Evaluation of the Impacts of Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements - Federal and Inuvialuit Perspectives

Relevance

Canada has established eight stand-alone comprehensive land claim agreements and 16 comprehensive land claims with related self-government agreements, which cover over 40 percent of Canada's land mass. These agreements have established an ongoing relationship regarding Aboriginal rights and title in Canada. The implementation of modern treaties remains aligned with federal government priorities, roles and responsibilities.

Where modern treaties have been concluded, they aid Canada in better managing the reconciliation of s.35 rights based upon negotiated rather than court dictated outcomes. In this way, modern treaties have made an important contribution to minimizing court disputes concerning rights and title and have produced valuable and positive results for government, Aboriginal communities and the broader Canadian society. Evaluation findings suggest however, that the current s.35 policy framework is not fully responsive to the evolving legal framework.

There is a continuing need for clear, unambiguous agreements and close monitoring of the implementation of these agreements in order to mitigate legal and contingent liability risks as well as ensuring ongoing positive working relationships with treaty partners.

Performance

Modern treaties provide a number of mechanisms through which they support economic development. The formalization of property rights helps individuals derive full benefits from the ownership of resources, which allows for the maximization of gains from trade and supports other transactions in the economy. In addition, modern treaties provide for direct capital transfers to beneficiary organizations, which have the potential to support investment activity, as well as social and educational initiatives with possible long-term economic benefits. These benefits represent significant progress towards the modern treaties immediate expected outcomes. Specifically, the agreements provide structures for clear and formalized land ownership leading to well understood rights regarding management and access. In addition, the formalization of property rights also provides certainty of ownership and contributes to a more stable economic environment.

The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was examined in detail as part of the federal component to assess results from at the intermediate outcome level. The analysis demonstrated how provisions in the Agreement have provided additional development benefits. It is very unlikely that the corporate structures would have been formed in the absence of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. These corporations, including the Inuvialuit Trust, have been active in the regional economy, providing both direct and indirect benefits to signatories of the Agreement. Not the least of these is direct dividend payments to beneficiary shareholders. Despite these gains, there does not seem to be strong evidence of a marked change in other aspects of social and economic development in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

These findings were consistent with an analysis of social and economic indicators based on the 2006 Census data, which suggests that Aboriginal signatory groups lag behind both the non-Aboriginal population and the Aboriginal identity population in education, income, and labour force characterises, all which are important to full participation in the Canadian economy and society. However, there remains a critical lack of ongoing monitoring and analysis regarding the impacts of modern treaties to fully understand the progress being made.

Agreements and side agreements provide the structures to support the intermediate outcomes. Structures for governance, programs and services, land and resources management are strongly in place, with structures for economic development in place but not included in all agreements. Though these structures are in place, there remains the perception that modern treaty obligations have not been fully implemented resulting in barriers to progress. Additional analysis, specifically related to how well the federal government is implementing the provisions contained in modern treaties, needs to be undertaken.

Ownership, Access to, and Managing Lands and Resources

One of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation's strengths is its institutional stability, which is well recognized by governments and industry. This underpins the stability of its participation in the co-management regime, along with its own land management. It is also a strong element in the positioning of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation as a credible and equal partner with governments and industry in relation to land management decision making. Obstacles in the way of progress toward effective land management and administration are outside of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation's control, and require the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to put resources into strategizing, negotiating and mitigating these obstacles. In some respects, this is simply part of its organizational mandate, but it nonetheless requires expenditure of resources better spent elsewhere.

Cultural Vitality

Issues with respect to promoting cultural vitality and the aligned goals of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement are ones that relate to a combination of power relations, resources, and ongoing colonization impacts. If the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation's efforts toward promoting and developing cultural vitality are to succeed, to a large extent, individual Inuvialuit must take responsibility for living their culture to the greatest extent possible. Canada, for its part, must recognize that this personal responsibility is most fully realized when there are supports and resources to draw on from the larger community. Establishing those resources is an area where the treaty partners each have a role. In particular, Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories must view the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation as a service delivery partner whose capabilities are directly impacted by the funding and accountability approaches taken by funders.

Institutions and Decision Making

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation is a well-established, stable, financially independent institution that meets all criteria for success and stability set out in academic research projects relating to Indigenous governance. This reality underpins its capacity and success with respect to its organizational scope. However, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation’s progress toward achieving its land claim goals is continually hindered by external policy choices of partners. This is with respect to both its institutional functionality and with respect to the social and living conditions of the Inuvialuit population, which creates issues both with demand for services and with respect to its future institutional development.

Economic Opportunity

A different approach needs to be taken to increase economic wellness in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Efforts to promote and provide economic opportunity are beyond land claim implementation on its own. Critical to a different approach is understanding that the characteristics of the "subsistence economy" in most small communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region should not be interpreted as failed capitalism. Subsistence economy characteristics - such as that reciprocity rather than profit is the animating logic of economic activity – need to be understood as features of the system rather than issues or problems to be solved or made to disappear. This understanding allows for economic approaches premised on features of the subsistence economy, rather than features of a non-existent market economy.

Social Development

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation’s institutional stability positions it to credibly and ably provide social policy programs to its beneficiaries on behalf of and in partnership with other external organizations. Notably, it has begun significant work on identifying and gathering statistical data as a basis for institutional program focus and delivery. What undermines Inuvialuit progress toward the social goals of the land claim lies mostly outside of the control of Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. In particular, colonial policy-induced social suffering poses a significant near-term and long-term threat to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region’s social development, the institutional development and stability of the Corporation, and the potential for future generations to continue the impressive success achieved to date.

Background

Comprehensive land claim agreements and self-government agreements (hereafter "modern treaties") are based on two federal government policies: The Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (1986); and the Government of Canada's Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government (1995) - most commonly referred to as the Inherent Right Policy.

The Comprehensive Land Claims Policy stipulates that land claims may be negotiated with Aboriginal groups in areas where claims to Aboriginal title have not been addressed by treaties or through other legal means. Comprehensive land claims are based on the assertion of continuing Aboriginal rights and title. Comprehensive land claim agreements provide certainty and finality respecting rights to ownership, use of lands and resources, including marine resources, which may contribute to increased economic development and self-sufficiency for Aboriginal groups. They provide a framework which encourages social and economic development, thereby benefiting Aboriginal people, government and third parties. Comprehensive land claim agreements also foster the development of institutions at both the community and collaborative signatory levels that facilitate the achievement of various planned outcomes arising from the agreements.

Under the Inherent Right Policy, the Government of Canada's recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have a right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources. Self-government agreements set out arrangements for Aboriginal groups to govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their communities.

The other significant feature of self-government agreements is the change in relationship between the parties. A new relationship is created wherein Aboriginal signatories constitute governments in their own right. As a result, the parties to the agreements form government-to-government-to government relationships that transform how they relate to and collaborate with one another. Self-government agreements include a provision that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to Aboriginal governments and institutions in regard to all matters within their respective jurisdictions and authorities. They provide beneficiaries under the agreement with the continued protection of the Charter.

In accordance with the British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, 1995, negotiations in British Columbia follow a unique negotiation process where negotiations are overseen by an independent facilitator, the British Columbia Treaty Commission. These negotiations are founded upon the 19 recommendations that were made by Canada, British Columbia, and the First Nations Summit as outlined in The Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force of 1991.

There are currently 24^{Footnote 2} completed modern treaties involving 94 communities, which cover over 40 percent of Canada's land mass.^{Footnote 3} See Appendix A for listing of agreements.

• Sixteen comprehensive land claims with related self-government agreements involving 30 communities, and
• Eight stand alone comprehensive land claim agreements involving 64 communities.

Description of Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements (CLCAs) and Claims Related Self-Government Agreements (SGAs)

This map of Canada shows the comprehensive land claims agreements and Claims related Self-Government agreements throughout Canada.

In British Columbia, the following First Nations which signed Self-Government Agreements are identified: Tsawassen Fist Nation, Maa-nuth First Nation and Nsga'a First Nation.

In the Yukon, the following First Nations which signed Self-Government Agreements are identified: Vuntut Gwich'in, T'rondek Hewch'in, Selkirck, Kluane First Nation, Carcross/Tagish, Kwanlin Dun, Ta'an kwach'an, Teslin Tlingit Council, Little/Salmon/Carmacks, and Nacho Nyak Dun Self-Government jurisidictions are identified on the map of Canada.

In the Northwest Territories, the following First Nations/Inuit settlement areas which have signed Self-Government agreements or final agreements are identified: Tlicho, Sahtu Dene and Metis, Gwich'in, and Inuvialuit.

In Nunavut, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is highlighted showing that all of Nunavut is under the land claim.

In Quebec, the following Self-Government Comprehensive Land Claims are labeled: Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement, James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Northeastern Quebec Agreement, Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

In Labrador, the Labrador Inuit land claims agreement is outlined to show the area of its jurisdiction.

Management

All parties are responsible for working together to implement the provisions of their modern treaties, for setting priorities, evaluating progress and making adjustments as necessary. The Implementation Branch of the Treaties and Aboriginal Government Sector of AANDC oversees and coordinates the cross-departmental federal role in the implementation of modern treaties.

Key Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

The primary stakeholders of modern treaties are the Aboriginal signatory groups, the federal government, and the relevant provincial/territorial government. All parties must work cooperatively towards the fulfillment of the obligations under the agreements in a transparent and accountable manner. The parties to an agreement have both party-specific and joint obligations to fulfill.

Although all Canadians, federal/provincial/territorial governments, and business/industry are expected to benefit from the settlement and implementation of modern treaties, the primary beneficiaries are expected to be the Aboriginal signatory groups.

Resources

Table 1 illustrates the 2012/13 AANDC expenditures on the implementation of modern treaties.

Recent Evaluation and Audit Activities

The Impact Evaluation of Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements was approved at the Audit and Evaluation Committee in February 2009. It found that the agreements have brought clarity and certainty to settlement lands, enabling Aboriginal groups to benefit from resource development and helping to create a positive environment for investment. The agreements have also had a positive impact on the role of Aboriginal people in their settlement area's economy and their relations with industry as well as ensuring that they have a meaningful and effective voice in land and resource management decision making. However, there has been a perception that the federal government has not sufficiently recognized the costs associated with the consultative approach and the land and resource management structures. There is also the perception among Aboriginal representatives interviewed for the evaluation that the federal government has been primarily interested in addressing the letter of the agreements and not the true spirit and intent, resulting in barriers to progress.

The Evaluation of the Federal Government's Implementation of Self-Government and Self-Government Agreements was approved at the Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Committee in February of 2011. It found that the Inherent Right Policy has provided a flexible framework from which self-government has been, and continues to be, negotiated and that positive impacts have been demonstrated within self-governing communities. However, a lack of shared vision exists between the federal government and Aboriginal communities regarding self-government and how it is to be operationalized within the framework of the Inherent Right Policy. National Aboriginal Organizations have been highly critical of the Inherent Right Policy and Aboriginal governments have expressed difficulty in establishing a government-to-government relationship with the Crown. This may be contributing to misunderstandings and miscommunications regarding the interpretation of the policy and contributing to the high level of frustration that exists among Aboriginal organizations and Aboriginal communities about what has been accomplished under the Inherent Right Policy. Moreover, a number of inefficiencies in both the negotiation and implementation processes have been identified, many of which are currently being addressed by AANDC.

An Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations was completed in September 2013 by the departmental Audit and Assurances Services. The audit found that the Department had taken significant steps in establishing foundational elements to manage and coordinate the federal responsibilities as outlined within the specific agreements. This included the establishment of the Implementation Management Framework, the establishment of the governance structures and the development of tools and guidance documents to help other government departments fulfill their own obligations. However, to strengthen the effectiveness of the governance structures and to support and manage the implementation of the federal obligations, the audit identified opportunities to improve key elements of the Implementation Management Framework, including designing formal responsibilities and business processes for proactive monitoring of the status of federal obligations, establishing foundational elements of the regional caucuses and developing formal orientation materials for new members of the oversight bodies representing the federal governance structure.

Document/Literature Review

Review of Memoranda to Cabinet documents, Treasury Board submissions, data collected through the performance measurement strategy, previous evaluations and audits (internal and Office of the Auditor General audits), internal documents related to performance of modern treaties (such as mandated agreement reviews, subject specific reviews, annual reports), AANDC policy and performance reports. Literature review, which focused on documents related to impacts of modern treaties.

Key Informant Interviews

A total of 38 key informant interviews were conducted with representatives from the following groups:

• AANDC Headquarters (n=18). Sectors – Treaties and Aboriginal Governments, Lands and Economic Development, Northern Affairs.
• AANDC Regional Offices (n=5). Regions – Atlantic, Quebec, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Yukon.
• Other Government Departments (n=8). Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
• Provincial and Territorial Governments (n=4). British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon.
• Northern Regulatory Bodies (n=3).

File Review

A file review was conducted to assess the extent to which each agreement was aligned with policy objectives and established structures to support the intended outcomes. Information for the file review was based on government approval documents, the final agreements and any associated side agreements (e.g. a fiscal financing agreement), implementation annual reports and any publically available information such as a public registry of laws for an Aboriginal signatory group. The file review was also informed by consultation with AANDC Implementation Branch representatives for each file. The review included the following 10 final agreements:

• Inuvialuit
• Nisga'a
• Tsawwassen
• Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in
• Gwich'in
• Nunavut
• Labrador Inuit
• James Bay and Northern Quebec
• Tlicho
• Sahtu Dene and Métis.

Legal Landscape

An analysis of the legal landscape was conducted to inform how the legal landscape related to modern treaties has evolved, the extent to which settling claims affects litigation related to Aboriginal rights, and the legal benefits to the Crown that result from settling claims.

Financial and Economic Analysis

A financial and economic analysis was conducted to assess the extent to which modern treaties have contributed to their intended outcomes from an economic perspective. This involved comparing the structures established through the agreements with existing economic development theory to establish the plausibility of achieving the intended outcomes. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was then selected to conduct an in-depth analysis on observed economic trends. Publically available data (such as Census data and data from the Inuvialuit indicators project) and financial data provided by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation were analyzed to determine how the agreement has effected Inuvialuit participation in the economy. The analysis included a group interview with representatives from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.

Statistical Analysis

An analysis was conducted to assess the contribution that individual agreements are making to the achievement of the intended long-term outcome by analysing selected economic, social and cultural indicators. The analysis draws on special tabulations drawn from the 2006 Census data and focuses on the Aboriginal identity population living in 113 Census subdivisions affiliated with one or more modern treaties.^{Footnote 6} This data was compared to the Aboriginal identity population and the non-Aboriginal population.

The Aboriginal identity population was chosen as the key group of interest over the registered population for a number of reasons. First, although everyone who is registered is considered to identify as Aboriginal, not all persons who identify are registered. Inuit, for example, are not registered. Second, choosing the identity population as the secondary comparison is also more reasonable because they are represented in more regions than the registered population.

Contingent Liability Analysis

The contingent liability analysis involved a review of amounts reported as contingent liabilities for the fiscal periods from 2003-04 to 2012-13 to assess the impacts of settling, or conversely not settling, claims on the contingent liabilities of the Crown. For this analysis, two interviews were conducted with AANDC representatives involved in the reporting of contingent liabilities related to modern treaties.

Gender Analysis

In line with the AANDC Gender-based Analysis Policy, an assessment of gender impacts related to modern treaties was conducted. The analysis included a review of relevant literature on issues related to gender participation in negotiations and decision making, protection of equality rights, matrimonial real property, and participation in traditional cultural and economic activities.

It also included five key informant interviews with representatives from AANDC and two interviews with the Assembly of First Nations. In addition, the analysis involved a detailed analysis of the following four agreements:

• Inuvialuit Final Agreement
• James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement
• Nisga'a Final Agreement
• Teslin Tlingit Council

Considerations

• There is no requirement under modern treaties for an Aboriginal signatory group to participate in performance measurement and evaluation processes. Therefore, there is currently a reliance on periodic evaluations, in which Aboriginal signatory groups agree to participate, to support performance measurement and evaluation in the context of modern treaties.
• AANDC engaged the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation to participate in the evaluation process. AANDC's vision is to conduct performance measurement and evaluation work with Aboriginal signatory groups with the expectation that this level of heightened engagement will allow parties to articulate their interests and target performance measures and evaluation work to meet their own specific needs and the needs of all parties.

