Introduction

In recent years, Canada committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Among other things, UNDRIP recognizes that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination” and that, “[b]y virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (article 3).[1] UNDRIP further recognizes that, through their right to self-determination, “Indigenous peoples… have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions” (article 4).[2]

For decades, First Nations have been working towards achieving their visions of self-determination, notably by empowering their communities and institutions, and by rebuilding the governance structures that colonial policies attempted to break down and erase. On the path to restoring their autonomy, First Nations are faced with barriers to building capacity and retaining talents in their communities. Overcoming these barriers is key to moving toward self-determination.

In order to advise the federal government on how it can better support First Nations communities and find ways to address the barriers they face with respect to capacity building and talent retention, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (the Committee) agreed in February 2018 to “undertake a comprehensive study of community capacity building and retention of talent in the delivery of essential services on reserve” and to report its findings to the House.[3] From February to April 2019, the Committee held a total of nine public hearings and heard from 50 witnesses, including First Nations communities, organizations and tribal councils. The Committee sincerely thanks all the individuals and groups who took part in this study.

As has been the case in previous studies undertaken by the Committee, witnesses stressed the uniqueness of each First Nation and that a one-size-fits-all approach to capacity building will not work. Solutions must be community-driven and tailored to the unique needs of individual First Nations.[4] As such, the Committee was told, in supporting capacity building and talent retention, federal programming should “remain flexible and responsive to the individual needs of First Nations. The federal government should not impose a single approach or federal capacity targets.”[5]

This report summarizes the evidence gathered during this study. It should not, however, be construed as a comprehensive analysis of capacity building and talent retention in First Nations communities. This subject is an important one and a lot of work still needs to be done to address the barriers that impede the social, economic and political development of these communities. Limited by time, the Committee presents this summary of evidence in the hope that it will help guide future studies by parliamentary committees. Moreover, the Committee encourages anyone wanting to learn more about this subject to visit its Website and consult the complete transcripts of its public hearings.[6]

Capacity Building and Talent Retention

Undeniably, some First Nations face significant barriers in terms of building or strengthening capacity and retaining professionals in their communities. The two issues are linked, as communities need trained and skilled professionals to develop their collective capacity; at the same time, they need some level of capacity and resources to be able to train, retain and attract these professionals.

Capacity Building

Grand Chief Arlen Dumas of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs explained that, “today, community capacity building often refers to strengthening the skills, competencies and abilities of people and communities so that they can achieve their goals and potentially overcome the causes of their exclusion and suffering.”[7] According to him, federal programming for First Nations has historically been developed without taking “into account the history, the geography and the existing capacity in the community.”[8] As such, he suggested moving away from paternalistic assumptions and towards an approach of “capacity enhancing” whereby people work to improve and strengthen the capacity that already exists within communities.[9]

During this study, witnesses identified the need to build or enhance capacity in specific areas, including governance, land management, Indigenous organizations, employment training, education, health, and data collection and management. The Committee also heard from several federal departments and agencies about the programs they offer to support capacity building in First Nations communities.

However, Jerome Berthelette of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) told the Committee that “decades of audits indicate that the results of the programs for Indigenous peoples have been unacceptable.”[10] Most recently, in spring 2018, the OAG conducted an audit of education programming for First Nations on reserves[11] and another on employment training programs for Indigenous peoples.[12] According to Mr. Berthelette, OAG audits have identified four sets of structural barriers impeding federal programs aimed at improving socio-economic outcomes in First Nations communities:

• the lack of clarity about service levels;
• the lack of a legislative base for services;
• the lack of appropriate funding; and
• the lack of organizations to support local service delivery.[13]

Grand Chief Dumas similarly criticized the lack of secure, stable funding and the absence of a legal framework for essential services on reserve. In his view, this situation “leaves First Nations vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden changes in policies.”[14] Howard Grant, Executive Director of the First Nations Summit Society, added that funding arrangements for federal programming are problematic: negotiated on an annual, proposal-driven basis, they do not allow for strategic and long-term planning.[15] Without addressing these structural barriers, “it will be hard to retain staffing and enhance capacity at the community level to create long-lasting changes in the socio-economic status of [First Nations] communities.”[16]

