Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of March 5, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:17 p.m. to examine and report on 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.
[English]
Marcy Zlotnick, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.
As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair. I must therefore preside over the election of an acting chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Campbell: I nominate Senator Hubley.
Ms. Zlotnick: Are there any other nominations? If not, it has been moved by the Honourable Senator Campbell that the Honourable Senator Hubley be acting chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Zlotnick: I now invite Senator Hubley to take the chair.
Senator Elizabeth Hubley (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Good evening senators and guests. We have a quorum and we will now begin.
This evening we are continuing our study on the implementation of comprehensive land claims. To assist us in our work, we have two representatives from PricewaterhouseCoopers. They are Joanne Johnson, Director, Advisory Services; and Roxanne Anderson, Partner, Advisory Services. Welcome to you both.
I would like to introduce our senators. We have Senator Roméo Dallaire from Quebec; Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan; Senator Larry Campbell from British Columbia; and Senator Robert Peterson from Saskatchewan. My name is Elizabeth Hubley and I come from Prince Edward Island.
PricewaterhouseCoopers was hired to conduct an independent review of the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. In May of 2006, they released their review, which covered the period from January 1999 to July 2005. Their mandate was to assess the status of implementation of each of the provisions of the agreement; identify barriers to implementation; identify options for overcoming those barriers; identify examples of success; assess the effectiveness of the Nunavut Implementation Panel and the Nunavut Arbitration Board; and provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of implementation.
Please proceed, Ms. Johnson.
Joanne Johnson, Director, Advisory Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers: I understand you would like us to speak about our views on key barriers and recommendations regarding the implementation of land claims in Canada. I want to express my sincere thanks to you for inviting us to share what we have learned from this process.
While all of my land claims work has been with regard to Nunavut, I do believe that the issues I will discuss will have broader relevance to land claim implementation issues in general. I welcome this opportunity to contribute because I believe this process and the recommendations that you make can make a real difference.
I will start by talking about the general status of implementation in Nunavut to set the context for my presentation. Implementation activities have taken place. Buildings have been erected, legislation has been created, and policies and programs have been developed. Having said this, the Inuit are not happy with the progress. Similarly, most government officials express frustration with the lack of advancement.
First, economic outcomes are poor. I know you know this, but I would be remiss if I did not tell you that there is concern that the federal government does not really understand how grave things are in Nunavut. There is a fear that the full impact of the statistics is not appreciated, such as the reports that half of Nunavummiut went hungry because of lack of money, which is seven times the national average, that suicide rates are almost seven times the national average, or that unemployment rates are more than double the national average. There is a concern that the full impact of these factors is not appreciated.
The land claims agreement does not contain specific obligations in most of these areas, yet the fourth objective, as outlined in the preamble of the agreement, is to contribute to improved economic and social well-being. There is little evidence of improvement. Inuit, and I believe the government, expected that these things would improve — not overnight, but at least things would move in the right direction. There is little evidence that this is happening.
These economic outcomes may not even be the worst problems. By and large, Inuit are not as involved in leading the setting of policies and implementation of programs as they were expected to be. Inuit have not reached a representative level within the government but, more important, there is no plan in place that dictates what needs to happen, and by when, in order to achieve that obligation. Most of the people whom we have heard from throughout the process said that IQ — the term for Inuit traditional knowledge — is not effectively integrated into decision-making.
Finally, while speaking with Inuit across the communities, we repeatedly heard that they were not consulted enough, and many Inuit that we spoke to expressed a fear that things would not change. That is why I believe this review is so important.
There have been some successes from which we can learn. For example, the Nunavut Water Board was often cited as an example of an initiative that is working well, notwithstanding the current problems noted in the news. It maintained a good relationship with government and yet it was also meeting Inuit needs by providing services in Inuktitut and integrating IQ into its decision-making. Therefore, effective integration of language and culture is critical for the success of implementation.