Limitations

• Limited ongoing performance data related to all aspects of the logic model were available. This included data from the Treaty Obligation Monitoring System, which was not available at the time of the evaluation, and limited baseline data for use in comparing with current measures of progress.
• Statistical analysis was limited to an analysis of the 2006 Census and Household survey. The Community Well-Being index was not used as part of this study as this index, as it is currently designed, does not lend itself to being applied to modern treaties since it captures a high percentage of non-Aboriginal persons.^{Footnote 7}
• Census data for Aboriginal communities is more affected by Statistics Canada confidential guidelines than for other communities because Aboriginal communities tend to be small and the working population is lower. Therefore, Census rounding procedures and confidentiality rules can affect data quality.
• Statistical analysis was based on data pertaining to beneficiaries who live in the treaty settlement area and did not include beneficiaries who resided away from the treaty settlement area.
• One Aboriginal signatory group participated in the evaluation process though the methodology anticipated having three signatory groups participating.

Governance

A critical point coming out of discussions of economic development is that governance can play an important role in facilitating and sustaining economic growth. In their discussion of Aboriginal policy in the United States, Cornell and Kalt point to the importance of the stable governance environment in order to facilitate economic activity. As they suggest, investors from both within and outside of the community have an interest in seeing a stable political environment where government and economic activities remain separate,^{Footnote 25} as well as an environment that sees political rent seeking - or redistributing economic benefits without engaging in productive activities - kept to a minimum.^{Footnote 26}

Other authors have also noted that the legal framework for financial management at the community level is important. Raybould notes that this may help avoid financial mismanagement and the loss of assets. This, he notes, is a particularly undesirable result given the efforts needed to unlock the value of Aboriginal assets such as land through mechanisms like modern treaties.^{Footnote 27}

Raybould also states that politicians, both federal and First Nation, need to show strong leadership and imaginative resolve. It is the Government's responsibility to work with First Nation leaders with a clear vision of what is being attempted. This is fundamental for the achievement of economic success.^{Footnote 28} Such a coherent vision can help the economic development process. This argument is consistent with many of the others authors regarding certainty and its impacts on investment and development. For example, when a community or region establishes where to invest capital and how to support economic development activities through education, infrastructure etc., it provides a signal about the development direction of the community or region. Knowing this direction is important to investors who may be planning for long-term business ventures in these areas. It also ensures that development activities are not working at cross purposes.

There is by no means consensus on the nature of good governance at the community level. However, through their research into the nation-building approach to economic development in the United States, Cornell and Kalt identify a number of important characteristics. These include the following:

• "Governing institutions have to be stable. That is, the rules don't change frequently or easily, and when they do change, they change according to prescribed and reliable procedures.
• Governing institutions have to separate politics from day-to-day business and program management, keeping strategic decisions in the hands of elected leadership but putting day-to-day management decisions in the hands of managers.
• Governing institutions have to take the politics out of court decisions or other methods of dispute resolution, sending a clear message to tribal citizens and outsiders that their investments and their claims will be dealt with fairly.
• Governing institutions have to provide a bureaucracy that can get things done reliably and effectively."^{Footnote 29}

At the same time, they point to the need for good governance activities on the part of non-Aboriginal governments as well. Their cooperative nation building approach emphasizes the following role for external governments:

• "A programmatic focus on institutional capacity-building, assisting Native nations with the development of governmental infrastructure that is organized for self-rule, respects indigenous political culture, and is capable of governing well.
• A shift from program funding to block grants, thereby putting decisions about priorities in Indian hands.
• The development of program evaluation criteria that reflect the needs and concerns not only of funders but of Native nations as well.
• A shift from consultation to partnerships in which Native nations and outside governments make joint decisions where the interests of both are involved.
• Recognition that self-governing nations will make mistakes, but what does sovereignty mean if not the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them?"^{Footnote 30}

With that said, it is difficult to identify precisely a relationship between governance and the possible economic development benefits of modern treaties in a general sense. As the discussion above suggests, it is not presence or absence of governance itself that seems to result in effective economic development. Rather, there are specific governance features, present in some communities and not in others, that facilitate success. Modern treaties include provisions meant to support specific elements of good governance. However, given the flexibility in their implementation, it is difficult to argue with certainty that these provisions will necessarily result in specific economic development outcomes. The causality linking governance and economic development is diffuse and complicated.

Economic Development

The economic rationale for modern treaties rests on a considerable amount of development literature. Many authors have suggested how changes to regional economies can result from these agreements based on the provisions outlined therein. For example, certain authors have argued that modern treaties provide a means of formalizing property rights and, by extension, affect the economy. However, prior to discussing the effects of modern treaties on the economy, it is important to note that a diversity of opinions regarding the appropriateness of Aboriginal economic development approaches exists. Two major views pit neoliberal policy approaches against more traditional and collectivist approaches to development.

As Taylor and Friedel note, neoliberal policy places a development focus clearly on the individual. Under this perspective, exclusion from the formal economy is tied closely to a lack of human capital. Individuals fail to participate in the economy because of a lack of necessary skills or available opportunities, and little focus is placed on the historical context in which this exclusion developed.^{Footnote 31} Under the approach, the integration of individuals into the paid economy remains the principal focus.

Taylor and Friedel note that this approach may have inherent difficulties in an Aboriginal context. In particular, the individualistic nature of the neoliberal development approach may run contrary to established cultural beliefs. For example, communal ownership does not feature prominently in the neoliberal perspective. As the authors note, this makes it difficult to maintain the legitimacy of this cultural perspective while pursuing development goals.^{Footnote 32}

Taylor and Friedel go on to note that this conflict has important implications for development policy. Although potentially successful in achieving the goal of economic integration, certain policies may serve to undermine social and cultural structures in Aboriginal communities where beliefs do not align with the characteristics of a neoliberal development approach.^{Footnote 33} With this in mind, other authors such as Raybould suggest that establishing a vision for how development should proceed forms an important part of the community's overall approach — and requires considerable thought and discussion.^{Footnote 34}

Property Rights Mechanisms

Many cite the formalization of property rights as the main mechanism through which modern treaties are expected to affect the economy. Prior to discussing these impacts, however, it is important to understand what one means by property rights in an economic context. Prasad^{Footnote 35} draws on two definitions of property rights in order to highlight important features of the concept. In one case, the author presents a concrete definition based on the work of Furuboton and Pejovich suggesting that property rights involve sanctioned behavioural relations regarding the use of a good.^{Footnote 36} Effectively, rights allow individuals to use a good in the way that they see fit. In the second case, drawing on the inherent utility associated with goods, Prasad discusses the definition posited by Bromley^{Footnote 37} where property rights are defined as a claim to a protected stream of benefits.^{Footnote 38}

As early as the 1960s, Coase discussed how the assignment of property rights can affect economic efficiency.^{Footnote 39} From the work of Prasad, it is possible to see how well-defined property rights can result in an efficient allocation of resources in a competitive economy.^{Footnote 40} In fact, neoclassical economic theory often assumes rather than empirically verifies that such well-defined property rights exist, positing four key characteristics from the work of Tietenberg^{Footnote 41}:

• Universality – This suggests that all resources are privately owned and ownership is completely specified.
• Exclusivity – This means that all benefits accrue to the individual owning the resource and only this individual.
• Transferability – This characteristic states that ownership may be transferred voluntarily from one individual to another.
• Enforceability – This characteristic suggests that property may not be involuntarily seized or encroached on by others.

In many instances, these ideal characteristics do not reflect economic reality. Besley and Ghatak,^{Footnote 42} for example, identify a number of situations where one or more of the characteristics above fail to hold. They note that in the case of communal property, individuals have use rights but may not exclude others from use. In other circumstances, such as with the prohibition of slavery, they suggest that the establishment and transfer of property rights may be completely circumscribed. More commonly, only certain uses of property are regularly prohibited — for example, the use of land for illegal endeavours.^{Footnote 43}

As the authors note, the failure of these four characteristics to hold in all circumstances points to the importance of understanding the specific features of property rights in a given setting. The differences may drive variation in ownership structures, wealth distribution, and consumption. More importantly, perhaps, they may also affect production and the evolution of the economy over time.^{Footnote 44}

In their work, Besley and Ghatak attempt to itemize separate mechanisms through which variations in property rights may affect economic activity. They identify four such mechanisms as critically important:

• Deriving full benefits from ownership – In this case, insecure property rights may result in the loss of benefits that individuals normally derive from ownership. For example, an individual may lose some or all of their ownership benefits if the property is expropriated.
• Incurring costs of property protection – Simply put, insecure property rights results in the need for protection of ownership claims. These costs directly reduce the potential benefits that may be derived from ownership.
• Deriving gains from trade – In this instance, the inability to transfer property rights means that certain resources may not be put to their most productive use. This results in inefficiencies in the economy as resources are used in inefficient ways.
• Using property to support other transactions – In this final case, secure property rights allow individuals to use resources as collateral during other market transactions. A clear example involves mortgaging property in order to support investment activity.^{Footnote 45}

All of these mechanisms appear to be very important in the context of modern treaties. To begin, deriving full benefits from ownership is important from two different perspectives. From the Aboriginal perspective, expropriation is a — if not the — principal concern motivating modern treaties. Modern treaties represent a formal reaffirmation of ownership rights that signatory groups have consistently identified as their own. This formal reaffirmation therefore limits the ability of government, private organizations, and individuals to expropriate this land and allows beneficiaries to derive full benefits from its use.

From the perspective of non-Aboriginal investors and businesses, direct expropriation of property may not be of principal concern. However, the potential cost of ownership disputes certainly is. Unlike expropriation, which eliminates the benefits one may derive from ownership entirely, disputes and their resolution simply erode economic gains. This is because they represent an additional cost during production. The point is highlighted by Woodruff, where he discusses how formal ownership structures may lower the costs of economic activities. He states that formal ownership eliminates the need to negotiate access to land and other resources on a variable and case-by-case basis.^{Footnote 46}

However, even in contexts where formal property rights exist, disputes may arise about the particulars of ownership. This may involve, for example, extent of land use implied by these rights. Resolving these disputes when they do occur can be costly and as a result impact negatively on economic development. The resolution process outlined in modern treaties provides a formal means of resolving these disputes, thereby reducing these resolution costs.

Modern treaties also have a link to the costs of property protection. Again, from the perspective of Aboriginal groups, who historically did not transfer land ownership or use rights, the use of traditional lands by non-Aboriginal groups without consultation or compensation represents expropriation. Attempts by Aboriginal groups to participate in decision making and derive benefits in these situations represent the direct protection of traditionally-acknowledged property rights. However, these attempts come at a direct cost to participating groups. By formalizing ownership rights, modern treaties eliminate the ongoing need for these protective activities.

The stability afforded by these formal ownership structures is also important in many of the regions covered by modern treaties. Often, economic activity is dominated by primary resource extraction and related activities. Many of these endeavours involve long-term planning and significant investments. The decision to invest in such activities rests in part on having a clear sense of the benefits that one may derive, and the risk of unforeseen losses. The stability of ownership and use rights afforded by modern treaties can allow firms to make accurate projections of their potential returns on investment.

When it comes to deriving benefit from trade, it may appear that the provisions of many modern treaties limit this potential by circumscribing the sale of Aboriginal land. This would seem to imply that the potential benefits gained from trade in these lands would be lost. However, from the discussion above, it is possible to see that the transfer of property rights need not include only sale. The transfer of use rights may involve the establishment of leases or rental agreements in order to allow non-Aboriginal groups to use property identified in the agreements. This, in turn, would allow for the efficient use of resources even when these uses are not undertaken by signatory organizations themselves. Without a clear ownership structure, this type of transfer would be impossible.

The effects of formal ownership on the ability to use property to support other transactions have been well documented in economic literature. For example, in his discussion of The Mystery of Capital, Woodruff outlines one of de Soto's main arguments regarding the relationship between formal property ownership and economic development. He suggests that in situations where property ownership remains informal, individuals cannot leverage property for investment purposes. Effectively, he argues that the value of property cannot be used by much of the population to start a business or other enterprise, thereby limiting economic development.^{Footnote 47}

Although de Soto's argument holds intuitive appeal, its applicability in the case of modern treaties may be limited. This is particularly true given that the agreements provide for collective title as opposed to individual ownership. While formalizing collective title may allow for access to capital among corporations, it would not necessarily provide for individual leveraging and investment.

Informal Verses Formal Rights

Modern treaties outline formal ownership and use rights on the part of signatory organizations, including the Government of Canada. These rights fit within the broader Canadian legal system. With that said, it is important to understand that property rights can exist outside of the formal legal structure. As Clarke notes, other, less formal mechanisms may exist to maintain these rights.^{Footnote 48} These may involve informal social sanctions levied against those who infringe on collectively understood rights.

In addition, it is also important to understand that even in the absence of stable and well-defined property rights, investments and economic activity may still take place. In situations where potential returns are sufficiently high, the risk resulting from ownership instability may not dissuade entrepreneurs or firms from investing and pursuing economic endeavours. Clarke, for one, points to examples from the reform era in China, where restrictions on economic activity were relaxed, and, despite not having a well-developed formal legal structure to support individual property rights, entrepreneurial activity flourished due to high levels of profit driven by excess demand.^{Footnote 49}

As he also points out, however, comparisons of formal and informal property right structures rest not on whether economic development may take place under either. Rather, they rest on the key question of whether formal property rights provide for more growth than informal agreements.^{Footnote 50} In addition, it is also important to understand under which circumstances formal property rights may provide the most benefit.

As Clarke notes, the economic literature suggests that informal property right structures, which rest on social sanctions and repeated interactions among economic agents, perform poorly in one particular circumstance. This is when individuals or groups, who are unknown to each other, interact once with no intention of pursuing a future economic relationship. This is because there is no opportunity to impose sanctions during a subsequent interaction.^{Footnote 51} In this type of situation, formal property rights enforced by a third party — such as through a legal structure — provide a clear advantage over more informal structures.

Direct capital transfer

Direct financial transfers form an important part of modern treaties. This is because access to capital is at times limited in regions covered by the agreements. In this context, transfers become a critical part of the Aboriginal signatory group's economic development approaches. This is true of both general funds provided through the agreement, which may be redirected for investment in the region, as well as funds earmarked for specific activities.

As Saku^{Footnote 52} notes, the funds provided through modern treaties have been used to pursue a number of investment activities. Citing the Inuvialuit Final Agreement specifically, he points to investments made by the Inuvialuit using these funds both regionally and throughout Canada. They include:

• business purchases;
• investments in oil companies; and
• real estate purchases.

The returns from these investments may then be used regionally to further economic development goals.^{Footnote 53}

Additional provisions within the agreements can also help ensure that the gains from economic development are distributed equitably. For example, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement suggests a number of economic measures to support this end. These include, among others, commitments on the part of the federal government to:

• address institutional prejudices against the Inuvialuit;
• facilitate access to government assistance for the Inuvialuit; and
• take action to support economic opportunities, including employment among the Inuvialuit.^{Footnote 54}

These provisions, and others like them, attempt to direct the gains from economic development to Aboriginal beneficiaries and other local parties. Saku suggests that reducing the amount of leakages in the local economy can play an important role in regional growth.^{Footnote 55} This is because reducing the amount of economic returns that leave the regional economy (these so called "leakages") means that profits and wages are re-circulated within the regional economy rather than being exported south.

This re-circulation forms an important part of regional economic development by also supporting diversification. To the extent that residents spend on regional goods and services, other local markets can develop. The associated job creation and employment may then have a considerable multiplier effect.^{Footnote 56} As Randall and Ironside note, heterogeneity in resource dependent regions such as those covered by modern treaties can have a strong influence on economic performance.^{Footnote 57}

Equity in the distribution of the benefits from economic growth, even among beneficiaries, also requires mention. The social development provisions in many of the modern treaties support this equitable distribution by providing support to those individuals facing barriers to participation in the formal economy. Overcoming these barriers is essential to the goal of equal participation in the economy by signatory groups and their individual beneficiaries.

