Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Maybe we can get started.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I just wanted to say to the committee members that we have two or three pieces of committee business that we need to deal with today. So I would like to stop the main part of the meeting at about 5:20 so that we have about ten minutes between 5:20 and 5:30 to deal with a couple of motions that we have, and a couple of other minor pieces of business.

Without further ado, I would like to welcome Ronnie Campbell and Frank Barrett, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. I understand that you have one presentation that's about ten minutes long. If you would like to begin that, we will do our questioning afterwards.

[Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, chapter 3 of the Auditor General's October 2007 report. As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Mr. Frank Barrett, the principal responsible for this audit.

The Inuvialuit Final Agreement is one of Canada's first comprehensive land claim agreements. When it was signed in 1984, it was the first such agreement signed north of the 60th parallel, and only the third comprehensive land claim agreement finalized in Canada. As with all comprehensive land claim agreements, it is protected by the Constitution.

Land claim agreements are not designed to end relations between governments and aboriginal groups; they are designed to change those relationships. Modern comprehensive land claim agreements are complex. They address, among other things, the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of each party. Some of these obligations entail specific, one-time activities, while others involve changing processes, such as environmental reviews and federal contracting practices.

The principal objectives of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement are: to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society; to enable the Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and national economy and society; and to protect and preserve Arctic wildlife, the environment, and biological productivity.

The Final Inuvialuit Agreement includes more than 80 provisions that obligate the federal government to undertake certain actions or activities. More than three quarters of these obligations are ongoing, such as regular participation on boards and committees. We audited federal activities related to 29 of Canada's obligations that we deemed important for fulfilling the agreement.

We also examined how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the lead federal organization, planned for, carried out and monitored the implementation of Canada's obligations under the agreement. Finally, we assessed whether, or how, the department monitored and reported on the extent to which the agreement's principles were realized.

We found that, although the Final Inuvialuit Agreement is constitutionally protected, the federal government has not met some of its significant obligations. This is often because it has not established the necessary processes and procedures or identified who was responsible for taking various actions. For example, it has not yet established a process to remove restrictions on use, called encumbrances, from 13 parcels of Inuvialuit land. Removing them would transfer control and use of the land to the Inuvialuit.

We also found that federal organizations have not respected some of their contracting obligations under the agreement. For more than a decade, government contracting policies did not reflect specific agreement obligations to inform the Inuvialuit of federal contracts related to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. In addition, departments still do not monitor their contracting practices within the region; they cannot provide assurances that current contracting obligations under the agreement are being met.

Some of the obligations are being met. Canada has paid almost $170 million and transferred approximately 91,000 square kilometres to the Inuvialuit in accordance with the agreement. Moreover, federal organizations have collaborated with joint management boards and committees established under the agreement. They have also provided advice to environmental screening and review bodies when requested to do so.

Mr. Chair, we found that 23 years after the agreement came into effect, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada still has not developed a strategy for implementing it. The department never formally identified federal obligations under the agreement or determined which federal departments were responsible for which obligations. It has not developed a plan to ensure that federal obligations are met. The department does not have a strategic approach to identify and implement Canada's obligations, nor does it monitor how Canada fulfills them.

We also found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada--the federal lead--has taken no action to ensure that progress towards achieving the principles of the agreement is monitored. As a result, the department does not have a comprehensive picture of progress made in meeting the three fundamental goals of the agreement. During the audit, officials stated that they do not view this as the department's responsibility.

In 2003 we made similar observations about the department's approach to agreements with the Gwich'in and the Inuit. It is disappointing that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has continued to focus only on specific obligations and has not worked in partnership with the Inuvialuit toward the goals of the agreement.

We made six recommendations in our audit of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, including the need for INAC to develop a strategic approach to implementing Canada's obligations under the agreement, and, in cooperation with the Inuvialuit and territorial governments, develop performance indicators and measure progress in meeting the principles of the agreement.

The department has agreed with all of our recommendations. When it responded to these recommendations, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made various commitments with specific timeframes. Our previous work on aboriginal issues shows that sustained management attention is necessary to ensure that government departments meet their obligations.

Mr. Chair, the committee may wish to invite the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to table its action plan and explain what changes have been put in place to ensure that it lives up to its commitments. For example, it would be important for the department to clarify its role and responsibility with respect to monitoring the achievement of land claims and communicating to staff the importance of meeting federal obligations.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer the committee's questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

The first round of questioning will be for seven minutes, followed by rounds of five minutes.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, if you'd like to lead off, please.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. It's good to see you again.

I'm going to try to be as specific as I can about the Inuvialuit land claims agreement, but I'll be partly putting it together with the other agreements, commenting first on my personal experience with the Nunavut land claims agreement, which I'm a beneficiary of. If people do not feel that land claims agreements are going to be implemented properly, it's very discouraging for other people across Canada to want to enter into a land claims agreement, just from a personal perspective.

