Building a Partnership for Transformational Change

1.2.1. Purpose and Principles

By signing the Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership, the four Inuit LCOs, ITK, and the Government of Canada affirmed their shared goal to create socio-economic and cultural equity between Inuit and other Canadians. They also committed to renewing the Inuit-Crown relationship, taking action in shared priority areas, and monitoring progress.

As set out in its Terms of Reference, ICPC is intended to facilitate action through partnership and inter-agency collaboration. It is structured to facilitate a unified approach by Inuit and federal partners and an enhanced whole-of-government approach. To fulfill this mandate, ICPC has four objectives:

• Identify shared priority areas for action;
• Develop workplans between members that structure partnership and action on shared priorities;
• Create accountability by developing metrics for measuring success; and
• Report on ICPC progress to relevant constituents.

The work of ICPC is meant to complement work underway through other processes of Inuit-government relations at the federal and provincial/territorial levels.

Members agree to operate on the principles of collaboration, consensus, transparency, fairness, and inclusion, and to respect land claim agreements, Indigenous rights, and the human rights affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

1.2.2. Partners

The members of ICPC are elected Inuit and federal leaders, including the elected leaders of the four Inuit LCOs and ITK, the Prime Minister of Canada, and federal ministers selected in accordance with shared priority areas. The presidents of Pauktuutit, ICC-Canada, and NIYC are included as permanent participants.

This report refers to ICPC members and permanent participants and their organizations' staff collectively as "Inuit and federal partners."

1.2.3. Structure and Processes

As shown in Figure 1, ICPC's structure has three tiers, including a Leaders Committee, Senior Officials Committee, and working groups for each priority area. The responsibilities of each tier are as follows.

• Leaders Committee – Responsible for agreeing on shared priority areas for action, endorsing workplans, discussing progress and identifying any issues or course corrections needed, and identifying fiscal resources.
• Senior Officials Committee – Responsible for identifying and developing shared priority areas for action, identifying issues that require a whole-of-government approach, identifying fiscal resources, monitoring and guiding the technical level working groups, problem-solving, and preparing the Leaders Committee agendas.
• Working Groups – Created for each priority area and responsible for developing workplans, implementing the workplans, and reporting on progress through briefing notes and annual progress reports.

The Leaders Committee meets three times annually, including an annual meeting with the Prime Minister. The Senior Officials Committee meets three times annually at minimum, typically a month before each Leaders Committee meeting. Working groups meet throughout the year as needed, typically once a month.

1.2.4. Activities and Outputs

As shown in Figure 2, there were 13 priority areas and one paused priority area as of 2022. There were 247 Inuit and federal officials identified as working group members, including officials from 23 federal departments and agencies. Figure 3 provides an overview of Leaders Committee meetings and selected outputs from 2017 to 2022.^{Footnote 2}

1.2.5. Management and Administration

ITK and the Crown-Indigenous Relations Reconciliation Secretariat jointly coordinate ICPC processes, including managing meeting logistics, preparing meeting materials, and orienting new working group members, as well as coordination of media releases, website content, and social media content for two meetings each year.

ITK and the Prime Minister's Office coordinate meeting logistics and communication activities for one meeting each year, including joint media releases and press conferences.

1.2.6. Resources

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) has A-base (core, ongoing) funding for work to advance reconciliation through three "permanent bilateral mechanisms" with Inuit, First Nations, and Métis. In 2018, CIRNAC received $76.4 million over five years for this work. Of that total amount, $54.5 million was allocated to fund the participation of Inuit, First Nations, and Métis partners, including $13 million for Inuit partners' involvement in ICPC. ITK administered this funding to Inuit partners.

2.3.1. Approach

ICPC's Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Working Group oversaw the evaluation, which was conducted by a joint evaluation team. The evaluation team included four internal evaluators from ITK and CIRNAC and an external evaluator, who added a third-party perspective.

The team took a utilization-focused approach.^{Footnote 3} It designed the evaluation to foster ownership and use by intended users, that is, the leaders and senior officials involved in ICPC. To ensure usefulness, the team involved Inuit and federal officials in planning the evaluation, reviewing findings, and developing recommendations.

