close collaboration with the Indigenous partners, and it recognizes that federal funding has to better reflect the expenditure needs of self-governing nations, including the populations they serve. This includes language and culture. It includes the kinds of things that self-governing and self-determining Indigenous nations need and have to — have responsibility for. In the past, it was not included in their funding agreements, and it was nice to have on the side funding by projects, but not as part of the core agreement.

I don’t know whether anybody has seen this beautiful diagram. We can share it with you, Mr. Chair. It speaks to the kind of depth our partners have described in terms of their responsibilities as a government. I think it speaks to the allegations that we, in negotiating self-determination, are really just funding municipal governments. This takes way more into consideration than any municipal government would have to, and I would think that it’s the reason that now the self-determining, self-governing nations are a model, and we need them to be very satisfied with their funding arrangement, such that other nations across the country would want to reconstitute as a nation and do the hard work it takes to move to self-determination. But they need to know when they get there that the funding agreement will be fair and allow them to actually govern and be able to look after their people and their land.

The process itself also strengthens Canada’s relationship with Indigenous governments, because it was very clearly collaborative and co-developed.

[Translation]

In addition to making progress on finalizing and implementing our agreements, we have been working to advance collaborative decisionmaking with Inuit through the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, which was established through the Inuit Nunangat Declaration in February 2017. Federal ministers and Inuit leaders have met five times since then — in Ottawa but also in lqaluit, Nain, Inuvik.

This spring we will meet inKuujjuaq.

[English]

This Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee is bringing, we believe, transformational change in the relationship between Inuit and Crown.

If I may, Mr. Chair, remind you of that first meeting of the Prime Minister with Perry Bellegarde from the Assembly of First Nations, Clement Chartier and Natan Obed, where Natan said: The Government of Canada organized this agenda. We had no say in it. This has to stop.

I think that’s why the ICPC process means that this is a collaborative approach even to the agenda, the priorities that are set, and the policy space we are creating. We think it is changing how the federal government and Inuit set priorities, how policies and programs are designed, and how the joint efforts of Inuit and the Crown are evaluated, how we can be very frank about the progress we’re making, or not making, in the areas.

We think that, as a committee, we’ve made good progress in making decisions and taking action in the priority areas that we have co-developed and priorities deemed fundamental to Inuit, such as the land claims agreement implementation, the Inuit Nunangat policy space, reconciliation measures, as well as housing. Work in these areas complements the Arctic and northern policy framework being collaboratively developed with the territories, provinces and Indigenous peoples across the North.

I know, Mr. Chair, that the development of the Arctic policy framework has been a key priority and a focus of this committee. We think it really will support the Inuit Nunangat policy work.

As you now know, Minister LeBlanc is leading the co-development of the new Arctic and northern policy framework for Canada and was looking forward to updating you on the progress. And as you know, the decision to co-develop the Arctic and northern policy framework with northerners is a departure from the past and acknowledges that the old paternalistic models do not work, let alone hold any key to the future.

For decades, southerners have tried to manage the North through made-in-Ottawa policies. As most of you know, Minister LeBlanc’s parliamentary secretary recently travelled across the North to meet with key partners and stakeholders as we work to finalize the first iteration of the framework, which will provide overarching direction to the Government of Canada’s priorities, activities and investments in the Arctic to 2030.

The timeline for the delivery of the new Arctic and northern policy framework will be determined in collaboration with our partners. As you know, Minister LeBlanc has also been working on improvements to Nutrition North Canada, as food security has been an ongoing issue.

In December, important improvements to the Nutrition North program were announced. It’s because of these improvements that we are helping to further reduce the cost of perishable nutritious food. Work is currently under way to make the program more transparent and more culturally relevant to northerners and Indigenous people in isolated communities. I think from my first trip North, the access to country food and support for harvesters has been very well articulated.

[Translation]

So while our portfolios have new names and our roles have evolved, we both continue to promote Northerners’ priorities from our unique portfolio perspectives.

[English]

I think we’re all optimistic that this division of roles will enable us to achieve our shared goals that the policies that affect the North will respect and reflect the needs of the distinct peoples throughout the North and the Arctic.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Mahsi cho. Qujannamiik. Nakurmiik.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I’ll now turn to the deputy chair, Senator Bovey.

Senator Bovey: Thank you, minister. It’s very exciting to have come down these months. We’ve heard from many people who are following our work according to the six sections of the Arctic policy framework. I’m not going to say we’ve done two or three of them, because we’re finding that things interlock and interweave so well that I think we’re going to see the proverbial bunny popping up every now and then. We’ve been hearing some very interesting comments. Most of all is echoing two things you’ve said: the need for the policy for the North to be made in the North, by the North, and for the North. That’s what we’re trying to reflect.

Minister, when you talked about the agreements and the funds for self-governance, you mentioned that this should include language and cultural funding. We’re in the part of our study where we’ve been looking at language and culture, and you won’t be surprised this question comes from me.

One of the real concerns that’s come forward is the lack of spaces for communities. We know that 50 per cent of the communities are practising artists or craftspeople. The lack of spaces for them to learn, to create, to exhibit and to present their performing arts — especially today — has been huge. We heard it when we went North. We’ve also heard about the interrelationship of arts and language, and we know that too.