What the Committee heard from federal departments and agencies indicates a willingness to shift away from past practices and address these structural impediments. Notably, departments and agencies are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of recognizing First Nations’ right to self-determination and autonomy. For instance, Indigenous Services Canada’s “vision is to support and empower Indigenous peoples to independently deliver services and address the socio-economic conditions in their communities.”[17] The department’s objective is to gradually transfer service design, delivery and management to Indigenous communities and organizations over time.[18]

Governance

The notion of self-determination—a people’s fundamental right to determine its own way forward—was a recurring theme during the Committee’s hearings. Albert Marshall Jr., Director of the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association, said that in light of Canada’s commitment to building new relationships with Indigenous peoples, “it is imperative for the Canadian government to recognize and support the needs and to contribute to First Nation success in reaching greater autonomy.”[19]

For his part, Louis Harper, Senior Legal Counsel at the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba, referred to self-government “as a basis for improved and effective delivery of services in [First Nations] communities.”[20] According to him, improved and effective service delivery depends on a process of nation rebuilding whereby First Nations would “identify culturally appropriate governance structures, systems and service delivery.”[21] Additionally, this process would rely on the identification of a land base as part of self-government agreements to help generate own-source revenues supplementing federal transfers.[22]

With respect to governance, a promising practice that accounts for the uniqueness of each First Nation and emphasizes community needs is comprehensive community planning.[23] Federal officials described this type of planning as “a holistic community-led process that enables a community to build a road map to sustainability, self-sufficiency and improved governance.”[24] Developing a comprehensive community plan (CCP) is a grassroots initiative that allows community members to plan for their collective future, based on their own needs and aspirations. A CCP generally highlights a community’s history and context, its collective vision and its goals and objectives. This approach began with First Nations in British Columbia around the mid-2000s and is now being adopted and adapted across the country.

Jessie Hemphill, Partner and Senior Planner at Alderhill Planning Inc., described comprehensive community planning as “one of the keys to building up capacity.”[25] Ms. Hemphill also stated that, just like the communities that develop and implement them, CCPs are unique.[26] According to her, “You could almost compare it to official community planning for local government but the scope is even broader than that.”[27] Right now 147 First Nations have completed plans, meaning that most communities do not have one.

Land Management

Land management was another important theme explored by Dr. Daniel Millette, Director of Planning and Readiness at the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, and by Mr. Marshall Jr. and his colleague Theodore Johnny Merasty. Dr. Millette explained that his organization “recognizes the inherent right of First Nations to govern their lands, environment and resources according to their own laws.”[28] However, exercising this right is complicated by the fact that First Nations manage their lands under one of three significantly different regimes:

• 1) The Indian Act regime, which applies by default to First Nations;
• 2) The First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) regime, which allows participating First Nations to opt out of 40 sections of the Indian Act, and to develop and implement their own land codes and laws with respect to land use, environment and natural resources;
• 3) Self-government agreements, which may include provisions with respect to land management.[29]

Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation explained that “the Indian Act was never created for [First Nations] to be part of the economy” and instead restrained opportunities available to them.[30] In his view, being part of the FNLMA regime has “enabled [his] community to… not just self-govern [their] lands but also do the land planning, zoning, development standards, getting [their] lands ready for economic development.”[31] Notably, Chief Bear stated that being part of the FNLMA regime contributed to lowering his First Nation’s unemployment rate from 70% to 5% by opening the doors to new business opportunities.[32]

Mr. Marshall Jr. also explained that managing First Nations lands “requires specialized knowledge and skills” and that it “can be very challenging and overwhelming for staff who do not have sufficient support and training.”[33] According to Dr. Millette, “[t]he contemporary resumption of Indigenous land governance frameworks by First Nations following a hundred years of imposed Indian Act rule can be a complicated and time-consuming effort. This process is considered an act of decolonization, First Nation by First Nation.”[34] As such, witnesses recommended that the federal government increase funding for land management programs to ensure that communities are able to fund an adequate number of land manager positions and that these positions are provided with sufficient support.[35]

Indigenous Organizations

Witnesses identified tribal councils and other Indigenous organizations as important actors for assisting with capacity building due to their knowledge of communities’ needs. Another argument made in favour of such organizations was the fact that they provide opportunities for economies of scale and partnerships.

