Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of December 11, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:33 a.m. to examine and report upon the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Senator Sibbeston and I am Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. We have a quorum, so we will begin.
The purpose of our meeting today is to look at the implementation of the modern land claims agreement. There have been 20 such agreements affecting Aboriginal people across the country, beginning with the one dealing with Northern Quebec in 1975, and with the most recent Labrador Inuit agreements passing into law in December 2005. Several more agreements have been reached and are before Parliament as we speak.
Recently, our committee dealt with the matter of specific claims. These are historical grievances that Aboriginal peoples in our country have had with treaties and agreements made throughout the past century or so. We have identified the problems and incidences in our country, such as those at Oka and Caledonia, that are the result of issues still arising from long-ago agreements.
Modern land claim agreements came about through a lot of hard work, negotiations and goodwill on the part of Aboriginal people. Generally, Aboriginal people are satisfied with the agreements that they make. However, these agreements must be properly implemented and be consistent with the spirit, and not just the letter, of the law. Otherwise, we will be creating an entirely new category of grievances. The meeting today falls under that category, on the matter of implementation of modern-day agreements protected by the Constitution.
We will hear from officials of the Office of the Auditor General, who have examined some of these problems — Mr. Ronald Campbell, Assistant Auditor General; and Mr. Frank Barrett, Principal. Unfortunately, the Auditor General, Ms. Sheila Fraser, is not able to appear this morning.
Gentlemen, please proceed.
Ronald Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Auditor General sends her apologies for her inability to attend the meeting this morning.
Honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our office's work related to comprehensive land claim agreements, and in particular, Chapter 3 on the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was in our October 2007 report.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, I am accompanied by Mr. Frank Barrett, Principal responsible for our work on Aboriginal issues.
Modern comprehensive land claims agreements are complex. They generally contain a land transfer plus a cash settlement. They can also address, among other things, the roles, responsibilities and obligations of each party. To date, Canada has signed 22 comprehensive land claim agreements. The first was with the James Bay Cree in 1975 and the most recent was with the Tsawwassen First Nation in B.C., on December 6, 2007. Many others are under negotiation. I wish to stress, Mr. Chair, that the party to these agreements is not only the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but also Canada.
[Translation]
Land claims agreements are not designed to end relationships between governments and aboriginal groups; they are designed to change them. Some of Canada's obligations entail specific one-time activities while others involve changing processes, such as environmental reviews and federal contracting practices.
[English]
Since 1998, our office has completed several audits on the implementation of comprehensive land claim agreements. In 1998, we audited the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's role in reaching and implementing these agreements. We examined the progress made to address our recommendations in follow-up audits in 2001 and 2006. In 2003, we audited the department's implementation of land claim agreements with the Inuit of Nunavut and the Gwich'in of the Northwest Territories. In our October 2007 report, Chapter 3 presents our audit of the federal implementation of the 1984 land claim agreement with the Inuvialuit — the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
At the time of its signing, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was the first of its kind north of the sixtieth parallel and only the third to be finalized in Canada. As with all comprehensive land claim agreements, it is protected by the Constitution. We found that the federal government had not met some of its significant obligations. Often, this is because it has neither established the necessary processes and procedures to do so nor has it 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 that are no longer required by the federal government — in some cases, for more than a decade. As a result, the Inuvialuit do not have control and use of these parcels of land.
Furthermore, 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 and it does not monitor how Canada fulfills them.
We found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the federal lead, had taken no action to ensure that progress toward 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.
Some of the obligations under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement are being met. For example, 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, some of the deficiencies we found in this audit were similar to those found in previous audits. I would like to focus on three of these deficiencies.
First, as I just mentioned, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada still has not developed a strategy for implementing the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. This is similar to what we found in our 2003 audit of land claims with the Gwich'in and the Inuit: We found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada was not effective in coordinating federal responsibilities.
Second, we found that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada does not monitor how Canada fulfills its obligations. Although the department publishes an annual implementation report, this report only lists the activities of federal participants, not the extent to which Canada's obligations are being met. We made similar observations in our audits of 1998 and 2003, in which we noted that the department did not have a system for tracking whether obligations were met by other federal departments.