The social development provisions in the agreements may also have a direct impact on economic development, beyond the distributional effects noted above. Social development activities also support local and regional social cohesion. As Terluin notes, improvements in both human capital and cooperative behaviour can have important development effects.^{Footnote 58}

That said, the effectiveness of these provisions rests on the ability of the signatory groups to implement them effectively. For example, despite the provisions included in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, representatives from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation argue that the funding provided under the agreement for social development is insufficient. That is, they suggest that additional funding is required to effectively meet the social development goals under the modern treaties.

Corporate institutional development

As Besley and Ghatak note in their discussion of the North, the economic literature pays particular attention to institutions when discussing development. In a very general sense, the authors suggest that institutions incorporate all of the economic "rules of the game" that constrain and facilitate interaction. Under this definition, property rights would qualify as one important institutional structure in the regional economy.^{Footnote 59}

However, modern treaties have also established other institutions in regions throughout the country. For example, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement establishes an elaborate corporate structure to govern much of the economic development activity in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. These corporations play an important role in both the success and nature of economic development in the regions governed by these agreements.

When discussing the neoliberal perspective on economic development, Taylor and Friedel make an important point. While citing the work of Slowey,^{Footnote 60} they suggest that individuals and groups who have leverage in the marketplace derive the most benefit.^{Footnote 61} In the context of modern treaties, this point highlights the important role of the corporations and other Aboriginal groups formed as a result of the agreements. In many cases, they provide opportunity for signatory organizations and individual beneficiaries to derive benefits from economic development that would otherwise not be possible.

In addition, as major economic actors in those regions covered by agreements, corporations operated by signatory organizations can help ensure that development activities align with community needs. As Taylor and Friedel note, external firms in non-Aboriginal governments may have economic interests that do not necessarily align with those of signatory groups.^{Footnote 62} This can make Aboriginal corporations, which pursue investments and other regional economic activities, important tools for achieving a community's development goals.

The importance of these organizations discussed above aligns with a point raised by Saku in his work Modern Land Claim Agreements and Northern Canadian Aboriginal Communities. He notes that the agreements typically emphasize more than general economic development. They also include provisions for local control. He argues that this is true both in terms of human capital and natural resources.^{Footnote 63} From this perspective, the accrual of benefits to beneficiaries of the agreements, and not just operating in the region, is important.

The nature of modern treaties suggests a number of ways in which beneficiaries, specifically, can gain economically from the agreements. Not the least of these involves payments through the aforementioned corporations and trusts. Assuming the profitability of these entities, this provides an ongoing revenue stream for Aboriginal beneficiaries. This represents an additional source of income beyond wages and non-market subsistence activity.

The fact that corporate ownership is distributed across all beneficiaries, may also play an important role in economic development. As Morok, Wolfenzon, and Yeung^{Footnote 64} note, corporate ownership structures can have an important impact on the economy. Their research suggests that increasing concentration of ownership may be associated with significant market distortions. They argue, while citing prior work, that more equitable distributions have the potential to improve total output.^{Footnote 65} Given that the corporate ownership established under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement is equal across all beneficiaries, total output may similarly benefit.

Beyond this, it may also be the case that modern treaties reduce barriers to business development. As Carree, van Stel, Thurik, and Wennekers note, low barriers to business entry and exit into the market are important for economic development.^{Footnote 66} The combination of the corporate structures and significant settlement payments resulting from the agreements may allow for business development on the part of Aboriginal beneficiaries in a way that would not have been possible otherwise. This is particularly true for entry into markets that require significant capital investment and specialized skills such as in the resource sector.

Taxation Powers and Development

The ability of Aboriginal signatory groups to levy taxes on residents in lieu of federal, provincial, and municipal governments can have important economic impacts on the regions covered by modern treaties. However, the effects of taxation on economic development are varied and complicated. In the context of the current discussion, there is only scope for a brief overview of these effects.

Economists have studied taxes extensively. In particular, much research effort has been directed towards studying "distortionary" or the "efficiency cost" effects of taxation.^{Footnote 67} These distortionary effects result from the fact that taxes change consumer and producer incentives, thus altering the behaviour of individuals and businesses in many ways. For example, taxes may change the relative price of certain goods and services, thus making them more or less attractive to consumers. Taxes also affect producer decisions about how, when, and where to produce certain goods and services.^{Footnote 68} These changes in prices resulting from taxes lead to a "deadweight loss." A deadweight loss is a situation where either:^{Footnote 69}

• individuals that would benefit from buying a particular product are not buying the product; or
• individuals that do not benefit from buying a particular product are buying the product.

A deadweight loss represents a loss of economic efficiency, because potential benefits to consumers and producers are lost. Some United States studies suggest that deadweight loss may be approximately 20 to 30 cents per dollar raised in taxation.^{Footnote 70}

Palacios and Harischandra provide a large literature review of empirical studies on the distortionary effects of taxation. The authors outline four main examples of the negative effects taxation can have on economic development:

• High marginal tax rates can reduce economic growth.
• Taxes can affect the labour supply by changing the after-tax wages to employment, and thus negatively influence the number of hours workers are willing to work.
• Business taxes can reduce the after-tax return on investment, and thus reduce the amount of money firms reinvest in machinery, equipment, and technology.
• Taxes can also deter entrepreneurship and risk-taking, which is critical for an economy's growth enhancing activities such as job creation, innovation, and productivity.

Although taxation can have a variety of distortionary effects, they are used to finance government spending that may have large social value and could not be provided privately. As a result, the costs of taxation must be weighed against the benefits that result from increased government spending of the revenue raised by the tax.

This makes assessing the effects of the transfer of taxing powers under modern treaties particularly difficult to analyze. Even tax exemptions under certain modern treaties may have a variety of competitive effects. This places its analysis outside of the scope of the current analysis.

Impact and Benefit Agreements and Contracting

Modern treaties have radically changed the nature of relations between Aboriginal people and developers and have helped improve Aboriginal-industry relations.^{Footnote 71} As an example, companies now must work with the Aboriginal groups to negotiate impact benefit agreements, which ensure local Aboriginal people are given the opportunity to participate in the development through employment.

In addition, some modern treaties include measures dealing with procurement, aimed at increasing the opportunities of the Aboriginal signatory group to compete successfully for contracts in their settlement areas. The procurement obligations of a modern treaty apply to the portion of the procurement that involves deliveries of goods and/or services to the settlement area of that modern treaty.

Demographic

According to the 2006 Census, there are 64,670 persons with Aboriginal identity living in Census sub-divisions affiliated with at least one modern treaty.

Canada's Aboriginal population is experiencing a baby boom. This is particularly evident in Aboriginal signatory groups who have a higher birth rate than both the non-Aboriginal population and the Aboriginal identity population at large. Thirty-six percent of the Aboriginal signatory group population is less than 15 years old and four percent is over 64 years old. This compares to 17 percent of the non-Aboriginal population and 30 percent of the Aboriginal identity population that is less than 15 years old; and 13 percent of the non-Aboriginal population and five percent of the total Aboriginal identity populations that are over 64 years old.

As for family structure, 31 percent of Aboriginal families in modern treaties are lone parent families compared with 24 percent of the total Aboriginal identity population and 15 percent of non-Aboriginal families. Lone parent families are particularly predominant in the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Gwich'in Agreement at 40 percent and 36 percent respectively.

Education

Overall, the Aboriginal population, both male and female, living in areas with modern treaties in 2006 have lower levels of education attainment than either the total Aboriginal identity population or the total non-Aboriginal population. Of Aboriginal persons living in areas with modern treaties, 60 percent have not completed high school compared with 23 percent for non-Aboriginal population and 44 percent of Aboriginal identity population.^{Footnote 72}

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the level of schooling for non-Aboriginal, Aboriginal identity, and Aboriginal signatory group populations.

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population. AANDC Tabulations

Description of Figure 1: Schooling, Population 15+, Canada, 2006

Figure one shows the education for persons above the age of fifteen years of age across Canada in 2006. This chart is broken down into three participant categories: Non-Aboriginal, Aboriginal, and Signatory Groups.

The first grouping measures those without a certificate altogether. In bar one 22% of Non-Aboriginals have no certificate, in bar two 44% of Aboriginals have no certificate, and bar three 62% of signatory groups have no certificate.

The second grouping is measuring high school student diplomas. Bar one shows that 25% for Non-Aboriginals have high-school credentials; bar two shows that 21% of Aboriginals have high school credentials, and bar three shows that 12% of signatory groups have high school credentials.

Looking at differences by province and territory, it is apparent that there are clear regional variations. Schooling levels are higher for Aboriginal signatory groups in British Columbia and the Yukon and substantially lower in Northwest Territory and in Nunavut.

The agreements with the highest levels of schooling are:

• Nisga'a Final Agreement (British Columbia)
• Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement (British Columbia)
• Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (Yukon)
• Carcross/Tagish First Nations (Yukon)
• Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nations (Yukon)

The agreements with the lowest levels of schooling are:

• Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Nunavut)
• Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Quebec)
• Tlicho (Dogrib Treaty 11) (Northwest Territories)
• Sahtu Dene & Métis Agreement (Northwest Territories)
• Northeastern Quebec Agreement (Quebec)

Labour Force Characteristics

The labour force is generally divided into two broad categories – those that are active and those that are not active in the labour force. Those deemed active are either employed or unemployed but actively looking for work. As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, compared to both the total Aboriginal identity population and non-Aboriginal population, a significantly larger portion of individuals who are part of a modern treaty are either not active in the labour force or unemployed.

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population. AANDC Tabulations

Description of Figure 2: Labour Force Characteristics by Aboriginal Identity, Females, Population 15-64, Canada, 2006

Figure two shows the labour force characteristics for Aboriginal females aged 15-64 in Canada from the 2006 Census.

Group one demonstrates the percentage of employed females. Bar one shows there are 58% of Non-Aboriginal females employed, bar two shows 52% of Aboriginal females employed, and bar three shows 51%of signatory groups females employed.

Group two demonstrates the percentage of respondents unemployed. Bar one shows 5% of Non-Aboriginal females unemployed, bar two 8% of Aboriginal females unemployed, and bar three shows 18% of signatory group females unemployed.

Group three demonstrates the percentage of respondents not active in the labour force. Bar one shows that 27% of Non-Aboriginal females not active in the labour force. Bar two shows 37% of Aboriginal females not active in the labour force. Bar three shows 37% of signatory group females not active in the labour force.

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population. AANDC Tabulations

Description of Figure 3: Labour Force Characteristics by Aboriginal Identity, Males,Population 15-64, Canada, 2006

Figure three shows the labour force characteristics for Aboriginal males aged 15-64 in Canada from the 2006 Census.

Group one demonstrates the percentage of employed Aboriginals males. Bar one shows there are 78% of Non-Aboriginal males employed, bar two shows 59% of Aboriginal males employed, and bar three shows 48% of signatory groups employed.

Group two demonstrates the percentage of unemployed respondents. Bar one shows 6% of Non-Aboriginal males unemployed, bar two shows 11% of Aboriginal males unemployed, and bar three shows 18% of signatory groups unemployed.

Group three demonstrates the percentage of respondents not active in the labour force. Bar one shows 18% of Non-Aboriginal males not active in the labour force, bar two shows that 29% of Aboriginal males not active in the labour force, and bar three shows that 33% of signatory groups males not active in the labour force.

Agreements associated with higher labour force activity are:

• Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (Yukon)
• Selkirk First Nation (Yukon)
• Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (Yukon)
• Sahtu Dene & Métis Agreement (Northwest Territories)
• James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (Quebec)

Agreements associated with lower levels of labour force activity are:

• Labrador Inuit Agreement (Newfoundland and Labrador)
• Northeastern Quebec Agreement (Quebec)
• Tlicho (Dogrib Treaty 11) (Northwest Territories)
• Nisga'a Final Agreement (British Columbia)
• Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Nunavut)

Individual and Family Income

The median 2005 income for non-Aboriginal families was $64,648 while the median income for Aboriginal identity families was $46,013 (or about 71 percent of the median non-Aboriginal family income). The median income for Aboriginal families living in areas with modern treaties was almost the same as the Aboriginal identity families at $46,366.

Aboriginal families living in areas affiliated with the Gwich'in Agreement and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations have the highest median incomes ($57,000 and $58,000 respectively) and the lowest gap (just short of 90 percent of the earnings of Canada wide non-Aboriginal families). Aboriginal families in the Carcross/Tagish First Nations Agreement have the lowest median family incomes ($31,000) followed by the Nisga'a Final Agreement ($33,000).

Closest to Canada-wide median income for non-Aboriginal families^{Footnote 73}:

• Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (Yukon)
• Gwichin Agreement (Northwest Territories)
• Inuvialuit Final Agreement (Northwest Territories)
• Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (Yukon)
• James Bay and Northern and Northern Quebec Agreement (Quebec)
• Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Quebec)

Furthest from Canada-wide median income for non-Aboriginal families:

• Carcross / Tagish First Nations (Yukon)
• Nisga'a Final Agreement (British Columbia)
• Northeastern Quebec Agreement (Quebec)
• Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (Nunavut)
• Tsawwassen First Nations Final Agreement (British Columbia)

From an individual perspective, females generally receive almost twice as much of their income from transfers than their male peers. Across all groups, males receive more of their income from employment than do females. Individuals living in areas with modern treaties tend to receive somewhat less income from 'other sources' than the total Aboriginal identity population. However, both Aboriginal populations receive far less of their income from 'other sources' than the non-Aboriginal population. This is at least partially because the non-Aboriginal population is more likely to draw income from other sources, such as investments (e.g., RRSPs, retirement income, stocks, etc.) as shown in Table 3.

Language Retention

Of the Aboriginal identity population, 19 percent report an Aboriginal mother tongue. However, 74 percent of Aboriginal persons living in areas with modern treaties report an Aboriginal mother tongue. This is a dramatic difference, basically driven by higher Aboriginal mother tongue retention rates in Quebec (96 percent) and Nunavut (82 percent). Retention rates are lowest in Yukon (17 percent), Newfoundland and Labrador (10 percent), and British Columbia (seven percent).

The Co-Management System

Co-management is meant to promote cooperation between the IRC and Government with respect to shared control over land and resource management decision making. The co-management system in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region is distinct from the system used in the rest of the NWT, and is established through Chapters 7 through 15 of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Lands and waters in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region are managed and regulated by a combination of co-management, Inuvialuit, federal and territorial agencies and legislative instruments.

Co-management agencies include:

• Wildlife Management Advisory Committee (NWT)
• Wildlife Management Advisory Committee (North Slope)
• Fisheries Joint Management Committee
• Environmental Impact Screening Committee
• Environmental Impact Review Board

Inuvialuit agencies include:

• The Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat
• The Inuvialuit Game Council
• Inuvialuit Land Administration
• Hunters and Trappers Committees

Territorial agencies include:

• Environment and Natural Resources

Federal agencies:

• NWT Water Board
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans
• Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
• Environment Canada

The federal government has jurisdiction over Crown lands and waters in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. In addition, its legislation applies with respect to environmental assessments in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, in conjunction with the statutory authority of the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and Environmental Impact Review Board. For example, in some situations, the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and their respective legislation would govern environmental assessments, decision making and setting conditions for land uses.

The Land Administration System

Through the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, Inuvialuit ownership and rights to and on lands are recognized. Inuvialuit lands are distinguished according to the provisions describing the rights within the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, commonly known as 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) lands. Established to administer the lands and provide mechanisms for their use and access is the Inuvialuit Land Administration, headquartered in Tuktoyaktuk. It consists of approximately seven technical and administrative staff. A seven - member Commission makes policy recommendations to the IRC to guide yearly and strategic decision making.

The Inuvialuit Final Agreement has established an effective system for land use permitting, using an on-line submission process, which includes review by technical staff, a process for consulting with communities and affected stakeholders, and facilitating clarifications by the applicant for stakeholder's benefit. Authorizations issued by the Inuvialuit Land Administration incorporate interests as expressed by stakeholders.

The Inuvialuit Land Administration is funded by IRC.