My really simple question is, having been in the sector for many moons, we constructed really good silos, right? Such-and-such funds such, and so-and-so funds this, and that funds the other. How are we going to break down the traditional funding silos for capital infrastructure projects so that the artists and communities of the North — and we know how that ties into well-being and good health — how do we break that down so they’re not stuck with the traditional frameworks as to how organizations in the South get their operating funds, their capital funds and their project funds? How do we look at that so it does roll into the funding, as you say, for self-governance?

Ms. Bennett: It’s an excellent question. I think that, in my experience, even northerners aren’t sure. There’s not a clear consensus as to how visual and performing arts, archives or language nests all work together. How are we, with form-following function, able to fund infrastructure to meet the complex needs in this big, cold country?

I remember when the rooms were set up in St. John’s and it was a big scandal that you would have the museum, the archives and the art gallery all in one building, and that it was bigger than the basilica, I think was a big issue. There is a need for creating the space to have these kinds of conversations, what’s best for a community. I think that what we know has to happen bottom up, community to community.

How do we break out of the silos? I know even in my own riding, Wychwood Barns had live-work space for the artists and studios for other artists, but performing space. We were able to get a bit of money from Cultural Spaces; from Heritage, a bit of money. Once there’s an idea or a consensus of what we need, how do we understand, over all the jurisdictions and all the government departments, how we realize that vision for that community?

As you know, in Mary Simons’ report the idea of a Canadian university of the Arctic was important. How do you also make sure there are spaces for the scholarly pursuits that will protect the language and culture or move it forward? We look forward to the committee’s report as to how you bust through the silos.

I remember thinking about an Indigenous child with a disability that crossed five different government departments, three or four jurisdictions in this country, if you could get that right you could get everything right because we’re in a sort of gridlock across government departments and across jurisdictions. If you start bottom up, then everybody should be able to come and say, “I could help with that,” or “I could help with that across.”

I think your committee will be very important, but also the way we’re going to try and work in a whole-of-government way, and with the new minister, Minister Champagne, about how do we actually make sure that we are funding infrastructure in a way that has certain carve outs or has the ability of communities to get what they need.

Senator Bovey: My other question involves a different field, one probably more to your root basis, one of the big things that I’ve been hearing about lately and working a bit on last week with Richard Stanwick, the Chief Medical Health Officer of Vancouver Island, is patient-centred care. When we were in the North we were hearing a lot about people having to be shipped out of community to get medical attention. Does this aspect, and the issues you’re looking at by way of funding and programs in the North, come into self-governance as well?

Ms. Bennett: Absolutely, and I think that Minister Baines, even with the Kivalliq proposal for hydro and broadband getting into that region, part of the pitch this morning from all of those leaders who came to talk to us about that really important project, one was in terms of health and how you can do e-health in a way that can help, whether it’s mental health or whether it’s the kind of opportunities that we shouldn’t have to send people out if they continue with their specialist appointment or do those things online. It is about a patient-centred approach and the patients get to choose, they want to stay in touch with the mental health person they now trust. They don’t want to have someone new coming in all the time. For us to really move on the connectivity in the North will be extraordinarily important for that.

I remember, as Minister of Public Health, when only 17 of the communities in Nunavut were hooked up by video conferencing, but it was huge. It means a cardiologist could listen to the irregular heartbeat. It means that you have different ways of having the very best person in the world look at an X-ray. I think this will be the future and everybody’s very clear — including kids being able to Google their homework like everybody else — that this is one of the real priorities for us to be able to make sure nobody falls behind.

Senator Bovey: Thank you.

The Chair: Minister, I was pleased to hear you mention the Kivalliq Hydro fibre optic project. Our committee has heard from them, and we also heard from the Gray’s Bay port and road project, which you know about. I’m wondering if your government is going to be placing an emphasis on supporting Indigenous-led infrastructure projects. Do you have any comments on that?

Ms. Bennett: The proposal we heard this morning from Kivalliq is very exciting, and to have everybody from ITK to ANTI to the premier to David in Kivalliq, as well as the company that’s prepared to build it, is fantastic when there’s that kind of consensus, but also that kind of innovation about the progression from equity that would gradually increase to being 100 per cent. The example they used for us this morning was, of course, the Watay Power in northwestern Ontario and that equity will make a difference.

We have a little bit of experience here with Ontario Power Corporation moving on Indigenous equity. It’s interesting as we hear even on the interest that people will just come up to me about the TMX and the pipeline, people saying, “Wouldn’t it be great if there was Indigenous equity in this project?”

I think people want this all to be about economic opportunity, but also jobs. And I think we heard this morning about how those Indigenous-led projects are very vigilant about making sure their people get the jobs and they get the benefit.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for coming to talk to us today. We in the Senate now are spending a lot of time on Bill C-69.

The Chair: That bill is not coming to our committee, senator.

Senator Dasko: No, I know, but my question for minister is this: How do you think the North will be transformed by Bill C-69?