2.3.2. Methodology

The evaluation used multiple methods and data sources, outlined below, to ensure credible findings. Appendices C, D, and E provide overviews of the interview process, sample, and analysis, the interview guide, and the survey sample.

Distinction from Regional-Federal Bilateral Relationships

Several Inuit officials described the regional-federal bilateral relationship as their primary relationship with the federal government. A few explained that they work on region-specific issues and land claim implementation through the bilateral relationships and that ICPC provides a complementary forum for issues of concern to all Inuit. Recent academic research indicates that shared governance mechanisms, such as ICPC, are necessary alongside modern treaties to enable Inuit to fully exercise self-determination.^{Footnote 4}

Relations with Provincial/Territorial Governments

Many Inuit and federal officials interviewed said there was a need for more attention to provincial/territorial government relations where ICPC work overlaps jurisdictions, such as in infrastructure, housing, and education. A few Inuit officials expressed concerns about tensions with provincial/territorial partners arising from the allocation of federal funding directly to Inuit LCOs and the possibility of reduced provincial/territorial investment. A few Inuit and federal officials talked about the need for coordination with provincial/territorial partners in implementation in some areas.

We do see the need for ICPC to recognize [provincial/territorial] considerations. At some point these things have to come together,…If you're needed as part of the solution, you need to be part of the conversation.

Inuit officials from three regions thought provincial/territorial government partners were motivated to collaborate with them more owing to the example set by ICPC and the leverage created by the Inuit-specific funding. Most interviewees who commented on this issue did not favour including provincial/territorial government partners in ICPC, but wanted to see independent, ICPC-like mechanisms at that level.

3.3.1. Progress Toward Advancing the Relationship

 (5 stars – High level of progress in relation to the evaluation topic)

All lines of evidence from the evaluation indicate that ICPC made great strides in advancing the relationship between Inuit and the federal government. All interviewees and the vast majority (91%) of survey respondents agreed that ICPC had advanced the relationship between Inuit and the federal government. In their written responses, many survey respondents identified relationship-building and improved collaboration as ICPC's key achievements. The evaluators observed highly respectful relations at Leaders Committee meetings.

The impact of ICPC has been enormous—focused conversations, forward thinking conversations, and reformulated relationships. It shows what a good relationship Inuit can have with Canada.

ICPC has provided a formal, Inuit Nunangat-wide process for relationship-building, mutual understanding, and collaborative action. Several Inuit leaders and officials said that before ICPC their meetings with federal partners were infrequent, one-off, and took place only when individual ministers had a personal interest or when Inuit lobbied individual ministers' offices.

The mere presence of a bilateral forum between Inuit and the Crown is a massive achievement. It has transformed the relationship between Inuit, Inuit Nunangat, and the Crown.

Most Inuit and federal officials said ICPC strengthened interpersonal relationships at leadership and technical levels. Several federal officials pointed to strong interpersonal relationships between leaders and senior officials as both a driver and a result of ICPC.

ICPC increased opportunities for Inuit to influence federal policy, according to several Inuit and federal officials. A few officials said it allowed for open dialogue on issues outside of individual departmental mandates, some adding that this was necessary for transformative change. A few federal officials said ICPC has led to a historic shift in the way the federal government makes decisions that impact Inuit.

We used to be critiqued for going forward unilaterally with something that was already approved by Ministers. Now, we co-develop with Inuit partners and then go to Ministers.

Several Inuit and federal officials interviewed said ICPC increased federal partners' understanding of Inuit and Inuit Nunangat. Several Inuit officials observed an increased willingness among federal partners to try new approaches to complex policy issues as a result.

3.3.2. Objective 1: Identify Shared Priority Areas for Action

 (4 stars – Fairly high level of progress in relation to the evaluation topic)

Most interviewees and the vast majority (91%) of survey respondents agreed that significant progress had been made. In the first year of ICPC, Leaders approved seven priority areas and have added seven more since (see Figure 2).

That's what [ICPC] is most effective at. It's the number one thing it accomplishes. Identification and clear articulation of shared priorities.