Another example is how impact benefit agreements required under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement were created for national parks. Parks Canada invested significant resources into assessing what would be required, and negotiated funding with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, or INAC, prior to the implementation of the land claims agreement. Parks Canada worked closely with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., or NTI, throughout the process, and implementation is ongoing. The key lesson here is that significant effort is required even prior to the implementation of the agreement in order for it to be successful.
A third example is the comprehensive policy to enable Inuit businesses to compete successfully for territorial government contracts. This has involved identifying key action items, monitoring activities and outcomes, and identifying key areas for improvement. The success rate for Inuit businesses in government contracts is lower than ideal. However, at least all parties understand where they are at and they have developed an action plan that they all believe in. Conversely, it is not even known how many Inuit businesses are competing for federal government contracts and there is no agreed-upon action plan in place to meet the objective.
Hence, translating the obligations in the land claims agreement into specific action plans is the only way that these objectives can be met. The common thread among these successes is that the solution must involve, rather than be for, Inuit; that significant investments must be made to achieve success, and that concrete action plans must be developed and people must be held accountable to them.
For the remainder of my time, I will talk about what we believe are the key barriers to successful implementation and associated recommendations. Let me start by saying that the failings of individual people are not the cause of the problem. We believe the problems are systemic and structural. Over the years I have worked with the parties, I have continually been struck by the passion, intelligence and desire to make positive change among most, though not all, people. The problems are broader than individual people. I believe that without the focused attention of senior officials within government, change will not happen.
We believe the most significant factor limiting successful implementation is the lack of an effective dispute resolution mechanism or process. There is an arbitration clause in the land claims agreement, but it has never been used. Consequently, disputes may last for years without any resolution or plan for achieving resolution. For example, the issues surrounding Article 23 have been unresolved for over a decade.
There are significant, and in many cases legitimate, differences in interpretation. Moreover, trust has become a serious issue. Trust is something that you either build or destroy through every interaction. Without a clear dispute resolution process with consequences, there can be no hope for resolving current disputes or engendering trust.
We believe the dispute resolution process should entail several key elements, including a formal process for documenting the issue, including a description of what the problem is, why it occurred and what has been done to try to resolve it.
Second, there should be a clear process for attempting to resolve the problem. This should involve identifying what steps are to be taken, by whom and in what time frame.
Third, there should be consequences to ensure that a final resolution will be obtained within a reasonable period of time.
This process must provide certainty and clarity of resolution. We have described a detailed process in our report. We recommend that this process be considered, adapted as necessary, and tested with a couple of the most pressing and long-lasting issues.
We believe another significant barrier in the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, as I just alluded to, is that there are differences in interpretation regarding the objectives and obligations in the land claims agreement. This can present a challenge when it comes to implementation. Clarification is critical as parties will not be satisfied with the action plans or the outcomes if there are fundamental differences in opinion about implied responsibilities.
Therefore, our second major recommendation is that the parties explicitly identify in the implementation contract, or some other documentation, the shared interpretation of what implementation of the objective means.
One of the key challenges in making progress on implementation, at least in Nunavut where the claim is so comprehensive, is that the list of issues that needs attention is very long. It is critical to recognize that not everything can be solved at once. The parties should agree on a list of key priorities for the short, medium and long term, and develop a comprehensive action plan to ensure that real progress is made. The plan should also note the time frame for addressing those objectives and obligations that are important but are not priorities at this time.
Lack of ongoing monitoring represents another significant barrier to the successful implementation of the land claims agreement. Increasingly, the government recognizes the importance of developing and implementing performance measures to ensure success, identify gaps and support decision-making. Consequently, our fourth recommendation is that performance measures be developed and monitored together with Aboriginal peoples on an ongoing basis.
The last barrier that I would like to talk about today is with regard to effective engagement of Inuit in a culturally appropriate manner. We repeatedly heard throughout our travels in the community that Inuit believe they were not consulted enough. At the same time, many people in government said that they had heard that they were over- consulting. It is therefore critical to assess why Inuit feel that they are not being consulted, and change the communication process accordingly.