Inuvialuit Land Administration

The Inuvialuit Land Administration is the division of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation responsible for managing and administering Inuvialuit owned lands in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. The Inuvialuit Settlement Region is the area of land and water subject to the land claims agreement known as the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, concluded between the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada. The legislation implementing the Inuvialuit Final Agreement is the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act, 1984. The Inuvialuit are the Aboriginal people who have traditionally used the land within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

The Inuvialuit own a total of 35,000 square miles of land in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. This includes both surface and subsurface rights to 5,000 sq. miles of land (referred to as 7(1)(a) lands) and surface rights (including rights to granular resources) to a further 30,000 sq. miles (referred to as 7(1)(b) lands). The remaining lands (as well as subsurface rights on 7(1)(b) lands) remain largely under the ownership and control of the federal Crown, with the exception of Hamlet lands which are controlled by the Government of Northwest Territories.

Access to Inuvialuit lands that is more than casual and individual in nature requires permission from the Inuvialuit. Accordingly, the Inuvialuit Land Administration issues Rights to access both the 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) lands.

The administration of rights on Crown Lands is largely the responsibility of various federal and territorial agencies with the Inuvialuit typically providing comment on applications.

Literature Review

Extensive literature on co-management in Canada has developed since the 1970s with significant elements of it drawing on the experience of the Inuvialuit and other Northern and Inuit land claim-based co-management organizations.^{Footnote 127} This literature has developed around institutional analysis, relating to the functionality of co-management regimes;^{Footnote 128} the role of co-management in resources decision making, relating to management of populations of wildlife;^{Footnote 129} and the role of co-management bodies in relation to resource extraction and human uses and impacts on lands, wildlife and resources.^{Footnote 130}

Additional "grey" or non-peer reviewed research-based literature has been generated by resource extraction project planning and associated environmental assessment and socio-economic planning processes.^{Footnote 131}

The literature focuses on various aspects of co-management within existing structures designed through land claim agreements – including such issues as decision making, power relations, institutional development, self-determination and self governance. The use of Inuvialuit co-management approaches and institutions as case studies is common throughout.^{Footnote 132} This is likely due in part to several factors:

• Established through the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984), the co-management system has been functioning for almost 30 years;
• The co-management regime is fully integrated within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and its jurisdiction extends only within the Inuvialuit Settlement Area (with the exception of jurisdictional overlaps into the Yukon), making it a solid candidate for researchers’ focused case studies;
• Its responsibilities traverse management within a suite of contexts (human, wildlife, ecosystem, economic) at a variety of scales (local, regional, multi-jurisdictional) and may include a diversity of participants (animal, human, Inuvialuit, non-Indigenous, multi-national corporations) addressing distinct issues or projects (wildlife management, resource extraction, infrastructure development); and
• It is characterized by relatively sparse human populations dispersed among small villages and characterized by rural patterns of socio-economic development, significant biological diversity, and the presence of significant and often migratory wildlife populations essential to Indigenous subsistence livelihoods.

The literature indicates that in addition to various issues arising from co-management that form a focus for ongoing institutional development and improvement,^{Footnote 133} some research has found evidence that the co-management system is having significant positive impacts resulting mainly from the involvement of land users and knowledge holders in decision making leading to management strategies co-produced by stakeholders.

For example, ongoing efforts to involve youth and local knowledge holders in research associated with land and wildlife management have resulted in outcomes fostering employment, education and cultural preservation, a research insight corroborated by interviewees.^{Footnote 134} Observers note that arising from a cooperative approach is a diffusion of knowledge and influence on decision making, which contributes to a system perceived as both effective and equitable with respect to power sharing. These insights are consistent with data gathered during stakeholder interviews.

Another research and practitioner insight is that the mandates of co-management bodies are somewhat unclear due to definitional vagueness concerning responsibilities. One specific example, offered both in the literature and in interviews, is the issue of the Environmental Impact Screening Committee and the Environmental Impact Review Board being required to perform functions "expeditiously"; the boards are also left to determine criteria constituting "significant negative environmental effects". This lack of direction leaves the boards vulnerable to stakeholder criticism and undue pressure at times of high volumes of work.^{Footnote 135}

Longevity and Stability

All co-management bodies and the Inuvialuit Land Administration demonstrate a high level of policy and institutional maturity developed over the last thirty years. Sound governance structures, clear lines of communication, reporting and decision making, stable staff complements with defined roles and work plans, all have helped establish a system that is both capable and well-respected by stakeholders.

With respect to the Inuvialuit land management functions, it was noted that "leadership sets the tone" for their functioning, in terms of stability, consistency, transparency and accountability. This translates into greater currency in working with stakeholders such as communities, governments and industry. That currency derives from the trust generated by maintaining recognized professional standards demonstrated in the high quality of the work rendered by the institutions. This is supported by the IRC allowing the boards to undertake their work and respecting their institutional processes and outcomes.

Relationships

The stability characterizing the land and co-management system of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region has fostered close relationships and trust among co-management partners, and between co-management institutions and stakeholders, particularly communities. These relationships have fostered capacity development among Inuvialuit beneficiaries. For example, the Inuvialuit Land Administration works closely with AANDC and the NWT Water board with respect to land and water use permitting on Crown lands. Being a well-respected organization translates into being able to draw on that reputation when establishing relationships and negotiating issues that may arise with stakeholders.

External Stakeholder Confidence

Interviewees confirmed that the Inuvialuit Settlement Region is widely regarded as a "safe" place to do business (e.g. resource extraction) because of three factors: the co-management and regulatory system in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region has been functioning for almost thirty years and is known to be both stable and capable; the leadership is strong and consistent; and the decisions rendered are consistent and implemented. Predictability, capability and consistency have meant that the land and resource management organizations are well respected among stakeholders.

This is a situation that has developed over time. For example, it was not until the year 2000 that the Inuvialuit Land Administration in a major institutional reform, restructured the mandate of the Inuvialuit Land Administration Commission to focus on policy development rather than permitting. Currently, permitting decisions rest with a technical staff complement charged with following the policy set by the Commission. Prior to this change, permitting decisions had been inconsistent, and as a result, the Inuvialuit Land Administration perceived as less stable and reliable than its institutional co-management counterparts. The policy set by the Commission has introduced a strategic approach to decision making, as well as ensuring a greater level of transparency that has enhanced the organization's credibility.

Capacity Building, Youth Education and Employment

Building Capacity has been a challenge with respect to technical staff – an issue common among many northern and geographically isolated organizations. However, the co-management system has provided greater opportunity for involvement of Inuvialuit, and also for the organizations to support and foster capacity building, particularly among youth in. Interviewees echoed insights noted in the academic and grey literature with respect to significant knowledge and capacity building among Inuvialuit adults and youth, technical staff and researchers, through mutual skill development and information exchange about Indigenous knowledge and scientific methods.

Mandated to research, monitor and provide technical analyses, the co-management system provides various opportunities for youth and Inuvialuit to be involved in conducting research studies, participating in research, and participating in workshops and conferences focusing on resource management issues. This creates employment in communities for Elders, adults and youth. It also has the effect of providing youth with work experience and knowledge gain of direct relevance to their cultural activities and values, and can serve as an important experience in contributing to both cultural and western educational goals and choices.

Various studies and strategies requiring community participation and providing employment to researchers, translators and administrative staff have been undertaken by the boards. It has been noted that such processes result in greater confidence of Inuvialuit in their own knowledge, their legitimacy in participating authoritatively in advising and decision making, and diffusing power throughout communities and communities of knowledge holders. Such strongly networked participation serves to both increase the legitimacy of the co-management boards themselves (e.g. residents feel included and part of the work of the organization), as well as diffuse the impacts of power imbalances inherent in the legislative mandates and institutional structures. For example, final decisions remaining with a federal minister are not viewed as unpredictable when a stable and well respected organization, highly influenced by Inuvialuit, makes a decision recommendation that is based on well researched conclusions.

Financial Independence of IRC

In the next section, more detail is provided with respect to resource needs. With respect to ensuring stability and maintaining capacity, the IRC's financial stability positions the Inuvialuit Land Administration to be able to ensure that Inuvialuit land management functions remain staffed and stable, effectively separating administrative and political issues from the day-to-day work of the organizations. This provides an important foundation for ensuring that all stakeholders view the Inuvialuit Settlement Region as well-managed and "safe" for conducting activities.

Cultural Awareness

The extensive involvement of Inuvialuit in the co-management boards as board members, staff and advisors on various projects, helps ensure that the institutions are permeated with cultural awareness and respect. The stability and results-based focus of the Inuvialuit and co-management structures reflect the practicality, cohesion, and collective approach to accomplishing tasks that is characteristic of Inuvialuit political and social culture. Cultural awareness manifests in various ways, including community consultation approaches (evidenced in the stakeholder consultation processes in place for application reviews), an (at least) yearly community-reporting tour in which all IRC departments and organizations take part, the use of Inuvialuit traditional and local knowledge in application review processes, research projects, and in policy making. Cultural awareness has not been hived off to one institution or individual. Rather, it is diffuse, ongoing and organic, directly resulting from populating both staff and decision makers with Inuvialuit.

Evidence of this attention to cultural awareness, particularly with respect to educating non-Inuvialuit in positions of decision-making power, can be found in the consistent focus on culture over the years in all co-management institutions with respect to research such as harvest studies, community consultations on policy development, and research and monitoring practices.

AANDC Funding

Canada funds the co-management boards and does so according to its own policies, which do not necessarily bear any relation to the needs of the boards with respect to mandates or external pressures which may be placed upon them. This is a long-standing concern among resource management boards across the NWT.^{Footnote 137}

While the IRC is in a position to financially "carry" its own administrative bodies responsible for land management when there are breaks in funding flows, it does so at a cost. The amounts devoted to "carrying" institutions could be deployed elsewhere, along with the administrative resources involved in that process and in the recovery of funds once external funding is in place.

Funding has been reduced in recent years, impacting the ability of boards to maintain a stable technical staff complement and, in turn, to complete tasks in a timely way. For example, where land management agencies may require expertise for researching best practices in evaluating an application for a resource developer and cannot afford to maintain an expert on staff, delays may occur in application review and approval because staff lack in-depth subject matter expertise and must spend significant time researching and understanding best practices in order to make an informed evaluation.^{Footnote 138}

Coherence and Complexity

The co-management system has developed a high-functioning and effective set of institutions. Application and review processes have been standardized across all organizations and many of these include online application and information access. Transparency and accountability are further maintained through Annual or Term Reports detailing activities and authorization/permitting statistics are issued annually or at designated intervals by each co-management board. Inuvialuit organizations issue their own annual reporting or are included in the IRC Annual Report.

In addition to the co-management system in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, there are various federal laws and agencies that overlay that system, triggered by various factors. For example the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act applies in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. To avoid the possibility of having an Environmental Impact Review Board review and a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review being conducted simultaneously, the Minister of the Environment has established a Memorandum of Understanding with the Environmental Impact Review Board to use the Environmental Impact Review Board's process for reviewing projects in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, rather than duplicating the process by also establishing a federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Review Panel. This has streamlined the review process for all stakeholders. The Memorandum of Understanding, reached in 1999, pre-dated a similar approach to an environmental assessment of the Mackenzie Gas Project, which combined various assessment requirements into a single Joint Review Panel process.

In other instances, using existing processes as substitutions has not been consistent. Currently, the IRC is in ongoing discussions with AANDC's Oil and Gas Directorate about guidelines being developed for reaching Community Cooperative Benefit Agreements under the Canadian Oil and Gas Act with respect to offshore activities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. As the sole land claim organization stakeholder, the Inuvialuit Settlement Region has not been included in drafting or reviewing guidelines. For the onshore, Canada had always accepted the Community Benefit Agreements negotiated by the IRC under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement as conforming to Canada's legislative requirements for Community Cooperative Benefit Agreements. The current situation threatens to result in an additional time consuming process the IRC must engage in to realize Inuvialuit Final Agreement benefits that will be obtained in accordance with guidelines that the IRC had no meaningful involvement in developing.

One final issue relating to incoherence is the ongoing legislative changes to environmental and related laws through the use of omnibus bills in Parliament by the Government of Canada. The "regulatory improvement" initiative takes an omnibus approach, effectively obscuring understanding of how affected bills will impact stakeholders and how individual pieces of legislation will be changed. In turn, this obscures understanding how the various changes will interrelate in practice. This results in a lack of ability to understand implications, and consequently re-think them or plan for their impacts. Changes have resulted in, for example, restricting the ability of federal departments and agencies to undertake aspects of environmental assessments. One example is the recent federal legislative changes to the Fisheries Act on fish habitat, which may result in the Fisheries Joint Management Committee conducting assessments of project impacts on fisheries. While the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is far better positioned and staffed to do the work, its statutory authority has been removed; this puts additional strain on shrinking co-management board resources.

Legislative Change and Devolution

The NWT Devolution agreement will come into effect in 2014, requiring the negotiation of arrangements for offshore resource management, the development of a territorial resource management committee, a waste sites management committee, and other transfers of land management authorities from Canada to the Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT).

There is concern that the GNWT lacks the policy maturity or the institutional ability capable of carrying out these technically complex and politically sensitive tasks. There is concern that there will be a period of capacity building for the GNWT to establish its institutional capabilities, and that it may not have been sufficiently resourced to do so. This will have impacts on a developing relationship between the Inuvialuit and GNWT decision makers and also with respect to ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the co-management system.

Timely Appointment of Co-Management Board Members

Long standing concerns about the federal appointment process with respect to co-management boards and the impact on the board’s functionality and stability are well-documented with respect to co-management generally in the NWT.^{Footnote 140} Unfilled appointments compromise the boards’ abilities to function effectively according to mandates and in contributing to Inuvialuit Final Agreement goals. Resolution of this issue lies with Canada, which currently lacks an effective and timely mechanism for fulfilling this land claim obligation.

High Costs, Capacity and Capacity Building

Interviewees noted the high cost and high turnover of technical staff, who are almost exclusively from outside of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. This was described as a situation where a small organization such as the IRC, with satellite offices in very small isolated communities, has difficulty competing with both benefit packages and national or territorial job security mobility as offered by the federal and territorial governments. While industry may be able to hire specialist professionals as full time staff and federal departments may possess a large professional staff complement, the land and resource management boards simply cannot offer comparable incentives with respect to benefits and job mobility. Nor do they have resources to retain large complements of technical staff. Given resource restrictions related to funding, it can become very difficult to recruit and retain staff, particularly in the smaller communities.

The same issues affect skilled beneficiaries, who, if they must leave their home communities, generally will prefer to relocate within the region to a larger centre such as Inuvik, which offers greater economic, employment and educational opportunities for family members.

Having adequate resources to attract and retain staff is not only about salaries, benefits and mobility, but also about the stability and effectiveness of the organization. While the Inuvialuit Joint Secretariat model attempts to mitigate these issues, consistent funding reductions undermine its efforts. To attract and retain skilled staff, the workload must be manageable and the entire staff functioning well and at industry standards. Issues relating to funding inadequacy, jurisdictional and institutional incoherence of key partners, and resource strain do not create an attractive work environment for potential recruits. In addition, organizations have noted a two to three year turnover period for most skilled technical staff. This represents a drain on institutional memory and increases the reliance on stable, policy-driven practice. It also underscores the need to increase the educational opportunities for and achievement of Inuvialuit beneficiaries, who are more likely to remain in the region for longer periods.

Demand Unpredictability

Interviewees noted that the work of the land and resource management institutions was driven largely by demand. During high-demand periods, staff may be overly-taxed, and then experience periods of greatly reduced activity. While organizations may not be able to anticipate boom-bust periods or their magnitude, they are positioned to develop flexible approaches to addressing issues specific to boom-bust demands and prepare accordingly.

These demands also strain resources that may not be able to accommodate demands and therefore affect the timelines of co-management and regulatory approval decision making. This situation generally is due in no small part to the issue of resources and funding availability, which is dependent on federal policy. That policy may bear no relation to or be unable to effectively accommodate demand unpredictability.

While the IRC and Canada have worked in partnership conducting research to forecast Beaufort Sea future development and the attendant impacts, the situation requires ongoing monitoring to anticipate actual needs.