Many Inuit and federal officials interviewed celebrated the federal government's responsiveness to Inuit partners' priorities. While Inuit partners proposed most of the priority areas, on occasion federal partners also proposed priority areas, such as the new Sovereignty, Defense, and Security Priority Area. A few Inuit and federal officials wanted federal partners to participate more in identifying and articulating priorities, while still ensuring that Inuit partners guide the ICPC agenda.

Some challenges remain in relation to setting and managing priorities, a topic discussed more in Section 3.5. Many Inuit and federal officials said there were too many priorities and that partners needed to prioritize within them to ensure they can allocate sufficient resources and achieve transformative change. Many said partners should review the priority areas and ensure all partners fully support them.

We have limited time when issues come up to the leaders, so there's the danger of being thinly spread. Setting priorities and finding the right balance is challenging.

3.3.3. Objective 2: Develop Workplans that Structure Partnership and Action

 (3 stars – Moderate level of progress in relation to the evaluation topic)

Most interviewees said partners made good progress toward this objective. The majority (85%) of survey respondents agreed that their working group had developed a clear, appropriate workplan. Several Inuit and federal officials said the joint work planning process, although difficult at times, was beneficial because it strengthened relationships and coordination.

However, the quality of workplans varied across the priority areas, according to the evaluators' analysis and perspectives shared in some interviews. Some workplans appear to lack a clear, feasible strategy in relation to the mandate of the priority area. In addition, some did not identify who was responsible for deliverables, when deliverables were due, and the resources needed.

Sometimes it's hard to identify what actions could be undertaken to get to the core and show progress. We're getting better at this, but we still have a way to go.

There were also concerns that some outcomes and deliverables, although endorsed by leaders, were not fully committed to by all partners. Some workplan items were focused on issues specific to one or another Inuit region or were not fully supported by all Inuit partners. A few federal and Inuit officials were concerned about workplan items that were in litigation and therefore beyond the control of the working group. Some workplan items reflected actions Inuit partners wanted to see, but to which federal partners were not fully committed, as perceived by several Inuit officials. These weaknesses in the workplans risk undermining the partnership, as illustrated in the quotation below.

There is no use in creating untenable workplans. That creates a loss of faith among Inuit leaders and a dysfunctional table where federal partners can hide behind workplans that are less than clear. We need to shed the inefficient and empty ways we talk about certain issues and focus on what we believe we can accomplish.

3.3.4. Objective 3: Create Accountability by Developing Metrics

 (1 star – Low level of progress in relation to the evaluation topic)

The evaluators found that the ICPC structure includes strong lines of accountability from the technical level right up to the Leaders Committee. Several Inuit and federal officials said that regularly reporting to the Senior Officials Committee and the Leaders Committee created accountability and motivated them to prioritize ICPC commitments. In particular, the annual Leaders Committee meeting with the Prime Minister held ministers accountable for their departments' work with Inuit partners.

However, the evaluators found that few workplans identified metrics or indicators to measure outcomes. Many federal and Inuit officials said more work is needed to measure progress beyond tracking work completed. Few of the workplans were truly results-based—with short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes and indicators to measure progress. As ICPC work shifts from relationship-building and planning into implementation, tracking progress toward outcomes could help partners identify issues and any changes needed to improve progress.

3.3.5. Objective 4: Report on Progress to Relevant Constituents

 (2 stars – Fairly low level of progress in relation to the evaluation topic)

Partners achieved limited progress in reporting to relevant constituents. Some communication was done by ITK and from the Prime Minister's Office through their websites, media releases, press conferences, and annual reports, as well as from some Inuit LCOs through newsletters and local radio. A few Inuit officials and leaders said holding ICPC meetings in Inuit Nunangat helped to raise its profile among Inuit. However, the evaluation team found no joint, coordinated communications plan and few communications products.

Several Inuit and federal officials expressed doubts that ICPC is well understood by those not directly involved, including other staff and leaders from ICPC partner organizations, provincial/territorial governments, Inuit, and other Canadians generally. Most Inuit and federal officials interviewed said that more reporting to Inuit and other Canadians generally is needed. Several said more reporting is also needed to other staff of Inuit LCOs and permanent participant organizations and to staff and leaders across the federal and provincial/territorial governments.

