Archived - Evaluation of the Inuit Relations Secretariat

Findings

  The evaluation findings provide evidence that there is a continuing need for a focal point within the federal government for Inuit issues and advocacy, given:

• The Inuit population faces an array of contemporary and historic issues, which cross-cut the mandates of various federal departments and span community, regional, sectoral, national, and international levels;
  
  
• Evidence of uneven knowledge and awareness of Inuit issues, needs and priorities (as well as northern realities) within AANDC and across the federal government; and
  
  
• The Inuit population has distinct characteristics that differentiate it not only from Canada's general population, but also from the other Aboriginal groups.

The Secretariat's objectives and activities remain consistent with the Government of Canada's priorities and directly related to the Department's strategic outcomes, particularly in light of the recent Northern Strategy.

The IRS is also consistent with federal responsibilities with respect to efforts to improve cross‑government responses in areas of federal responsibility and efforts to ensure that the perspectives of stakeholders are taken into consideration in programming and policy.

3.1 Continuing Needs

To what extent do the Secretariat's objectives and activities address an actual need?

The Secretariat's objectives and activities respond to a real need, well identified and still pressing, for a central contact point within the federal government, not only to raise awareness of Inuit issues and priorities within the federal public service, but to also strengthen federal responses to Inuit issues in areas of federal responsibility. [Note 12]

In 2006, almost 4.2 percent of people who identified themselves as an Aboriginal person – 50,485– reported that they were Inuit (2006 Census data). Inuit represent Canada's smallest Aboriginal group. This group has distinct characteristics that differentiate it not only from Canada's general population, but also from the other Aboriginal groups.

Though Inuit live in all regions of Canada, most (80 percent) are in Inuit Nunangat (a term meaning 'Inuit homeland'), a territory covering one-third of Canada's landmass spreading from Labrador to the Northwest Territories and is composed of four distinct regions. Under their respective land claim agreements, Inuit were granted title to certain blocks of land:

• In Nunavut (the largest and most populated territory), Nunavummiut (residents or Inuit from Nunavut) have legal title to 352,191 square kilometres of land, of which 37,000 square kilometres include mineral rights.
  
  
• In Nunavik, Nunavimmiut (Inuit from northern Quebec) exercise rights on over 64,000 square kilometres of land.
  
  
• In Nunatsiavut, northern Labrador Inuit have legal title to 72,520 square kilometres within the Settlement Area, and have mineral rights to 15,800 square kilometres of land.
  
  
• In the Inuvialuit settlement, the Inuvialuit (Inuit from the Northwest Territories) have legal control of 91,000 square kilometres of land, of which 13,100 square kilometres include mineral rights.

Although Inuit from these four regions share a common culture and many traditions, each of these regions has linguistic, social, demographic and geographic particularities. Inuit Nunangat and its four regions include 53 communities, most of which (70 percent) have less than 1,000 inhabitants.

Though only a moderate number of Inuit live outside of Inuit Nunangat, it is always growing and thereby, adding to the issue of integration into urban areas. In 2006, 17 percent of Canada's Inuit (8,395 people) were living in urban areas outside of Inuit Nunangat, i.e. a 13 percent increase from 1996. That proportion is now estimated to be about 20 percent. Outside of Inuit Nunangat, the major cities with the largest Inuit populations in 2006 were Ottawa–Gatineau (725 people in 2006 and estimated at 1,500 in 2009); Yellowknife (640); Edmonton (590); Montreal (570); and Winnipeg (355). [Note 13]

The Inuit population is very young, with a median age of 21, [Note 14] compared to 27.5 years of age for the other Aboriginal groups (Status and non-Status Indians and Métis) and 40 years of age for non-Aboriginal people. Its growth rate is also twice that of Canada's general population (2.1 percent for the 2006-11 period compared to 0.8 percent), making it the Aboriginal group with the highest growth (1.6 percent for the same period for the other Aboriginal groups). [Note 15] This population will remain young for a long time, on the one hand, because of its population growth, since it is estimated that in 2026, 32 percent of the Inuit population will be less than 15 years of age, and on the other hand, because of the lower life expectancy among Inuit (63 years for men and 72 years for women, compared to 77 years for men and 82 years for women in Canada's general population).