The Chair: I’m sorry to jump in here. I’m going to have to say that question might be out of order. I don’t even think the bill applies to any of the territories because we have existing co-management regulatory bodies and fortunately — private comment — we don’t have to worry about Bill C-69 north of 60. Is that your assessment, minister?

Ms. Bennett: Yes, but it’s almost the reverse, Senator Patterson, as we discussed at the UN Permanent Forum last year, in some ways the North and the co-management approaches in the North have actually informed Bill C-69 because, again —

The Chair: Rather than the other way around.

Ms. Bennett:  — having Indigenous involvement, Indigenous knowledge at the very earliest idea of a project is the reason why people shouldn’t be frightened of it because it means good projects get approved, bad projects get declined, and mediocre projects get sent back to the drawing board until Indigenous people are comfortable with jobs or environmental protection or those kinds of things. In some ways, the approaches in the North are finally informing better policy in the South.

Senator Dasko: You referred to Indigenous-led projects at the very end of your last comment. As a point of clarification, are you saying that Bill C-69 does not apply to any of those projects?

Ms. Bennett: No, again, Bill C-69 insists that Indigenous people will be consulted at the earliest idea of a project and that Indigenous knowledge will be applied as part of the science. That’s just good for everybody.

Senator Dasko: But the rest of the bill doesn’t apply?

Ms. Bennett: The land claim areas have their own approach to major projects.

Senator Dasko: Right, okay.

Minister, you also talked about negotiations around a governance structure and you referred to nation-to-nation discussions. In these discussions, has there ever been explicit consideration of women’s role in governance in any of these discussions?

Ms. Bennett: What a great question.

Senator Dasko: You knew it had to come.

Ms. Bennett: We discussed it at the UN. I think that even as recently as Friday morning, at the Native Women’s Association, where I believe the empowerment of women should and ought to be a metric of decolonizing. Women played very important roles in Indigenous communities before the settlers showed up to refuse to speak to women and to then write laws like the Indian Act.

Instead of having the partner have to move into the woman’s community where her father, uncle and brothers would make sure you understood the power differential, they sent women away from their communities where they were less safe.

Mary Ebert’s amazing article called, “Victoria’s Secret: How to Make a Population of Prey” really spoke to what happened. We need to be intentional about reversing that and making sure that as they are setting up their self-governments that the kinds of checks and balances that were always there in terms of elders, youth, women, need to be very much part of how communities choose to govern themselves.

Senator Dasko: But they wouldn’t be explicit?

Ms. Bennett: It’s interesting in partnerships we can express opinions, but as a physician I know we are not to prescribe. The empowerment of Indigenous women and Indigenous feminism is becoming closer to the surface as people are evaluating the various governance structures.

Senator Dasko: Thank you.

Senator Coyle: I’d like to just build on that question. In terms of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee specifically, who’s on there? Are there women?

Ms. Bennett: At the moment, Aluki Kotierk is the president of NTI. At the moment, the other three land claim presidents are men. The Pituqait comes to the table. The National Inuit Youth Council usually has had a woman president since I have been around.

The Chair: They do now.

Ms. Bennett: And Ruth Kaviok, yes, that’s right.

Senator Coyle: I was just curious. I really appreciate your presentation and your presence with us. We are very keen on the status of the Arctic Policy Framework. We are in our way wanting to play a role to contribute to that. We have been wondering whether we are in sync or out of sync with the development of that framework. It’s still not completely clear to me.

Our committee went on a pan-Arctic trip in September. We heard exactly what you are now doing. People said they don’t want that framework developed for them. They want to be consulted and holding the pen together. It’s not just a cute little consultation process here, folks. We want to be at the table holding the pen together with Canada.

I know you have mentioned that Minister LeBlanc is now co-leading that effort. In his absence, I’m wondering if you are able to give us a sense of where things are and what further needs to happen in what kind of time frame, because that is important for us to have a sense of. What do you think the Senate will be producing by the end of June hopefully, where that might fit as we are looking at being in sync with this process?

Ms. Bennett: Firstly senator, thank you. We are evolving as governments to understand that consultation in its former self really didn’t work, where you ran around and listened to people and then went in a back room and decided — hopefully a little bit based on what you had heard, but sometimes it wasn’t so evident.

We evolved to engagement where people discussed together what could or should work and menus of things. People have ideas, but this idea of co-development is pretty new. In the Arctic, co-development or co-management is probably further evolved than anywhere else. But the idea that you would take decisions together — as so many of the Indigenous leaders say, it’s a marriage not a divorce. It is the way you make decisions in any good relationship. There is a little bit of give and take and not everybody gets everything they wanted. You actually move forward in a very respectful way of what the needs of the partners are.

In terms of the Arctic and northern policy framework, our Yukon partners were uncomfortable with the fact that we started with the Arctic. It’s now Arctic and northern because they were not comfortable with Arctic applying to them. You end up at least having to show that assured listening. It means they must see some changes for the fact that they participated.

We also separate from First Nations Inuit and Metis the territorial governments, the other governments, the private sector. I think everybody wanted to feel that they had a say in this.

