Building a Partnership for Transformational Change

PDF Version (1.2 MB, 46 pages)

Evaluation of the First Five Years of Implementation of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee.

May 12, 2023

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee's Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Working Group, which oversaw the evaluation. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions to the evaluation from Inuit and federal leaders, senior officials, technical staff, and other knowledge holders. Their observations and insights form the basis of this report.

Joint Evaluation Team

Table of contents

List of Abbreviations

CIRNAC
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
GBA+
Gender-based Analysis Plus
ICC-Canada
Inuit Circumpolar Council-Canada
ICPC
Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee
ITK
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
LCO
Land Claim Organization
MEL
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
MMIWG
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls
NIYC
National Inuit Youth Council
Pauktuutit
Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada
RCAP
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
TB
Tuberculosis
UNDRIP
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Executive Summary

Five years after the creation of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee (ICPC), members jointly commissioned an internal evaluation to gather insights that could be used to improve ICPC's progress. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) formed a joint evaluation team that conducted 66 interviews with Inuit and federal leaders and officials, surveyed 247 ICPC working group members, reviewed 231 documents, and conducted a literature search for the evaluation.

Key Findings

The data gathered showed ICPC to be highly relevant and complementary to other processes of Inuit-government relations. ICPC has responded to a long-standing need for a shared space for collaborative and transformative action on complex policy issues affecting Inuit. It has also added value to other processes of Inuit-government relations, particularly the bilateral relationships between Inuit Land Claims Organizations (LCOs) and the federal government.

The evaluators found good progress in the priority areas overall, although the level of progress varied across each priority area. Inuit and federal partners most frequently noted the Inuit Nunangat Policy as a significant achievement, as well as Inuit-specific federal allocations to housing, infrastructure, and health, and the joint research and planning that informed the funding allocations. However, many Inuit and federal officials said that the funding allocated in some areas was inadequate relative to the needs identified in joint ICPC planning documents.

Factors key to ICPC's progress were the:

  • Inuit and federal leaders' strong commitment to working in partnership and their regular, direct involvement;
  • Formal structure and processes, which facilitated an action-oriented approach, coordination, and accountability;
  • Strong collaboration among Inuit partners;
  • Joint, central administration by ITK and CIRNAC; and,
  • Hard-working technical and administrative staff.

Factors that hindered ICPC's progress were:

  • Limitations in staff capacity allocated to ICPC work, particularly among Inuit partners, but also among federal partners – Increased staff capacity is needed to ensure that ITK can maintain its central facilitation role and that other Inuit partners are fully involved in the working groups;
  • Limitations in joint management and administrative systems – To keep pace with ICPC's rapid development, there is a need to enhance many areas of joint management and administration. These include managing the number of priority areas, developing and monitoring workplans, the focus of agendas for the Leaders and Senior Officials Committees, the timely scheduling of meetings and distribution of documents, orienting new committee and working group members, information management, and internal and external communication; and,
  • Limitations in the convening and coordinating of federal partners – Many Inuit and federal officials see a need for federal partners to strengthen their whole-of-government approach, including increased involvement of central agencies; some proposed that the Reconciliation Secretariat take on a stronger facilitative role and engage senior officials in more strategic planning and collaboration between ICPC meetings.

The evaluation found little explicit integration of gender considerations or gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) in ICPC processes, although numerous Inuit and federal officials thought a systematic application of GBA+ would be beneficial.

The evaluation found that government commitment to ICPC is secure in the short-term, but that long-term sustainability was not assured. ICPC is vulnerable to changes in government leadership or mandate. The limitations in staff capacity allocated to ICPC and limitations in ICPC's management and administrative systems could also jeopardize its continued effectiveness.

Conclusions

For a relatively new mechanism, ICPC is working remarkably well, although there is considerable room for improvement. It is a powerful mechanism that is redefining the Inuit-Crown relationship. Through ICPC, Inuit and the federal government have established ground rules for working in partnership to advance action, including Inuit-specific, distinctions-based budgeting, on major issues. The partnership process has created new interpersonal relationships at the leadership and technical levels that have benefitted partners' work within and beyond ICPC.

Recommendations

With Inuit-Crown relationships now on a strong foundation, the evaluation team offers the following recommendations to improve ICPC's effectiveness and sustainability.