In your recommendations you are asking for a strategic approach to implementing obligations. Could you be a little more specific in noting what type of strategic approach you would recommend that would not only deal with this agreement but in general set an example for the other land claims agreements that we know are saying the same thing, that they don't see an implementation policy that would see all the parties fulfill their obligations.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

In our view, a strategic approach to implementing a land claims agreement such as this would include, among other things, at least having an inventory of what those obligations are, having a list of what those obligations are in relation to the federal government, and also identifying who among government is responsible for each of those particular obligations. I think also there need to be timeframes in place, and a willingness to measure progress, not only progress against the specific obligations within the land claims agreement, but also a commitment to measuring progress towards the overall goals, because, as we mentioned, in previous audits of land claims there was a certain degree of commitment towards some of the specifics but without much attention being paid to whether or not the overall fundamental goals of the agreement were actually being met. So I think a strategic plan would include many, if not all, of those components.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

You made six recommendations, but in the ones you've highlighted, have you thought about what the performance indicators would be and how you came to those indicators?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

I think it's important at the outset to make the point that whatever those performance indicators might be, they would need to be developed in consultation and collaboration with the other parties to the agreement. It's for the parties of the agreement to think through how they would actually measure the overall progress toward the fundamental goals of the agreement.

Some of the seeds of that can be found in the specific obligations and tasks within the agreement, but also in the overall fundamental goals that speak to economic and environmental issues and cultural values of the Inuvialuit. So those would have to be developed by the parties in terms of where they think they want to go and how they would measure those things. But no attempt has been made to even begin that work, and we would encourage the parties to get together and come up with those measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are about three minutes left.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to both of you.

Certainly the implementation of land claims is an ongoing challenge. In Labrador, we just signed a land claim in 2005. I think they're working through some of it, but they're already starting to find the implementation process quite cumbersome and slow. That certainly has an impact upon one's progress.

What I found stunning about the report more than anything else were a few sentences saying that the standard of living of the Inuvialuit or the beneficiaries of the claim has actually lessened, that they have fallen behind other northerners--and God forbid if we make comparisons to the rest of Canada.

It's my understanding that land claims are intended to ameliorate the conditions of a specific people and enhance their conditions through a number of obligatory arrangements that are constitutionally protected. I certainly believe in land claims. I think they're fundamentally good things for the country and for aboriginal people. But how can this happen? How can a land claim that was signed over 20 years ago with such hope and promise, the first one north of 60...? How do you qualify that statement? Can you put some more meat around it for me? How do you measure the quality of life and whether they have fallen behind? I find it remarkable that after 23 years, with an agreement that was supposed to hold so much promise, people are actually falling further behind.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

Yes, the economic measures review is mandated in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. So it's not a might-do or a could-do; it's a must-do. Not only that, but it's a must-do every five years.

So when we undertook the audit, we honestly looked at that kind of obligation and initially presumed we would find that had been acted upon and they'd be working on the next one. The department participated in the first economic measures review. It is their finding that the economic objectives have not been adequately met and that the gap is widening.

What is really discouraging is not so much that they haven't moved on to doing it every five years, but that they haven't acted on the findings of that first economic review. As I said, it's mandated in the report in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, but the government hasn't taken action on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Before I move to Mr. Lemay, I want to point out that we have some special guests here today from the Pacific Peoples' Partnership, who are visiting Ottawa today. They are looking at some climate change issues, and in particular how they affect indigenous people.

I hope you enjoy your visit with us today. We'll try not to mix it up too much here and make a bad impression on you. Welcome, and thank you for coming to our committee.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, gentlemen. There is one thing I would like to understand. What led the Auditor General, to examine this Inuvialuit agreement? I would like to know what happened to cause the office of the Auditor General to become involved.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

On the importance of the issue, these are agreements signed between the Government of Canada and other parties, including aboriginal groups. In this case it's the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.

When we choose to undertake audits, the importance of the subject matter is one of the factors that sway those decisions. This is a very important agreement, and certainly very important from the point of view of the Inuvialuit. These are constitutionally protected agreements, and we would have believed and hoped that the government would have implemented this one more fully.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have read the report. It says that negotiations began in 1974, that they continued, and that there was finally a signed understanding, an agreement, in 1984. Now, 23 years later, we hear that there are deficiencies. I do not want to get involved in petty politics and I do not want to blame one government or the other; we must stop the same thing from happening again.

Today, Bill C-30 was tabled. It deal with land claims and so on, and we will be studying it in a few weeks, a month perhaps. We will be studying it. I read your report, and I wonder how we committee members can make sure that a similar thing never happens again. What are your recommendations? I have read them, I like the Auditor General a lot, but I find that she is not pointed enough. I would like you to tell us what to do so that we do not go back to square one. At the moment, there are several land agreements. We are not just negotiating a number of them; some have been signed and we are in the process of evaluating whether others are working.