While I said that we believe the lack of a dispute resolution process is the most significant barrier to the successful implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, I believe the most significant failing in implementation lies in insufficient engagement of Inuit in decision-making. Many Inuit are beginning to lose faith. They did not expect change to happen overnight but they expected to be involved in a process of change. They are disappointed that that has not happened.
During the focus groups we held in the communities, there were numerous times where Inuit were so upset with how shutout and demoralized they had become that they were brought to tears. So many people said that their elder are not respected, and they said, ``They develop policies but they do not ask us what we think.''
Therefore, our last recommendation is that two initiatives be undertaken with regard to communication. First, we believe there needs to be a special study undertaken to determine what constitutes effective and culturally appropriate engagement. There are clearly differences in opinion, and this matter needs to be resolved.
Second, the results of studies such as the Nunavut review must be communicated to Inuit in a way that is effective and culturally appropriate. For example, releasing the study in written form does not constitute communication in a way that is consistent with traditional Inuit communication methods. Hence, we recommend that the study be communicated to Inuit in an oral fashion, and that they be given an opportunity to comment on the study.
We understand there is concern within the government about communicating a study that presents primarily challenges and problems and for which the solutions have not yet been developed or agreed to. However, Inuit have a right to know what the status is, and a right to participate in the decision-making process. Many Inuit expressed concern that their views would not be fully shared in the study. Sharing the study with them could help to build the trust that is dissipating.
I thank you once again for inviting us to contribute to this important initiative, and we hope this talk has provided some useful information to you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Is there anything that you would like to add, Ms. Anderson?
Roxanne L. Anderson, Partner, Advisory Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers: No, I think my colleague has adequately addressed our view.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much for coming here this evening in what can only be described as Arctic weather. I am from British Columbia, so it is all Arctic weather here in any event.
I was quite impressed by your presentation. We have been hearing from a number of witnesses with regard to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement issue. This is as clear as it gets to where we are on this matter. It is a depressing picture, quite frankly. Like you, I have spent a lot of time in the North. I was a coroner for Nunavut when it first came into existence, and so I have travelled to Hall Beach, Iglulik, Resolute, Grise Fiord, and so on. What you say makes sense.
This situation did not happen in the last two years; this has been an ongoing thing. Is there one-stop shopping within the federal government that you can go to with regard to the implementation? For example, if it is parks, I go to Parks Canada. Is there one place I can go to?
Ms. Johnson: I will preface my comments by saying that I am not an expert on how the government does things obviously, but in our experience, in the review, no. For each objective there might be different federal departments that might be involved, but then there were also various levels of approvals. For example, if you look at territorial parks — which have not been implemented yet and are quite long overdue — they negotiate with Parks Canada, then they negotiate with INAC and then the issue must go to Treasury Board. It must go through various levels. It does that sequentially, and at any stage it can get bumped back. There is nowhere that you can go and ask, ``What will be the answer to this?''
Senator Campbell: You describe in your presentation that we should have a process where we prioritize. What are the biggest issues from the point of view of the Inuit? Forget the federal government. The whole issue, from my point of view, is the Inuit. We entered into an agreement with the Aboriginal peoples to do certain things, and we have not done that.
How do we go about this process of prioritizing if we have these different levels of government; different layers and different ministers? How do we prioritize? Who decides what the priority is? Do the Inuit, as a people, decide, ``These are our priorities. Here is how we want the issues dealt with.'' Those are the people who should be making the list.
Ms. Johnson: In preparing for my speech today I was speaking with one of the Inuit contractors who worked on the assignment. One of the things that he was saying is that Inuit very much want an opportunity to clarify the objectives of the NLCA and what they want out of it. They want this done through a public consultation process. It needs to be broad and it needs to be inclusive. Beyond that, I cannot give further detail. However, it is certainly something that, if you want it, I would be happy to get back to the committee on.
Senator Campbell: In some instances, it seems that you have government organizations who understand the necessity of interacting with the Inuit; understanding their problems; understanding their culture; utilizing their knowledge, and so on. Then there are others who have no idea; sit or come from wherever and do not know about these things. My concern is that this situation has been going on for many years and, at some point, we need to stop it.