  1. That Inuit and federal leaders direct senior officials to jointly prepare options to make ICPC a permanent and sustainable mechanism, to enhance Inuit involvement in decision-making and whole-of-government engagement.
  2. That Inuit and federal partners jointly increase efforts to strengthen the staffing capacity allocated to ICPC work, including the recruitment, retention, and long-term funding of staff in Inuit partner organizations, and ensuring that federal partners have dedicated the necessary resources to prioritize ICPC work.
  3. That Inuit and federal partners establish an ad-hoc committee to jointly review and enhance ICPC management and administrative systems, with a view to greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability for results in shared priority areas.
  4. That Inuit and federal partners jointly integrate GBA+ into ICPC processes and devote resources to strengthening partners' capacity to apply GBA+ appropriately in Inuit contexts.
  5. That Inuit and federal partners jointly develop and implement a communications plan to reach a variety of internal and external audiences with timely information about ICPC and its progress.

1.0. Introduction

1.1. Background

In 2016, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) and the Government of Canada negotiated the creation of an Inuit-Crown committee for the purpose of facilitating a whole-of-government approach to complex issues impacting Inuit that could not be resolved by any individual department or agency alone. First Nations and Métis have also negotiated partnership committees, or "permanent bilateral mechanisms," with the Government of Canada.

The Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee (ICPC) was formally established in February 2017 by the Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership, signed by the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), and the elected leaders of the four Inuit Land Claims Organizations (LCOs) in Canada, which are the:

  • Inuvialuit Regional Corporation;
  • Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated;
  • Makivvik; and
  • Nunatsiavut Government.

The four Inuit LCOs are the representative organizations for Inuit in Canada and hold modern treaties with the Crown.Footnote 1 Their regions comprise Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland.

ITK represents the rights and interests of Inuit at the national level. It is governed by the elected leaders of the four Inuit LCOs. The presidents of Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada (Pauktuutit), Inuit Circumpolar Council-Canada (ICC-Canada), and the National Inuit Youth Council (NIYC) are non-voting, permanent participants on ITK's Board of Directors.

1.2. Overview of the Partnership

1.2.1. Purpose and Principles

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

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

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

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

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

1.2.2. Partners

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

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

1.2.3. Structure and Processes

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

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

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

Figure 1. ICPC Structure, Chairs, and Participants
Leaders Committee

Co-Chairs

  • President of ITK
  • Prime Minister of Canada (once annually)
  • Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Members

  • Elected leaders of Inuit LCOs and permanent participant organizations
  • Federal ministers from relevant government departments and agencies
Senior Officials Committee

Co-Chairs

  • Executive Director of ITK
  • Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

Members

  • Executive Directors, or equivalents, of Inuit LCOs and permanent participant organizations
  • Assistant Deputy Ministers from relevant federal departments and agencies
Working Groups

Co-Chairs

  • Inuit partner executive
  • Federal senior official

Members

  • Technical leads from Inuit LCOs and permanent participant organizations
  • Technical leads from relevant federal departments and agencies

1.2.4. Activities and Outputs

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

Figure 2. Evolution of ICPC Priority Areas, 2017-2022
2017-2022
  • Inuit Land Claims Implementation
  • Inuit Nunangat Policy Space
  • Education, Early Learning, and Skills Development
  • Inuktut Revitalization, Maintenance, Protection, and Promotion
  • Reconciliation Measures and MMIWG (MMIWG and 2SLGBTQQIA+ added in 2020)
  • Health and Wellness (focused on food security beginning in 2021)
  • Housing
2018-2021
  • Environment and Climate Change (paused in 2021)
2019
  • Infrastructure and Housing (Infrastructure added in 2019)
2020-2022
  • Legislative Priorities
  • Economic Development and Procurement
2022
  • Housing (stand-alone Priority Area as of 2022)
  • Infrastructure (stand-alone Priority Area as of 2022)
  • Sovereignty, Defense, and Security
  • International Shipping and the International Maritime Organization
  • Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
Figure 3. Timeline of meetings, process developments, and selected outputs
2017

Leaders Meetings

  • February (Annual meetings with Prime Minister)
    Iqaluit
  • May
    Ottawa
  • September
    Nain

Processes

Inuit Nunangat Declaration on the Inuit-Crown Partnership signed

ICPC Protocol Guidelines created

2018

Leaders Meetings

  • March (Annual meetings with Prime Minister)
    Ottawa
  • June
    Inuvik
  • November
    Ottawa

Processes

ICPC Terms of Reference finalized

Selected Outputs

Budget 2018 Inuit-specific allocations

  • $27.5M TB Elimination
  • $82M National Inuit Health Survey

Joint commitment to eliminate TB by 2030

Inuit Early Learning and Child Care Framework co-developed $111M over 5 years for implementation

Inuit-Crown Food Security Working Group formed

Harvesters Support Grant co-developed, $40M over 5 years to support access to country foods