Norm Odjick, Director General of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council, highlighted the opportunities afforded by tribal councils: “When the tribal council provides the training, it’s a huge help to communities… We are like a team of experts they can turn to because it’s impossible to have experts in each community.”[36] As such, Mr. Odjick suggested increasing funding to tribal councils, noting that they struggle to fulfil their mandate of assisting communities and advising them on how to increase their capacity.[37] Cuts to the Tribal Council Funding Program and the imposition in the 1990s of a 2% funding cap on community programming have limited what tribal councils are able to do: “Our purchasing power is diminished on an annual basis, yet we are asked and expected to do more and more.”[38]

Grand Chief Dumas also stressed the important role of regional organizations with respect to local capacity building, stating that they are more familiar with the communities’ needs than the larger national organizations.[39] However, speaking in favour of a grassroots approach, Chief Lance Roulette of the Sandy Bay First Nation stated that even the regional organizations “don’t speak to the true intent of a community needs-based model”[40] and that “No one can ever speak for anybody’s community, other than the community itself.”[41]

For his part, Keith Matthew, President and Director at the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers, explained how his organization and the economic development officers (EDOs) it certifies “work with the leadership to create a vision for the community and then use [their] skills in strategic and business planning, lands management and more, to create an economy that will support that very vision.”[42] Mr. Matthew recommended establishing regional EDO positions to serve smaller communities, improving access to capital and establishing partnerships with municipalities to create joint economic development strategies.[43]

Employment Training

As part of institutional and nation rebuilding, communities must be able to train their staff. Norm Martin, Clinical Educator at St.Amant, explained that “There really is no shortage of dedicated and devoted people in the communities.”[44] His colleague, Ben Adaman, added that “Capacity building efforts targeting front-line staff have the potential to result in an enduring impact in the communities” as it contributes to the retention of talents.[45] He continued: “Community members who receive training are often rooted in their communities, and many may choose to stay there over the long term.”[46]

Additionally, witnesses expressed a desire to see more training opportunities being offered on site, in the communities, as opposed to having people leave their homes and families to access these.[47] Virginia Lukianchuk, Assistant Director of Health at the Sandy Bay First Nation, stated:

We prefer, as a community, to train our own people and to have them providing the services, because... you have more heart when you’re doing your job if you’re from that community and with your people. You have that ability to have that conversation in your own language instead of depending on somebody else to come in and provide that service.[48]

Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) administers two complementary programs aimed at reducing barriers faced by Indigenous peoples in finding and keeping employment: the Indigenous Skills and Employment Training (ISET) program and the Skills and Partnership Fund (SPF).[49] For First Nations specifically, ESDC has been funding 66 on and off-reserve service delivery organizations under ISET, providing over $188 million annually. According to department officials, this allowed “around 319,000 First Nations clients [to receive] employment and skills training,” noting that “following their participation, almost 101,000 were employed and 4,500 returned to school.”[50] Through the SPF, an initiative receiving $50 million annually, services were delivered to 32,000 people, half of which managed to find employment and approximately 2,000 others returned to school.[51]

The implementation of the ISET program follows a series of engagements in 2016‑2017, during which ESDC “heard that organizations wanted longer-term agreements with greater flexibility to provide wraparound supports.”[52] According to officials, stakeholders had also criticized the fact that program funding had not kept pace with demographic and economic changes, and that oversight focused on tracking expenditures rather than results.[53] In a 2018 report, the two programs were criticized by the OAG who emphasized that “the department could not demonstrate that these programs increased the number of Indigenous people who got jobs and stayed employed.”[54]