I still cannot get my head around how we, as a committee, can come up with a recommendation for the Inuit people, in and of themselves, to get together and say, ``We have had enough. Here are the issues that are our concern and here is how they are rated.''
I agree with you. You have two years to get that settled. If you do not, there is a penalty to pay. Whatever that may be, I do not know. Is that the way in which you see this situation evolving? Is this a recommendation that you think would help the situation?
Ms. Johnson: I think that would make a lot of sense. To say, sit down; identify your key priorities and the timelines. If you cannot get to some sort of resolution within a reasonable period of time, then there are consequences.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for your presentation. There is a signed agreement, correct?
Ms. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Peterson: It outlined all the points discussed and agreed between the two parties?
Ms. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Peterson: Since that time — many years ago — nothing has happened. What happened after that? Did they take the agreement home and that was it? What is the process?
Ms. Johnson: I think there were a lot of things that were done, in particular, in the first five years. If you look at the first five-year review, it talks about things being created. For example, the Government of Nunavut, or GN, was created and different policies were created. The Auditor General talks about this, too, in terms of the fact that the tick boxes were done. However, there were challenges where there are differences in the interpretation of what the objectives mean.
The big issues are Article 23, Inuit employment. What does it mean? What does each side have to do? Where do the responsibilities begin and end?
With Article 24, again, there are big differences. Lots of things have been done. It has been the more nebulous and big areas where, I think, there is not even agreement on what it means to implement that measure. That is why there has not been a lot of progress forward.
Senator Peterson: There is an arbitration clause to resolve disputes, but it has never been used?
Ms. Johnson: That has never been used.
Senator Peterson: After this many years and this many problems, what does that say? That this agreement is not working. Why would that be?
Ms. Johnson: The government did not allow anything to go to arbitration.
Senator Peterson: They did not allow it?
Ms. Johnson: All three parties must agree to have things go to arbitration. NTI has pushed for things to go to arbitration, and the Government of Canada was not supportive of those things moving on to arbitration.
Senator Peterson: That would stall everything, would it not? You now say that they want public consultation. I presume this is of the agreement? This is not something new.
Ms. Johnson: No.
Senator Peterson: You have the agreement and all the clauses, and they want public consultation on that. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Johnson: I think what we are hearing is that because the Inuit have become disenfranchised, people are stepping back and saying, ``Wait, we have not been involved in this situation enough and we need to be consulted more.'' I think that is where there is an increase in demand for public consultation. I think that is separate from the arbitration piece.
I should make a correction. My understanding is that the government may be considering going to arbitration. At the time of our report, however, the government had not let anything go to arbitration at that point in time.
Senator Peterson: We are almost having to start over again because nothing is happening to their satisfaction. You said they are losing faith in the system, which is not surprising after so many years.
Perhaps the recommendation should be that we start over again, and perhaps DIAND should not be involved. We should get people involved who have some authority and can get things done.
Ms. Johnson: As we said, it is not an issue of individual people. I think it is a systemic issue. It needs to be considered from a structural viewpoint. There is not one person who will resolve this problem in INAC. You need to step back and figure out what structures we need to put in place to make this agreement work.
I should clarify as well that most people still seem to believe that the agreement itself is the right agreement. For the most part, we have not heard people talking about tossing the agreement out and striking a new one. Many of them said they agreed with it, but they wanted to be part of it being implemented.
Senator Peterson: Who do you think would have the authority to do this? You have to realize that this is a very difficult thing. We have bounced this around. You have completed a review, and in two years there will be another five- year review, followed by another one. Pretty soon, someone must bite the bullet and decide they have to deal with this situation.
You could be talking about structural and systemic problems, but is it really a problem? We must come to grips to see how we will do this, or not.
Ms. Johnson: I apologize, but I do not know what the solution is. One of the things we said in our report is that there must be clarity of who has decision-making ability so that when you engage in discussions and try to resolve issues, you are working with the decision makers. There should not be these different levels behind that can potentially reverse whatever decisions are made.
