Summary Of Discussions - Inuit Breakout Session

Introduction and Key Messages

Participants were reminded to include the lenses related to gender, persons with disabilities, and the geography where Inuit live (Arctic, northern, urban) in their analysis and comments.

Each participant introduced themselves and was invited to express a key message regarding Accountability for Results. These messages highlight a number of important points, and include:

• The Prime Minister’s initiative on transformative change; the creation of Inuit specific policies; and the issue of accountability are very important to the future of Inuit.
• Accountability is an expression of our values.
• Accountability has to be across the board-how government and industry will be accountable to Inuit.
• It is also essential to look at broader and less traditional accountability measures, work as partners and consider different accountability relationships (within organizations, between Inuit and governments and among Inuit).
• Communications is an important tool and should be used more to inform and educate Canadians about Inuit and their issues. As an example, Inuit are full tax payers and this fact is not known across Canada. This increased awareness about Inuit is needed as Inuit take control of (grow into) their own governments.
• The Government of Canada must live up to its promises. The federal government does not always meet its obligations and therefore must complete unfinished business. Governments have to take some risks and implement bold new initiatives.

Accountability in an Inuit Context

The participants were asked to describe the various accountability relationships that are relevant to Inuit. The responses are grouped into the following key points:

• The relationship with the federal government is an historic fiduciary relationship. Land Claims Agreements (LCA) have codified aspects of historical relationships, but some elements still exist outside of LCAs. Elements of this relationship relate to public institutions, (e.g. school boards, health boards, etc.) territorial (Nunavut) and regional governments, regional land claims organizations, national Inuit organization, and individual community members. Past experiences show the historical relationship between the federal government and Inuit was, in some cases, based on forced/coerced resettlements in the 1950s. At the time, the consequences were not known, but many communities have experienced multiple impacts. One of the questions is: what accountability structures are in place to reconcile the past?
• It is essential to have a report card on the underlying relationships between Inuit and the Government of Canada such as a partnership accord. The primary relationship between the Inuit and the Government relates to all departments, including Treasury Board, and not simply INAC.
• Inuit and women should be able to find themselves in Canada’s Performance Report but they are not currently included.
• There must be follow through on the completion of programs/initiatives and interventions. There are often national announcements, which are not implemented at the community level. The Government of Canada must integrate its programs and not address the Arctic with piecemeal solutions. Many programs have minimal accountability. The one-size-fits-all templates do not allow for accountability, and there is often no time frame for benchmarks to gauge success. Inuit are taxpayers and they deserve to know exactly how their money is spent; and transparency must go both ways.
• There is a call for governments to recognize that there are more and more demands for accountability and audits, etc. The burden often falls on the Inuit organizations to fix it and make up for community short falls. Accountability should be from the bottom up and not the top down, and we must look at the broader community (e.g. provincial/territorial; municipalities; community level).
• It is necessary to differentiate between financial and non-financial transparent accountability and communicate this where needed. It is also considered essential to have an oversight board (e.g. Treasury Board or Auditor General).

When discussing what accountability means in the Inuit context the responses provided can be grouped as follows for the purposes of this report:

• Inuit values (e.g. IQ-Inuit traditional knowledge) and not government policy are the basis for accountability. Accountability has to embrace Inuit culture and identities to ensure that implementation of various obligations are carried out in a way that provides clear understanding and gives hope. Accountability means people working together toward a common goal (e.g. in the communities, health, education, social, etc.). An example in which this is not being done is the federal government’s Northern Strategy. Presently, it excludes Nunavik (Northern Quebec) and Nunatsiavut (Labrador).
• The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami paper addresses issues of mutual transparency, appropriately aligned responsibility and capacity, and equitable, stable, and results-oriented accountability.
• There is a need for outcome and performance measurements. Inuit currently work with more than 12 departments and must deal with more than 12 financial relationships with separate conditions. There is often a lack of criteria relevant to Inuit, which results in the federal government not being equipped to deal with Inuit issues. Contribution Agreements are geared toward departmental requirements and not Inuit needs.

• Accountability is closely associated with the reporting period of contribution agreements and delays in funds arriving cause serious program consequences. There is no accountability when Inuit are lumped with other groups that operate in a completely different context.
• Accountability should be based on a sliding scale that is based on previous track record and centred on multi-year funding.
• For the Government of Canada, the term Aboriginal in most cases means, Indians on-reserve and therefore Government programs often do not apply to Inuit. There is an imbalance in funding between First Nations and Inuit. The Government must provide core funding that is comparable and adequate, multi-year, more streamlined and relevant with a less onerous process to apply for and report on funds.
• Implementation of Land Claim Agreements (LCA) is the next step for Inuit, whereas for government, it seems to be seen as an end. The implementation of LCAs is a clear measure of how Inuit organizations and the federal government are being accountable.
• There is a requirement to have a mechanism in government to advocate for the implementation of the land claim agreements. Therefore, there should be a tribunal/watchdog in place to settle disputes on implementation issues, which would review and report to the public on the results of how the GOC has carried out its obligations. Terms of reference and mandate would be jointly determined (criteria) by the Government and Inuit.
• In addition, Inuit have priorities internationally (persistent organic pollutants, global climate change, which are related to human and health issues as well as other issues).
• There is an imbalance among Inuit organizations. Pauktuutit, the Inuit Women’s organization, should be given equal status and recognition as NWAC (ensure organization has accountability, leadership and capacity development).
• The City of Ottawa (and other cities) has a critical mass of Inuit, but not the region. Need to develop an Inuit urban strategy. There is a need for funding related to urban area to be a different category of funds. This does not, and must not, take away from Inuit communities. There is a need to address urban Inuit issues through Aboriginal organizations (e.g. Friendship Centres).
• The priorities identified would fit into the following three actions required:
  