The main impacts of the population's composition and trends are putting significant pressure on the education system, and because of the number of young people in transition, it is putting increased pressure on the housing stock, which cannot meet demand. A large number of Inuit still lives in overcrowded dwellings and in 2006, 12 percent of Inuit were living in dwelling units averaging 1.5 people or more per room, compared to one percent for the non-Aboriginal population.

While the educational level is higher among Inuit aged between 25 to 34 years old, which are four times more likely to hold a secondary school diploma or higher than Inuit aged 65 and over, there is still a significant gap between Inuit of Inuit Nunangat and non‑Aboriginal people. However, this gap is significantly reduced for Inuit of the same age group who live outside of Inuit Nunangat. There are similar trends in terms of unemployment and income where the gap is narrowing between the Inuit population living outside of Inuit Nunangat and the non-Aboriginal population, while this trend is not observed for the Inuit population of Inuit Nunangat.

Several findings, confirmed both by interviews and case studies, can therefore be made from this brief overview of the Inuit population:

• The Inuit population faces an array of contemporary and historic issues, which cross-cut the mandates of various federal departments and span community, regional, sectoral, national and international levels.
  
  
• An increased movement southward, especially to urban areas, thereby, raising issues relating to integration, isolation and availability of adapted services.
  
  
• The significance of social health determinants, in particular, maternal and child health.
  
  
• The significance of increased Inuit participation in the economy as the most effective way to improve the well-being and quality of life of Inuit people in Canada.
  
  
• The education issue as a change driver, especially in the context of a very young population.
  
  
• The crucial issue of housing.
  
  
• Lastly, the significance in helping the Inuit population in the North to build viable and healthy communities in a context of environmental changes in the Arctic, including climate change and pollution.

Establishment of the Secretariat in Relation to Need

While the above paragraphs highlight the complexity of issues facing the Inuit, they also provide evidence of the continuing need for a focal point within Government for Inuit issues. Many of those interviewed also stressed the need for an organization inside Government to represent Inuit issues, to establish and develop relations between the Government and Inuit organizations, and to raise awareness in that regard within other government departments and agencies.

Federal government respondents noted that a primary point of contact remains important because there is still a general lack of knowledge in the federal sector regarding Inuit issues.

Inuit representatives considered a primary point of contact to be necessary because there is a need and a desire to build awareness of the Inuit population within the federal government and also, within the general population. Some of the most common misconceptions, even within AANDC, include believing that Inuit live on reserves, that their relations with the federal government are subject to the Indian Act, and that they are only present in Nunavut, or that their socio-economic characteristics are identical to those of other Aboriginal groups. All respondents also emphasized the need and importance of having an organization, such as the Secretariat, as a basis for drawing attention to and ensuring that Canadians understand and remember the historical events involving Inuit.

3.2 Consistency with Government Priorities, Departmental Strategic Outcomes, and Inuit Priorities

To what extent are the Secretariat's objectives and activities consistent with government-wide priorities, departmental strategic outcomes, and Inuit priorities?

The role of the IRS is to support the development of federal policies and programming, which ensure Inuit interests are taken into account the federal government's strategic decisions. This is consistent with the position of the IRS within AANDC's Program Activity Architecture, under the Strategic Outcome 'The Government' and the sub-activity of 'Cooperative Relationships'.

In the 2004 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada identified the North as one of its main priorities. The Government of Canada officially announced that it would be developing the first comprehensive strategy for northern Canada, in cooperation with territorial partners, Aboriginal peoples and other northern residents. One of the objectives announced included sustainable economic and human development. [Note 16]

Officially adopted in 2009, Canada's Northern Strategy consists of four priority areas, one of which applies to the mandate of the IRS: to promote social and economic development. [Note 17] The following year, in 2010, the Speech from the Throne confirmed the importance attached to implementing the Northern Strategy, and the Government affirmed that it would "continue to give Northerners a greater say over their own future" [Note 18]

The Government of Canada's vision permeates the 2010–11 Report on Plans and Priorities of AANDC, which insists on the importance of "helping Canada's Aboriginal and northern peoples foster healthy and sustainable communities, and pursue economic and social development," and on the importance of "liaising effectively between the Government of Canada and Inuit communities, governments and organizations in the implementation of policies and delivery of services." [Note 19] The Department's plans and priorities also focus on Arctic science, including research that will also be advanced in "climate change adaptation and ecosystem contaminants [which are] key issues for sustainable, healthy northern communities." [Note 20]

3.3 Federal Roles and Responsibilities

What are federal roles and responsibilities toward Inuit?