Senator Peterson: Is your role complete now? You have tabled this report and you will be gone?
Ms. Johnson: You may already know this, but we completed the second five-year review, with the exception of the review of Article 23, which is also required. However, a review of Article 23 has not been completed. It was our understanding that we would be doing the review, but we have not been given the go-ahead to do so yet.
Senator Dallaire: I would like to go through a process as you respond to my questions. Where are the headquarters of this implementation panel located?
Ms. Johnson: The federal government has one representative, the Government of Nunavut has one representative and NTI has two representatives.
Senator Dallaire: Where is it located?
Ms. Johnson: There is no geographic location for it. It is a virtual thing.
Senator Dallaire: There is no office with a filing cabinet?
Ms. Johnson: No, there is no office.
Senator Dallaire: Who is the overarching authority on the panel?
Ms. Johnson: There is no overarching authority.
Senator Dallaire: It is a three-headed monster?
Ms. Johnson: Yes. Again, NTI has two of four votes.
Senator Dallaire: What level is this panel at, if you compare it to a government structure? What level of authority does it hold?
Ms. Johnson: The federal representative is the director general.
Senator Dallaire: This is the second review of the implementation. In the implementation, have you ever seen, in your review, a budget line for it?
Ms. Johnson: We asked for that during our review, and we did not receive one.
Senator Dallaire: You do not know, then, whether each of these implementation initiatives that were prepared, to which there seems to be a difference of opinion of what they mean, you have not seen whether or not they have been funded for implementation and whether that funding was adequate or not? You have never seen that?
Ms. Johnson: That is correct.
Senator Dallaire: In that same vein, when the Inuit representative articulates that the Inuit have not had full input and that in their analysis of what the implementation plan says, according to their linguistic and cultural interpretations, that it does not meet what they believe they signed onto, what authority does that hold against the government's interpretation using the Webster dictionary?
Ms. Johnson: I believe that is an issue that has not been looked at closely enough yet. I think people are only now starting to realize that everyone has been consulting, but perhaps it has not been the right type of consulting. They are now starting to realize that they are using the same term in different ways. Clarity is required on that.
Senator Dallaire: If you produce a document in government, it will be indicated that either the French version or the English version is the master version, correct?
Ms. Johnson: Correct.
Senator Dallaire: In these implementation projects, proposals or programs, what is the dominant version? Is it the government version? Does the government hold the hammer on that? Is it the Inuit version? Which version holds authority under the law?
Ms. Johnson: I will have to get back to you on that.
Senator Dallaire: The DG did not say to you, ``I do not care what they say; this is the way it is supposed to be as an overriding factor?''
Ms. Johnson: No, nor did I ever hear that it was an issue that people had interpreted something in the Inuktitut version that was different from the English.
Senator Dallaire: That brings me to the interpretation aspect. If you are saying that they believe it means this and the government people believe it means something else, it is not necessarily a linguistic problem. Are you saying it might be a cultural problem?
Ms. Johnson: No, I think it could be a linguistic problem. For example, if we look at Article 24, I think it states that government contracting must be completed respecting Inuit firms. I forget the exact wording. What does that mean? Does that mean it must be completed in Inuktitut? Does it mean that it must be given only to Inuit firms, or does it mean posting it in it in Nunatsiaq News?
Senator Dallaire: In other words, there was no lexicon attached to this agreement that would define what ``respect'' means?
Ms. Johnson: That is correct.
Senator Dallaire: That was not part of the implementation documentation?
Ms. Johnson: That is right.
Senator Dallaire: For the Inuit to be fully participant in the programs possibly requires different skills. There are a whole multitude of these implementation provisions.
In the implementation plan for each of these programs, was there a development phase or component for the Inuit? Was there a development phase for the government people to comprehend what they were getting into, or were they just here in Ottawa visiting, or something like that?
On the one hand, there is acquiring a set of skills adapted to their culture to meet this challenge, and on the other hand there is the issue of understanding exactly what they were supposed to be monitoring or participating in. Was there any definitive lesson plan, syllabus or milestones under which such objectives would be achieved or handed over to them?