Finally, we found that the department has taken no action to monitor progress toward achieving the principles of the agreement. This mirrors what we found in our 2003 audit, where we noted that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada had focused on the letter of its obligations but that it had not taken into account the spirit and intent of the agreements.
The committee may wish to invite the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to discuss the challenges it faces as the lead department responsible for implementing comprehensive land claim agreements. Additionally, this committee may wish to table an action plan that would address the recommendations that we made in our audit of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer the committee's questions.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much for coming today. One of your suggestions is that we have INAC come and meet with us. To say that is an exercise in futility would be an understatement.
The question I have is: How do we induce them to realize that the gig is up for them and that they have to actually start doing something rather than living by the letter of the law? What they are doing is a halfway measure, I think, and here I am looking through your reports from 2003, 2006, 2007, et cetera. It just goes on and on. It is almost as though this agency is a body unto itself that does not react. How do we get their attention? Short of bringing them in and putting a gun to their heads, how do we get their attention?
Mr. Campbell: Bringing them in could be, and should be, a helpful exercise. In response to our chapter in our audit report, the department has agreed with our recommendations. In particular, I point out to the committee that we made a recommendation in monitoring progress towards implementation of the overall objectives which, in the course of the audit, department officials had said was not their responsibility. However, they have agreed to do that in response to our recommendation. I think that is a start, Mr. Chair. I think that having the department accountable, and held to account for an action plan with timelines including implementing the recommendations that we had made in the audit, could be a helpful exercise.
The bigger issue, as the honourable senator points out, is one that is more of a cultural issue within the department. It might not be a quick and easy fix but there seems to be a lot of attention and energy that goes into short-term activities. Those activities that are longer term and maybe not quite so public, such as implementing over 23 years a land claim agreement, do not seem to get quite as much attention. I think it would be worthwhile exploring with the department why that is the case and what they intend to do about that.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, perhaps we should put another exciting afternoon with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada on our list.
Senator Hubley: As a committee, we do get both sides of the story. If a problem of this importance and magnitude is not being addressed by a department that is ultimately responsible for it, can you suggest an alternative? Do you see a different body accountable to Parliament that would be able to tackle and bring to fruition many of these land claims deals?
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Machinery of government issues are issues that the Auditor General tends not to opine upon. The accountabilities would remain the same regardless of the body tasked with the responsibility, whether it be INAC or someone else. They have an obligation to those agreements, and ways must be found to ensure that that happens. I am not sure that there is anything in there about INAC that prevents them from being the one department to do it, but again, perhaps officials in the department might be able to share with you some of the impediments that they face. I really do not know. Regardless of what body is responsible, ultimately they would be accountable for implementing those agreements.
Senator Hubley: Is it a matter of funding?
Mr. Campbell: I am not sure that we really saw that in our audit. It is a matter of attention, or of what we call "sustained management attention.'' We have opined on that in previous audit reports. I think it was in the 2004 report that we had an omnibus follow-up and tried to explore the question of what is it about some of our recommendations that sees them implemented by departments, and what it is that prevents some departments from implementing those recommendations, particularly in the area of First Nations issues. One of the things that we identified is this: When you have senior management that is there for a long period of time and are committed to the task, they will stick to it and you get this sustained management attention. When you have significant turnover and people's attention gets diverted by other things, sustained management attention is lacking.
We did not see it as an absence of money, necessarily.
Senator Hubley: It seems that it is a long-term problem that we are trying to deal with in a short-term period, and it is just not working.
The other part of my question has been brought previously before this committee, and that is to do with the spirit and the intent of the land claims. There seems to be a whole piece that we are missing here. I do not want to be down on the department. I am sure they have their guidelines and they are doing exactly what they are mandated to do, but there is something missing. I think that is what we would like to find out: What is missing, and why is this particular part, which I think is critical to any land claims, missing? Is it a matter of personnel or of understanding?