What do we do to make sure that everyone does what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to do it? Can we make sure? Should people appear before the committee more frequently? Should the Auditor General get involved more frequently? I would like to hear what you have to say. I do not want to be blaming the Conservatives or the Liberals, that is not the point. This is the implementation of the treaty we are talking about. What is it that did not work?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you. There's a lot in that question, and I'll try to put the points together in some kind of order.

It's important to appreciate that a lot of energy goes into negotiating to get to the point where the agreements are signed, not only on the part of the government, but from the aboriginal organizations and groups involved. Very often only a small number of people are willing and able to take the lead in those issues. It's very draining and takes a long time and a lot of effort.

Some of that effort must be sustained in the implementation. It appears to us, in the work we have done, that the energy dissipates on the part of the government after the agreement is signed. There's the big signature and the big event, and then people go off to chase after other priorities. Often people further down in the department are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of those agreements. “Sustained management attention” is a phrase we use frequently now in relation to how the government addresses some of those issues.

On top of that, when they sign a land claim agreement there really should be a plan and timelines. As you know, what gets measured gets noticed, and what's noticed gets managed. So having a plan and some meaningful reporting to all the parties is hugely important. But sustaining that effort is probably the biggest thing on the part of government.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Do I have any time left? My colleague Mr. Lévesque represents all of Nunavik that is in Quebec. In the second round, it will be Mr. Lévesque. I prefer him to ask the next questions.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I have listened to your report, sir, and read it, and I find it really worrying. We know, for example, that a memorandum of understanding has been signed with Nunavik. I wonder if we should not go off to the Auditor General and ask her to look into that agreement to see if the mistakes made here are being repeated. I do not know if you can do that or whether perhaps we should refer the matter to her. After having seen this, one really wonders whether will have the same problem with Bill C-21 that we will be studying soon and in which there are no guarantees that the Indian Act will be henceforth be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you.

I don't know enough, Mr. Chairman, about the northern Quebec agreement to know whether the member's talking about the recent signature, the recent amendments that were signed to it. Certainly that's an agreement that was initially signed in the 1970s. When parliamentary committees ask the Auditor General to look into subjects, I know that she always pays attention to what members of Parliament have to say, particularly when it comes from a committee.

There are a number of agreements across the north. There are four of them. The member mentioned the one in Labrador. There's a Nunavut land claim, the northern Quebec agreement, and the Inuvialuit one. We chose to audit the Inuvialuit one for a number of reasons, but that's not to say there aren't good reasons also to do the other ones.

The one in northern Quebec would probably require us to coordinate or collaborate with the Auditor General of Quebec, I would think, on that type of agreement. But certainly if a request were made to the Auditor General, I'm sure she would consider it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you. Maybe you can continue in the next round, Monsieur Lévesque.

Mr. Bevington, welcome to our committee today. You have seven minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be here.

Certainly as my riding is the home of the Inuvialuit, I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to your report and to some of the issues in it.

This, of course, is the third time the Auditor General has come out with this kind of decision, a report on implementation of comprehensive claim agreements. I don't know whether it's had that much impact in getting things done. I note in here that the implementation committee you talk about was first structured in 1986 and met eight times within 12 years. They've since put up a new committee, in 1999. It's met more often, but.... Was there any sense that progress was being made through that committee? Did you have any recommendations about making that committee work better?

[Ronnie Campbell]

No, we didn't have any specific recommendations in relation to that, but we did talk to the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Certainly our auditors visited all but one of the Inuvialuit communities during the course of our audit.

In response to the question of what the committee might do, I would offer the suggestion of having the department come and speak to their action plan. Further to the member's questions, perhaps you could invite members who represent the Inuvialuit to come and give their perspectives, because they may have specifics that they would offer to the committee that might be a lot more practical than what we might have.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I note in these three objectives that you give the highest marks, really, to the third objective, which is to protect and preserve Arctic wildlife, the environment, and biological productivity.

Right now the minister of INAC has proposed a special representative to review the productivity of the environmental assessment process and the regulatory process in the north. I assume that would include the Inuvialuit.

The real problem you identified in here was the failure of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make appointments in good course on those boards. Is that one of the major failings in the system?

[Ronnie Campbell]

I think Mr. Barrett will respond to that one.

[Frank Barrett, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, I'm very happy to respond to that question.

In terms of the wildlife issues, our one concern was with respect to the appointments to boards. We heard about this through the course of the audit. When we examined it in detail, however, we did find that the departmental officials were making recommendations in a timely manner, either to the government or to the minister, depending on the recommendation. The concern was in the actual processing and appointing at the political level, which we didn't look at. We looked at what the administration recommended and then we would see when the appointment was made.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

One of the major failings in getting these appointments was in the minister's office through the political process. That's similar to all the rest of our boards in the Northwest Territories and the MacKenzie Valley Resource Management Act, as well. I see the Inuvialuit are not any different in that regard.

When you speak about the economic opportunities within the claim for the Inuvialuit, would you say that there has been success in the Inuvialuit pursuing contracting with the federal government through the region? How would you qualify that in comparison to other areas, if you have any other experience in other areas? Has it been successful or not successful?