Ms. Johnson: No. There was an initial training plan on implementation, but it did not achieve what you are asking about. You are talking about something that really hits to the heart of the issue of Article 23. That is where there is much debate about what is required in terms of training, development and transition.
Senator Dallaire: Are you under the impression that, from the government side of the house, they signed the agreement, there is an implementation smorgasbord of stuff and that this is really an administrative hassle? The problem is solved; there is just some monitoring because we have other things to do. Do you feel there has been a handover or a passing off down to a secretarial level while they are on to doing other things?
Ms. Johnson: No. All the people I have dealt with sincerely care about this matter. They are concerned that progress has not been made, and they would like to move things forward. However, I sense that people feel that there are so many areas where they do not have enough responsibility and their hands are tied. They can only do so much, and so they cannot effect the change they were hoping for.
Senator Dallaire: Let us take the government side of the house, who one might say should be the best organized. In the government side of the house, did you sense an omnibus project to this, a dedicated project staff with responsibility to interact with other departments? Did you sense that there was a lead department holding other departments accountable, that there was someone who was actually monitoring the use of funds and the call for new funds in order to advance this implementation? Did you get a sense that someone was running the show with the authority to do that?
Ms. Johnson: No, and I think that is one of the biggest problems holding things back.
Senator Dallaire: What did the DG tell you when you interviewed him?
Ms. Johnson: There are certain things he says that are out of his control. He needs Treasury Board to do something — it is their responsibility or PWGSC or whatever department it is — and he does not have the ability to enforce what or how they do things.
Senator Dallaire: They signed the document. In that signing, did they sign with the 26 government departments? Were there 26 DGs who signed, plus the Inuit as equal partners, or did the Government of Canada sign, to which it allotted a department to have the lead in this matter? Did you see that in any of the documentation?
Ms. Johnson: I would have to check on that. I know that it is not happening, functionally. I know that, functionally, INAC is not able to enforce what other departments do.
Senator Dallaire: There is a DG sitting there, frustrated and very positive, I am sure, a keen, responsible civil servant according to the public service ethics, and so on. Tell me, over the last 10 years or so, the last two reviews, what initiative did that DG, or his or her predecessors, take to change that level of authority to actually give him or her the tools they needed to sort this matter out? What new process did they invent or what new way of managing this agreement was proposed that got shot down at some level? Did you see any of that in the files?
Ms. Johnson: No, I am not aware of anything of that nature.
The Acting Chair: In 2003, the Auditor General found that DIAND ``. . . seems focused on fulfilling the letter of the land claims' interpretation but not the spirit. Officials may believe that they have met their obligations, but in fact they have not worked to support the full intent of the land claims agreements.''
This attitude, according to the Land Claims Agreement Coalition, has led some Aboriginal groups to conclude that there have been ``. . . deliberate and continuing efforts on the part of the federal government to minimize, frustrate and even extinguish the rights and benefits that Aboriginal parties expected would flow from their treaties.''
Now, in your review of the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, have you found a similar tendency among government officials to take a narrow, technical interpretation rather than a broad view of the provisions of the agreement? Is this the systemic problems we are talking about?
Ms. Johnson: I would refer back to what Senator Dallaire raised, which is that the federal government is not one person or one body, so I cannot give an answer that would say that the federal government does this. Are there certain departments that take that approach? Yes, I would say so. Is everyone taking that overall approach? I would say no. In my experience, in all the dealings I have had with INAC, for example, they would never say, ``Where does it say in the agreement that I have to do that?'' My sense was more of a frustration with an inability to control and manage change.
My sense was that the Auditor General's comments did hit home, and that there are many people within the government who sincerely understand the view that they must take, but their hands are tied in terms of how or what they can actually do, or that is how they feel, anyway.
The Acting Chair: We are trying to undo those hands and find the disconnect so that our recommendations will relevantly suggest how we might encourage those things to be totally eliminated.