Mr. Campbell: I think that is a very good question. That would probably be a good point to explore with the department. In the report, we get one view from the people who are responsible on a day-to-day basis for the federal implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We say in paragraph 83 that the department officials have expressed reluctance to monitor progress towards achieving the principles of the agreement. They explained that to do so would imply that an obligation exists where no obligation is written into the agreement. This is their view. Yet, in response to our recommendation, the department has undertaken to monitor that very thing. I think it would be a good point to explore with the department, including, first, what was it that caused officials to take this view in the first place. Second, perhaps, what was it that caused this department to now have a different view? Third, how will they implement that and when will it be done? What actions have they taken beyond the agreement to do that?
Senator Dyck: I find this issue very perplexing and frustrating. One of the comments that you made, Mr. Campbell, was that the agreement was not just with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada but with the Government of Canada itself. It seems to me that somehow Indian and Northern Affairs Canada does not feel that it is responsible to, or part of, the Government of Canada. It seems as thought there is a disconnect. We talk about making INAC accountable, but how do we make them accountable, other than relying on long-term senior people who have, within their own personal mandate, the goal to implement these agreements? Should it be up to an individual as opposed to a mandate for the department? Is there any way of moving that mandate so that somehow the department seems more responsible?
Mr. Campbell: I do not know how you do that. However, it would be a good thing to move nearer the top of the priority list the issue of ongoing, sustained, implementation of those agreements.
The issue of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as a department is one thing, but Indian Affairs taking the federal lead representing the whole government, the Crown, has presented a challenge for them in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement audit. The contracting issue was clear in the agreement itself. However, when the agreement was signed and put into place, it seemed as if the rest of government was unaware that there now were new requirements of them in contracting in that particular area. It meant that the whole Crown was responsible for changing how they do business. It took many years for this requirement even to be communicated to the rest of government.
The honourable senator makes a very good point. It is a very real issue. It is not only how we get the ongoing implementation further up the priority list of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but also how we get them better connected to the rest of government. These are two big challenges.
Senator Dyck: Is the task of communicating this responsibility outside of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Should it be someone in the minister's office, or is there someone else who can take a lead role in ensuring that action is taken that moves things forward?
Mr. Campbell: I am not sure if it is a different body that should be responsible. In taking the lead, Indian Affairs probably is best placed to know what has been negotiated. I would presume that they would know who else needs to know about contracting or other provisions. How does one make that happen? I think that, in negotiating a land claim agreement, there should be some hard-wired, automatic things that should be done immediately and not left only for people to remember.
Senator Dyck: The Land Claim Agreement Coalition has indicated that perhaps there should be an independent body. I am not sure whether they recommended there should be representation from the various First Nations that have signed agreements. If there were this kind of body, do you think that that would then push the matter towards actual implementation and action?
Mr. Campbell: That could certainly help. Having people at the table for whom implementation is a priority would certainly change the tone of the response. In many of those organizations, one might say it is the priority.
Senator Dallaire: My experience is in international development conflicts. We cannot underestimate the complexity, when in foreign lands, to bring about significant social, economic and development changes. Looking at the way Canada has been handling the Aboriginal situation, we have not even applied here in Canada some of the practices we use internationally to assist nations coming out of difficult scenarios. There are things we are doing abroad that we could be doing here.
However, it is the not an insignificant task. They have a hell of a job, but also I think they have a hell of an attitude, too.
Does INAC have a statute that gives it the authority to bring about land claims agreements and, as such, speak for all the departments? Is there a Treasury Board directive or something that gives it that authority?
Frank Barrett, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada: My understanding is that INAC does not have separate statute authority. Going back to the contracting example, we found in the audit that the land claim agreement was signed in 1984. There was no communication with other departments, and therefore when we were interviewing other departments, we saw in the records that other departments knew nothing about it and had no particular reason to inform themselves. It was only after Treasury Board changed the contracting policy that provides direction to all departments that other departments started to take some action in 1995.
In essence, the way it would work would be for Indian Affairs to recognize what the needs are. Then it would have to go through the machinery of government where there is oversight and direction. After that, direction would have to come from the centre to compel other departments to act.
In the monitoring of contracts, for example, we noted that all the departments in our audit were not monitoring whether or not they were adhering to the agreement. The common response was that until Treasury Board tells us we have to do it, we do not have to do it.