Collaboration on Bill C-92, An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families

Pikialasorsuaq Joint Leaders Statement Commitment to environmental protection of the Pikialasorsuaq polynya in collaboration with the Governments of Kalaalliit Nunaat and Denmark

Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced, to include all Inuit regions, taking an Inuit Nunangat approach

2019

Leaders Meetings

  • April (Annual meetings with Prime Minister)
    Ottawa
  • June
    Ottawa

Selected Outputs

Budget 2019 Inuit-specific allocations

  • $125M Inuit-led post-secondary strategy implementation
  • $50M National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy implementation
  • $220M Inuit Child First Initiative implementation
  • $333M Indigenous Languages Act implementation

Inuit Nunangat Housing Strategy and plan to flow funding directly to Inuit LCOs co-developed

Reconciliation achievements Ahiarmiut Relocation Apology, TB epidemic apology, and Qikiqtani Truth Commission Apology

National Inuit Climate Change Strategy (PDF) endorsed $1M for initial implementation

Inuit Nunangat chapter of the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework released

Qanuippitaa? National Inuit Health Survey launched

2020

Leaders Meetings

  • March (Annual meetings with Prime Minister)
    Ottawa
  • December
    Ottawa

Selected Outputs

Indigenous Community Support Fund for COVID-19
$22.5M for Inuit-led pandemic relief activities, coordinated and supported through ICPC

Report on Inuit Nunangat Infrastructure Priorities

Bill C-92 joint implementation planning

2021

Leaders Meetings

  • April (Annual meetings with Prime Minister)
    Ottawa
  • July
    Ottawa
  • September
    Ottawa

Processes

ICPC Terms of Reference updated

Recognizes Pauktuutit, ICC-Canada, and NIYC as permanent participants

ICPC Protocol Guidelines updated

Selected Outputs

Indigenous Community Infrastructure Fund
$517.8M over 4 years to Inuit Land Claims Organizations for Inuit-led infrastructure initiatives

Inuit Quality Education Framework
Vision of Inuit education and Inuit K-12 quality standards developed by Inuit partners, endorsed by ICPC

2022

Leaders Meetings

  • April (Annual meetings with Prime Minister)
    Ottawa
  • June
    Inuvik
  • December
    Ottawa

Processes

ICPC Protocol Guidelines updated

Selected Outputs

Budget 2022 Inuit-specific investments

  • $845M for Inuit-led housing initiatives
  • $1.4B to maintain and transform essential health care services for Inuit and First Nations

Inuit Nunangat Policy Co-developed, recognizes Inuit Nunangat as a distinct region and guides federal decision-making that could impact Inuit and Inuit Nunangat; $25M over 5 years for implementation

Inuit-Crown Co-Development Principles (PDF) co-developed and endorsed by ICPC. Guidelines for collaborative development of federal legislation, regulations, policies, programs, services, and initiatives, and monitoring and evaluation criteria

"Understanding the Costs of an Inuit Nunangat School Food Program" (PDF) Report released by the Inuit Crown Food Security Working Group

1.2.5. Management and Administration

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

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

1.2.6. Resources

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

2.0. About the Evaluation

2.1. Purpose and Scope

Five years after the creation of ICPC, members jointly commissioned an internal evaluation to gather insights that could be used to improve ICPC's progress. The intended users are leaders and senior officials involved in ICPC.

The evaluation covered activities from 2016 to 2022. It focused on examining the partnership mechanism to determine what is working well and where improvement is needed. In terms of effectiveness, the evaluation was designed to assess improvements in the Inuit-Crown relationship and action in shared priority areas. It was judged to be too early to measure outcomes or end results.

2.2. Key Evaluation Questions

The evaluation was designed to answer the following questions. Appendix A is the evaluation matrix, which includes sub-questions, indicators, and data collection methods.

  1. How relevant is ICPC to the needs of the partners?
  2. To what extent does ICPC fit with other processes of Inuit-government relations?
  3. To what extent is ICPC making progress toward the objectives in its Terms of Reference?
  4. To what extent is ICPC:
    1. Advancing the relationship between the Inuit and the Government of Canada, including the recognition and advancement of Inuit rights?
    2. Advancing action in the priority areas?
  5. What factors contribute to and hinder ICPC's progress?
  6. To what extent are gender considerations integrated into ICPC planning, governance, and reporting?
  7. To what extent is ICPC sustainable?

2.3. Approach and Methodology

2.3.1. Approach

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

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

2.3.2. Methodology

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

Preliminary Interviews

Conducted 16 preliminary planning interviews with Inuit and federal senior officials to inform the evaluation design.