Efforts to clarify and define federal responsibilities to the Inuit and the administration of their affairs have a long history. In 1935, a dispute regarding responsibility for Inuit issues opposed the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec, which was sent to the Supreme Court. In April 1939, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Re Eskimo that under the Constitution Act, 1867, Inuit were classified as Indians in Canada, and as such, the Government of Canada became de facto legally responsible for Inuit.

However, this decision did not solve all the issues related to integrating Inuit issues into the policies developed for Aboriginal people. In the 1950s and the 1960s, Inuit remained distinct from the First Nations in legislation and governance, even after the creation of AANDC in 1966. This meant that there was no specific legislation or policy for Inuit. [Note 21] Furthermore, Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 affirms the existing rights of Aboriginal peoples and stipulates that the latter include the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. [Note 22]

Currently in the North, the territorial governments generally provide the majority of programs and services to all Northerners, including Aboriginal people. However, AANDC funds and supports the following programs and activities in relation to Inuit communities and Inuit by:

• providing some programs and services to Inuit communities, such as economic development and post-secondary education;
  
  
• implementing self-government and land claim agreements with Inuit communities, including the claim that created the territory of Nunavut;
  
  
• working with Inuit organizations, federal departments and agencies, and other stakeholders to improve government programs and policies for Inuit; and
  
  
• developing the Government's Northern Strategy. [Note 23]

The Department "… has primary, but not exclusive, responsibility for meeting the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Northerners." [Note 24].

Findings

The Secretariat's activities examined are consistent with the Secretariat's mandate.

However, it was not possible to fully assess expected results or progress to outcomes because:

• The Secretariat works concurrently on a broad range of files and also responds to one-time requests. While this could be a reflection of the Secretariat's flexibility, the criteria by which the Secretariat selects projects is not clearly documented.
  
  
• Moreover, the absence of clear targets, performance measures and a long-term work plan prevent a more systematic documentation and analysis of the IRS' results.

Information from the cases studies and interview provide a more in-depth understanding of the work of the Secretariat, and evidence that the Secretariat is making progress in raising awareness of and attention to Inuit issues and priorities within the federal government.

4.1 Progress towards the Achievement of Results

Are the Secretariat's expected outcomes consistent with the mandate, role and activities of the Secretariat, and are they clearly understood by key partners and stakeholders?

Over the period examined, the Secretariat's expected outcomes (as described in the Secretariat's communication activities) are consistent with its mandate, role and activities, as well as with establishing itself as a focal point within the Government.

Between 2007 and 2010, for example, the Secretariat carried out a variety of communications activities to raise awareness of Inuit organizations and its mandate. These included:

• development of promotional materials describing its mandate and activities, including the launch of its own site on AANDC's website (which appears on the site's home Internet page);
  
  
• organization of presentations across  the federal government to increase awareness of Inuit relations with the Crown and land claims;
  
  
• participation in trade shows and the organization of meetings across various levels of Government, such as the Katimajiit held at Kuujjuaq in 2007 and other similar events with the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Quebec; and
  
  
• the signing of an agreement with ITK and Carleton University in 2007 for the organization of information seminars on Inuit priorities and concerns. [Note 25]

The Secretariat has also supported relevant research and knowledge building (e.g., the Inuit Knowledge Project, a History of Canada's Relationship with Inuit, and the Inuit portion of a recent Environics study on urban Aboriginal people in Canada) [Note 26]. The Secretariat has also supported and promoted a wide range of arts and cultural events to promote awareness and appreciation of Inuit culture and the arts.