I think Senator Patterson chaired an excellent meeting with some of the mining companies. They were really clear that if there was going to be infrastructure, there needed to be training that matched the sort of aspirations and the infrastructure that people would have jobs and would be trained to take those jobs. It is certainly what the northern ministers talked about a couple of years ago, that in the North, that economic activity needed to mean economic benefit in the North. It’s only when you listen to northerners that you realize that most of those companies are owned by southerners in Winnipeg. Whether it’s Tundra Buggies or the Zodiac companies, the northerners want the benefit to stay there.

Once at your committee I showed you the cards from Zita Cobb and Fogo Island where she has on the back of each card the economic nutrition of whether it’s her hotel, fishing company or the arts and furniture making, hooked rugs, whatever. We need metrics so that people know it isn’t just all window dressing and that all the benefit is literally going South. We are learning as we go. Our partners have felt comfortable with the process. But each of these areas will always be a work in progress and will need to be engrained.

We get into a bit of trouble even with the word “framework.” It’s really just a scaffolding that holds various things, and the various things move at different paces. Principle number one, northerners have to be involved in northern policy.

Senator Coyle: What’s your sense, though, of when that initial scaffolding will be in place?

Ms. Bennett: I think the timing will be determined with our partners as to when they feel comfortable to release it.

Senator Coyle: You don’t have a sense of that?

Ms. Bennett: We hope it’s before June.

Senator Coyle: You have described it as scaffolding, which is interesting. One of the things that has been on my mind as we have been listening to testimony here at this committee is we see enormous opportunities and challenges. Therefore, we are seeing a need for a transformational investment of all kinds, money and other things, that accompanies this scaffolding that you are describing. Of course, we know that’s not going to come from your ministry. As you say, it’s a cross-government issue. Do you think the Government of Canada is gearing itself up for something quite significant, in terms of an investment that accompanies the scaffolding that is now being assembled for this framework?

Ms. Bennett: Like everything, form follows function. At the moment, it will be based on the vision that communities put forward. But I think that people do understand the importance of the North now, the importance of infrastructure in the North, the importance of some of the issues that have been raised at your committee and other places, in terms of tourism and small ports and the Internet. Housing is huge and practical things like TB. We are not going to fix TB without housing. When you have 17 people living in one house, you are not going to eliminate tuberculosis. I think that is an example of something that crosses. It’s not just health. It’s infrastructure. It’s communication.

Senator Coyle: Thank you.

The Chair: Minister, we appreciate those comments. You started the policy framework initiative and it’s been passed on to your cabinet colleague, so we are looking forward to engaging with him. I will tell you what we told you when we first met about this. We also hope that, along with your partners that you spoke to, that we can contribute to a comprehensive and credible policy, and we are anxious to share our findings and our consultations with you. I’m glad to hear that it is a living thing that can evolve and can consider our recommendations, which may follow the release of the first drafts in conjunction with your partners.

I would like to turn to some comments you made about the work you have been doing in the North on the Crown-Indigenous Relations’ agenda. You referred to the Akaitcho Dene, the Acho Dene Koe, the Northwest Territory Métis Nationa ND and so on. Some of those folks we have heard from, including the Dene and Denesuline and the rights in Nunavut and the N.W.T., a file you are well familiar with. We also had presentations from the Gwich’in and the Land Claims Coalition, and there are concerns about implementation of the treaties, the modern treaties, as you know.

Your report informs us that progress is being made, and I’m pleased to hear that. I don’t expect it now, but could you give us more detail on these various items that you are working on in the area that we are all studying and that fall under the policy framework? Where are things are at? What progress has been made? What are the timelines? What are the issues still ahead? I note that includes the Inuvialuit and their efforts on self-government. I think our senator to be is quite knowledgeable of that file. That is my question.

As we continue our study on the policy framework, would you, through your officials, be willing to provide more detail on the progress and the status of these various negotiations which we don’t have time to cover here tonight? I think it would be very useful if we could get a snapshot and more detail on that.

Ms. Bennett: Absolutely, senator. In terms of the requests from the Land Claims Coalition —

The Chair: They had a model they presented to us.

Ms. Bennett: They want changes to the Interpretation Act on non-derogation. In form following function, we would love if there were witnesses. During the United Nations Permanent Forum, perhaps we could have a side event on oversight bodies in treaty implementation like New Zealand. As you know, there is a Deputy Minister’s Oversight Committee on treaty implementation. I think Deputy Watson would say it’s increasingly successful because all the deputies show up. There are issues across all government departments around treaty implementation that need to go forward and be dealt with as a whole-of-government approach. What the Land Claims Coalition and others are calling for — if that doesn’t work — is an independent body that would report on difficulties in terms of Canada or the honour of the Crown implementing the treaty that it had signed.

The Land Claim Coalition had suggested that should reside in the Auditor General’s office. There is not a lot of support for that in this town, to be perfectly honest. A lot of it is because then the Auditor General would be able to pick out who it is, in terms of that act. There are other interests being expressed about a free-standing treaty commission or treaty implementation commission that would report directly to Parliament. This treaty implementation and what that structure could look like, in terms of reference and all of that — such that any partner who is not happy with the way the treaty is being implemented could go to that independent body. People have spoken about maybe once a year there being an opportunity for them to talk to the deputy ministers’ committee about the things that are working and not working and how we do this.