Literature Review

The importance of cultural vitality to social^{Footnote 142} health^{Footnote 143} and economic^{Footnote 144} wellness in Indigenous communities is well-established, according to the academic literature. Particularly for communities that have experienced the traumatic events that took place in residential schools, as well as the intergenerational impacts of those events together with other and ongoing experiences, cultural vitality is a lifeline. Colonial policy directed towards Indigenous peoples has since its introduction specifically targeted Indigenous culture and connection to lands. This assimilative agenda was intended to disconnect Indigenous peoples from their culture and remove them from their lands as a precursor to colonial and capitalist possession of the lands and resources (Alfred 2005; Irlbacher-Fox 2009).^{Footnote 145}

Colonial policy in its many forms is at the root of what can reasonably be described as a mental health crisis in Indigenous communities. According to Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred:

Alfred, and other Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers studying the situation of Indigenous peoples' mental health are unanimous in recommending culturally based solutions from within Indigenous communities to heal and change this situation by "preserving the crucial linkages between people, and between people and the land, that can sustain and even recreate strong and healthy Indigenous identities and ways of living in the world."^{Footnote 147}

Many Inuvialuit reject being labeled as "colonized" and there is an important distinction between "being colonized" and being impacted by colonial policy. Few Inuvialuit would say that government colonial policies have been positive; all have experience of how their lives have been negatively impacted by colonial policy.

With respect to the disruption of the relationship between Inuvialuit and their lands, the IRC makes significant efforts to promote that relationship. The IRC's own research found that in small isolated economically challenged communities such as Paulatuk, subsistence hunting is critical to providing for nutritional needs, while at the same time supporting social and individual wellness.^{Footnote 148} The economic situation is such that the land-based cultural value of sharing and reciprocity is a crucial protective factor for ensuring food security for many in the community.

The Inuvialuit have been following a culturally rooted path toward achieving social, health and economic wellness as evidenced by the extent of IRC's culturally-oriented efforts and activities, and the cultural institutions vital to providing a solid basis for Inuvialuit to follow that path. They also provide a solid basis for the IRC to mold its own business approaches, programming, and staff expectations to support and promote Inuvialuit culture.

Diversity

The IRC supports a diversity of cultural initiatives. Generally, these span various categories including:

• Active cultural practice: Hunters and Trappers Assistance Program; Take a Kid Trapping Program, language resources development (books in Inuvialuktun dialects, iPhone App), financial support to Drummers and Dancers; language curriculum development and teacher training. The IRCalso provides support to individuals and groups to engage in cultural and land-based activities;
• Research: Participation in research projects inclusive of Inuvialuit cultural and social perspectives, traditional knowledge and harvest studies, in heritage preservation and promotion in partnerships with museums and researchers internationally;
• Support for the subsistence economy: The IRC Craft Shop provides traditional artisans with a sales and promotional outlet for their work; the Inuvialuit Community Economic Development Organization supported the muskox harvest that provides income locally while producing raw materials (hides, muskox hair used as wool) to traditional artisans; financial support to hunters and trappers through the Harvesters Assistance Program allows for the development of the ongoing land connection critical to making informed land and resources management decisions.
• Social programming: The Community Development Division, Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre, and social policy research efforts within IRC, financial and institutional support of active individual and group-based cultural practices, and support for subsistence harvesters, contribute to building a pool of cultural experience and knowledge that can be drawn upon for incorporation into social, employment, and economic development programming throughout the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

Diffusion

Each program area of IRC contributes to achieving the Inuvialuit Final Agreement goals. The goals are highly interrelated and initiatives undertaken to achieve each of the goals contributes to building capacities that are both transferable and relevant to capacity needed in pursuit of other goals. That many IRC employees and decision makers are Inuvialuit further entrenches a corporate ethos rooted in cultural and community knowledge. Thus, the diffuse and omniscient presence of Inuvialuit cultural practices and norms means that culture is incorporated into programming as a matter of course rather than added on or as an afterthought.

Research

The Inuvialuit have conducted extensive cultural research through the Inuvialuit Cultural Resources Centre, formal partnerships with research institutions such as museums and universities, and with individual researchers in partnership with Inuvialuit communities. Results of this work include a robust suite of cultural teaching and learning resources produced by the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre and the IRC suitable for use in the primary and secondary education system. Partnerships with museums such as the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Smithsonian Institute have resulted in books, web sites, and data bases of cultural resources accessible by the general public and as part of school curricula. Individual university researchers or consortia have published research findings on issues as diverse as how culture impacts economic and social policy, educational attainment, health issues, and environmental and land-based knowledge.

The IRC has a Research Policy in place, which sets out clear expectations and processes with respect to how research is undertaken in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

Accessibility

Cultural resources, in particular those coming from research, are highly accessible with many located on the web sites of the institutions that originated the research (see Table 8).

For funding supports, individuals and communities can access opportunities by applying through well-established processes, for example the Hunters and Trappers Support program applications, and for donations through the IRC. There are various external funding opportunities that support cultural initiatives.

Partnership and Collaboration

Many of the cultural projects have involved leveraging partnerships with external organizations. For example, the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre’s operations are supported by contribution agreements with both Canada and the GNWT. Partnerships with museums allow museums such as the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre and the Smithsonian to provide expert artifact interpretation while affording the IRC an opportunity to instruct them on respectful approaches to maintaining Inuvialuit artifacts, such as in specialized repositories with professional curatorial services which is physical infrastructure that the Inuvialuit currently do not possess.

Partnerships are important to building capacity within institutions and within the region in relation to understanding the importance and the methods or techniques (technological and social) of cultural development and preservation. These initiatives provide staff and cultural knowledge holders with experience in working with external institutions and learning about similar issues and initiatives among other Indigenous peoples. This increases institutional and individual confidence in directing partnerships toward achieving Inuvialuit goals. It also increases the potential for influencing the overall goals of the partnership into alignment with the long-term strategic goals of the IRC in cultural promotion and retention.

Language Retention Levels

The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre was set up in 1996, at around the time that Inuvialuktun language loss had reached a low point. The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre's mandate is to support language development, retention and promotion initiatives. Significant efforts have been made to provide language instruction and support in the region's schools, in particular through supporting Inuvialuktun language programs offered through the region's primary schools. A new downloadable iPhone Application has been developed in the hope that the ease of technology will promote its use by Inuvialuit youth and children.

One of the difficulties identified in promoting language in the region’s schools is the lack of training opportunities for teachers. In addition, there is no monitoring or enforcement mechanism in place to ensure language instruction is made available to students or the quality of language instruction. The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre has determined that promoting language learning among children as part of their regular curriculum is one of the best ways to ensure the language will not be lost and exerts great efforts to support this approach. However, supportive schools and supportive parents are essential to ensuring children’s learning is supported and valued.

Unstable Institutional Funding

While collaborations and partnerships with external agencies are a strength of the IRC’s approach, they are also a source of instability. Although many partnerships are long standing, they are often tied to government programs funded year-to-year, requiring a yearly proposal to access funds. This creates significant uncertainty and instability, particularly for programs that gain in significance and impact as a result of the cumulative or ongoing nature of their work.

For example, the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre has been developing progressively sophisticated and diverse language resources to serve the region. The Centre's institutional experience, corporate reputation and stability is one of the sources of "capital" which contributes to its ability to work with various external agencies. The Centre was established in 1996 with funding from the GNWT under the Official Languages Agreement with Canada and from Canadian Heritage. The Centre's funding has been cut back in the last few years and without multi-year funding agreements the institution is always at risk. Moreover, by having to access funding through proposal-driven processes, the Centre's mandate is shaped by requirements that may not have a bearing on regional needs and may demand attention to areas other than those the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre deems most important.

Social and Economic Instability and Hardship

Programs focused on cultural development and revitalization have as a basic requirement, participation of individuals. In a context of significant social suffering manifesting as low employment, low educational attainment, social issues, etc., the ability of individuals to engage in cultural development initiatives whether through specific programming or integrated into various programs and services, is limited.

Community wellness is a fundamental determinant of cultural wellness and the potential of individuals to engage in cultural activities. Social and economic instability and hardship are circumstances that can undercut efforts to engage Inuvialuit in cultural development and participation. For example, the use of skidoos, guns and other hunting equipment requires hunters have some source of cash income. In communities where few jobs are available, this is difficult. In many cases, transfer payments from government (e.g.. income support) are simply not enough to meet basic expenses and provide seed money for hunting necessities. This sometimes prevents cultural-based connection or places a burden on the community and family members in employment.

Dominant-Subordinate Partnerships

Partnerships and collaboration are a strength of social and cultural programming and the IRC initiatives. However, they are also a source of vulnerability, particularly when partnership involves accessing external funding. Funding priorities may change, criteria for funding may change, levels of funding may change. All of these result in vulnerability of the scale and extent of activities and of institutional stability, but may also impact the focus of programming allowed under funding agreements. Thus, partnership can result in a dominant-subordinate relationship, where funders’ priorities take precedence over the IRC’s priorities. Such situations are common among developing country non-governmental organizations dependent on external aid and where their funding promotes the priorities of the funder rather than of the recipient and which acts as a destabilizing force.

Funding Approaches: Discussion

The issue of funding approaches taken by Canada is worthy of a short discussion as it reverberates throughout all efforts of the IRC, its departments, agencies, and businesses as they attempt to achieve the stated goals of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.

Description of Donor Graphic

This illustration depicts a graphic of donors and recipient attitudes toward project funding that shows a dependent model on the funder.

The negative intakes to the recipient include: perceive standards as unrealistic, fail to claim ownership, refuse responsibility, entitlement attitude, get the most out of the system attitude, perceived disconnect with needs and preferences, inability to question or refuse logic and a lack of control, perceived inequalities and friction and mistrust.

The inputs from the donors include: see bad results as confirming weak capacity and commitment, fill leadership gap, set boundaries and logic, advocate and set priorities, conceive write and present plan, control implementation and staff procurement, suspicious, establish evaluation standards, emphasis quantity.

Literature on donor aid in the developing world has established that the approach donors take to providing funding and resources to assist agencies and communities in meeting their needs is critical in achieving desired outcomes. Negative impacts issuing from donor approaches to aid include:

• Donors setting and/or micro-managing program priorities;
• Creating instability through funding cycles that serve the needs of the donor rather than the program/population needs;
• Accountability measures that cause a significant reporting burden for the recipient and that can undermine or negatively impact the ability of the recipient to perform the functions to achieve goals; and
• Inability to establish and maintain stable institutional structures and programming, given vulnerability to policy, priority and funding level changes by donors.

The above issues are common throughout Indigenous communities in Canada, which having been dispossessed of their traditional lands and resources, socially disrupted by residential schooling and its ongoing impacts, and besieged by the health and social impacts of a combination of enforced poverty and colonization, are dependent on government 'donor' transfers to provide for their basic needs in addition to attempting to recover from colonization's impacts.

The IRC and the Inuvialuit, through ongoing protection and assertion of their rights, mainly by developing a stable institutional structure and sound financial base, are somewhat insulated from the worst impacts of the "Disempowerment Model", which characterizes the federal approach to funding Indigenous communities and organizations in Canada. However, the IRC is impacted by a heavy administrative burden (e.g. having to "carry" various programs between funding breaks), and by having to redirect profits from its businesses to fund its own administrative structure (whereas First Nations receive funding to support their administrations), creating a significant economic and social drag, as those funds could be used elsewhere.

Description of Donor Graphic Empowerment Model

The graphic shows a graphic of donors and recipient attitudes toward a program cycle with an emphasis on independence and forward thinking policy for the recipient.

The illustration shows that donors … perceive growing assertiveness and capacity development , claim ownership; assume responsibility, exercise respect, restraint and listen, reform system so that it works for development, an arrow then points support national efforts, priorities, systems and processes, an arrow then points to conceive, write and present plan, an arrow then points to constructive critique and long-term commitment based on agreed conditions, an arrow then points to control implementation, an arrow then points to take some risk and provide support on demand, an arrow then points to develop evaluation standards; growing partnership and trust, an arrow then points to … help improve evaluation standards, an arrow then points to … perceive agreed standards as relevant and draw lessons.

The illustration shows that recipients … perceive growing assertiveness and capacity development an arrow then points to …claim ownership; assume responsibility, an arrow then points to … exercise respect, restraint and listen, an arrow then points to reform system so that it works for development, an arrow then points to support national efforts, priorities, systems and processes, an arrow then points to conceive, write and present plan, an arrow then points to constructive critique and long-term commitment based on agreed conditions, an arrow then points to control implementation, an arrow then points to take some risk and provide support on demand, an arrow then points to develop evaluation standards; growing partnership and trust, an arrow then points to … help improve evaluation standards, an arrow then points to … perceive agreed standards as relevant and draw lessons.

There are other ways of funding that could promote better results for money spent.

An 'Empowerment Model' of donor aid that fosters independence and accountability and is oriented toward recipient results rather than the donor's own administrative requirements. This model is more reflective of a partnership approach rather than a dominant-subordinate model of interaction. In concrete terms it would include funding approaches that:

• Respond directly to the stated priorities of the recipient, and require the recipient to present evidence and plans for addressing priorities based on target population needs;
• Provide multi-year funding at stable levels;
• Allow broad policy and priority setting by the donor and a commensurate accountability process; and
• Creation of commitment and positive morale and progress through establishing a system characterized by trust, stability, and equality.

Given its extensive experience of delivering federally and territorially funded programs to IRC beneficiaries over the last 20 – 30 years, its stable institutional structure supported by internationally recognized-standard accounting practices as well as significant financial security, the IRC would be an excellent candidate for an Empowerment Model of funding by the federal government. Such a model would significantly reduce the reporting strain, economic drag, and administrative burden that current funding practices impose on the IRC.

Political Structure

The IRC is controlled by six community corporations. Each community corporation has a seven-member board of directors, including a Chairperson. The Board meets quarterly to make decisions about policy direction to be given to the IRC Chairperson and staff. Every three years the "42 Directors" meet to determine the strategic direction of the IRC for the following two years. This strategic direction sets the context for yearly business planning by the IRC senior staff and Chairperson.

Community Corporations represent the interests of community members, and have regular meetings to discuss matters and make decisions of a local nature and in relation to the collective concerns of the Inuvialuit and IRC. Community corporations may administer programs locally with the support of the IRC as well as have a direct say in matters of IRC policy and decision-making where they have a direct interest (for example, community conservation plans; regional wellness strategy).

IRC Operations

The IRC has been operating since 1984. During that time, the organization has developed into a well-respected, stable, and innovative land claim organization. It is widely recognized as being the most institutionally mature, financially stable, economically successful and politically cohesive Indigenous government in the Northwest Territories. This is a standing that it also occupies in relation to land claim organizations and Indigenous governments throughout Canada.

While IRC operations have been divided into discrete areas including legal, financial, economic development and investment, and social development, it is the synergy created by initiatives in each of these areas that is moving the IRC toward achieving the Inuvialuit Final Agreement goals.

The IRC Chairperson oversees all day-to-day operations of the organization and is the public and political face representing the interests of the Inuvialuit. Her senior staff include the Chief Legal Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff.

Reporting to senior staff are directors of the various department of the IRC. These include the Chief Human Resource Officer, Controller, Chief Land Administrator, Director of Operations, Director of Community/Beneficiary Relations, Director of Corporate Relations, and Director of Intergovernmental Relations.

The Executive Director of the Community Development Division reports to the Director of Operations.

There are four legal entities that report directly to the IRC Chair. These include the Inuvialuit Development Corporation, the Inuvialuit Petroleum Corporation, the Inuvialuit Investment Corporation and the Inuvialuit Land Administration Commission.

The Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre reports to the Executive Director, Community Development Division.

Economic Development and Investment

The IRC maintains three separate entities to control and manage land claim capital, investments and profits that are used exclusively for economic development purposes.

The Inuvialuit Investment Corporation has a mandate to protect the land claim compensation funds and other funds it may be allocated by theIRC, and to maximize its value through investment. To achieve its mandate, the Inuvialuit Investment Corporation capital is managed by professional investment managers, and has holdings internationally. Mandated to increase the wealth held on behalf of beneficiaries, it does not play a role in local or regional economic development.

The Inuvialuit Petroleum Corporation holds a joint venture company (Ikhil) focused on oil and gas industry-related equipment and infrastructure.