In terms of its advocacy efforts, the evidence indicates that the Secretariat has adopted a number of strategies to contribute to improved policy and programming. It participates, for example, in senior level meetings, presentations and workshops within AANDC and across Government. It is also involved at the departmental level in reviewing and commenting on policy and program proposals as a means of informing the development of policy and programming (e.g., Urban Aboriginal Strategy, Indian Government Support).

The Secretariat also collaborates on longer-term initiatives such as the negotiations with the European Union concerning the ban on seal products [Note 27], Inuit visibility at the Vancouver Olympic Games and the apology for the Inuit High Arctic Relocation [Note 28]. Since 2008, the Secretariat has been involved in major files by working for social housing solutions in Nunavik, setting up forums for Inuit participation in economic development, and sharing the funding and organization of a Summit on Inuit Education (April 2008) that brought various partners together to discuss challenges and best practices, and make recommendations on improving the success of Inuit students.

Furthermore, it also provides financial support and leadership towards improved policy and programming – such as the securing of financial support, in the form of a $2.5 million grant to expand the educational facilities of the Nunavut Sivuniksavut in Ottawa or working to revitalize a stalled horizontal initiative in Pangnirtung, Nunavut. This project was led by the Secretariat and has been done in partnership with other partners. [Note 29]

Clarity and level of understanding respecting expected outcomes and activities

The previous sections have highlighted the high volume and the diversity of files in which the IRS has been involved, both over the short and longer-term. The absences of clearly documented selection criteria or effective performance measurement strategy or workplan make it difficult to measure results, and also appear to have contributed to a lack of clarity about the IRS' work.

The level of understanding of partners and recipients, the different case studies and interviews conducted show wide variations depending on the partners and recipients' experience with the Secretariat. The Secretariat is quite well known within the Department but a number of interview and case study participants – both government and Inuit representatives – noted that they had limited knowledge of the Secretariat and its specific roles and responsibilities. For those respondents who are aware of the Secretariat, there is a fairly high level of knowledge and understanding of the IRS mandate, roles and responsibilities. These individuals noted that the Secretariat, inside the federal government, is responsible for raising awareness of Inuit needs and priorities, fostering relationships between Inuit organizations and the federal government, developing policy, and assisting Inuit in their dealings with the federal government. Some respondents, however, questioned the extent to which the Secretariat is actually able to accomplish these intended outcomes, given the factors such as its limited human and financial resource capacity and lack of control over files.

To what extent do the Inuit have an increased voice in federal policy development and decision making? [Note 30]

It has been clearly shown in the interviews and case studies that the Secretariat's involvement in the major files previously mentioned: negotiations concerning the ban on seal products, Inuit visibility at the Vancouver Olympic Games, the apology for the Inuit High Arctic Relocation, contribute to making Inuit concerns heard within Government, moreover, the Secretariat is also providing support to Inuit organizations to support improved policy and programming, for example, to support national level activities of the Ottawa based community centre: Tungasuvvingat Inuit.

However, it is difficult to determine if Inuit have a larger visibility in the federal government given the previous conclusions and the methodological limitations identified. Added to this is the fact that influence on policy development and decision making can only be measured over the long term and requires theoretical and methodological examination of the issues of the measurement.

To what extent has the Secretariat succeeded in strengthening relations with Inuit organizations?

The interviews and case studies clearly indicate that relations with Inuit organizations existed prior to the creation of the IRS in 2005. However, almost 70 percent of respondents (interviews and case studies) emphatically agreed that, overall, the Secretariat contributes to the establishment and maintenance of lasting relations with Inuit organizations, and that this is true for the wide range of issues to which the Secretariat lends its support.

Since 2007, members of the Secretariat team have spent time in each of the four Inuit regions to identify Inuit concerns and ensure that they are adequately represented within the federal government. This arrangement increases the Secretariat's recognition and helps build lasting relationships. The Secretariat also offers a "How Ottawa Works" workshop to representatives of Inuit organizations explaining its framework, as well as decision-making process for federal government. No other organizations provide this activity that is customized to Inuit organizations. The workshop not only helps demystify the world of the federal government but also supports the work of Inuit organizations. Activity reports also show that these contacts can form the basis of longer-term relationships since they often lead to meetings between Inuit organizations and representatives of other government departments. For example, negotiations concerning seal products also involve Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

It can be confirmed that the Secretariat is fulfilling some elements of its mandate, such as serving as the point of contact within the federal government on Inuit matters; as well as targeting and sharing opportunities to respond to the priorities of the Inuit population.