Also, a place for dispute resolution, as is described in the Canada Health Act. If there is a place where disputes, even amongst nations, could be resolved without having to go to court. Much of what we are trying to do is stay out of court. I think that is what you described at the UN last year, where, if a trusted body takes a decision, people live with it rather than litigate it. We are again in that process of sorting out what that next piece would be in terms of the oversight to Canada of honouring our treaties.

The Chair: That’s most insightful.

I think you nodded when I asked about getting a status report with as much detail.

Ms. Bennett: Absolutely.

The Chair: We are wrapping up our work. This would be very timely, and we are encouraged to hear you are making progress.

In our travels — and you have probably heard this before — there is confusion about which minister is in charge of various aspects of the portfolios that impact the Arctic, and I know that there were reasons for those changes.

But I wonder if now or later we could get some clarification of how the portfolio has evolved, and how it’s been split currently between yourself and Minister LeBlanc.

I’m going to add a supplemental to that. The recent supplementary estimates show some allocation of monies for internal support services. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development — I guess that’s still its legal title — is requesting $4.9 million to transition to the department’s expanded mandate, and the Department of Indigenous Services Canada is requesting $31.7 million to increase internal services capacity following the creation of the department and the assumption of responsibility for programs relating to First Nations and Inuit Health.

Could you give us a little more detail about how these costs relate to the split of ministerial portfolios? We would also like to know a bit of a description of the evolution. Is there a new portfolio of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade that is getting allocations as well? We would like to understand that.

Ms. Bennett: I’ll let Diane and Daniel deal with the money part. As you know, with the services, part of that transfer was from Health Canada. First Nations and Inuit Health branch moved over into Indigenous Services. We’ll explain how that money was transferred or not.

The clarity I hope to bring is my responsibility is on the recognition of Indigenous rights and implementation. That’s my job. Minister LeBlanc has the intergovernmental portfolio, including the territories and provinces that are affected in terms of the North, but also the programs and services that affect all northerners.

In some ways, it’s a bit tidier because my responsibilities are pretty clear to our First Nations, Inuit and Metis partners, and Minister LeBlanc’s responsibility is also the relationship with the public governments. That’s how that works as well as the other things.

In terms of the money, certainly there has been no extra money to the department for the fact that they support Minister LeBlanc in the funds that were already there for Northern Affairs. That’s pretty well it.

Daniel Watson, Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: On the first question of the confusion, one of the things we can say very clearly is that people should continue to talk to the public servants. They talked before about if they had a question about housing or land claims or education, they should talk to the same people they talked to before. Our engagement is to make sure that is seamless when they deal with those folks so we don’t send them from one door to the next. That part we hope will be very clear to people on the ground if they continue to deal with the people they dealt with before.

On the issue of internal services funding — things like HR and information technology — we are required to report the amount that we actually spend on those things. What I can tell you in this amount here that will identify how we will divide up the monies that are there as between ourselves and the northern program and the Crown-Indigenous program, the proportions will be either the same or slightly lower than in the past. There will be no increase in the percentage of our funds that are spent on internal services.

It’s housekeeping and accounting to be very clear and transparent about where we are going to be spending those monies.

The Chair: Can you give us more detail?

Mr. Watson: We can certainly provide more detail.

The Chair: Will there be legislation to reflect the new departmental mandates in the life of this government?

Diane Lafleur, Associate Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Just to clarify, the additional allocations you referred to relate to the creation of the new Department of Indigenous Services Canada. It’s the creation of a whole new body; so there is a new minister’s office and a new deputy minister’s office.

There are resources that were transferred from Health Canada. In reality, you couldn’t transfer all the resources that were needed to support the First Nations Inuit and Health branch as it transferred without hampering what was left in Health Canada. It was always recognized there was a bit of a gap that would have to be made up in terms of, as the deputy mentioned, human resources support, CFO support, all those corporate functions that are needed to operate a new department.

Those are some of the resources you are seeing here as well as some one-time costs related to things like needing to get IT licences transferred from one department to another and making sure all the right people are hooked up to the technology they need to be and the systems are talking to each other as people from two departments come together.

In terms of the appointment of Minister LeBlanc, there has not been any additional resources allocated to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. We are supporting both ministers from our own existing resources.

The Chair: What about the legislation?

Ms. Bennett: In terms of intergovernmental, that is supported by Privy Council Office. We certainly hope the legislation will be soon.

Ms. Lafleur: It’s still the intention of the government to table legislation to establish both the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Indigenous Services Canada. Timing will depend on the parliamentary agenda and having sufficient time for that to happen.

The Chair: We understand. Thank you, minister. Thank you for making your officials available if we have further questions of them.

Senator Bovey: Thank you, minister. This is probably in another bucket, but it’s something else we have heard. You and I heard it when we went to the Arctic Council meeting. This is security.