Internally, we report to our constituencies in [our region] about our progress, but I don't think there's an understanding of what ICPC is. We can explain that it's a meeting with leaders, but I don't think there's a full appreciation of how great it is.

[In regard to reporting on progress,] it is an important, historic initiative that people should know about.

3.3.6. Progress in Advancing Action in the Priority Areas

 (2.5 stars – Fairly low to moderate level of progress in relation to the evaluation topic)

Most federal officials and many Inuit officials described progress as good overall, but that it varied across the priority areas. The majority (80%) of survey respondents agreed that their working group had made progress toward its workplan objectives, but most also identified barriers to progress.

All the items are not super easy and, if they were, they would be at tables outside of ICPC, so moving things just a little bit is important to celebrate.

The scope of this evaluation did not include assessing progress in each priority area individually. This section provides an overview of interviewees' and survey respondents' perceptions of progress.

Committed Inuit and Federal Leadership

Inuit and federal leaders' genuine commitment to working in partnership was essential to ICPC's effectiveness, according to many officials and leaders. Several respondents said they created a productive space for collaboration and helped set the tone for work at the technical level.

Many officials and leaders said the active involvement of Inuit and federal leaders provides direction, motivation, and accountability to officials. Several of those interviewed said the direct involvement of the Prime Minister focuses ministers' attention and is critical to mobilizing a whole-of-government approach when needed. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) emphasizes the need for direct engagement between Indigenous and federal leaders, particularly the Prime Minister, in renewing Indigenous-Crown relationships.^{Footnote 5}

From the beginning, [ICPC's strength] is the commitment. Knowing this is happening, giving focused attention to Inuit issues.

[In regard to ICPC's strengths], first and foremost, everyone of relevance is in the room. It is a matter of priority for the senior-most leaders and for the civil service.

In-Person Leaders Meetings

Many Inuit and federal officials and leaders said in-person Leaders Committee meetings strengthened leaders' interpersonal relationships and enabled them to have the frank discussions necessary for progress. A few said informal side discussions helped leaders develop new ideas.

In-person meetings in Inuit Nunangat have been an important source of learning for ministers and senior officials, deepening their understanding of Inuit communities, according to several Inuit and federal officials and leaders.

Formal Structure and Processes for Collaboration

The majority of Inuit and federal officials interviewed said ICPC's formal structure and processes were a principal factor in ICPC's effectiveness. Almost all said the design worked well overall. Many named specific components as strengths, as follows.

• The tiered structure, from the Leaders Committee to the Senior Officials Committee and working groups, links the work of leaders, senior officials, and technical staff within each partner organization and across organizations.
• The broad representation of Inuit partners and federal departments at each level is key to developing innovative responses to the complex policy issues at ICPC.

  You have the right players at the table to nail issues down. That's a great part of the sub-structures and working groups. To me, you get out of the jurisdictional issues of "that's not my department." We're all at the table, so how are we going to solve this issue? That's one of [ICPC's] strengths.

  There is value in having ITK as well as Inuit regions involved in a conversation with federal departments in a structured and well-functioning dialogue.

• Regular meetings of the Senior Officials and Leaders Committees facilitate accountability and critical reflection on progress.

  If we know something is coming up at SOC or Leaders, that definitely makes you…make sure you know the pieces. …It helps us hold ourselves accountable.

• Formally articulating joint priorities and workplans has been essential to ICPC's effectiveness. Many Inuit and federal officials expressed similar views to the Inuit partner quoted below.

  We set targets and milestones in our workplans. Leaders' meetings provide accountability. We didn't want ICPC to be a talk forum, so it's important to have ways to measure our progress. Did we get the work done and, if not, why not?

Strong Collaboration Among Inuit Partners

Collaboration among Inuit partners, particularly among the four Inuit LCOs, drives ICPC and is strengthened by ICPC. Several Inuit and federal officials said achieving common positions on federal policy issues increased Inuit partners' leverage in federal decision-making. Many Inuit officials said Inuit caucuses before each ICPC meeting were key.

That collective will and presence [of Inuit LCOs] that has made it easier for the federal government to come in and be responsive. It has benefited both sides.