To what extent has the Secretariat succeeded in strengthening relations with other departments and other levels of government?

The Secretariat has succeeded in building a network of relations with other branches of AANDC, other federal departments and other levels of government, including Quebec and Nunavut.

The case study evidence indicates that it is working with a wide range of partners over files that span community, sectoral, regional, national, and international arenas and/or participating in forum conducive to building partnerships and influencing decision making, such as its position as an ex-officio member of the recently formed National Committee for Economic Development for Inuit Nunangat.

Project documentation and case studies interviews also identify projects or initiatives in which partnerships have been key, including:

• The "Making Connections" project with the Pangnirtung community, which involves efforts to improve the horizontal coordination and delivery of programs managed by various departments and through establishing simplified reporting mechanisms tailored to the North.

• Involvement and support in the implementation of a partnership between the Nunavik, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Quebec governments to develop a housing project in Nunavik.
  
  
• Collaboration with the National Film Board of Canada towards the development of the Inuit audio visual legacy project Unikkausivut: Sharing Our Stories.

However, there is evidence that the value-added of some initiatives or strategies undertaken warrant review and revision. For example, the implementation of the Director General's Standing Committee on Inuit Priorities, chaired by the Executive Director of the Secretariat, has created an exchange forum whose activities focus on Inuit issues: federal policies and programs specific to the Inuit, programs with an Inuit-specific component, or pan-Aboriginal programs.

The establishment of this committee is an important step in the Secretariat's activities. It also provides greater visibility to Inuit organizations that are invited to make presentations to the committee. However, the directors general does not always sit at the table, thereby limiting the scope and impact of such a committee. Further, the meetings have been irregularly spaced and increasingly limited (three in 2007, then annually since then).

To what extent has the Secretariat succeeded in leveraging resources from multiple sources to address Inuit priorities?

Limited evidence has been produced to clearly identify the IRS' success in leveraging support. However, the evaluation's case study on the "Making Connections' project clearly demonstrates the Secretariat's success in bringing partners and financial support to the table.

To what extent has the Secretariat succeeded in bringing greater coherence, relevance and effectiveness to federal policies and programs as they affect the Inuit?

To what extent has the Secretariat succeeded in raising awareness of Inuit issues within the federal government (e.g., via research, information sharing and the repository of data)?

The time that has elapsed since the creation of the Secretariat and this evaluation does not allow for a clear and precise answer to these questions. Opinions regarding the success of the Secretariat in terms of increasing awareness are also divided, though the interviews found a somewhat positive to very positive perception within the federal government (including AANDC). That perception is more divided among Inuit organizations and recipients. Despite that, all respondents, regardless of their location, were able to give specific examples of activities or events that contributed to creating a better understanding of the Inuit: for example, funding in support of the Ottawa Inuit children's centre, the organization of communications events on Inuit issues, and a day devoted to Inuit as part of Aboriginal Awareness Week.

One of the Secretariat's key file was a pilot project in Pangnirtung, where the Secretariat coordinated the efforts of different federal, territorial and local stakeholders to implement a development project for young people between the ages of 16 and 30 within the Pangnirtung community. The project was selected by AANDC to be included in its action plan for the introduction of a new policy on transfer payments in 2008, and it was also adopted as a pilot project of the Treasury Board's Centre of Expertise on Grant and Contribution (this centre was established to support the key objectives of the revised 2008 Policy on Transfer Payments).

Have there been any unintended impacts, either positive or negative?

The evaluation produced no evidence of any unexpected impacts, positive or negative.

Findings

Factors identified as contributing favourably to the Secretariat's work include the direct access to senior management provided by the Secretariat's functional reporting relations, the experience of the IRS' staff and their knowledge of the North and its residents, as well as of the Department and their proactive approach in both internal and external relations.