Document Review

Reviewed 231 documents:

  • Foundational documents
  • Meeting documents and progress reports
  • Federal policy documents
  • Communication materials
Literature Review

Reviewed 24 academic articles and evaluations about Indigenous-Crown relations and whole-of-government initiatives.

Key Knowledge Holder Interviews

Conducted 66 key knowledge holder interviews.

Stratified, purposeful sample of Inuit and federal:

  • Leaders (10)
  • Senior officials and technical staff (46)
  • Other knowledge holders (10)
Online Survey

Surveyed all (100%) working group members to mitigate the potential bias of the non-random interview sample.

40% completion rate (96 responses).

Meeting Observation

Observed all ICPC meetings during the evaluation period:

  • Leaders Committee (1)
  • Senior Officials Committee (1)
  • Working group meetings (8)
Reflective Session

In-person reflective session with the MEL Working Group to examine the findings, correct any errors, and collaboratively develop recommendations.

The evaluation team applied GBA+ in each stage. This involved:

  • gathering input on the design from diverse individuals;
  • analyzing survey responses by gender, background, and affiliation with an Inuit or federal organization;
  • conducting interviews with sensitivity to diverse participants' needs and valuing diverse perspectives; and
  • engaging diverse individuals in analysis and the development of recommendations through a reflective session with the MEL Working Group.

2.4. Limitations

The evaluation team had difficulty creating a definitive list of working group members to use as a sample frame for the online survey and interviews, particularly when it came to the large number of federal members. The evaluation team also had some difficulty working with ICPC documents because there was no definitive archive, and some were in draft stages with inconsistent titling and file-naming protocols. These challenges took time to resolve but did not jeopardize the evaluation findings.

3.0. Findings

3.1. Relevance

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

Finding: ICPC is highly relevant to the needs of Inuit and federal partners. It responds to a long-standing need for a shared space for collaborative and transformative action on complex federal policy issues affecting Inuit. It also responds to the need for a distinctions-based, whole-of-government approach. It aligns with partners' goals to renew the Inuit-Crown relationship and respect Inuit self-determination.

All Inuit and federal leaders and officials interviewed said ICPC is highly relevant to their organization's needs. The majority explained that ICPC responded to the need for a practical, structured way for leaders and senior officials to work together. Many said ICPC's structure responded to the need for a coordinated, whole-of-government approach across federal departments to resolve complex social and economic issues. A few said ICPC also responded to the need for increased collaboration among Inuit partners on federal policy issues of common interest.

It's easy to say, "let's work together." But the question then was, how do we do that? It was important to be practical about what we could do together. ICPC was the space to work through the difficult things at a bigger table with leadership.

Inuit partner

ICPC was in essence to ensure that all parts of the federal government were working in partnership with Inuit on key issues.

Federal partner

All Inuit leaders and many Inuit and federal officials said a formal governance process focused exclusively on Inuit was needed to facilitate respectful leader-to-leader, government-to-government relations. Many said this was essential for reconciliation.

When it comes to nation-to-nation reconciliation, having that direct link to Ottawa for the regions and ITK had long been identified as a gap and that gap has long been recognized as impacting our communities. Moving forward, there is a need to address Inuit Nunangat, not just the land or water, but people and communities. That's the need [ICPC] has met.

Inuit partner

The need for shared Indigenous-Crown governance mechanisms is long-standing. The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) called for transformation in Indigenous-Crown relationships and the creation of new governance mechanisms to enable Inuit, First Nations, and Métis to participate in federal decision-making and to facilitate whole-of-government coordination. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action (PDF) also identify these needs.

From a federal perspective, ICPC is needed to meet the commitment to renew the Inuit-Crown relationship and advance Inuit self-determination. In adopting the UNDRIP Act in 2021, the federal government recognized the right of Indigenous peoples "to participate in decision-making matters which would affect their rights" (Article 18, UNDRIP). Although ICPC does not fulfill the full vision expressed in RCAP and UNDRIP, it is an important new mechanism that increases opportunities for Inuit to influence federal policy and collaborate with federal partners on complex issues impacting Inuit.

3.2. Coherence

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

Finding: ICPC fits well with and adds value to other processes of Inuit-government relations, particularly the bilateral relationships between Inuit LCOs and the federal government. It is consistent with other Inuit and federal policies and priorities, including implementation of the Inuit Nunangat Policy and the UNDRIP Act.