When we were North, we heard that only 1 per cent of Canada’s Arctic coastline has been charted; yet it became very evident to us that the Russians and Chinese know the bottom of our seabed extremely well. In light of what’s going on globally, and this will come out when we do our last section, where did these big issues fit when we talk about safety of the North? We talk about marine transport, whether it’s cruise ships, whether it’s somebody with a sailboat or whether it’s iron ore, with Russia’s nuclear ship right off there. Where does this fit when we are trying to look at the health, future and well-being of 40 per cent of our country?

Ms. Bennett: Thank you for your question. It’s the reason why, for the first time, that Global Affairs is very much part of this policy. It’s not a domestic policy. It includes our Arctic sovereignty and everything to do with the security.

I can remember — what year? I think 2000 — when we were in Cambridge Bay or Gjoa Haven, and I think it was the first time the Northwest Passage had thawed a little, and this sailing ship showed up from Ireland with fiddlers on the deck. The Lands End Yacht — is that the one from Seattle? Anyway, it had come in. There wasn’t any Customs or security. It was shocking that all of a sudden there were people coming wanting to tie up at a dock that wasn’t built for that.

We are understanding this is very critical, certainly at the Arctic Circle meeting to see the Russian presentation with all of what seems kind of close when you look at the big map of the top of the earth.

It’s something that I think we need to be concerned about. I think the Chinese near-Arctic policy — Japan hosted the opening reception. I think the one thing that would be interesting as you do that section, there is a quite alarming view of the Arctic as a common good —

Senator Bovey: Yes.

Ms. Bennett: — for all nations, as opposed to the Arctic as for Arctic nations and the people who live there. I was quite shocked the first time I heard that, but that would be important in that part of your study.

Senator Bovey: I think the alarm bells went when we were sitting around some of those tables on behalf of Canada last September.

Ms. Bennett: Just in the meeting that we had on the Arctic when I think 11 ministers came, from Minister Sajjan to Global Affairs and the Coast Guard, this is all a lot of why it needs to be a whole-of-government approach.

The Chair: Minister, thank you for your time. We’ll excuse you. I understand your officials are willing to remain in case there are other questions, so we’ll continue this meeting. Thank you.

I’m pleased to welcome, from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Wayne Walsh, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch; Mark Hopkins, Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Northern Affairs; Nancy Kearnan, Director General, Director General, Northern Governance Branch; and Marla Israel, Director General, Policy and Coordination.

I’d like to continue the question period we started in the previous segment with the minister. May I open by asking a question that did come up with the minister or was referred to by the minister about the definition of the Arctic or the Arctic and the North for the purposes of the Arctic Policy Framework.

For the three territories, Churchill and Inuit Nunangat, which would include Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, is that definition continuing?

Wayne Walsh, Director General, Northern Strategic Policy Branch, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. It’s a question that we’ve been grappling with since the commencement of the co-development process. One of the key findings in Mary Simons’ report, which was artificial boundaries that separated North of 60 and South of 60, actually led in many cases to some of the socio-economic challenges we’re facing. So she encouraged us through some of her recommendations to be as inclusive and as open as possible.

We don’t at this point have a specific definition, but I can say that our partners include the Government of Yukon, First Nations in the Yukon, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the First Nations Metis in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Northern Quebec, Labrador and Northern Manitoba, which includes Churchill.

As the minister described, we’ve expanded a bit of the definition of — not the definition but the title to include “Arctic” and “northern.” Certainly our general approach, not just from the federal perspective but from all our partners, is we’d like to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.

I would say the working definition that was described in the discussion guide, which I think you’re all familiar with, still stands, but the one exception would be we have also been in discussions with the Innu nation and NunatuKavut in Labrador. That would be what we’re looking at.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. I’m going to continue with some questions, but I will invite other colleagues to ask theirs.

The committee has travelled to Nunavik and Nunavut, and we heard a lot of talk about testing renewable alternatives to diesel and actually everywhere we went. The department’s plan in 2018-19 shows that 73 per cent of Inuit in northern communities depend on diesel, and 20 per cent of those communities are expected to be implementing projects to reduce the use of diesel by the end of 2018-19. I know the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations has provided funds for feasibility studies and in community engagement for the past decade or so, and renewable energy technology is already in use in Arctic regions of other circumpolar countries.

Could you comment on what progress Canada is making in catching up with other countries in regards to ensuring the Arctic has sustainable alternate sources of energy?

Mark Hopkins, Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Yes. It’s easier to characterize the absolute progress as opposed to relative progress to other countries.

I’m less familiar with the key comparators, Iceland with a huge geothermal resource, for example; Norway, Russia, or Alaska, fair — Alaska, obviously, as a result of its ample funding available has made a lot of progress in the installation of renewables.

What you characterized there, senator, in terms of the number of projects, as you likely realize, these can range from very small feasibility studies, capacity investments, through to, at this point, fairly small-scale renewal installations, for example, 5, 10 kilowatt solar panels on community and public buildings, although we’re now beginning to see more significant investments, of course.

Many of the mines, such as Diavik and Raglan, have been leaders in installing fairly significant wind capacity to the tune of sort of 1, 2 megawatts.