Education

Education—improving outcomes and graduation rates specifically—was also identified as central to building capacity in the communities. The Committee heard the promising story of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, which has an “alliance agreement on education” with one of Saskatchewan’s largest school boards: “It has been a really good partnership… It ended education disparity for us.”[55] Chief Bear said that the schools are bilingual (English and Dakota) and that Elders are present every day.[56] Chief Bear, noting that being recognized by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) as a regional education authority could unlock additional funding, advocated for the agreement with Saskatoon Public Schools to be recognized as such.[57]

a) Funding

The Whitecap Dakota First Nation has taken advantage of its proximity to a major urban centre. Other First Nations, due to their remoteness and geographic isolation, do not necessarily have the opportunity to create similar partnerships with neighbouring communities and municipalities. Graduation rates remain significantly lower in First Nations, compared with the rest of the country, and the education infrastructure is often inadequate. Chief Delbert Wapass of the Thunderchild First Nation and George Lafond, a strategic development advisor, also stated that First Nations education is underfunded.[58] Mr. Lafond added that consistent and predictable funding is required: “Unfortunately right now most First Nations schools operate… on a year-to-year funding arrangement. I think in order for us to have proper planning and proper predictability, you need to have long-term funding which is guaranteed, and that way you can plan further longer.”[59]

In that regard, Mr. Lafond said that the new federal approach for First Nations education was a welcome change.[60] Departmental officials explained that, starting in 2019‑2020, ISC will be providing First Nations with “base funding that is provincially comparable, so that we are providing the same base resources that align with teacher salary rates and other base costs.”[61]

b) Challenges and Promising Initiatives

Mr. Odjick suggested investing in distance learning programs for the communities.[62] However, distance learning might not be an adequate solution everywhere. Shirley Fontaine, Associate Executive Director at the Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, pointed out that “connectivity is an issue for many of our northern and isolated First Nations.”[63] For her part, Kelly Shopland, Director of Aboriginal Education at North Island College, explained that her organization’s approach has been to offer “off-campus, in-community programming, which brings faculty to students where they live.”[64] According to Ms. Shopland:

This in-community programming model has many benefits for students, including allowing learners to be close to their family, their culture and their supports. It provides the opportunity to learn from the land in a relevant and real environment. It creates an opportunity to complete practicums, placement and work experience within their communities, and to begin to build those relationships for future employment. As well, the inclusion of local elders and community members as faculty members provides the opportunity for mentorship and establishing the traditional roles of community in training and capacity-building.[65]

However, Ms. Shopland stressed that “these types of programs cannot be rushed” and that funding should be longer-term and more flexible.[66] Mr. Merasty also talked about the importance of offering education opportunities in the communities.[67] Likewise, Janet Gordon, of the Sioux Lookout First Nations Health Authority (SLFNHA), explained that sending people away for education has its own problems: “a lot of our communities have to send their kids out for high school, which sometimes may not be the most appropriate way of educating the young people… A lot of them end up dropping out because they’re home sick or the situation they’re in is not good for them.”[68] Her colleague, James Morris, added that, “if people succeed in becoming professionals, they have a tendency to stay there [out of the community] rather than going back home to work there.”[69] As such, educating people in their communities would make it more likely that talents will be retained.

Melanie Debassige, Executive Director of the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation, and Chief Roulette noted that today’s students are tomorrow’s service providers: “They’re going to be building water treatment centres, they’re going to be building infrastructure: schools, roads. They’re going to be providing oversight on all of those projects.”[70] Yet, Ms. Debassige feels that First Nations lack continued support throughout the education process and might not always have access to the same opportunities as other Canadian students.[71] Peter Istvanffy, Consultant at Headwater Learning Solutions, also noted that funding does not always allow for the procurement of technological tools such as laptops and tablets, something he sees “as critical for participation in the 21^st century.”[72]

The Committee also heard that it is a challenge to attract and retain talents in technical fields, such as science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Laurie Swami, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), where 7% of the workforce identify as First Nation or Métis, explained that there is a need to attract people to the STEM fields prior to university: “We need to start that in high school… to make sure that we're providing the educational processes they need to succeed in the business that I'm in, which is highly technical.”[73] The NWMO has been offering opportunities to youth from the communities with which it works “to experience some of the science classes at a university level.”[74] According to Ms. Swami, “you have to get the education into high school or earlier, so that people are ready to go into university and college and be available for these jobs.”[75]