Ms. Anderson: I am sure you have heard this from others who have attended, but these matters are very complicated, and it takes much effort. As my colleague has said, people are trying, but it is not a simple, ``Here is the plan.'' As most people know, when one enters into an agreement, everyone has a certain frame of mind, and then once you start working with the agreement, you realize ``You meant this; I meant that,'' and this is the reality.
It goes back to what Ms. Johnson said about making sure you set the right processes in place so that you can build the trust and work through those difficult things that occur when you agree to something you did not realize would turn out differently, and do not know how you can work through that.
Senator Meighen: What is the forum for dialogue? Is it the forum one could imagine being drafted by people sitting in Ottawa? ``If you do not like this, file this paper in triplicate and quadruplicate and send it here''? Is there any framework on the ground to create a place of dialogue where the problem exists? I am not making myself very clear, perhaps.
Ms. Johnson: You are very clear. Sadly, I do not have an answer for you. That is the issue that everyone is struggling with. I do not know. It seems to me that there are a couple of ways to look at this situation. One is to say: ``Can you have a structure that overrides and will be the funnel for how everything gets done?'' You can dictate a process that way, and then you run into the problem Ms. Anderson raised.
On the other hand, do you say: ``Let us try to pick a couple of big issues and see if we can move forward on those and build the right solution around that''? I do not know. That is why we talked about the dispute resolution process and trying that out.
Some departments have done well. Parks Canada has done very well. Why did that process work well? What they did, and learning more from their successes, has to be looked at.
Senator Meighen: What is the answer?
Ms. Johnson: It must be looked at more. We were not able to get into that kind of depth to appreciate why they took a different approach.
Senator Meighen: I do not know what we term ourselves, but we Ottawans, or bureaucrats or government people or whatever, have a certain mindset as to how you go about settling a difference of opinion or misunderstanding or whatever. Clearly, that does not respond to the feelings of the Inuit.
I am wondering if we almost need a full-time, in-place facilitator to keep the dialogue going on the ground, not in triplicate in the mail to Ottawa.
Ms. Johnson: I believe that the Nunavut implementation panel should have a facilitator to ensure that action plans are set, meetings are set, responsibilities are assigned and things are documented. The minutes of meetings are not even created. You have people meeting and not even recording what they met about. That is not appropriate.
Senator Dallaire: My question arose from not having a headquarters and not sure about a filing cabinet, there is no secretariat, and you have just said there are not even any minutes, is that correct?
Ms. Johnson: For most meetings.
Senator Dallaire: Is there not a permanent secretariat for this panel?
Ms. Johnson: No, there is not. There is a rotating chair for the meetings.
Senator Dallaire: That is okay, but you could still have a permanent secretariat. Did you get the impression from the government side that they just did not have the horsepower to be able to put behind these complex problems to come forward with innovative solutions and resolutions? Did they say, ``We just do not have the ability. We do not have enough people to put this together and to do it properly,'' or something like that? Did that ever come out?
Ms. Johnson: The issue is that they do not have the power to force other departments to agree on things to make changes, to do what they need to do. They can educate and inform, but they cannot impose any consequence if that department does not react in a timely fashion, or in what they deem to be an appropriate fashion.
Senator Dallaire: The solution with Parks Canada is not too complex because it is survey, map and so forth. DND has come to many solutions also because it is often just technical stuff. However, when you are into the human side of human development, social changes and requirements like that, that is far more complex and interdepartmental. Because it is complex, do you have a sense that they just do not feel that they could push the envelope of getting solutions, or is it always this abdication that they do not have the power?
Ms. Johnson: I cannot fairly answer that question. I do not know because it is not fair for me to get into their minds and say that. I can only say what I see.
Senator Peterson: I would think this agreement was signed by the Government of Canada as a nation, not some line department. Do you think that is a fair statement? It was signed by the Government of Canada. In other words, it is not up to INAC or Parks Canada to deliver. It is for the Government of Canada.
Ms. Johnson: That is right.
Senator Peterson: Is it fair to say that they may have signed this agreement to put the problem on the back burner, have it go away, and perhaps now wish they had never even signed it?
