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

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chairman, I would totally agree with the member's comments that 20-plus years later you'd expect that there would have been a plan and that much of the plan would have been implemented successfully. I totally agree.

If you have the chance to have senior officials from the department here, they'll obviously put things in context. On one hand, they'll talk about the many other things the department has to respond to, the crises that come up. At the same time, this is an agreement that's been signed by the Government of Canada, and people would expect it to be implemented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thanks, Mr. Storseth.

We'll have Mr. Bevington for five minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel that we haven't found any solution here yet. I'm a little bit concerned that INAC seems to be operating in a vacuum from instructions. This is the third report on these implementation processes.

We've seen also major conferences on implementation. We have one group in the courts right now over implementation. This suggests to me that it may be necessary for the committee to bring forward people from the department who are responsible for this process to lay out their goals and objectives and their methods for achieving some of the things that have to be done.

I just wanted to touch a bit on the first goal you had listed here: preserve Inuvialuit culture, identity, and values within a changing northern society. I know that the agreement here pre-dated a lot of the self-government work, so the self-government arrangements and the self-government work has come into the agreement. You don't report at all on the efforts towards achieving self-government, that being one of the major goals of the agreement.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chairman, no, we don't talk about self-government in the context of this report, because as members will know, that's currently a matter of negotiation. They're still in those discussions with government.

As auditors, we wouldn't want to interfere with how those things are being negotiated. As auditors, we will feel much more comfortable auditing the extent to which people have met their obligations. The self-government discussion is an ongoing one.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Within the goal of preserving culture, identity, and values within a changing northern society, you don't really identify where this agreement hasn't gone or should go. You don't really talk to that very much within this report. Yet it's in the report. Maybe you could clarify that a little bit.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll try.

Within the agreement, you have the three broad objectives: cultural values, economic issues, and environmental-related issues. When you look at the specific obligations and activities within the details of the agreement, most relate to economic issues and the environment.

I honestly believe that the Inuvialuit would be better placed to speak to this, but certainly, the way it was explained to us was that if the economic, wildlife, and environmental issues advanced the way they were foreseen in the agreement, that in itself would impact upon cultural values and the maintenance of those. Again, I'd be hesitant to speak on behalf of the Inuvialuit on that kind of issue.

There is a disconnect or an absence of a number of specific obligations within the agreement that relate to culture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

We'll go to Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll be sharing my time with the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Barrett, I want to clarify and ask this once again. Other than the Inuvialuit, has anybody else been adversely affected by this? Has anybody in the department or in any aspect of the department, to your knowledge, had any consequences because of the lack of implementation and the lack action that has occurred on this file over the last 23 years?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chairman, not that I'm aware of, no.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I will go back to another line of questioning that Mr. Albrecht was starting in relation to economic review.

There are a number of areas where I think the government tries to bring economic benefits to communities, whether it be in non-aboriginal or aboriginal communities. But as I have learned over the years, it's difficult to make economies occur where economics don't naturally predispose those areas to a good economy, if you know what I'm trying to say.

My question would be, would government maybe have signed onto something that it couldn't achieve? For instance, is government being blamed for not being able to deliver economic benefits in an area where perhaps it's impossible to deliver economic benefits? You know the point I'm trying to get at. Did the Government of Canada sign on to something that it couldn't have achieved? Is that part of your assessment?

[Ronnie Campbell]

I recognize that in certain regions of the country it's much more difficult to get some things done than in other areas of the country.

There is economic activity going on. Again, I would refer you to the Inuvialuit to speak to that. But I don't think the expectation is that the government would deliver an economy. I think the expectation in the agreement is that there would be an economic review every five years, and there would be recommendations that would come out of that review, and, where possible, the parties would work together to try to implement those recommendations.

Where that would have led, if the review had been acted on, I don't know. It might have led to a better economy, but who knows? One wouldn't know until they at least do the things they were supposed to do under the agreement.

I don't think anyone would suggest that implementing all of those recommendations would lead to any kind of guarantee, but I think people would have expected the recommendations to be acted on.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

In regard to the region that is directly off the coast, I'm not entirely sure if there are oil and gas resources there, and this is something I haven't, to be honest, looked into. But is that resource base available to the Inuvialuit?

[Frank Barrett]

Yes, there is a lot of economic activity up in that region in the Beaufort Sea right now, completely surrounding the Inuvialuit settlement region, because of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline discussions and the exploration that's going on up there now. I can tell you on a personal note that hotels are often full.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

And are those benefits flowing through to the Inuvialuit? Are they achieving the economic benefit from this exploration?

[Frank Barrett]

That would be a question better placed to the Inuvialuit. I know they are active within Inuvik.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That wasn't part of your audit, to assess if those benefits were flowing through?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just elaborate on the answer.

One of the analyses or explanations that were provided to us by representatives of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation was that there is a hope and an expectation of significant economic activity in that area in the future. Already there are the beginnings of activity.

Their hope, as expressed to us, was that had the government implemented the contracting provisions of the agreement in the way the agreement calls for, if nothing else it would have helped build up the capacity of some of those potential contractors so that when the next wave of economic activity came through there would be established companies and trained personnel--technicians and the like--there in a position to take advantage of it.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

None.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, again, for coming here today. A lot has been covered already.

I want to read you something that Ms. Fraser said at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in June 2006. They were doing a review of comprehensive land claims at that time. I think there's some applicability. She said:

You have to be looking at the overall objectives, not simply limiting yourself to that action.

At the time, there was actually a disagreement with the department. They said in their response that they were not tasked with the objective, but rather that their responsibility was to meet the activities that had been specified. After that, the minister changed the position of the department. But I think it's still not clear to us if it's fully accepted that the department should be trying to attain the overall objective and that it doesn't just have a responsibility to do the actions that are listed.

Then I went to your report, and under number 392, at the conclusion--and I'm going to ask questions after--you said:

...we concluded that although the Inuvialuit Final Agreement has existed for 23 years, INAC has yet to demonstrate the leadership and the commitment necessary to meet federal obligations and achieve the objectives of the agreement.

What did the minister change when she said, “After that, the minister changed the position of the department”? What changes are you aware of?

And in your experience you do a lot of management audits, organizational audits. What's required to show leadership in a department? Is it the interests of the bureaucrats who are there? Is it the attitude, the will of the bureaucrats? Is it the political will of the minister of the day? How do we reconcile all this?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Those are excellent questions. I'll try to make sure I remember all the points you made.

In relation to the comment that Madam Fraser made in the quote you mentioned, the change was on the department's website in terms of what they're about and what they do. I can't remember the specific part of the website, but they did make a change in how they expressed themselves about what they do. We were encouraged by that at the time.

I would point out to members that there was a change then, and there was a change in the course of this audit. As I mentioned earlier, during the course of the audit departmental officials were saying, “We don't see that as our responsibility, and that's not something we really want to do”. When we got to the end of the audit, they agreed to the recommendations.

Without being overly subtle, I would encourage the committee to perhaps avail themselves of senior management and ask them for some kind of assurance, and even ask them to provide you with a status report every few months. I've seen this with some committees. If you don't like the status report, then maybe that's an opportunity to bring them back.

In terms of what is required to make it a priority in a department, these are constitutionally protected agreements, so it shouldn't be at the whim of who's particularly interested in it. We've signed the agreements. They're constitutionally protected. They should be implemented. At the risk of being a bit blunt, I would communicate it as a priority. Put it in people's performance assessments, their personal appraisals, and measure them against it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

In all agreements going forward now, should there be a clearly structured implementation plan? Would that be a recommendation of your department, or of the Auditor General?