c) Indigenous Languages

Ms. Shopland and Ms. Fontaine both talked about the importance of Indigenous languages with respect to education. Ms. Fontaine explained that language plays a role “in terms of building identity for our students, healing our communities and our families and creating a better future for our people.”[76] Ms. Shopland added: “language helps remove barriers for students, including those silent speakers, and allows them to start an educational journey in a culturally safe way.”[77] Chief Bear explained that Whitecap Dakota students receive federal funding for language and culture but was concerned that this funding does not follow them when they inevitably have to go to school outside the reserve.[78]

d) Federal Programming

ISC is the federal department responsible for education programming. Officials explained that the department is working collaboratively with First Nations to develop “regionally tailored and locally driven” solutions.[79] However, in the same 2018 report in which it had criticized ESDC’s skills and employment training programming, the OAG concluded that “the use of data [by ISC] to improve education programs and thereby improve socio-economic well-being was inadequate.”[80] The report also found that ISC “overstated First Nations’ high school graduation rates by up to 29 percentage points.”[81]

Health Care

Developing and enhancing capacity with regards to health care was another key issue. The SLFNHA stated that “Health funding does not meet the community needs.”[82] Some First Nations communities have limited capacities in this area, yet are called upon to deal with significant challenges, such as a suicide crisis that has been ongoing for decades as well as opioid addictions.[83] Again, with respect to health and health care, witnesses emphasized the importance of community-driven solutions. For instance, Ms. Gordon of the SLFNHA stated that “a home-grown strategy is what would support community needs” with respect to health.[84]

Her colleague, Mr. Morris, also explained that “we need to find cheaper and more consistent ways of providing health care services to the people who live in the communities.”[85] Geographically isolated and/or remote communities such as those of the Sioux Lookout area do not have hospitals, pharmacies or children’s mental health centres: “All they have are nursing stations and clinics that are staffed by outside professionals.”[86] According to the SLFNHA, building capacity at the community level would require:

• Proactively recruiting local young people in the health field;
• Ensuring professional development and continuing education opportunities to expand community-based workers’ skills and knowledge during their career;
• Training community-based personnel to act as ancillary health care providers.[87]

Ms. Gordon mentioned Alaska as an example of a jurisdiction with promising practices with respect to health care in Indigenous communities: “They don’t have physicians or nurses living in their communities, but they have their own people who have been training, and it’s pretty aggressive training. At the end of the training they end up having skills and knowledge to be able to provide that emergency care or primary care.”[88]

Federal health programming for First Nations living on reserve is administered by the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (FNIHB), which works to support community-led health and wellness planning.[89] FNIHB sees community-led planning as a way of building capacity while ensuring improved health outcomes. Departmental officials acknowledged that developing local plans “allows communities to exercise greater control and flexibility over their health programs and services while supporting local capacity development.”[90] They also explained that “This approach promotes culturally appropriate holistic and integrated planning to improve health outcomes” and that it “bring[s] services closer to home and support locally driven solutions.”[91] According to officials, FNIHB has also been moving towards longer-term, flexible funding arrangements for health programming.[92]

Data Collection and Management and Connectivity

Data collection and management were also discussed during this study. Having access to the right data would allow First Nations communities to make informed and evidence-based planning decisions. According to Bonnie Healy of the First Nations Information Governance Centre, “A big part of it is making sure that we have the data available to First Nations so that they can set their priorities, and measure and evaluate their successes. A lot of the funding they receive does not include evaluation dollars and components.”[93] Having the right data is crucial to tracking program outcomes. In turn, tracking outcomes plays a vital role in any programming, as learning from past results is essential to planning for the future.