The Inuvialuit Development Corporation has a mandate to participate in profit-making, employment and economic development-generating ventures of benefit to Inuvialuit. The Inuvialuit Development Corporation owns (in partnership with Nunasi Corporation) the NorTerra Group of Companies, including local infrastructure companies such as Canadian Airlines, Bradenbury Expediting and Northern Metallic Sales as well as Weldco Beales, a company that fabricates and supplies equipment to the oil and gas industries.

The economic and investment institutions of IRC are discussed in a subsequent section of this report.

Community Development, Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations

Interviewees estimated that programs and services related to social wellness, capacity development and governance make up the major source of external funding and thus, programming offered by the IRC each year. IRC administers approximately $14 million yearly via 70 grant and contribution agreements from external agencies through its Community Development Division as well as associated initiatives. Interviewees noted that as the organization has matured, it has established a track record for competent program management and administration. This has enhanced its capacity to take on additional programming and proactively pursue opportunities.

Comparable Land Claim Institutional Structures

There is no way to directly compare land claim structures to the IRC as each land claim is unique in terms of its legal, political and geographic character and scale. However, all land claim organizations are responsible for administering land claim agreement rights and benefits. Given that claims are so different in terms of content, character, date when they were negotiated, impacting stage of development, and policies under which they were negotiated which determines content, it is impossible to measure claims and their representative institutions against each other.

However, a review of land claim agreement-based structures shows that the IRC has well established institutional features similar to all land claim organizations. Generally, each land claim institutional structure reflects the powers and responsibilities contained within its agreements. Some agreements (such as the Nisga’a, Tli’cho and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement) include provisions for local governance bodies established by provincial/territorial legislation, and land claim authorities established through the agreement. Others such as the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and Gwich’in for example, provide only for land claim authorities, with governance being negotiated through separate agreements.

However, the basic institutional components of each land claim include:

• Elected community-based governing councils administering local land claim rights, benefits and responsibilities;
• An elected regional council (linked to local councils) which administers collective land claim rights, benefits and responsibilities and oversees collective administrative interests (enrollment, disbursement of monies, representation at territorial/national initiatives);
• A Chairperson, President or Grand Chief to lead and represent the regional institution;
• A mechanism for preserving and protecting land claim compensation capital for future generations of the collective; and,
• Mechanisms for participation in land and resource management decision making within their settlement regions/traditional territory.

The IRC has each of these components. Beyond these basic elements, land claim institutional structures vary widely depending on their socio-economic context, political culture, and collective vision.

Older land claims (the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Inuvialuit Final Agreement) and governments with centralized institutional structures and land claim and self government provisions in their agreements (Tlicho, Nisgaa) have well developed social and community development programs within their organizations. Other agreements, which are younger, do not have self-government provisions or have decentralized structures (Sahtu, Gwich’in). Others have central institutions developed strongly around land and resource management decision-making with less emphasis on social wellness, programs which are often delivered locally by First Nation councils without extensive regional support.

Literature Review

Literature relating to Indigenous governance in Canada and the NWT has little to say about institutional development issues from operational perspectives relating to achieving land claim goals. Despite this, the literature that does exist includes articles looking at the Inuvialuit experience in particular.^{Footnote 150} Generally, however, the literature is oriented to measuring the efficacy of Indigenous governance with respect to achieving economic development^{Footnote 151} and achieving rights recognition.^{Footnote 152}

Perhaps the most relevant literature for the purposes of this evaluation issues from related contexts among Indigenous peoples in the United States and Australia. In the United States, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development has provided an influential although problematic analysis of essential elements of functional Indigenous institutions. The Centre for First Nations Governance (Canada) has done significant hands-on work with First Nations relating to developing stable governance institutions in Indian Act, Treaty, and land claim contexts. The Indigenous Community Governance Capacity Project at the Australian National University culminated in an Indigenous Governance Toolkit. Each of these projects involved years of research with many communities and researchers.

The Australian project emphasizes the complex and networked nature of governance within Indigenous communities. It conceptualizes governance as a system rooted within community norms and practices, from the perspective of how external agents might negotiate this reality and tailor their understandings and expectations accordingly. The project emphasizes the centrality of culture to effective and legitimate governance systems and institutions, as illustrated in the diagram below. It also focuses on the capacity necessary to generate the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance with respect to the delivery of programs and services to Indigenous peoples, rather than taking an economic development approach.

Description of Figure 24 Indigenous Institutional Success Elements

Figure 24 depicts a Venn diagram with the Indigenous governance and culture as the focal point of the figure. Overlapping with this circle are: knowledge, beliefs, ideas, values, powers, laws and rules, meanings and knowledge.

In contrast, Canada's now discontinued Centre for First Nations Governance was making strides toward supporting Indigenous Governance development and capacity prior to its sudden closure due to funding cuts earlier this year. Its insights appear to emphasize an institutional approach modeled closely on non-Indigenous governance models, rather than centering its conceptualization on a cultural basis as is the case with the Australian research. With a mandate to conduct research and provide governance support services to Indigenous communities, it has produced a range of academic and practitioner-oriented research and resources for communities. Most recently, it developed a "governance Toolkit" similar to the Australian approach. It lists five main pillars of Indigenous governance, namely:^{Footnote 154}

• The People: strategic vision; meaningful information sharing; participation in decision making;
• The Land: territorial integrity; economic realization; respect for the spirit of the land;
• Laws and Jurisdictions: expansion of jurisdiction; rule of law;
• Institutions: transparency and fairness; results-based organizations; cultural alignment of institutions; effective intergovernmental relations; and
• Resources: human resource capacity; financial management capacity; performance evaluation; accountability and reporting; diversity of revenue sources.

Under each of these pillars, the principles listed are intended to guide specific actions ensuring the strength of each pillar as a necessary foundation for effective governance.

Finally, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development is perhaps the most influential of the projects relating to Indigenous Governance development. It lists four principles for effective Indigenous governance with a view to viable economic independence:

• Sovereignty Matters. When Native nations make their own decisions about what development approaches to take, they consistently out-perform external decision makers – on matters as diverse as governmental form, natural resource management, economic development, health care, and social service provision.
  
  
• Institutions Matter. For development to take hold, assertions of sovereignty must be backed by capable institutions of governance. Nations do this as they adopt stable decision rules, establish fair and independent mechanisms for dispute resolution, and separate politics from day-to-day business and program management.
  
  
• Culture Matters. Successful economies stand on the shoulders of legitimate, culturally grounded institutions of self-government. Indigenous societies are diverse; each nation must equip itself with a governing structure, economic system, policies, and procedures that fit its own contemporary culture.
  
  
• Leadership. Nation building requires leaders who introduce new knowledge and experiences, challenge assumptions, and propose change. Such leaders, whether elected, community, or spiritual, convince people that things can be different and inspire them to take action.
  
  
• Strategic Thinking. The Indian nation has moved away from crisis management and opportunistic, quick-fix responses to development dilemmas and toward long-term decision making that incorporates community priorities, concerns, circumstances, and assets.^{Footnote 155}

The Harvard Project's remarkable influence far outstrips its lack of originality: its findings are applicable to any well-run organization. Accordingly, these findings have been criticized for being over-stated, for ignoring the impact of economic development on culture and the social, leadership and governance complexity that constitute the context for Indigenous institutional development, which is central to the analyses provided in the Australian research.^{Footnote 156}

What is evident for the purposes of this assessment, however, is that the IRC and its institutions tend to meet virtually all of the criteria listed in each set of principles prescribed by these major academic research projects. This is elaborated in the conclusion of this report. This finding is consistent with the small literature that exists focusing on Inuvialuit governance institution development and functioning.^{Footnote 157}

Policy Development, Collaboration and Advocacy

Policy development, collaboration and advocacy capacity within the IRC have emerged over time as IRC's central institutional structures have developed and as its financial ability to "carry" programs through the funding stoppages necessitated by government approaches to program funding. This "carrying" requires the IRC to expend resources for governance and administrative costs; and to use its own cash to cover the administration, operations and governance costs of the programs until government funding is in place. This indicates a sophisticated institutional structure where officials routinely must both collaborate and work with external organizations (e.g. federal and territorial governments, industry and universities), which are funders as well as actors that the Inuvialuit seek to influence at the policy and political level.

The IRC's political, social and economic interests may be significantly influenced by these actors. Thus the relationship is multifaceted through an intricate network of connections between officials of the IRC and external organizations, political leadership, and departments involved in economic development, procurement, and setting economic policies or delivering programs with a direct economic impact.

The IRC staff therefore must negotiate a situation in which their program interests lie within a larger web of relationships with external agencies. Internally, the organization has mechanisms to ensure that senior staff are aware of the "big picture" relationship and how individual programs and departmental responsibilities fit in relation to the larger frame. In addition, the IRC has developed a suite of policies, job descriptions, mandates, and work plans for each of its program areas and staff to ensure stability, consistency and coherence in its operations as well as in its dealings with external actors.

Thus, the IRC corporate norms include fostering capacity and autonomy among senior staff and leaders in undertaking the following:

• Negotiating and advocating with government to secure program funding and administrative arrangements;
• Overseeing regional administrative and partnership support for community-based program delivery;
• Participating in consultative and policy forums initiated by external organizations and governments developing strategies and programs;
• Leadership advocating for policy priorities and specific measures at the political level;
• Conducting research and analysis informing IRC social policy positions and supporting leaders and officials in working with governments, determining priorities, and designing programs; and,
• Delivering regional services (dietician, youth worker, counselor) in Inuvik and on a rotating basis in communities to address priority needs.

Institutional Independence

The IRC has legally separate or "arms length" divisions that fulfill specific tasks as organizations independent from the IRC. These tasks require professional stewardship and day-to-day decision making, given both their importance and the highly technical nature of the knowledge required to discharge these responsibilities competently. The "arms length" divisions include the Inuvialuit Community Development Division and Cultural Resource Centre, the Inuvialuit Development Corporation, the Inuvialuit Land Administration and Commission and the Investment Corporation. These organizations are recognized as having specific functions and purposes, whose professional staff manage the organizations and their activities and make recommendations to the IRC board that may be based on statutory and technical requirements (laws, regulations, academic or industry-standard scientific research). Conventions established include trust in the professional staff or appointed members to carry out their activities in accordance with policies and goals set by the IRC board. This fulfills an essential requirement for separation between politics and business or technical requirements, essential to ensure productive functioning of agencies working toward the vision set by the political leadership.

Political Structure and Accountability

The political structure of the IRC is based on its organizational structure and corporate practices based on convention.

Aligned with the political culture of the Inuvialuit, the IRC has a formal structure consistent with public and beneficiary expectations of democratic rights recognition through a system of elected boards of directors for community corporations. Consistent with Inuvialuit political culture, leaders are viewed as representatives with a significant responsibility to consult and build consensus as the foundational mechanism for fostering and maintaining community support for both their leadership and the initiatives they undertake.

The board of directors is responsible for overseeing the organization, composed of its businesses and investments, political relations and advocacy activities, and social development programs. In addition to quarterly board meetings, all "42 directors" – the councillors and chairpersons of each community corporation – meet every three years to set strategic direction. The consequent responsibilities for executing programming within that strategic framework are discharged by a professional bureaucracy divided into specialized task units.

However, unlike non-Indigenous organizations, accountability to beneficiaries is a key animating force in how IRC staff undertake their tasks. Constant consensus building and involvement of beneficiaries in decision making through consultation functions as a form on ongoing formative evaluation, which underpins the IRC's authority and legitimacy in the eyes of beneficiaries. Expectations of consultation with beneficiaries has translated into a convention of yearly "corporate tours", where key IRC staff travel to each community to give overviews of their program activities and progress and are expected to listen to and incorporate the views of community members. In addition, the staff is expected to attend annual community corporation meetings, and to go to communities to meet with residents to explain or seek input on specific initiatives. Such mechanisms satisfy the political cultural norm of accountability not only from elected representatives but also from IRC officials, who correspond with Inuvialuit political cultural norms of "task leaders", responsible for accomplishing specific initiatives on behalf of the collective. Thus, both political leaders and employees are held accountable through the corporate tours. In addition, significant policy initiatives, such as self-government and devolution negotiations, regional wellness planning, a mental health strategy – each of these require additional ongoing consultations with beneficiaries. This serves to build knowledge among beneficiaries, gather baseline data on needs and priorities, and fulfill the important political cultural convention of ongoing trust and accountability building.

In this sense, the IRC both bears and meets a dual set of institutional performance norms and expectations. Therefore, the organizational structure and the IRC's professional staff complement performs at standards commensurate with or surpassing those of similar institutions (governments, industry other land claim organizations), establishing a basis of authority and legitimacy within the dominant society. The iterative convention of ongoing consultative practice at two levels – general and specific – acknowledges and values organizational alignment with Inuvialuit cultural expectations and practice around accountability, consensus-building, legitimacy, accountability and transparency. As discussed in the literature review, these traits are consistent with analyses identifying such elements as essential to successful Indigenous government and business institutions.

Responsive Operational and Policy Context

In several instances, government departments have altered funding arrangements or policy approaches in response to or in consultation with the IRC. Operational level examples include the federal Department of Health allocating suicide prevention funding directly to the IRC instead of to the GNWT; or the Beaufort Delta Education Council adjusting contribution agreements to ensure education programs are funded consistent with the school year rather than the fiscal year.

The Public Health Agency of Canada was cited as an example of a funder that takes a hands-on approach to accountability by doing on-site visits rather than requiring excessive paperwork of funding recipients. It manages accountability and demonstrates responsiveness through welcome on-site visits. Their willingness to be responsive and flexible with respect to meeting the needs of IRC and its target priorities and populations contributes to IRC's stability and ability to build capacity. The Public Health Agency of Canada approach is one that fosters true partnership.

At the Treaty Implementation level, adjustments, such as establishing a federal procurement policy specific to land claim requirements, is a step in the right direction in terms of ensuring Treaty provision compliance across the federal government on this important economic issue. While this does not fully meet the Inuvialuit Final Agreement goals, it represents progress. Over the past few years since AANDC staff has changed, the IRC has worked with AANDC staff who have made significant improvements in the Treaty Implementation approach that Canada is taking with respect to standardization, transparency and responsiveness.

The GNWT has worked closely with the IRC on initiatives such as its Anti-Poverty Strategy and its Shelter Review, demonstrating a limited responsiveness to addressing policy contexts that directly impact social determinants of health of Inuvialuit. While the general policy initiatives align with IRC interests, the GNWT has much work to do with respect to fulfilling specific IRC recommendations.

The willingness of Treaty Partners to approach collaborative efforts reflective of an empowerment approach to partnership has yielded positive results not only with respect to discrete program areas, but also with respect to IRC's ability to focus its energies on program delivery or issue resolution rather than on advocacy or reporting and administrative burdens.

Policy Context

Policy choices of Treaty partners appear to be a significant threat to maintaining and further developing IRC's institutional stability. Specifically, these policy approaches do not just destabilize institutions and their ability to delivery programming. They also create policies, which have direct and negative impacts on social determinants of health.

The IRC has conducted various research reports on issues such as addictions and mental health, social housing, educational barriers and issues, and economic realities faced by Inuvialuit communities from a household perspective. All of these indicate that policy choices of government can serve to undermine efforts to address capacity building in Inuvialuit communities. This situation is reflective of the extent to which Inuvialuit and Inuvialuit institutions do not have control over ensuring the basic needs of their people are met. Research has demonstrated that greater control over governance self-determination in key areas constitutes protective factors for wellness.^{Footnote 158}

Social housing policies are often cited as examples. In several communities, a majority of the housing stock is owned by the NWT Housing Corporation. Private housing is almost non-existent and rents or mortgages out of reach for most residents. Housing policies that require market rental rates from employed persons has resulted in documented cases where individuals refuse employment so that they will not lose their home and instead made a more economically rational choice to stay on income support in social housing. This is devastating to individuals psychologically and breeds hopelessness and helplessness that can have a huge impact on individuals and families.

The IRC has tabled its research with governments, research that demonstrates that policies are actually harmful rather than contributing to strengthening protective factors. One example is the social housing research conducted by IRC and which advocated specific policy change. In its submissions, the IRC has been extremely pragmatic. Substantive actions are advocated to address specific circumstances and their impacts, based on evidence. What the IRC has advocated in the social policy area are responsive and flexible policies that solve problems.