  1. Partnership Accord
  2. implementation of the Land Claim Agreements
  3. Inuit-specific programs for Inuit.

Knowing We Have Made Progress

The responses given in this section all relate to the key issues and recommendations from the preceding discussions. Basically, when all of the above have been implemented and results are showing, that is when we will know we are achieving our goals.

Basis of Good Reporting/Improving the Reporting Process

From the discussion of the elements of good reporting from an Inuit perspective the responses are grouped into the following points:

• A two way reporting system that reviews, re-assesses and adjusts progress annually.
• There are reporting requirements based on capacity, and reports are in language that everyone understands, contain contact and author information, and provide credible information that contributes to other related uses (i.e. has value for evaluating outcomes according to performance measurements).
• A two to three tiered reporting system is in place. For example, reports required for beneficiaries and those required for federal/provincial/territorial are different and have separate political and operational reporting requirements. These reports should contribute to the Aboriginal Report Card, and Canada’s Performance Report. Statistics Canada data must be up to date and relevant to Inuit.
• There must be accountability within and between departments. These departments must be informed and focused on carrying out their mandates. Departments are exploring alternatives to reporting, formatting, including oral traditions (e.g. tapes, videos, interviewing people). Reporting is connected to program development. Acronyms and definitions should be clear to both parties.
• The Government of Canada currently produces annual reports and international covenants that impact on Inuit. These need to go to key Inuit organizations (so they can respond).
• Create a national Inuit research institute to coordinate research that is effective and efficient, provides guidance, sets priorities, and finds gaps. It should include Inuit of all ages in any research design for statistical purposes and program design (e.g. women, urban, youth and people with disabilities).

Moving Forward on an Aboriginal Report Card

The participants were asked to discuss a number of issues in relation to the proposed Aboriginal Report Card including the purpose of the report card; how will it influence accountability; the process to develop the report card; and how the report card will be used.

The process for developing the report card was set out in a flow chart as follows:

Setting the goals and outcomes

Setting the indicators

Collecting data

Analysis of the data

• There are fundamental questions that need to be addressed, such as:
  
  • Whose report card is it?
  • Should it be an Aboriginal Report Card or a report card on how the Government of Canada addresses Aboriginal/Inuit issues?
• The report card should be Inuit specific, and therefore the name should change to reflect this.
• The Prime Minister has set the targets, measurable goals to improve the standard of living for Aboriginal peoples and Inuit. The report card should be a tangible, measurable tool to inform the PM on where Canada is at with regard to addressing Inuit issues.
• The report card represents a strong commitment to design a report in partnership with Inuit that will create an accountable, sincere consciousness in Canada and internationally about Inuit uniqueness.
• To provide a tool for change to track the social, economic well-being of Inuit and identify successes and gaps in programs, services, policies, etc. Identify where improvements are needed and how to make improvements.

A number of key areas were discussed during this part of the breakout group, including: how to develop goals and outcomes for the report card; how the indicator’s should be fleshed out; how data would be collected, analyzed and by whom. There was also a discussion on what the report card should look like in design and format. (For the details of these discussions, please refer to the flip chart reports.)

Final Key Messages

Participants expressed the following final key messages:

• The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami Inuit Specific Session on the Environment should be incorporated into the report of the sectoral follow-up sessions.
• Must move forward beyond the bureaucratic process (i.e. establish the Inuit Secretariat without delay).
• Prime Minister’s April 2004 comments about a renewed relationship form the basis for ITK’s communications strategy.
• The sectoral follow-up sessions have spoken-They must be used as guides by the Government to develop and implement the partnership with the Inuit.
• Inuit traditional knowledge and art must not be lost.
• Youth presence is high at the sectoral follow-up sessions, they are our future so we should involve and encourage them to be actively involved.
• The term Eskimo was always a familiar term, so one participant hopes that we did not lose anything by adopting the term Inuit.
• Inuit wish for Canadians to embrace the pride of Inuit culture.

Table of Contents

The documentation contained on this website does not necessarily represent the views of any government or National Aboriginal Organization. The purpose of this website is to share information related to the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable: background papers, Facilitator's sectoral and final reports, agendas and media announcements.

Top of page