Senator Dallaire: That is similar to the attitude of the people whom you interviewed in the department who say that they do not have the responsibility to implement. In other words, there is not a statutory responsibility to INAC, in the name of all the others, giving it an overarching authority to include others departments. Is it correct that if they do not comply, then INAC has no sort of hammer to implement it? That is, apart from that contracting arrangement Treasury Board has imposed.
Mr. Campbell: INAC certainly has a mandate to be the federal lead to negotiate agreements. Mr. Barrett pointed out that it is in the implementation phase when things go wrong, or they discover things that they had not considered. I am not clear what mandate they have to require other departments to behave. In regard to the contracting area, Treasury Board owns the contracting policy.
Senator Dallaire: Therefore, they do not have an authority on the other departments to impose that they implement aspects of the agreement outside of Treasury Board direction. In the contracting agreement, is INAC funded for the implementation? Is there a budget for person years and such to implement?
Mr. Barrett: Funding approvals would be part of the signing of the agreement for obligations such as paying funds to the Inuvialuit or establishing the fund. That would then be transferred. In terms of ongoing operations, we note in paragraph 5 that they have approximately 25 staff to implement 21 land claim agreements.
Senator Dallaire: Let me couch this another way. I will take an example that I used last week. When I was director of army requirements, I had a $420-million project to buy trucks. Everyone knows trucks. Part of the project is the definition, then the project approval and then the implementation. There is a capital cost and then there is a cost of implementing, which includes on-going maintenance, life-cycle management and probably an upgrade throughout maybe a 20-year period to which we are committed. A cash line is identified in the budget and we meet that. You also have staff who are committed to implementing the delivery of the system, the training of the people and ultimately, the ongoing maintenance.
Part of that project is a major amount, which all these land claims are — they are over $100 million. Part of that is a requirement to matrix the project throughout all the other departments — being ACOA or different departments, depending on the nature of the project. The matrix participates in the approval process and the decisions of the project moving ahead. They are committed to whatever they have participated in.
Ultimately, the project goes to Treasury Board, and then we go to cabinet and it gets approved. Cash lines are identified in each department to meet that implementation, if they have a responsibility.
Are these contracts conducted in the same way? As an example, this one we are talking about — forgive me for not being able to pronounce it properly — in its implementation, does it have the implementation package or is it taken for granted that INAC will absorb the implementation of that process in its cash line or in its normal budget, and is it to simply implement whether they got $21 million, $51 million or $101 million?
I am sorry to be so long-winded, but I am trying to grasp this absolutely incredible, irresponsible position taken by INAC in regard to implementation.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chair, I am not sure what ongoing funding INAC might have got in order to fund its activities 23 years after the fact. What we did observe in the audit is quite consistent with what we have seen elsewhere, in that a lot of effort, a lot of focus is on the short term. When the agreement was signed, we noted that the initial transactions happened by and large; obviously, the money got transferred so the focus was on that — that was done. Most of the land got transferred. Then they ran into problems and they did not have processes to obtain solutions. However, as the honourable senator alludes, on an ongoing basis has the focus been there and have resources been arranged for that purpose? It would appear not.
I think it would be another interesting point with the department to have a discussion with them as to how they have reached decisions about how to allocate funds on the longer term.
Senator Dallaire: Following this through, it would seem to me that the implementation process is failing for a variety of reasons, one of which seems to be abdication of responsibility. Throwing cash and land at it is tangible, anyone can do that; but the social and economic changes, which are far more complex, demand a whole different set of parameters.
Is it not maybe a failing within the actual agreements that the implementation dimensions of that are not binding? The actual agreements may be saying a lot of great words but they do not have a contractual, binding responsibility to the implementation with all the other departments?
Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I am happy to answer the senator's question. There are a couple of points to note in that. One is that one of our major concerns was with a lack of a strategic approach. The analogy to the defence program management system is interesting, in that it starts with a needs assessment — a statement of capability deficiency and here is what we need to do.
What we find with INAC is that they never formally identified their ongoing obligations. When you do not know what you are supposed to be doing, it is a little hard to know how well you are achieving it. That was one of the points we made.
Another important point that should be noted is that in the negotiation of agreements, INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, chairs an interdepartmental committee. It has everyone around the table and they work toward what they will negotiate — bottom lines, departmental responsibilities. My understanding through the course of the audit is that that approach does not exist on the implementation side.