Funding Practices

Inadequate funding decision-making and cash flow practices of funders have a direct, measurable, well-documented destabilizing effect on the stability of IRC as an institution. These issues have been ongoing for years, and are common to Indigenous communities with respect to government funding.

Such practices include:

• Yearly requirements for proposal-based funding for ongoing programs;
• Federal transfers of funding to the GNWT to administer Aboriginal initiatives, including Inuvialuit, instead of informing/consulting the IRC and/or making direct arrangements with the IRC;
• Funding offers and contribution agreements for the fiscal year confirmed after or at the end of the first quarter;
• Funding levels arbitrarily changing without reference to program needs or requirements;
• Administrative burdens imposed or not paid by funders; and
• Multiple small funding-program based grants from single departments with separate contribution agreements and reporting requirements.

All of these practices have a direct economic drag effect on the IRC, and a social drag effect on the populations being served; a de-stabilizing effect in terms of staffing activities and morale, cash flow, and carrying costs; an impact on staff retention when program continuation or scale/content is in jeopardy; and ongoing frustration with the inability of funders, year after year, to address these shortcomings despite the obvious negative impacts they are having on organizations and communities.

Social Determinants of Health

The social suffering experienced by individuals and the Inuvialuit collectively has been documented extensively in social science and medical literature. It is an established fact that residential schooling has been the single most destructive social policy that continues to have effects within Indigenous communities generally: this is certainly true for the Inuvialuit. The ongoing and individual and collective effects of colonization continue to produce social suffering in communities despite the best efforts of governments, the IRC and various organizations to address social issues.

It is also well-established in the literature that social determinants of health have a direct and measurable socio-economic impact among Indigenous populations, including the Inuvialuit.^{Footnote 159} Social determinants of health are the social and economic conditions in which people live that have a significant impact on their social, economic, mental and physical health.

With respect to how social determinants of health impact stable institutional development and maintenance, the elements are varied and far-reaching. For example, low educational attainment threatens the IRC's ability to succession plan or plan for professional expansion based on the recruitment of beneficiaries. Basic needs, such as housing and food, are sites of insecurity for sectors of the Inuvialuit population and this severely curtails the individual potential and positive protective factors of Inuvialuit youth and adults. This situation also limits the growth of the IRC institutionally as it must focus resources on advocacy as well as "band-aid" programming to address shortcomings in the programs and policy choices of other governments. The costs, therefore are economic, social, and psychological at all levels.

Institutional Capability and Stability

The IRC has successfully separated its economic development, investment, land management and political functions so that each are overseen by a core senior staff of professional managers possessing both the technical expertise and diversity of experience that renders each of them adaptable, innovative and highly competent managers of their discrete areas of responsibility. Respondents uniformly displayed a level of personal self-confidence and emphasis on the importance of adherence to or surpassing professional and industry standards with respect to their own performance and the performance of the IRC itself. They also displayed a sincere respect and appreciation for each other's abilities and accomplishments, and for the leadership to whom they report. Respondents uniformly noted that at the decision making level in the IRC there is a clear focus on results and the ability of decision makers to rise above petty politics. This is viewed as the heart and the source of their success. The IRC has a highly functional and cooperative environment, essential to ensuring mutual trust and support conducive to a successful senior management team.

Recruiting and retaining highly capable staff adhering to superior professional and industry standards has resulted in the provision of high quality and detailed information as the basis for better decision making for IRC managers and Board of Directors. It has also promoted a greater understanding among board members, IRC staff and beneficiaries of the IRC's economic relationship with local, national and international economic forces. In addition, it promotes a culture of transparency that is central to good management, and trust building between the IRC and beneficiaries.

Every respondent, in all interviews for this study, was unanimous in acknowledging that the IRC's success is driven in part by a combination of the strategic vision, genius, management skill and sometimes sheer strength of personality of the IRC Chair. Having as its Chair one of the strongest and most well-respected former land claim negotiators and former NWT Premiers of her generation has provided the IRC with a level of political influence that directly contributes to IRC's success. Highlighting this issue is not to over-emphasize the Chair's importance at the expense of the contributions of others or the value of their talents. Rather, it is a real and important factor to consider with respect to the long-term future of the organization and as an element of its current success.

This phenomenon of the impact of a single individual is not uncommon among Indigenous governments and companies led by extraordinary individuals. People such as Matthew Coon-Come, Chief Clarence Louis, Mary Simon, Berndt Christmas and others come to mind as Indigenous individuals who have respect as Tri-Sector leaders, who have channeled that respect and their unique combinations of personality traits and accomplishments in the service of the social, political and economic goals of their people, achieving impressive outcomes. While the current Chair is a source of strength for the IRC, the Chair is also, through establishing a stable institutional structure and competent staff, ensuring that her own personal and political credibility and clout transfers to the institution itself. Maintaining the benefit of that over the long term will be a challenge for the IRC and should receive due attention.

Human Resources Function

The purpose of the Human Resources Department is to provide effective Human Resources leadership and strategy to the IRC and promote financial autonomy for all Inuvialuit through the development, implementation, and funding of employment and training programs that enable beneficiaries to access opportunities and be successful in the work force, both within the IRC group of companies and externally.

The IRC has a strong and active Human Resources function. The IRCIRC’s Human Resources Department has also taken a strategic and concentrated approach to harnessing partnerships as the basis for much of its education, employment and training initiatives. In some respects, this role is a response to partnerships and opportunities mandated through the land claim or through government programs such as the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Training Strategy, Participation Agreement provisions and Procurement Agreement elements negotiated with government and industry as required by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Others result from the IRC using training funding to assist colleges or training institutes to deliver training and education.

Partnerships

The IRC has fostered strategic partnerships as a basis for achieving economic development within the region. In particular it uses its political influence and legitimacy to support and manage community based and Inuvialuit-owned business enterprises that wish to "go it alone" when undertaking innovative projects in partnership with government and industry or when accessing economic development funding opportunities.

At a political level, the IRC participates in initiatives such as development of territorial economic development approaches, lobbying government for economic opportunities, and politically supporting specific economic initiatives. Nationally, IRC works with the National Economic Development Committee of Inuit Nunagat, which conducts economic research and analysis specific to Inuit in Canada.

Support for Subsistence Economy

Significant efforts are expended to support where possible the subsistence economy and the skills central to Inuvialuit land relationship and cultural practice. As evidenced by such research as the IRC's study on the economic life of an Inuvialuit household in Paulatuk, subsistence hunting, fishing and trapping have a significant economic importance for many in small isolated communities with small and stagnant economic bases. In such communities, country food harvests provide the main source of healthy food for many families due to the high cost of food and other necessities. Support for subsistence lifeways also assists in building "cultural capital": land-based knowledge central to the effective functioning and decision making about the stewardship of lands and resources in ways that will contribute toward achieving the goal of the land claim relating to taking care of the land.

In many communities, where social suffering is also endemic, cultural and land-based activities can become as far out of reach as wage economy employment, due to social, cultural and family disruptions that can lead to physical and mental infirmities, loss of knowledge holders, and loss of skill sets. A number of long standing initiatives have developed over time to support individuals pursuing cultural and land based pursuits. Examples range from yearly events that provide short term and significant boosts to local employment, to small scale but ongoing financial support for land based activities.

Government Policy and Statutory Authority

Government departments and agencies' programs resulting from policy or statutory authority that promote economic opportunity and development in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region include Industry, Tourism and Investment/ Environment and Natural Resources, Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Western Arctic Business Development Services, Business Development and Investment Corporation, and Community Economic Development Office. These economic development organizations have various programs and services to assist with local, regional and territorial small and large scale projects and initiatives to promote economic development and employment in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Policies such as the Business Incentive Policy (GNWT) provide preferential advantage to Northern companies bidding on GNWT contracts.

The federal government mandates both preferential federal procurement processes with Inuvialuit companies, as well as Participation Agreements between the IRC and industry within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canada requires community benefit agreements between developers and local communities (Community Benefit Agreements).

IRC Business and Economic Development Initiatives

The IRC has an Inuvialuit Business List to assist companies seeking to do business in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region to locate qualified Inuvialuit product and service providers. In addition, the IRC's Human Resources Department undertakes extensive planning and partnerships with industry to maximize employment and employment training opportunities with industry both in and outside of the region.

Through the Inuvialuit Development Corporation, the Inuvialuit have an extensive network of businesses and joint ventures positioned to take advantage of potential economic development opportunities in the region, as well as beyond the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. The Inuvialuit Development Corporation has a number of joint ventures with various partners, as well as having invested in major Northern transportation infrastructure such as the Northern Transportation Company and Canadian North Airlines.

Strategic Responsiveness

The Inuvialuit Development Corporation is cognizant of the need to position itself to be able to take advantage of economic opportunities, and to be able to survive the boom/bust nature of a major economic factor in the region: the oil and gas industry. With that in mind, the Inuvialuit Development Corporation has diversified its portfolio of business interests. This also has the effect of ensuring ongoing and diversified employment and training opportunities for Inuvialuit beneficiaries over the long term.

The Inuvialuit Development Corporation views all of its business opportunities as potential sources of employment and experience for Inuvialuit beneficiaries, and toward that end works closely with the Human Resources Department of IRC to maximize the opportunities that arise. Working closely with IRC's Human Resources Department allows the Inuvialuit to leverage government employment and social welfare initiatives to maximize the impact of economic opportunities throughout the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

Social Development

The social development activities of the IRC are in themselves of economic benefit to the region, drawing approximately $14 million into the region annually, translating into employment benefits, purchase of goods and services, and increasing the potential of beneficiaries to achieve and maximize employment opportunities. Social development initiatives address social, mental, and physical wellness issues as well as social determinants of health more generally such as early childhood education, life skills, and health promotion and disease prevention programs. All of these contribute to decreasing issues that act as barriers to economic success or reducing costs of living, and reduce the potential costs of un-wellness to the region's economy. Social development programs make a direct and measurable contribution to better positioning Inuvialuit beneficiaries to become meaningful participants in the local, regional and national economy.

Investment vs. Economic Development

The IRC has made a deliberate decision to protect and preserve its land claim capital for future generations, and to engage in a measured and targeted growth strategy. For this purpose, it created the Inuvialuit Investment Corporation, which is responsible for investing the land claim capital with the single goal of creating wealth through profit. Since 2008, the capital has grown by $100 million to a value of over $400 million. As a result, the IRC, as a corporation, is regarded as a major player in the national economy, with investment holdings throughout Canada and internationally. Given its goal of investment growth, this pool of capital is invested entirely outside of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

This investment success allows for political decision makers to focus on social and political issues that lie at the heart of the purpose of the land claim agreement. The wealth management policies, principles and staff overseeing its growth provides the political leadership with both peace of mind and security with respect to ensuring fundamental financial stability of the corporation and the land claim capital held in trust for all beneficiaries. This provides leadership with the freedom to focus on social development and community issues as they arise, and to focus energy on issues that have not enjoyed the same level of success as the IRC's financial investments.

Social Issues

Social statistics which will be discussed in more detail in the next section demonstrate that the Inuvialuit are experiencing levels of social suffering common to all Indigenous peoples in Canada. They are suffering intergenerational impacts of residential schools and ongoing impacts of colonization. That social indicators indicate that in some respects conditions have worsened since the signing of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement is a testament to colonization's power to reproduce social suffering despite the best efforts of governments to have Inuvialuit reconcile themselves to a colonized existence, rather than to provide Inuvialuit with substantive and material restitution for the harms that have been done to them, and to change policies to end the sources of suffering, rather than continue to service the ongoing symptoms of bad policy.

This situation is a crisis threatening to undo all of the progress made to date by the IRC.

Inuvialuit beneficiaries collectively hold assets nearing in value about $600 million. In one or two generations the IRC will be worth more than a billion dollars if the current rate of growth continues. Managing assets of this scale appropriately requires highly capable, self-confident, healthy people. The most rational approach to ensuring Inuvialuit are positioned to make the most of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement assets and potential would be to provide them with an excellent educational system and all of the social and health supports required for their physical, social and psychological wellness.

Instead, Inuvialuit children can look forward to being schooled in possibly one of the worst education systems in the country (See next section). There, they will be taught a curriculum where their culture and way of life are largely nonexistent or devalued, and they will experience constant encouragement to move away from the land and their attachment to it, toward the norms of the dominant society. In school and outside they will be frequently confronted with negative stereotypes. They will be raised in substandard housing with too little or unhealthy foods, and cared for by parents who are themselves suffering intergenerational effects of residential schooling and colonization impacts. Their family and cultural opportunities may be rich and accessible, and the strength of the love of their parents and extended family will certainly instill hope and a sense of self-worth in them.

But as the statistics show, the negative influences of the dominant society coupled with the material and psychological difficulties pervading life in small isolated communities that are suffering colonization impacts often cannot be balanced by positive efforts. Thus, the school system and the circumstances within which it operates is unlikely to produce individuals prepared to steward a major corporation to greater economic success and positive social impact. In fact, given the adversity they face, it is an extraordinary achievement that any Inuvialuit students graduate from high school.

This situation is created largely by historic and current government policies controlling housing and food security, and cost and accessibility of the basic necessities of life. While the Inuvialuit Final Agreement may hold the potential for addressing many of these issues, social program efforts are often merely "band-aids" addressing the symptoms of bad policy, and its practical manifestations in the daily lives of the people, rather than eliminating the sources of suffering.

Articulated by informants in many different ways was a consensus that the clearest threat to the fulfillment of the potential of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and its goals are the social issues plaguing Inuvialuit communities. Interviewees were unanimous in their observations that solving these social issues is critical to achieving the goals of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and that statistics show that while as a corporation the IRC is arguably a meaningful participant in the local and national economy, the Inuvialuit, at the level of individual people, are very far from achieving that goal.

As was also noted by informants, the IRC leadership spends approximately 80 percent of its time on social and political development issues. The IRC, as an organization, spends an enormous amount of time, effort, profit, and resources on programs intended to fix the social suffering among Inuvialuit and provide individuals with opportunities to better their lives and life chances. Progress is being made, and the IRC has accomplished a great deal. But the source of the problems – for example, government policies that induce people to remain unemployed in order to keep their homes – is rooted in policy outside of the IRC’s control. Until governments change their policies or engage in power sharing, decision making and resource sharing to a level that truly empowers individual Inuvialuit to be self determining over their own lives, social suffering is to be expected and will continue to be the most significant threat to fulfilling the Inuvialuit Final Agreement goals, as well as undoing progress to date.

Land Claim Implementation

The federal approach to implementing the Inuvialuit Final Agreement has improved markedly over the last few years following changes in federal personnel and with that introduction of a series of measures to ensure obligation fulfillment, tracking and progress. All informants having contact with federal implementation staff singled them out as being a key strength in making progress in implementation, including building strong relationships able to withstand disagreements and challenges. There are still policy-level issues from individual departments where Canada needs to improve its performance, including ensuring appropriate procurement processes are followed and with respect to establishing appropriate and clear policies concerning economic development, for example, guidelines with respect to Community Benefit Agreements in relation to offshore industry activity in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.

The GNWT, on the other hand, insists that it has no land claim obligations under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Given the shift in power and responsibilities under the NWT Devolution Agreement that is now finalized, this situation promises to change. Informants expressed concern regarding GNWT’s capacity to manage its new responsibilities with respect to land claim obligations and to the policy capacity, corporate expertise and institutional maturity necessary to manage the economically significant land claim obligations it will be undertaking as a result of the devolution agreement. Specifically, this relates to waste site clean-up, land management and associated procurement processes.

Lack of a Viable Market Economy in Small Communities

While the IRC and the Inuvialuit Development Corporation have demonstrated an impressive ability to make the most of economic opportunities, as the Paulatuk study shows, in some communities there is simply no viable economic base for a capitalist, wage-based economy that could even support small scale companies and businesses. In these communities, the most successful economic ventures are rooted in local skills and resources that are land and culturally based. As stated in the literature review, the economy of these communities is unique and cannot be comprehended or accommodated by economic development measures based on a theoretical capitalist market model that does not take Inuvialuit culture into account.