Factors identified as detracting from the Secretariat's performance, include:

• Delays in start-up and orientation due to the withdrawal in and subsequent reductions in funding.
  
  
• The broad range of subjects with which the IRS deals given its current size and resourcing, coupled with the potential for greater demands given increasing interest in the North, which could, over the medium term, pose challenges to the mandate and organization of the Secretariat.
  
  
• The lack of clear criteria for engaging in activities and the lack of clear targets and performance measures (as earlier identified in Section 2 and throughout this report).

Lessons learned include the value of partnerships and networking to concrete practical results and the potential strengthen dialogues and partnerships with other key initiatives, programs and departments with significant focus on Inuit, such as Health Canada or in issue areas affecting Inuit, for example, the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, which holds responsibility for the Urban Aboriginal Strategy.

5.1 Appropriateness of the IRS' Approach

Given the evaluations scope, and gaps in data, the evaluation was not able to respond to the question of the extent to which the Secretariat is effectively meeting its expected outcomes, within its current budget, and without unwanted negative outcomes.

The evaluation did find evidence, however, of factors that are affecting its efficiency, both positive and negative, as well as lessons learned, which could continue to be reinforced to support the achievement of objectives.

5.2 Factors Influencing Relevance and Performance

What factors, internal and external, have influenced the Secretariat's efficiency, performance and relevance? And how?

Internal Factors influencing the Secretariat

The evaluation found that some internal factors positively influence the performance and effectiveness of the Secretariat, particularly, staff knowledge of the North and its residents, their visibility within the Department, their proactive approach in both internal and external relations and a significant Aboriginal representation on the Secretariat staff. Secretariat and other government interviewees noted that as a consequence of the high Aboriginal composition of the staff, the Secretariat has been able to put an Aboriginal face on the federal government and has been able to draw on regional knowledge and contacts to develop a good understanding of the "lay of the land". Moreover, because many Inuk staff worked for one or more Inuit organizations before joining the federal government, the Secretariat team has been able to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the organizations.

As noted by Secretariat officials, since the Secretariat Executive Director sits on so many senior level committees, the Secretariat is well positioned, in the sense that it gets good visibility with senior managers in the Department at decision-making tables. Government and Inuit representatives remarked that the leadership abilities, knowledge base and skill levels of the Secretariat's Executive Director and the Unit directors, along with strong back-up from the rest of the staff, has helped to propel Inuit issues forward. Government officials also mentioned that the ability of Secretariat staff to build durable relationships/partnerships with individuals in other organizations, has allowed it to get work done when the Secretariat did not have the internal capacity to complete that work on its own.

Inuit representatives and case study participants referred to the positive manner in which Secretariat staff interacted with Inuit communities and organizations. Respondents described the respectful way in which Secretariat staff engaged communities (e.g., do not engage communities in an academic or political manner but rather in a practical – "roll up their sleeves and get to know the community" – way), the proactive approach in which the Secretariat applied to relationship building between Inuit organizations and the federal government, and the fact that the Secretariat acknowledges the strengths and uniqueness of the Inuit population (i.e., does not focus exclusively on the negative social problems). Other facilitating factors identified by Inuit representatives included: effective communication with regional associations about deadlines and proposal submissions; and, the Secretariat's knowledge and connections within the federal system.

At the same time, some factors affect the Secretariat that could, in the medium term, pose challenges to the mandate and the organization of the Secretariat. One of these is its role, which consists of defending Inuit interests and the difficulty of measuring the impact of this activity. Another factor is the broad range of issues and projects that must be dealt with and the increasing interest in the North.

Other factors were identified that challenge the effectiveness of the Secretariat. Internal factors mentioned by Secretariat officials include the Secretariat's lack of ownership over specific issues – it does not "own" any files. This poses a challenge when it comes to policy development. As a result, Secretariat staff must depend heavily on their formal and informal contacts in order to be brought into discussions. Generally speaking, the Secretariat needs partners who can help advance its strategic objectives on behalf of Inuit. This also makes it difficult for the Secretariat to set a research agenda without ownership over policy or program scope. While the Secretariat is able to prioritize work against departmental and Inuit priorities, it is still left with a very broad range of issues to cover, and the Secretariat has no ability to match them to a policy agenda.

