Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Michael Wernick]

We think progress has been made towards those principles. We agreed with the Auditor General to stop arguing about the nature of the principles. We will monitor progress towards them. That's one of the reasons we're doing the evaluation on the impact of comprehensive land agreements. We will develop performance measures related to those three objectives, and we will report on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Bevington, for seven minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These issues of implementation are so fundamental to the people of the north, to the different agreements that have been struck, I'm kind of amazed at how we can have reports like this without this being almost a crisis for the department. But it isn't, obviously. INAC is following its usual line of non-effort in moving forward with these obligations. It's hurting the people I represent here in Parliament, and certainly the frustration is there throughout the north. The kinds of agreements that were made between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Inuvialuit are a direct result of the failure of INAC to live up to its responsibilities. That's why those were bilateral sidebar agreements.

In this audit, INAC officials describe the principles of the IFA as being Inuvialuit principles, not the principles to which Canada adheres. This is a statement I have difficulty with, of course, because to have an agreement work out and then to have the statement that the fundamental principles are not shared seems to be a bit ludicrous and it seems to be the basis by which everything else falls out afterwards. If you're not willing to accept what was negotiated in the land claim, signed on to and agreed to as a department, if you're not willing to accept what the Government of Canada has done, then you're not fulfilling your responsibility.

So how do you characterize your position as outlined here?

[Michael Wernick]

What are you reading from?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That's from notes that we have.

[Michael Wernick]

I can't speak for who was interviewed by the Auditor General's staff and what they said during the course of the audit. As deputy minister, what I can tell you is that we do adhere to the principles of the agreement. The only thing I want to make clear is that they're joint objectives of all the parties to the agreement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

They can be joint, and I'm sure that the Inuvialuit are alongside to make sure that these objectives work.

Perhaps you could describe, in a situation where you have an ongoing issue, how you would appoint these principles in the actions that your department takes. For instance, on the Mackenzie gas project, how would you say that the objectives of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement temper the department's approach to a major resource development like that in the Inuvialuit area?

[Terry Sewell]

Deputy, perhaps I can tackle that.

As a clarification, I believe that senior officials, in pointing out to the Auditor General's staff the question of who owned the principles, were simply quoting from the agreement, which states: “The basic goals expressed by the Inuvialuit and recognized by Canada in concluding this Agreement are...”. So I think it was attempting to draw attention to that phrase, which says that the Inuvialuit came to this discussion with these principles, Canada recognized them and indeed respects them, and they are principles that we would all want to pursue.

To help the committee understand these principles, these are fairly significant and overarching principles, and I'll quote them:

(a) to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society; (b) to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and national economy and society; (c) to protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment and biological productivity.

So these are huge, huge principles.

So, Mr. Bevington, in answer to your question as to how the existence of these principles would shape how the federal government deals with its obligations inside the agreement, it would be, in the case of a Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, ensuring that all proper review processes take place and that we respect the desire to protect Inuvialuit culture, to provide a meaningful role in the economy, and to protect Arctic wildlife, environment, and ecology.

It's an attempt to implement the agreement in a way that respects these principles, but the point is that these principles are not, in themselves, obligations. They're something we all want to achieve.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When you have a project in front of you, when you're looking at specific concerns that people may have, say, for wildlife--bird refuge is a very interesting issue that was in the news a little while ago--how would your department approach an issue like that? Did your department intervene within the Government of Canada to put forward the objective that you have here for preserving and protecting Arctic wildlife, environment, and biological productivity?

[Terry Sewell]

That's a very good question. One of the things I want to highlight for the committee is that many of the obligations inside a land claim agreement are ongoing in nature. One of the objectives, when we sign a land claim agreement, is to put in place structures in the north that allow for joint management of resources and joint review of projects. So the philosophy is that the people most affected by the development have significant influence in how those developments occur.

The Inuvialuit land claim agreement in fact puts in place the environmental review processes and structures, and it's our job, as a federal government, to ensure that those structures are resourced, to be able to do their work, to be able to hear from the citizens of these areas, to take into account the competing concerns for development and protection, and to make sound recommendations. It's the whole principle of co-management, of having a regime that respects the views of the people of the area.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Were there specific actions that you took in the case of the bird sanctuary that was in that region?

[Terry Sewell]

I'm not aware of that specific case, but what I'm saying is that this land claim agreement puts in place structures to deal with development proposals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We should be able to come back to you in the second round.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, for seven minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It almost sounds as if there are more comprehensive policies in place for bird sanctuaries than there are for the Inuvialuit communities.

In looking at this report, Mr. Wernick, would you say that perhaps the progress on this particular agreement is one of our more embarrassing land claims agreement situations at the present time?

[Michael Wernick]

No, not at all.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In fact there are worse ones--is that what you're saying?

[Michael Wernick]

What I'm saying is the Auditor General's report and the committee certainly focus quite rightly on deficiencies and work that still has to be done. What's somewhat obscured in the report and the coverage is what has been accomplished in the Inuvialuit region.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Well, what has or has not been accomplished, according to this report, after a number of decades. That's actually somewhat perturbing, because in that answer and the way it was answered, it almost seems to indicate there's not an acceptance that things have gone seriously wrong and that they should be addressed as quickly as possible. Your previous answer, that this isn't one of the worst cases, also makes me really worry about what's going on with the other 21 land claims agreements that are outstanding.

In your opening statement you said that each of the six communities is doing economic assessments. Are those finished yet?

[Michael Wernick]

No. We started that, and we're doing it with the Inuvialuit economic corporation. They actually will do the work with the communities and they will be a funding partner and involved in shaping the studies.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

When is that to be completed?

[Michael Wernick]

We would hope in the next fiscal year, in the one that's just starting--so sometime in calendar year 2008, or in spring 2009 at the latest.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It said that you've provided funding for these assessments. What is the amount of the funding?

[Michael Wernick]

I can get you that information.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

This is a key component of your strategy, I would assume. Would the funding be of the sort that would allow them to do a comprehensive review?

[Michael Wernick]

I would think so. I can provide the details and the contribution agreement to the committee, if you like. It would be in the tens of thousands of dollars or perhaps several hundred thousand dollars.