We now have a significant project launched in Inuvik that will lead to something in the range of 2 to 3 megawatts of wind power installed.

We also have in the community of Burwash Landing in Destruction Bay, in Kluane First Nation, a project that will see 300 kilowatt wind towers established. These will be the first community-based wind towers in Northern Canada.

There is also a significant installation of solar being put in place in Old Crow, I think a $5 million investment coming in part from us, in part from the Yukon government as well.

The Chair: These are very intriguing examples. Would you be able to give us a complete list of the projects?

Mr. Hopkins: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I think in the short time that we have, that would be most appreciated.

I’ve got to tell you, you know, we went to Inuvik. We met with the outgoing mayor. We heard all about the natural gas problem, the depleting natural gas.

Then, more recently, we heard about this wind project. I’ve got to tell you that I’ve interfaced with the Northwest Territories association of municipalities and members of the Inuvik council, and they said they had no involvement whatsoever in this wind project. I mean, they’re not welcoming it, but it seemed like it came from I guess Ottawa and nobody had consulted with the local municipality. I got that on good authority from folks in the town of Inuvik.

I’m just wondering how such a thing could happen.

Mr. Hopkins: Just to be clear, I gave that as an example of a significant wind project under way. It’s not something that we ourselves have funded. It’s quite expensive. It’s somewhere to the tune of $30 to $40 million overall. My understanding is that this is a project funded largely but not entirely through infrastructure funding provided to the territorial government.

The Chair: Okay. Well, we’ll leave it at that then.

Any other questions?

Senator Bovey: As you can tell, we’re all pretty committed to this and find the whole interconnection of all the pieces that we’ve been looking at and that you’re looking at really interesting.

When we were up North, I think as Senator Coyle said earlier, we were all pretty impressed with the research station up in the CHARS centre. However, it’s not open yet. The phrase that we keep hearing is “largely operational,” but when we were there the freezers weren’t hooked up. I went to an event just before Christmas where people were talking about undertaking research — well, no, it hasn’t really been opened and begun yet.

Where does it stand? Where is it? Is it about to open? Is it waiting for a ribbon cutting, or are there issues that are being hidden behind a ribbon?

Mr. Walsh: Thank you for that. The station is largely operational. Some aspects of the station are still considered a construction site. There’s a list of deficiencies, which is normal in a project of that size. We’re working through with the contractors.

We do have some civil work that needs to get completed over the course of the summer. Those were delayed largely because of weather. But in the grand scheme of things, we’re looking at some fairly minor things that will allow Polar Knowledge Canada to take full responsibility of the station. We’re hoping to get a full certificate of completion at the end of the summer construction season that would include all the landscaping and everything else that would discharge the responsibilities of the contractor.

But in the meantime, as the different aspects of the station become operational, POLAR is moving in and is doing its work.

In terms of the opening ceremony or the ribbon-cutting ceremony, we’re working with the various senior officials to find a suitable date to have that, and we hope that that’s accomplished sooner rather than later.

Senator Bovey: Are international research partners undertaking their scientific research there now? I seem to get mixed messages on that, but maybe I have mixed hearing.

Mr. Walsh: I can’t speak to the science component of POLAR. They’re in charge of delivering on the science mandate and then running the actual station. My branch is responsible for the construction side of it, so that’s all I can speak to. I do know that there are some scientists on site, largely I think Polar Knowledge Canada employees.

Senator Bovey: I know there are scientists on site. They’re supposed to have a fair international component as well, and I just wondered where we were with that.

What about the other oil spill testing centre being built in Churchill? Are you part of that one?

Mr. Walsh: That one I’m not familiar with, no.

Senator Bovey: Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Just a comment following up what Senator Bovey said. When we visited the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in Cambridge Bay in September, they told us they were just waiting for that date for the ribbon cutting. That was September. So they’re still waiting for that date for the ribbon cutting. They’re waiting for the minister to come, I guess. Okay. That’s not your department.

I have a couple of questions. The first one is about protected areas. I don’t know who would be able to answer this, but in Mary Simon’s report, she recommends developing Indigenous-protected areas. Can anybody here comment on work or consultation that’s been done regarding this designation?

Mr. Walsh: I’ll speak to it from the context of our engagements on the Arctic Policy Framework.

Senator Coyle: Sure, yes.

Mr. Walsh: But there are officials with Environment Canada, the department of fisheries and Parks Canada that are advancing the notion of Indigenous-protected areas. I’m sure you’re familiar with one of the key pillars of the Arctic Policy Framework that is around protecting the ecosystems and environmental protection.

One of the key aspects of Mary Simon’s report that she also talked about is the development of a conservation economy, so that has come up a lot in our engagements.

But the other thing that’s come up consistently — and I’m sure you’ve heard the same things in your discussions — is that we have expanded from six themes to eight. So the other two new themes that were not part of the discussion guide include one on reconciliation, which was brought forward by our Indigenous partners; and then another one that’s specific on safety and defence.

Senator Coyle: What was the last one?

Mr. Walsh: On safety and defence.

Senator Coyle: Okay.

Mr. Walsh: To heighten that further, the point.