Both government officials and Inuit representatives, as well as case study participants, emphasized that the small size and limited capacity of the Secretariat restricts the number of activities it can engage in, and, consequently, could limit the breadth and depth of its impact. Moreover, while the size of the Secretariat has remained stable, the demands, which are being placed on it have grown or have the potential to grow. Internally, for example, in 2007, the IRS was tasked with the responsibility of administering contribution agreements. This includes responsibility for administering funds related to Contributions for Basic Organizational Capacity and Contributions for Purpose of Consultation and Policy Development. [Note 31]

External Factors influencing the Secretariat

A key issue to take into consideration is the performance and efficiency of the Secretariat, which concerns events that took place shortly after its establishment in 2005 and resulted in both the reduction of resources. In 2006, the IRS faced significant challenges to its survival when shortly after its inception, budget restraints were introduced by a new government. IRS' Treasury Board authority was then cancelled and its dedicated funds were withdrawn. While the role and the importance of the IRS were recognized by a decision to continue to fund the function internally, the credibility of the organization and its potential was put at risk.

The key result of these factors has been the time taken for the Secretariat to adjust to the changes. During the course of the evaluation, it was clear that not all involved Inuit organizations had accepted the changes, which also included the rejection of a partnership accord with the Government, including plans for moving forward a Canada–Inuit Action Plan. In light of these gaps in planning, project selection criteria and performance reporting take on a special significance.

Other factors mentioned during the key informant and case study interviews, and highlighted in the literature review, include the increased interest in the Arctic on a global scale, which may also result in increasing policy pressures affecting Arctic communities and Inuit advocacy. For example, growing international interest in Arctic regions has influenced Canada's Northern Strategy. "This growing interest underscores the importance of Canada to exert effective leadership both at home and abroad in order to promote a prosperous and stable region responsive to Canadian interests and values". [Note 32]

This interest also stems from concerns for environmental changes in the Arctic, including climate change and environmental pollution, which could also impact the relevance of the Secretariat. Climate change is a significant factor influencing Arctic policy and indirectly influencing the policy environment within which the Secretariat operates and the priorities of Secretariat's partner organizations. Capacity of Inuit organizations to function effectively may also play a role in the relevance and efficiency of the Secretariat. Without adequate support, Inuit organizations cannot contribute to Government of Canada consultations or participate in policy discussion. Inuit socio-demographic factors may influence performance, as well as challenge the Secretariat's strategic outcomes insomuch as changing population composition and characteristics, which can lead to changing needs and priorities.

5.3 Duplication and Overlaps

Within the federal government

Within the federal government, there is no other department or agency devoted to the overall coordination and advocacy of Inuit-specific priorities, policy or issues, and there is, thus, no significant duplication of the Secretariat's role within the federal system. There are, however, some agencies within the federal family that, although they have different mandates, play complementary roles.

Within the Department:

• Treaties and Aboriginal Government.
  
  
• Northern Affairs Organization.
  
  
• The Office of the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians  [Note 33] at AANDC is another example of an agency with complementary roles since it is involved in advocacy, relationship building, and increasing awareness. Unlike the Secretariat, the Office of the Federal Interlocutor carries out these roles in an effort to find practical ways to improve federal programs and services for a broader group of Aboriginal people, namely Métis, non‑Status Indians and urban Aboriginal people (including urban Inuit). [Note 34]

Outside of the Department:

• While involved in issues similar to those of the Secretariat (e.g., Inuit advocacy, expertise/information, liaison and policy development), the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch (Health Canada) [Note 35] is the focal point for responding specifically to Inuit health concerns and for assisting Health Canada in effectively addressing Inuit health issues.
  
  
• Several federal departments have regional offices in the North (Transport Canada manages the airports in the Inuit communities, Canada Post manages the post offices, Environment Canada manages the local meteorological stations, Statistics Canada gathers and analyses data related on Inuit, and so on).