Joint, Central Coordination by ITK and Reconciliation Secretariat

Many Inuit and federal officials pointed to the central coordination work of ITK and CIRNAC as key to ICPC's effectiveness.

According to many Inuit regional officials, centralizing Inuit partners' engagement around ITK has worked well. A few Inuit regional officials said they appreciated ITK's technical leadership in areas of federal policy where they did not have the capacity. Many officials expressed appreciation for the approach of ITK's senior staff, which they said respected Inuit partners' decision-making. Several Inuit and federal officials and leaders spoke positively of ITK's senior staff and leadership in guiding ICPC processes.

I think it is very beneficial when we look at ITK managing the process and regions contributing – we don't have the capacity and the technical knowledge on all the files to do it on our own from the regions. Centralizing it around ITK has been super helpful.

Several federal officials said the Reconciliation Secretariat provided strong administrative support. Several Inuit and federal officials commended both ITK and CIRNAC staff responsible for coordinating ICPC meetings.

They are very attentive to making sure the meetings are happening and producing products that capture the discussion and the items. Sometimes people don't focus on the administrative support needed for something like this and it is really strong here. It's critical for the partnership.

Hard-working Technical and Administrative Staff

It was clear to the evaluation team that there are many hard-working technical and administrative staff involved in ICPC, without whom there would be little progress. Among Inuit partners in particular, the evaluators observed staff working under highly challenging conditions, impacted by limited staff capacity and turnover. Several Inuit officials identified the personal commitment of federal officials as a success factor in numerous areas of ICPC work, essential for getting to transformative change.

Staff Capacity

Most Inuit officials and many federal officials said staff capacity limitations, particularly among Inuit partners, negatively affected ICPC progress. Although the federal partners have many staffing advantages, they too face challenges getting ICPC work completed, according to several federal officials and an Inuit official. The majority (68%) of survey respondents agreed that their organizations experienced capacity challenges in their ICPC work. Many other challenges identified in the evaluation ultimately come back to staff being stretched too thinly.

Only a small, core group at ITK and across the other Inuit partners are closely involved in ICPC work, as observed by the evaluators, and confirmed in interviews with Inuit officials. ITK does a large portion of ICPC facilitation and technical policy work, but has no positions fully dedicated to ICPC. Several ITK and regional officials said there was a need for dedicated senior and administrative positions at ITK to manage ICPC processes and provide guidance to other staff involved. Turnover in core positions also hindered progress and resulted in a heavy workload for those filling in.

Almost all Inuit officials and several federal officials said limitations in LCO staff capacity allocated to ICPC affected the progress of some working groups. At times, some groups have been unable to reach quorum with fewer than three of the four Inuit LCOs represented as required. Several officials said the participation of Pauktuutit, ICC-Canada, and NIYC was also limited by resource capacity.

The work of ICPC is only as good as the regions have the capacity to be involved in the work.

Several Inuit and federal partners emphasized the need for increased, long-term funding for Inuit partners' staffing and other operational costs of ICPC involvement. A few Inuit LCOs lapsed funding for a variety of reasons during the first four years.

Many Inuit and federal officials said lack of funding was only part of the challenge. Several said recruiting and retaining senior staff with policy expertise was difficult. Some interviewees said creative approaches to resolve ICPC staffing issues were needed, such as providing customized training and mentorship. Officials from one region created a full-time executive position dedicated to coordinating ICPC work and spread the technical work across multiple policy positions.

Management and Administrative Systems

In interviews and survey responses, Inuit and federal officials and leaders identified a range of pressing management and administrative challenges that need attention.

Convening and Coordinating Federal Partners

Many Inuit and federal leaders and officials wanted to see the convening and coordination across federal departments improved.

Several representatives of Inuit and federal partners thought that increased involvement of the three federal central agencies—Treasury Board, Finance, and the Privy Council Office—would enable the federal government to be more effective in ICPC priority areas. A few said the involvement of central agencies was needed to resolve funding issues. Others said it was needed to better facilitate whole-of-government responses, such as in the implementation of the Inuit Nunangat Policy, and to motivate other departments to fully engage in ICPC work.

CIRNAC is still being seen as the relationship people. As a result, we just deal with that department and struggle to broaden the whole-of-government approach.