In small communities, people live in places that are linked to a way of life that is based in living off of the land as Inuvialuit within a web of social relations that is central to the community’s specific economic logic. There is significant value to supporting individuals to live a land-based way of life as the knowledge and expertise they gain over their lifetimes are critical to maintaining the culture and functions as important information for decision-making over lands and resource management that is at the heart of the land claim agreement.

At the same time, modern technology and amenities have changed expectations around standards of living, as have government requirements with respect to basic living conditions and services that must be available to all Canadians. This ties Inuvialuit, not necessarily unwillingly, to a community and in so doing, the need for participation in the capitalist wage-based cash economy.

The IRC and governments have attempted to address this reality through combinations of policy based programs and measures responding to this unique situation such as the GNWT and Inuvialuit Hunters' Assistance Programs. However, informants confirm that requests for assistance often outstrip its availability. In communities where adults willing to take wage employment are faced with a situation where there are no jobs to be had, transfer payments such as income support and similar programs are necessary to ensure survival and to provide the cash necessary to purchase hunting equipment and supplies that will enable them to get out on to the land.

Other measures include economic development initiatives such as the muskox harvest in Sachs Harbour, which provides intensive employment and the generation of meat and qiviut for the use of artisans to produce saleable artifacts. Similar measures could encourage initiatives drawing on social and economic resources and strengths of such communities and their populations.

Political and Institutional Credibility

The IRC has established a stable, functional organization based on bureaucratic and capitalist market based principles, tempered by Inuvialuit social and cultural norms. Its unique character derives from its status and corporate culture rooted in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and the way of life of the Inuvialuit as a people. Its organizational stability is supported substantially by its financial stability and business success. These have been created in part by the IRC leadership making astute and sound decisions with the assistance of professional accounting, finance and investment staff performing in accordance with the national standards for their professions.

The political and institutional credibility possessed by the IRC opens doors that may be shut to others. Often Indigenous governments are beset by issues arising from an entwining of business and politics and a lack of professional staff to undertake program delivery or capable of managing professional staff complements. The IRC has since the 1990's, established political mechanisms and an organizational structure which insulates its long term goals and day-to-day operations from any political issues or instability that may arise. This positions the IRC to work in partnership with government, for example, on pilot projects testing program delivery innovations or new partnership approaches. It also provides officials with the ability to specialize and expand their scope of practice in their program areas, allowing IRC officials to participate in territorial and national initiatives with a focus and depth that officials of other organizations may not be resourced or mandated to achieve.

This credibility also translates into the IRC being an attractive partner for external organizations, including governments, to partner with on various initiatives. For example, the IRC has worked with a variety of museums around the world on cultural artifact identification and preservation (Smithsonian; Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre); as a partner with major academic research networks (Resource and Sustainable Development in the Arctic, Social Economy Research Network of Northern Canada, ArcticNet; Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment), on infrastructure initiatives (Aboriginal Pipeline Group; Mackenzie Valley Highway) and political development (Beaufort Delta Regional Council; NWT Devolution negotiations; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami). In these initiatives, the IRC acts as a full and equal partner with specific goals and objectives that the partner-based initiatives serve to accomplish.

As a precursor to economic success, the IRC's institutional stability has also afforded it significant advances in working with industry on initiatives impacting investment, business development, employment and training.

Political Development Participation

The IRC has a been a major player in all NWT political development initiatives since its establishment, often leading the way with respect to developing political development proposals and approaches to issue resolution. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was the first Indigenous land claim to be signed in the NWT. The IRC was a leading force in the development and establishment of the Beaufort Delta Regional Council, a forum for all governments in the Western Arctic to share information and work together to lobby governments on issues of common concern. During Canadian and NWT Constitutional talks at the national and territorial levels in the 1980s and 1990s, the IRC played a major role in discussions and joint decision-making.

Currently, the IRC is engaged in self-government negotiations as a result of government policy. It is also engaged in ongoing negotiations issuing from the finalized NWT Devolution agreement. Its participation in political development initiatives expands the IRC's scope of authority with respect to establishing a legitimate statutory basis from which Inuvialuit can govern Inuvialuit peoples, lands and resources, as well as establishing ways in which Inuvialuit authority interacts with and delimits the authority of other governments within Inuvialuit territory and lives. For many aspects of governance, this approach is critical, as generally government policy does not allow for situational responses specific to Inuvialuit. Instead, territorial or national level policies are applied, which may be more or less relevant to Inuvialuit but certainly not specific to the Inuvialuit situation.

Participating in political development initiatives reconfigures political relationships in ways that enhance the IRC’s authority, positioning it as a legitimate authority with respect to taking on additional program authorities and responsibilities in relation to its people and territory. This power is an essential tool in a larger project of ongoing self-determination, a multifaceted project that involves economic, social, political, legal, and cultural dimensions.

Cultural Institutions

Two key cultural institutions are the Inuvialuit Communications Society and the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre. The Inuvialuit Communications Society is an independent, arms-length institution while the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre is accountable to the IRC for culture and language development. This structure has resulted in the institutions pursuing cultural programming and cultural resource development in line with the advice of their own boards or cultural experts. The organizations have the ability to address specific needs and issues as they arise, in accordance with the judgment and advice of their professional and culturally knowledgeable staff.

The organizations have also developed into a community and regional resource removed from politics or political agendas and in that sense are viewed as a-political and therefore retain their credibility as cultural institutions, both among beneficiaries and among external agents. This has the benefit of these institutions being able to seek core and project funding as separate entities rather than as a department of IRC but which may, in some instances, disadvantage them with respect to competing for core funding with other cultural institutions.

In fact, the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre was established initially in response to government program funding availability for cultural centres per se rather than to Indigenous organizations seeking cultural programming funding. Cultural centre funding and Aboriginal communication society funding continue to provide for the core operating costs of the two organizations.

Beneficiary Employment and Benefits

The different sections of this report describe how, in various ways, beneficiaries individually and collectively benefit from the IRC and its activities and initiatives. The IRC employs a significant number of Inuvialuit beneficiaries through its activities, businesses and initiatives, providing millions of dollars in employment each year along with contributions to community and cultural initiatives and events.

The Human Resources Department has successfully completed a large array of programs focused on skills training and education and continues to actively seek to strengthen existing partnerships and develop new ones. It has taken an approach to education that requires education providers receiving IRC education funding to provide programs in accordance with IRC beneficiary needs and IRC strategic goals. The Human Resources Department has also begun to develop partnerships with industries in the NWT operating within and outside of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region to jointly sponsor training-to-work programs for beneficiaries.

The Human Resources Department is conscious that while its programs target specific needs and sill development, often beneficiaries returning to the work force as a result of skill training will gain enough skills, confidence and success to want to continue toward greater educational goals. Thus, its approach fosters not only skill-specific training, but a whole-person approach that fosters individual-self development and self-sufficiency.

Cultural Diffusion

As discussed in previous sections, the IRC’s programming and corporate approach is one that relies on staff to exercise their discretion in incorporating cultural knowledge, norms, and content in the course of their work. As a result, Inuvialuit cultural knowledge and norms are diffused throughout IRC operations. Support for cultural and land-based activities in terms of funding, political support and material support is ongoing, reliable and innovative. Cultural expertise, in terms of cultural knowledge and academic cultural understanding is available through the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre and drawn upon by IRC as required.

The ways that Inuvialuit culture influences IRC’s programs and its operations is an organic process issuing mainly from having Inuvialuit working within the IRC and exercising their responsibilities and authorities in accordance with cultural knowledge and social norms. Having staff who work with and are themselves connected to Inuvialuit cultural life guarantees that cultural influence is prominent in IRC’s operations.

Research and Policy Development

In recent years, the IRC has been developing its internal research and policy development capacity. This has allowed it to undertake independent research in response to pressing policy issues, as well as partner with academics and research institutions to shape external research programs to achieve outcomes desirable to Inuvialuit. This research capacity has allowed the IRC to develop program and project proposals to external funders as well as to better understand its own situation generally and, in so doing, better prepare its officials responsible for social program administration and development to work with partners to develop approaches targeting Inuvialuit priorities.

The Mental Health and Addictions study was one of the first studies undertaken by the Inuvialuit that resulted in piloting programming targeting Inuvialuit priorities. Additional significant research projects have included a study on social housing^{Footnote 173} and the economic life cycle of Inuvialuit households in Paulatuk.^{Footnote 174} In addition, the IRC has funded the GNWT to collect statistical data for Inuvialuit. Not least has been the establishment of the Inuvialuit social indicators web site, which allows for a multifaceted longitudinal understanding of social indicator results with respect to a wide range of issues affecting Inuvialuit.

All of these efforts enhance the IRC’s ability to provide legitimate and culturally appropriate programs and services that are trusted by beneficiaries. This positions the IRC to promote partnerships between communities and external research and program delivery organizations seeking to work in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. It also allows the IRC to lobby governments, in particular by providing high quality evidence-based research for seeking policy change in Inuvialuit communities.

Residential School and Colonization Impacts

As discussed in the literature review at the beginning of this section, residential school impacts and ongoing impacts of colonial policies have been documented extensively in various literatures, as discussed above, and are evident throughout the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Extensive research completed by the IRC in recent years, such as the research on mental health and addictions, has drawn clear correlations between residential school experiences and their intergenerational effects and the social challenges in Inuvialuit communities. These impacts are complex and holistic in their effects. They manifest as material conditions of poverty and associated food and housing insecurity, lack of available employment opportunities, and limited educational opportunities. Psychological impacts of these conditions are significant, leaving individuals with feelings of marginalization, hopelessness, guilt, anger, worthlessness, and other negative emotional outcomes.

The IRC has identified specific policies that contribute to this situation and through its social policy research efforts, political lobbying and negotiations, and participation in policy development fora, is seeking to change the fundamental circumstances that give rise to social suffering in communities.

Social Determinants of Health

As noted in the Paulatuk Study (also known as the Economic Life of an Inuvialuit Household, 2011), social determinants of health play a significant role in the overall physical and mental health of Inuvialuit. In determinants such as employment availability, food and housing security, and education, Inuvialuit are generally well below NWT averages. In particular, the Paulatuk study noted that for those under the age of 35, conditions are particularly difficult, echoing findings of earlier academic research conducted with respect to housing. These findings indicate that younger Inuvialuit are generally without adequate cultural knowledge or material equipment essential for subsistence hunting, lacking in educational attainment, less likely to be allocated housing for their young and growing families, and less likely to have experience in combination with education to qualify them for employment in their communities. This is in contrast to older community members, who may hold the few permanent jobs that may or may not require education, have land-based knowledge and skills, and are past their child bearing and rearing years and thus do not have the pressures associated with a young and growing family.^{Footnote 175}

The state of most social determinants of health is a result of a combination of difficult economic conditions, inadequate government policy, inadequate programs, economic transfers administered by both government and the IRC in combination with colonization impacts that render many residents a higher risk for social, mental and physical health issues.

As with colonization impacts, social determinants of health are a combination of factors that are often intertwined and mutually reinforcing. However, social determinants of health are generally within the control of government policy makers responsible for stewarding the shared societal resources for the benefit of all populations. To that extent, that some populations within societies have greater difficulties in meeting basic needs, policies that are not aligned accordingly result in systemic failures. Previous sections of this report have highlighted the fundamentally unique characteristics of a subsistence economy versus a market economy. To a large extent, government policies and institutional practices continue to operate as though communities had market rather than subsistence economies.

Educational Attainment

Generally, indicators show that educational attainment in Inuvialuit communities lags far below that of the Canada and the Northwest Territories, with those having high school education or better hovering at about 40 percent^{Footnote 176} Educational attainment results show that in small communities in the NWT, more than 60 percent of students are functioning below grade level in math and English.^{Footnote 177}

As noted in the Paulatuk study, educational attainment is perhaps the most significant protective factor with respect to poverty and ill-health. For most employment in the region, both locally and on a fly-in/fly out basis as for the oil, gas and mining industries, high school educational attainment and associated numeracy and literacy skills are essential even for entry-level positions.

Lack of educational attainment has been the subject of various studies in the Inuvialuit region. The Inuvialuit have made significant efforts through both the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre and the IRC to develop relevant cultural, language and social science curriculum aimed at making educational approaches more culturally relevant. In addition, the IRC works in partnership with the GNWT via Beaufort Delta Education Council and Canada on a variety of initiatives, including early childhood education and nutrition programs.

The IRC lends its support to various youth and child-focused initiatives in the community, as a way to promote the conditions socially and at an individual level that improve the chances of youth educational attainment. For example, the IRC Community Development Division has hired a beneficiary to work on suicide prevention and wellness among Inuvialuit youth. The IRC also maintains a supportive focus on youth through its corporate sponsorships under the Inuvialuit Development Corporation and its various companies. These range from cash and in kind donations for youth-oriented activities to offering on the job training and developmental positions within the Inuvialuit Development Corporation-owned companies. The Human Resources Department at IRC also engages in various training-to-employment and work skills programs that maintain a focus on Inuvialuit youth. The Inuvialuit Education Foundation focuses specifically on providing supports to students at the post secondary level.

The IRC has recognized lack of educational attainment as a significant barrier to success at the individual level; it has also recognized that a variety of social and wellness factors impact the potential for educational success. Despite its best efforts, efforts that are increasingly diverse and literally spanning cradle to grave, and with respect to both land-based and market-based skill development, educational attainment continues to limit the potential for the future of the IRC and the potential of Inuvialuit collectively and as individuals.

Economic Insecurity

Economic insecurity has been noted in various reports and studies on Inuvialuit as a critical factor in impeding economic and social gains in the region. Economic insecurity is the risk of economic loss and hardship as individuals are confronted with the social and economic realities they face. As noted in the Paulatuk study, generally in small, geographically isolated Inuvialuit communities, residents rely on a combination of subsistence, wage, and "transfer" payments in order to meet their basic needs.

Creating economic dependency was a foundational outcome of Canadian sovereignty efforts after World War Two, when federal interventions in the North were characterized by the establishment of a suite of social welfare programs intended to assimilate Inuvialuit socially, culturally and economically. In a departure from nomadic practices of Inuvialuit, permanent settlements arose from a combination of service provision by both Church and State, in a bid to create a northern society mimicking that of southern Canada. Unfortunately, permanent settlements not only disrupted the ability of people to engage in their usual seasonal rounds, they also did not offer viable occupational alternatives to residents.

This situation was combined with the impacts of colonization and in particular residential schooling, which cannot be underestimated as agents severely altering and negatively effecting social and cultural wellness, and creating conditions conducive to poverty and its attendant social issues.

Economically, dependency now manifests as a sector of the economy called the "transfer" economy – that sector composed of government transfer payments, such as income support, housing provision, and similar allowances and programs. The transfer economy is inherently unstable in two senses: programs are policy based and thus, subject to change; and in the sense that policies and program access criteria often undermine efforts of individuals to better their material situation by jeopardizing their ability to meet their basic needs if they choose employment, move for education or training, etc.. This is true in the case of housing policies, where residents reported refusing employment as they would lose their housing allocation or subsidy and be unable to support their families.^{Footnote 178}

Until sufficient protective factors can be fostered (e.g., strengthening the ability to participate in the subsistence economy), economic insecurity and its attendant poverty will continue to be a significant threat to societal wellness.

Unstable and Opportunistic Program Funding

The IRC has a variety of programs funded by both Canada and the GNWT on a fiscal year basis that are proposal-dependent. Each program-based contribution agreement includes various reporting requirements which are not standardized and also may change yearly. This results in a significant administrative burden for the IRC. In addition, the proposal basis on which funding is awarded undermines the IRC’s ability to either plan beyond one year time horizons or develop capacity within a focused area of client needs and program development.

Proposal-dependent funding is an unstable and destabilizing type of funding, in contrast to multiyear and core funding. Multiyear and core funding provide for long term planning, capacity development and stability in identifying and addressing program needs. In some cases, this approach to funding has been taken. Where such approaches have been taken, IRC staff report a greater ability to accomplish goals and to work with stakeholders effectively toward addressing client needs.

Staff also reported that funding is seen largely as opportunistic rather than officials being able to work with governments to access funding in accordance with IRC strategic goals. This means that often funding accessed may come with requirements for deliverables and approaches that may not align with what is needed by program clients. The IRC is forced to alter its program delivery approaches and expend additional efforts to ensure that program offerings meet the goals of both the funders and the IRC.