The IRS reported to evaluators that it has restricted its work (if not its partnering efforts) in areas where there is a primary interest. This makes sense from a strategic perspective, but has not been made clear to the general public and contributes to some early confusion amongst the evaluators and key informants as to the scope of the Secretariat's activities and/or the rationale for not working in some areas. [Note 36].

Outside of the federal government

Outside of the federal government area, the Secretariat's role begins where ITK's finishes. They collaborate together on several files. The Secretariat acts as a point of contact inside the Government of Canada to promote Inuit issues in order to include them into the public policies and programs. The Secretariat is also a source of information, advice and expertise on Inuit matters inside AANDC, as well as inside the Government of Canada. The Secretariat works mainly with the federal government and its departments and agencies. IRS collaborates with other Inuit organizations, Inuit territorial and municipal governments, and the communities. On those occasions, the Secretariat represents the Government of Canada and also serves as a partner to leverage moneys and negotiate with other countries and international organizations.

ITK's role consists of regrouping the Inuit organizations and people and to speak on their behalf on different tribunes, with governments and the public at large. As a national advocacy organization, ITK promotes the interests of Inuit regarding environmental, social, cultural, and political issues and challenges faced by Inuit organizations, communities and people. Also, ITK takes position in the public debates in order to push their political, economic and health agenda. ITK works for the Inuit organizations and population. ITK represents the Inuit population and works with the Government of Canada on specific files. ITK proposed the creation of a point of contact inside the Government of Canada, which resulted in the creation of IRS.

5.4 Lessons Learned and Alternatives/Modifications Suggested

What lessons have been learned from the Secretariat or other horizontal initiatives of a similar nature, which could improve outcomes and efficiency?

The results of interviews with key stakeholders and case study participants, as well as a review of Secretariat documents, indicated a number of ways in which the appropriateness and efficiency of the Secretariat could be improved:

• The Secretariat should continue to pursue dialogue and partnerships with other key initiatives, programs and departments, such as Health Canada and the Office of the Federal Interlocutor (particularly with respect to the Urban Aboriginal Strategy).
  
  
• Some Inuit organizations would like to see major changes in the Secretariat. The most frequent suggestion concerned was the need to make the Secretariat an independent agency, not tied to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, or a separate entity reporting to the Minister. No additional evidence to support this view was found during the current evaluation. Two other options were identified: integration of the Secretariat with the Department's Policy and Strategic Direction Branch or integration of the Secretariat with the Northern Affairs Program; or limitation of the capacity of any entity to work effectively on files outside the North (see, for example, AANDC's findings respecting the challenges connected with the Northern Affairs management of urban Inuit issues South of 60). Both options would lessen the Secretariat's direct functional reporting relation with the senior most official in the Department. Concerns were also raised to the effect that integrating the Secretariat with any other department could result in Inuit issues and priorities being "buried" or lost.

Interview respondents and case study participants suggested other changes that could contribute to strengthen the work of the Secretariat and align with the evaluation's findings on relevance and performance reported earlier in this document, or which merit further consideration:

• Greater clarity is required in respect to the rationale for the activities it is undertaking and/or the criteria by which the IRS opts to pursue opportunities.
  
  
• Some respondents felt that the Secretariat needed a stronger presence in Inuit regions in the provinces and territories. For example, a Secretariat representative in the Northwest Territories, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Nunavut, could increase the number of partnerships at all levels and use a communications strategy aimed at making the Secretariat better known in remote areas.
  
   
• In terms of the Secretariat's activities, some respondents from Inuit organizations emphasized the need for the Secretariat to publish more information that deals expressly with the Inuit (statistics, information on Inuit culture, etc.). In addition, the question of implementing programs intended for Inuit by the Secretariat was raised as a possibility.
  
  
• Finally, the matter of urban Inuit was raised as a major issue, given the increasing migration from North to South. It was suggested that the Secretariat needs to strengthen its commitment, dialogue and partnerships with other programs, especially, the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. One respondent noted that the Secretariat's role and mandate were established before the creation of the current regional structure of the Office of the Federal Interlocutor, and an adjustment in Secretariat structure is needed to respond to the needs of urban Init and to create partnerships for that purpose.