Several Inuit officials wanted to see CIRNAC play a stronger role in engaging other departments, perceiving that the bulk of engagement is done by ITK staff and Inuit leaders. Several federal officials interviewed also suggested that CIRNAC adopt a more facilitative role, as illustrated below.

I do also wonder about the role of the Secretariat at CIRNAC. I do wonder if they could be playing more of a substantive policy coherence role. I get the sense they are very focused and careful to stick to … be[ing] an administrative type of secretariat.

Several Inuit officials questioned whether CIRNAC has the authority, either perceived or real, to lead whole-of-government initiatives effectively. CIRNAC has been mandated to coordinate other departments' involvement in ICPC, but other departments have not been mandated to participate.

Challenges of whole-of-government work are well documented and some guidance is found in literature about what is required to be effective, including clear objectives, political commitment at the highest levels, viable joined-up government structures, and strong cultures of collaboration.^{Footnote 6} A recent evaluation of the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation found that monitoring mechanisms and a more formal approach were needed to achieve horizontal coordination.^{Footnote 7} The evidence suggests that ICPC is not immune to these challenges and that more attention is required to fully achieve the whole-of-government approach partners envisioned.

Extent of Integration of GBA+

The evaluators found little explicit integration of gender considerations or the application of GBA+ in ICPC work. Several Inuit officials said they always considered gender and other factors when planning initiatives for their regions, but not in a formal way. Most Inuit and federal officials interviewed said they had not seen GBA+ used in ICPC work and only slightly more than a third (35%) of the survey respondents thought ICPC had integrated gender considerations, such as by applying GBA+.

Challenges

Survey responses and interviews suggest that limited awareness of GBA+ and its potential benefits was a barrier to integrating it. Several Inuit officials said Inuit-specific tools and training were needed to apply GBA+ appropriately in Inuit contexts.

Divergent views about roles and responsibilities for GBA+ within ICPC were also a barrier. A few federal and Inuit officials and a federal leader credited Pauktuutit's involvement with helping to ensure appropriate representation and responses to diverse Inuit groups. A few Inuit officials called for granting Pauktuutit full membership in ICPC to strengthen that perceived role. However, several Inuit officials said all partners needed to take responsibility for GBA+. This latter view—that responsibility should apply to all organizations involved in public policy and programming—is regarded internationally as effective practice.^{Footnote 9}

While a detailed analysis of the situation was beyond the scope of this evaluation, the evidence suggests that considerable work is needed to integrate GBA+ into ICPC work in ways that are appropriate for Inuit contexts.

The federal government's Making Gender-based Analysis Plus Sustainable provides "lessons learned" that may be helpful. It identifies six essential components an organization needs in order to integrate GBA+ sustainably:

• A policy statement;
• A needs assessment;
• A responsibility centre;
• Training and tools;
• "Pilot" initiatives; and
• Monitoring.

It also advises that responsibility for GBA+ should extend across each organization and to all individuals—from leaders and senior managers, who are needed to ensure accountability, to policy and program staff, who are in the best positions to apply GBA+ in their work.

Government Commitment

The federal government's political commitment to reconciliation and its allocation of A-base (core, ongoing) funding for ICPC operations protects ICPC over the short term. Its need for a mechanism to engage with Inuit on the implementation of the Inuit Nunangat Policy and the UNDRIP Act bodes well for ICPC's sustainability. However, many Inuit and federal leaders and officials interviewed were concerned about ICPC's potential vulnerability to a change in government leadership or mandate, a concern also reflected in survey responses. Academic research underscores the vulnerability of Indigenous-government partnerships to changes in political leadership.^{Footnote 10}

Several Inuit and federal officials see a need to entrench the federal commitment to ICPC. Some academic researchers recommend formalizing ICPC to reduce its vulnerability to political shifts.^{Footnote 11} A few Inuit and federal officials provided suggestions for making ICPC permanent, including entrenching it in legislation, establishing a treaty or other constructive arrangement based on the Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership, supporting it with a cabinet directive linked to the implementation of the UNDRIP Act, and creating a permanent, joint coordinating body.