Ms. Johnson: It would not be for me to say that, but again I experienced no complacency and no apathy towards the situation. People were very sincerely disturbed — at least at the levels I spoke to — that progress had not been made.
Senator Peterson: Is it just recently that they have had this feeling that this matter had not been handled properly? Did it happen only in the study you have just done within the last year?
Ms. Johnson: Even if you look at the first five-year review, there were findings that a lot of progress had not been made in areas where it should have been made. People have recognized that things are not working for quite a long time.
Senator Peterson: Still, no one is doing anything. That is the sad part. You read these documents over and over about how everyone feels so deeply about this agreement, that something should be done and yet nothing gets done.
Ms. Johnson: That is why we say it is not an issue with people. It is a systematic problem, and you have all hit the nail on the head: that there needs to be a structure or body that has the power to enforce change.
Senator Dyck: Would you care to suggest what kind of overarching body could take on that role? In an ideal world, what would you see as the structure or body that would be able to move these types of land claims forward?
Ms. Johnson: That is an important question, and without going away to think about it, I do not feel I would be able to do justice to an answer. If you would allow, I would suggest we go away, reflect on that and come back to the committee with a response.
Senator Dyck: That would be very much appreciated.
To return to the question of consultation, when this agreement was signed by the various parties, I believe the Inuit were signing and thinking that they were equal partners within the agreement. As an equal partner, you would expect to be consulted at every step of the way as to how the various programs would be developed, and you would be a full partner within that.
In your presentation, you say that you repeatedly heard that the Inuit were not consulted enough. When you say the Inuit were not consulted, would that be specifically people in the community, or specific people who were at different levels of the government? Which people were you referring to?
Ms. Johnson: It is the people in the communities. It was in our travels throughout the communities that we heard this point a lot.
Senator Dyck: That is probably a cultural aspect where, in many Aboriginal cultures, community members are active participants in what goes on within their lives. Yet, on the other hand, the people from the federal government thought they were over-consulting.
Do you think that would be because some of them are used to another style of government, where you make decisions for people rather than consult them?
Ms. Johnson: Yes. That is a difficult issue and not something we could get to the heart of. Some theories we heard was that because Inuit are used to everyone having their say, there is reluctance on the part of many people to speak for their community, so few people are comfortable taking that role. As a result, for the few people who are, they are being over-consulted, and that was the rationalization that we had for this apparent paradox.
Senator Dallaire: Who paid your contract?
Ms. Johnson: INAC paid it.
Senator Dallaire: INAC paid it. They have the responsibility for your contract, but the results go to all three?
Ms. Johnson: That is correct.
Senator Dallaire: There is no secretariat to bring that together, so that everyone gets a copy?
Ms. Johnson: That is correct.
Senator Dallaire: In so doing, the fact that they actually did this is, in itself, a positive gesture. Even if they have nothing to be able to seemingly implement, yet they get the report and hear the recommendations, but there is no way of implementing them, you would think that perhaps, after the first review, they would say ``Why do it a second time, let alone a third time?''
Part of your analysis of the panel was that it is supposed to look at funding responsibility, funding levels and so forth. Did you see any specific methodology being used by all three players in this respect? Was there a concerted set of standards that were being used to establish what might be funding levels required for different programs and so on, or did every department come at the situations differently?
Ms. Johnson: There was no information shared with us on how that was done. I do not know. For example, I know that there were discussions around the IPG funding, the funding for institutions of public government, which was just this past November.
I am not familiar with what process they used to come up finally to an agreement, other than Berger was facilitating some of that discussion.
Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Have you completed your questions?
Senator Dallaire: I am sorry, yes. It is the shock of realizing that we have departments that, in order to compute every five cents, you have to write 50 bucks worth of reports, and then you have a thing going on like that. CIDA is even better than that.
The Acting Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses, Joanne Johnson and Roxanne L. Anderson, for coming this evening and sharing their report with us, and it will be helpful to our committee. I would like to thank the senators.
The committee adjourned.