Senator Dallaire: How do they get away with contracts like that with Treasury Board? INAC may be faulty but I would contend that Treasury Board, which is an incredibly demanding body on other people — I know, having lived through that — seems to be letting INAC off the hook. Is it because the problems are so complex or because it simply is not taking its responsibility seriously?
Mr. Campbell: One thing to point out is that the lands claim negotiation is an evolving business for the Government of Canada. It is now government policy that each land claim agreement has an implementation plan. That policy came into place after the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was signed, so they did not have an implementation plan. However, any agreements they would sign today would have a requirement to have a plan. How good that plan would be and how well it would be implemented would be two different questions. However, when this one was signed, there was no such implementation plan.
When looking for reasons for why things are not working as well as they should be, I would go back to what appear to be very differing views between the signatories of the agreements on the fundamental objectives of those agreements. We alluded to it in a number of our audits, including the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, where the Inuvialuit expressed a view to us on those objectives. The committee may be interested in hearing their views. I do not want to speak for them, but they are a signatory to the agreement and I am sure that they would have lots to say. In contrast to the views expressed to us by those tasked within Indian Affairs for implementing the agreement, they did not see those fundamental objectives as being something that they were responsible for achieving.
Senator Dallaire: If we are allowed a second round, I have two more questions.
The Deputy Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Dallaire: There is a position by the Aboriginal people of not wanting a paternalistic process, being independent nations, and so on. Then there is the government that does not want to put money out there that does not have a control on it. In this differing perspective, the implementation could become pretty complex — who does what, and who is responsible for what, and ultimately how funds are spent.
We are talking 1984 and we are now in 2007, so 23 years to implement a methodology is perhaps getting a little slow in the process. Was that friction between the two philosophies existent even at the time of signing? Has that not been worked out as part of the negotiations in regard to the implementation plan?
Mr. Campbell: We would have no knowledge of views from our other work of relationships at the time of the signing of those agreements, particularly the Inuvialuit agreement. We did not audit the negotiation process and, as was pointed out, that was 23 years ago.
The honourable senator raises an issue of friction and that is probably worth pausing and thinking about. One of the tragedies of the implementation problem is the fact that issues that were agreed to 23 years ago in a contractual agreement, some of which should be relatively easy to implement, remain a source of great friction almost a quarter of a century later. Friction takes up energy. For example, the Inuvialuit is a very small population of people who are trying to move their people forward. Yet they are required to take up their time and energy with arguments that are a quarter of a century old about agreements that were signed and should have been implemented. If there is to be an argument, it should be about new issues. Again, they are better placed than I am to speak to this matter, but it takes a lot of their time and energy and they do not have the body of people to draw upon that the federal public service has.
Senator Dallaire: Even in the new agreements, because there does not seem to be a binding implementation methodology with the Canadian government, those frictions will continue to surface as we go along.
My last question is: How many ADMs of INAC have been fired?
Mr. Campbell: I have no information on that point.
Senator Dallaire: How many of them have been promoted?
[No audible response]
Thank you. You have been very kind.
Senator Campbell: I would like to get back to the statement on culture, and this is something that we hear about time and time again with regard to DIAND. Is it the case that the department cannot accept the fact that they are in a position of carrying out a contract that is nation to nation, and they are simply not used to accepting First Nations as a nation? Is that the cultural side of this issue? Could you explain the culture and the difficulty?
Mr. Campbell: When we talk to First Nations organizations about their views on land claims agreements, very often we hear an analogy of marriage and divorce. There are two questions: What is the understanding of the public servants? How did they reach that understanding, and what drives them toward it?
We often hear this view from First Nations that the signing of the agreement should be the beginning of a new relationship whereby they should be trying to maximize benefits and to build and develop. Quite often it is their view that the federal government is trying to minimize what happened subsequent to the signing of the agreement — costs to the Crown, for example.