A few federal officials said changing the culture of federal departments to take a distinctions-based approach is essential for the sustainability of ICPC. One senior federal official recommended administrative options to better integrate ICPC and the Inuit Nunangat Policy into federal processes, as illustrated below.

… What type of administrative agreement could we put in place at the DM or ADM level? … I think it would be a good idea for CIRNAC and the Privy Council Office to think about whether something more needs to be done to keep [ICPC] on a steady path.

Demonstrating Results

Several Inuit and federal officials said that the best way to sustain ICPC, short of legislation or new administrative arrangements, is to demonstrate results and communicate its effectiveness. If ICPC is not achieving tangible results, Inuit and federal partners may be less motivated to allocate time and resources.

Sustainability is going to be based on—does it deliver results? Is there willingness and buy-in from the federal system? Is it more effective than strictly bilateral mechanisms and larger multi-lateral mechanisms? …As long as those three things remain, it's sustainable.

Other Threats to ICPC's Sustainability

ICPC is at risk of becoming a victim of its own success, with the number of priorities outpacing partners' staff capacity and the development of management and administrative systems, as discussed in Section 3.5. Several Inuit and federal partners identified staff capacity as the most significant immediate threat to ICPC's effectiveness.

A few Inuit and federal officials said a government-wide reduction in spending could negatively affect spending on ICPC priority areas, which in turn could reduce partners' willingness to invest their time and energy. Partners' adaptive responses to changing social and political conditions during the first five years of ICPC, such as during the pandemic, were key to its effectiveness; continued adaptiveness will be needed as political and economic conditions shift.

Sample

The sample was purposeful, with a focus on individuals with rich knowledge of ICPC processes and Inuit-Crown relations, and was stratified to represent the ICPC community, including all Inuit partners and a diverse range of the 23 federal departments involved.

The sample included 70 people:

• Inuit leaders (8)
• Federal leaders (5)
• Inuit officials (25)
• Federal officials (25)
• Other Inuit and federal knowledge holders (7)

Of 70 potential interviewees selected, 66 participated in an interview.

Analysis

To analyze the interview results, the evaluation team organized respondents' answers by evaluation topic and summarized key themes by respondent group.

The evaluation team used triangulation to check the credibility of information gathered. This included considering whether a perspective was shared by participants from multiple respondent groups and whether it was consistent with evidence from the program documents, academic research, and evaluators' observations of ICPC meetings.

The evaluation team also used triangulation by having the ITK and CIRNAC co-leads and the external evaluation consultant review the original notes from all interviews, review the summary reports, and compare their analyses.

Reporting

The evaluation report describes the prevalence of perspectives by using terms such as "majority," "several," and "a few," in keeping with the qualitative nature of the interview sample. These terms were used in the report as follows:

• Vast majority – More than 90%
• Most or the majority – 50-90%
• Many – 30-50%
• Several – 10-30%
• A few – Fewer than 10%

In a few instances, all respondents definitively expressed a common viewpoint, such as in regard to the relevance of ICPC to needs of Inuit and federal partner organizations. In those instances, the evaluation team used the term "all" to describe the prevalence of the perspective.

Introduction

[Introduce yourself as a member of the joint evaluation team.]

After five years of implementation, the ICPC leaders want to take stock of their work together, gather lessons from their experiences, and prepare for the next phase of the ICPC. They have agreed to undertake a joint Inuit-federal internal evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine what's working well and what could be improved in order to strengthen ICPC processes.

You have been identified for an interview because of your involvement with the ICPC and we thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. The interview will take less than an hour and you may end the interview at any time.

We are not recording the interview. The joint evaluation team will, however, take notes but will keep your comments and opinions to themselves and not share their notes outside the evaluation team. We will not identify you or any other individual as the source of views expressed in other parts of the evaluation, including our evaluation report.

We want everyone who takes the time to speak with us to speak freely and frankly. If there is a question you cannot answer or do not wish to answer, please let me know and I'll move on to the next question. May we proceed with the interview on this basis?

1. To begin with, tell me briefly about your involvement in the ICPC to date.

Relevance

2. What's your understanding of the need or needs the ICPC addressed when it was created five years ago?
3. Are those needs still relevant?
4. Have the needs changed in any way, and if so, how?