Ms. Healy continued: “When it comes to our treaty rights to self-determination, as data drives policy, we must assert our right to govern our data.”[94] Her colleague, Mindy Denny also said that building statistical capacity supports self-government.[95] She noted that data

[H]elp to construct a holistic portrait of life in First Nation communities, including ready and able talent and capacity on reserve. By assessing education level, skills, training needs and employment readiness in the First Nations labour markets more generally, First Nations are able to identify strengths and gaps with respect to the on-reserve workforce as it pertains to essential services.[96]

However, First Nations are lacking the technical tools to perform duties with respect to data collection and management: “We really need to be resourced to be able to address the data gaps. The fact is that First Nations are living essentially in information poverty.”[97] Similarly, Mr. Grant stated that, of the “four pillars”[98] of First Nations governance, “the one that’s absolutely missing is records information management.”[99]

The lack of connectivity in many remote communities was also raised as a barrier to community capacity building and socio-economic development. This issue is linked to those of data collection, program evaluation and outcomes. For instance, Ms. Denny said that

We don't have the right connectivity, the right hardware, the right software or the right training available. We're unable to measure gaps from a perspective that it's a quality of life defined and self-determined by First Nations. We need an opportunity to develop human development indices as well as well-being indices that are [respectful] of [F]irst [N]ations and their idea of their place in this world... We really feel that in order for [F]irst [N]ations to take control of their own affairs and contribute to enhancing the quality of life of their members, this is necessary.[100]

Dr. Ted Hewitt, President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, explained that Budget 2018 committed $3.8 million for his organization to find “new ways of doing research with [I]ndigenous communities” which includes “grow[ing] the capacity of those communities to conduct research and to partner with the broader research communities.”[101] Dr. Hewitt spoke about the need to decolonize research, a process which entails Indigenous peoples gaining (or regaining) “control over the data that is collected about them.[102] As noted above, witnesses stressed the importance for First Nations to reclaim ownership over their data.[103]

Talent Retention

First Nations also face significant challenges in attracting and retaining professionals. Witnesses explained that First Nations communities, tribal councils and other organizations struggle to attract and retain qualified workers in several fields such as education, health and band administration. It should be noted, however, that not all First Nations face the same challenges with respect to talent retention. For instance, Ms. Lukianchuk noted that the Sandy Bay First Nation successfully retains its teachers and nurses.[104]

Similarly, from 2013-2014 to 2017-2018, ISC reported that “there has been a net gain in [kindergarten to grade 12] (K-12) teachers (certified and non-certified) on-reserve.”[105] (see Table 1). However, the Department also noted that “79.4% of [K-12] teachers aged 25 to 64, and working on First Nations reserves, had at least a bachelor degree as their highest level of education, compared to 94.3% of their counterparts working off‑reserve.”[106]

Table 1—Evolution of the Number of K-12 Teachers On-Reserve, By School Year

School Year	Number of Teachers	Net Gain of Teachers	Evolution of the Number of Teachers (%)
2013-2014	4,012	120	3
2014-2015	4,276	264	6,4
2015-2016	4,259	-17	-0,4
2016-2017	4,291	32	0,7
2017-2018	4,440	149	3,4

Source:  Written response submitted by the Department of Indigenous Services Canada, 4 June 2019.

Note:      The term “teachers” is not defined and no data validation has been perfomed.

The lack of stable and predictable funding was identified as one of the main barriers to talent retention.[107] Witnesses stated that it is difficult to attract and retain workers when your financial resources do not compare with off-reserve employers.[108] Witnesses also outlined other exacerbating factors—closely linked to financial resources—making it harder for First Nations to recruit and retain teachers, doctors, land managers, planners, administrators and other professionals in their communities, including:

• the lack of proper housing and infrastructure to accommodate staff on reserves;
• salaries and benefits that are not competitive with what is offered off reserves;
• the relative remoteness and isolation of many First Nations communities;
• the lack of proper work-life balance combined with unrealistic expectations about the workload;
• the high cost of living and lack of job security; and
• the difficulty in accessing training opportunities close to the communities.[109]

In recruiting and retaining health care professionals in remote communities, Dr. Roger Strasser of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine also stressed the importance of being “supportive with continuous professional development and training,” as this would contribute to retaining talents.[110] For her part, Ms. Gordon noted that the high turnover rate of health care professionals “affects the continuity of care… in terms of the level of knowledge that people might gain as if they would stay longer in the community.”[111] In the education field, Lorne Keeper, Executive Director of Manitoba First Nations Education Resource Centre, explained that it is more challenging for stand-alone institutions to attract and retain teachers: “We always talk about the power of the collective, and that’s what we stress in the mandate of our resource centre. We want communities to work together rather than work alone.”[112]