I point you to the fact that in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement there is a requirement, not a hope or a wish, to have a five-year review of economic development. Under the agreement, INAC is to ensure that this happens every five years, unless and until certain conditions are met. They conducted one review and the results were very negative and they did not develop an action plan to deal with those results. They have not had the subsequent reviews that are mandated in the agreement. Again, when you talk to First Nations organizations, they will speak to this maximizing versus minimizing different viewpoints. How the public servants arrive at that viewpoint would be an interesting point of discussion with senior officials from INAC. Whether they simply believe that is what was expected of them, or whether they were told that or whether it has existed within the department for a long period of time, I do not know and would not profess to answer for them, but that would be an interesting point of discussion.
Senator Campbell: INAC is the lead on this but it would seem to me that when you sign an agreement such as the ones that we are looking at, it involves every single department in government. There is a commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, for example contracting, that goes across the board. While INAC is the lead agency on this, they have no concept of a way to bring all other ministries on board. Would that be a correct statement?
Mr. Campbell: In part that is correct, Mr. Chair but, as we point out in the report, some aspects of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement were implemented well. I believe that Mr. Barrett has some details on that and the involvement of other departments.
Senator Campbell: I commend them on that, but what is the holdup for the rest of it? We are applauding them because they did half a job when we should be asking what the handicap is to completing the rest of the job. I am so confused about how this agency works.
Mr. Barrett: Perhaps I could add a little insight to the senator's question. On the environmental side, which was by and large a good news story, I found it particularly interesting that Parks Canada, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada had similar objectives in the far North to those of the Inuvialuit. When it came time to change how the committee structure would work, there was a great synergy. We asked about how a majority vote works and they said that they always reach consensus on how development should take place. There might be some lessons to learn in terms of how the overall agreements should be sought. Are we trying to achieve the same things or are we at two ends trying to minimize activities?
Senator Campbell: Would it be beneficial if agencies that work well with common goals and objectives were to be the model for government to apply in those areas where there are difficulties? Would it be constructive on our part to suggest that the agencies that have it should act as the model for the agencies that do not have it?
Mr. Barrett: Yes, it would be an interesting area to explore. For example, if part of INAC's mandate were to achieve the objectives that are in land claim agreements, such as improve the economy within the Inuvialuit settlement region so that it is comparable to others in the North and across Canada, to form a part of the performance appraisal, it might make a difference. However, I would leave that for others to consider.
Senator Campbell: Have you ever considered that the government knows exactly what it is doing? Perhaps they are taking a look at costs under implementation and deciding to wait until they are sued to compare those costs. Maybe the plan within that agency is to sit back and do nothing, and to see if the Inuvialuit recognize the agency's lack of action and if they will sue the agency for it.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chair, as auditors we can observe what people do but less so on why they do it. I would point out that the behaviour we observed and commented on in relation to the Inuvialuit Final Agreement is consistent with what we saw on audits of other agreements.
Senator Campbell: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: The issue of implementation is becoming a serious problem. I have a pamphlet that was given to us by the Land Claim Agreements Coalition. Over the last few years, a group of land claimants have come together to deal with implementation problems. I will read a paragraph from the pamphlet. It says:
Over the last three decades, however, numerous independent reviewers, including the Auditor General and the UN Special Rapporteur have confirmed that the Government of Canada is not meeting its obligations under these agreements. Consequently, the land claims are failing to achieve their fundamental objectives.
This is a serious issue. Canadians and Aboriginal people in our modern era look to these agreements to solve the problems, to help Aboriginal people and to resolve the issues that have been going on for a long time. This is the way in which Aboriginal people can rise, become independent and contribute to our Canadian society. If the implementation is failing, I foresee there will be a serious problem.
I noticed that, last December, the Inuit of Nunavut launched a $1-billion lawsuit against the federal government because of lack of implementation. More recently, in Northern Quebec, there has been a settlement over ongoing disputes for the last few decades. The settlement was negotiated because of failed implementation. I suspect that if the government does not deal with this problem immediately, we will see more lawsuits and more problems arise. It is something that, perhaps, our committee can be of assistance in helping to identify that problem. Perhaps, as has been said, we need to deal with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to see where they are at, and to see what their response is with regard to what has been said and what is showing up as the beginnings of a serious problem.
It is something that our committee will consider as to whether we ought to meet with the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and his officials. This meeting will be to see whether we can help the causes of the Aboriginal peoples in our country who sign agreements with hope and with a lot of anticipation that their futures will become better, only to find out later that it is not that easy and that there are implementation problems.