Coherence

5. Help me to better understand the broader context within which the ICPC operates. We know the ICPC was established to advance the relationship between the Inuit and the Crown and to advance action in priority areas. Are there other bilateral mechanisms you know of where Inuit and government interact as partners on issues of mutual concern? [Prompt if necessary: land claim negotiations, interactions with provincial/territorial bodies, devolution negotiations?]
6. Is the ICPC in harmony with these--are they coherent with the ICPC?
7. Does the ICPC add value to them and/or vise-versa?
8. Is there any overlap or duplication between the ICPC and these other processes?
9. In your mind, to what extent is the ICPC consistent with federal policies in relation to Indigenous people, Inuit policy positions and international resolutions, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)?

Effectiveness

10. In your view, to what extent has the ICPC made progress identifying shared priority areas for action?
11. And what about progress developing work plans on these shared priorities?
12. How about progress creating accountability by developing metrices for measuring success?
13. What about progress reporting on ICPC to external partners and the public, including Inuit and other Canadians--how is that going?
14. In your mind, how successful has the ICPC been in advancing the relationship between Inuit and the Crown, including the recognition and advancement of Inuit rights? What was the relationship like before the ICPC and how has it changed, if at all?
15. To what extent has the ICPC made progress advancing action in priority areas? Which priority areas from your perspective are most advanced? Which are least advanced? [Note that some interviewees may only be able to comment on the priority area in which they have been involved. If so, ask them for their views on how well action has advanced in that area.]
16. Why do you think action in some priority areas has been more successful than others?
17. Let's drill down a little more. I'd like to hear your views on the ICPC's strengths and weaknesses in relation to planning, operations, governance and reporting? Let's begin with the strengths, starting with planning and then moving to operations, governance and reporting. Can you point to any weaknesses or shortcomings in planning, operations, governance and reporting? What first comes to mind?
18. Are there other challenges or opportunities for growth you and/or your organization face, for example in relation to setting priorities, developing and implementing practical work plans, adhering to ICPC principles, communicating internally and externally, and dealing with organizational, cultural and jurisdictional complexities? What comes to mind? [Repeat the list of examples if necessary.]
19. What changes, if any, do you think are needed to strengthen ICPC processes?

Gender

20. What is your impression of the extent to which the ICPC has integrated gender considerations into planning, governance, and reporting? Has there been much attention paid to gender so far to your knowledge? Has gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) come up in any of your ICPC meetings?
21. What challenges or opportunities for growth, if any, do the Inuit and federal partners face integrating gender considerations?

Sustainability

22. I'm interested in hearing your views on the sustainability of the ICPC. In your mind, what factors contribute to or hinder the ICPC from producing ongoing benefits over the long term in relation to its mandate? In short, how sustainable is it, and why?
23. What measures, if any, are needed to ensure that the ICPC can produce enduring benefits over the long term?

Lessons

24. From your involvement, what have you learned about Inuit-Crown relationships and the ICPC process? What lessons come to mind? What insights do you have?
25. Looking back over the ICPC, what could have been done differently to make it more effective? What was missing? What more was needed; what less was needed, and why? [Prompt if needed, for lessons in relation to capacity/workloads, operational matters, governance, internal and external communication, culture, equity.]

Other

26. Before we close, is there anything else you'd like to share?

Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us. We will put your responses together with all the information we have gathered and produce a draft evaluation report in collaboration with the ICPC Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Working Group. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or email Anna Ziegler at ITK or Diane Billingsley at CIRNAC, co-leads of the evaluation team. [Provide contact information if needed.]

Affiliation

Just under half (46%) of respondents were affiliated with an Inuit partner (ITK, an Inuit Land Claims Organization, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, or the Inuit Circumpolar Council-Canada). Just over half (53%) were affiliated with a federal partner.

Identity

Two thirds (66%) of respondents identified as non-Indigenous, 20% as Inuk (Inuk or Inuvialuk), 10% as Other Indigenous, and 4% preferred not to say.

Gender

The majority (60%) of respondents identified as female, a third (33%) as male, one person self-identified as Two-Spirit, none as non-binary, and 6% preferred not to say.