Regardless, what we heard consistently, and these themes are not silos. They’re cross-cutting issues that go across, so when you’re looking at advancing economic development, you have to look at it in conjunction with not just environmental protection, but looking at different opportunities that come from whether it’s the creation of protected areas and the advancement of IIBAs, for example.

One thing I will say on the specific notion of the Guardians program is that a lot of the reaction was favourable in concept, but the one thing that northerners pointed out to us is that we have land claims in place that have provisions for how protected areas are created within land claim areas. Those require co-development, co-management of those protected areas. In many cases, northerners found themselves or argue that they’re at the forefront. A lot of the protected areas that have been created since many of the land claims have been settled, they will argue that that is really a form of an Indigenous protected area. Again, it’s how do we import some of these concepts and apply them in practical terms?

Senator Coyle: It’s already there in the land claim agreement.

Mr. Walsh: That’s right, and in the co-management regimes that we’ve mentioned.

The Chair: If I could ask a supplementary on that, Senator Coyle.

Mr. Walsh, you’ve given us some tantalizing information about the policy framework, and we know that you’re actively engaging with what the minister described as your partners. I’ve even heard there are drafts circulating.

What I would like to ask you, since you’ve given us a bit of detail, is where is this at? The committee would be interested if there are drafts available for review. We’re finalizing our report within the life of this Parliament. The government wants to complete its framework within the life of its Parliament. How can we plug into this process at this point? I don’t think our capable staff, who have eyes and ears here, were quite aware that there had been some new themes developed, for example. We’ve been studying six themes, and you’ve just told us there are now eight, and they sound great.

I’m wondering about a possible interface with this committee, whose work the minister did encourage when we began this study.

Mr. Walsh: I can tell you that we’re in the process of completing a check-in, or what we’ve called a validation exercise, where, along with the parliamentary secretary, Yvonne Jones, we’ve travelled and visited with our partner stakeholders across the North. Senator, I think you will appreciate that travelling in the North in January is exciting.

We shared advance copies of the draft with those partners to validate what we’ve found and seen. We’ve received a lot of comments and input as to areas where they would like to see us improve and areas where we can focus on different themes, et cetera.

We just came back last week and we’re taking in a lot of those comments. We’ll need to turn around a new draft and share those with our partners to see if we’ve come back. At that point I’ll have to check with my senior officials, as well as my partners, about their comfort with sharing it with the committee and moving forward.

That’s where we are right now. We’ve taken in a lot of information on the validation. We’re now digesting it and trying to update the document. I think the logical next step will be to share what we’ve heard or share the new draft, based on their input, to see where we are.

Senator Coyle: That’s incorporating that.

Mr. Walsh: Yes.

Senator Coyle: That would be great.

The Chair: I appreciate your taking that message. It would help in our internal deliberations. We understand it’s still not official and not public, but we could live within those guidelines too, I’m sure.

Senator Coyle: We could handle it accordingly. That would be very helpful. This has been helpful to learn these things tonight.

Housing was my next question. I’m curious in terms of what’s coming out. If you’re at liberty to say, both in terms of what you put out there for validation and in terms of what has come back, where are you sitting on the big issue of housing in the Arctic?

Mr. Walsh: What I can tell you is that we have been encouraged, both internally and by our partners, to really look at the UN Sustainable Development Goals and how we frame the framework. The framework is evolving, I can say, more under those approaches rather than specific policy statements. As it’s evolving, it’s looking at more of a strategic planning approach rather than a traditional policy statement.

In the context and the way the framework is evolving, we have the themes, which you’re all familiar with. The question then becomes: What kind of activities or initiatives do you do under those themes in order to make progress, in order to ensure safe, sustainable communities, or diversification of the economy, et cetera? Comprehensive infrastructure is one of them.

I think it’s recognized by all parties that a key goal to achieving a strong, sustainable community is to eradicate homelessness. That is one of the things we’re looking at moving forward. The key, I think, in achieving the goal of eradicating homelessness in that case would be what kind of initiatives we work on collectively to bring forward.

If I were to use a current example of something that’s within the art of the possible, we now have the Inuit Housing Strategy, which the Government of Canada collaborated with ITK; and then, as a result, the Government of Canada came forward with I think a five-year investment plan in order to put the strategy in place.

The granularity around those initiatives is what Minister Bennett, in her appearance today, talked about how that will be evergreen. We hope the framework or skeleton achieves those goals, and then how do we develop those activities or initiatives together in order to achieve the goals going forward?

Senator Coyle: You’ll be using Agenda 2030 and the SDGs as your superstructure?

Mr. Walsh: No. What we’ve done is used them as inspiration.

Senator Coyle: I see.

Mr. Walsh: And our partners have put in kind of a Northern context to a similar construct or approach.

Senator Coyle: Great. Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Senator Coyle: Not until we see that draft.

The Chair: Thank you for being available and for helping us with these questions that we have, and we will look forward to interfacing with you again.

With that, I will close the public part of the meeting. Colleagues and your staff, I will ask you to stay a few more minutes for a short in camera session.

(The committee continued in camera.)