Senator Dallaire: If we have a few minutes, just to push on that point: What was that attitude that you say you captured?
Mr. Campbell: I was not talking about attitude but, rather, behaviour.
Senator Dallaire: I am sorry. I meant behaviour.
Mr. Campbell: The behaviour that we saw in relation to the implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, that is, the fact that the department did not feel responsible for measuring progress towards the overall objectives of the agreement, that was the same approach they had taken to previous agreements we have audited.
Senator Dallaire: Meaning you find this true even up to the most recent ones, as well?
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: My question then becomes: Within the department, have they never grasped or have you found any efforts in the archives of the department as you have looked at this matter, of trying to establish a process in regard to implementing? That is to say, have there been any people in there who have tried to push upwards this desire to bring about a more responsible methodology of implementation? Have those ideas been blocked or destroyed, or not seen fruition, or has there been any concerted effort within that department to bring about expertise from the outside world of government to assist them? I could see a whole bunch of NGOs that could help that department to bring about a solution. Has that been looked into?
Mr. Barrett: I can only speak for what I have seen. In digging through all the department's files related to this agreement, my staff did come across a draft identification from 2000 of what the ongoing responsibilities were, which was done by a consultant. That is the closest thing we have seen in terms of something related to this matter. However, there was no indication that the department officials were aware of that draft while we were digging through those files.
There have been some spurts, some contracting out, in terms of what they will have to do towards implementation. However, I think it comes back to Mr. Campbell's point on sustained management attention and the idea that we need to keep pushing.
Senator Dallaire: Does that department have a policy branch that actually articulates policies and has a responsibility for taking on that dimension and initiating such an action? Has that ever been created or pondered by deputy ministers or ministers?
Mr. Barrett: The department officials could better articulate how they are structured. My understanding is that within the implementation branch, which is the branch responsible for land claim agreements, there is a policy unit. What they have done in terms of developing a coherent strategy to implement land claim agreements is a question best put to them.
Senator Dallaire: You did not go higher?
Mr. Barrett: That is correct.
Senator Dyck: I wanted to follow up on something that our chair was indicating with respect to these agreements. These modern land claim agreements are similar to the treaties signed many years ago. When those treaties were signed, they were signed nation to nation and they were signed in good faith. I use the words "good faith'' literally, because First Nations believe that these kinds of agreements are actually sacred agreements. When they are signed, you are believing that the Government of Canada will uphold the spirit and the intent of the agreement, but it is quite clear that INAC has not lived up to the spirit of the agreement. It has viewed the agreements in very technical terms.
I am wondering if there should not be a process put in place to change the culture of the people who manage INAC in order to train them and let them know what the cultural differences are between the way in which they are operating versus the way in which the First Nations who have signed these agreements are operating.
I found it interesting that you talk about Parks Canada and Environment Canada having more of the mindset to see these agreements going forward because, of course, the culture of the people who work in those kinds of departments are more similar to the First Nations culture. They are looking at things in a more holistic, world view.
Do you think there is a way to change the culture or the mindset of INAC?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chair, I would certainly hope so. However, in order to do that, I think that the department, first off, needs to decide what its position is in relation to the fundamental objectives of those agreements. They need to make that decision. However, what we have observed in the course of our audits is that the officials implementing the agreements are not behaving in a manner consistent with what the department is now saying, which is that they now see this as something they will monitor or progress towards.
They need to decide what their position is, and then begin a communication to departmental officials saying, "This is how we see our role in implementation, and this is how you are to behave.''
Senator Dyck: Is that the department's responsibility or should it be up to someone else to decide what their responsibilities are?
Mr. Campbell: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is the federal lead, and we made our recommendations to them. It is that department which has responded positively now, saying that they will now undertake to monitor progress against the overall objectives. I think we have some movement there, and I would hope that there may be an opportunity to have some of that movement sustained.
The Deputy Chair: If there are no further questions, I thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. You have boldly and truthfully done your work in identifying the problems that exist in the whole matter of the implementation of land claims. We will go on and see what else we can do on behalf of the claimants to ensure that these matters are resolved.
The committee continued in camera.