All Inuit and federal interviewees who commented on this issue said ICPC complements and supports other processes of Inuit-government relations, such as regional-federal bilateral relationships and initiatives of individual federal departments and Inuit partners. They said ICPC improved work in other areas by strengthening working relationships, strengthening federal will to act on Inuit priorities, and improving federal employees' knowledge of Inuit and Inuit Nunangat.

ICPC complements other relationships. It's like the overarching stage that sets the stage for relationships outside of ICPC. ICPC gives us a way to focus on what's most important to Inuit.

Federal partner

If it is not being addressed at the ICPC table, then it is being addressed outside because of the awareness ICPC has raised across the federal government. ICPC gives others a mechanism to reach out and be informed.

Inuit partner

Most interviewees were of the opinion that there is no significant overlap or duplication between ICPC and other processes. Many Inuit and federal officials understood ICPC's role to be working on "stuck" issues that could not be resolved through other existing processes.

All those who commented on the policy coherence of ICPC said ICPC was broadly consistent with other Inuit and federal policy positions and priorities, including the Inuit Land Claims Agreements, the Inuit Nunangat Policy, the UNDRIP Act, and the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework.

Distinction from Regional-Federal Bilateral Relationships

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

Relations with Provincial/Territorial Governments

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

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

Federal official

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

3.3. Effectiveness

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

Overall finding: As a new mechanism, ICPC is working remarkably well, although there is room for improving the management and administrative systems. ICPC has achieved several significant outputs to date, most notably the co-developed Inuit Nunangat Policy, which sets the course for a new direction in the Inuit-Crown relationship.

The evaluation assessed ICPC's progress in three areas outlined in its Terms of Reference:

  • Progress toward advancing the relationship between Inuit and the federal government;
  • Progress toward ICPC's four objectives; and,
  • Progress toward advancing action in shared priority areas.

3.3.1. Progress Toward Advancing the Relationship

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

Finding: ICPC has significantly advanced the relationship between Inuit and the federal government. It has contributed to the recognition of Inuit rights, though much work remains to fulfill those rights.

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

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

Inuit partner

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

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

Survey respondent

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

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

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

Federal partner

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

Strengthened Bilateral, Regional-Federal Relationships

ICPC added value to the bilateral relationships between Inuit LCOs and the federal government, according to many Inuit leaders and officials. Several shared stories of resolving regional issues more easily through relationships developed at ICPC. A few said ICPC and the Inuit Nunangat Policy established better ways of working together in the regional bilateral relationships.

We have this bilateral relationship through the treaties, and we have ITK at the national level, but [ICPC] was bringing more regional voices there into these high-level discussions…It was fulfilling something where previously there was a distance. We are having a much tighter relationship [with federal partners] at the regional level.

Inuit partner
Recognition and Advancement of Rights

The vast majority (92%) of survey respondents agreed that ICPC contributed to the recognition and advancement of Inuit rights. Many Inuit officials interviewed agreed that ICPC had contributed to the recognition of Inuit rights, although many noted that much work remains to fulfill those rights. They said ICPC increased the recognition of Inuit rights by raising awareness among federal leaders and officials, establishing the Inuit Nunangat Policy, and facilitating joint planning for the UNDRIP Act.

A few Inuit officials said ICPC had significantly advanced Inuit involvement in decision-making, which they saw as an advancement of Inuit rights. However, some added that ICPC does not fulfill Article 18 of UNDRIP because it does not involve Inuit as decision-makers, but rather provides a forum with potential to influence federal decision-making.

Relationships and Coordination Among Inuit LCOs and ITK

Interviews with leaders and staff of several Inuit LCOs and ITK suggest that ICPC has strengthened the relationships among the Inuit LCOs and with ITK. Several officials said that working together through ICPC improved relationships among technical staff and senior officials. One leader said there was a growing clarity about the role of ITK and how it can complement the work of Inuit LCOs. Several officials and leaders said that Inuit LCOs and ITK are becoming better at coordinating and achieving results collectively. A regional official said, "Inuit are learning to caucus more."

3.3.2. Objective 1: Identify Shared Priority Areas for Action

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

Finding: Partners made significant progress in identifying shared priority areas for action, although some challenges remain.

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

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

Inuit partner

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

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

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

Federal partner

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

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

Finding: Partners made good progress toward developing workplans, although there is room for improvement in the clarity, strategic focus, and shared commitment to major deliverables.

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

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

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

Federal partner

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

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

Inuit partner

3.3.4. Objective 3: Create Accountability by Developing Metrics

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

Finding: ICPC has strong lines of accountability for outputs, but partners made little progress in developing metrics or indicators to measure progress toward results.

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

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

3.3.5. Objective 4: Report on Progress to Relevant Constituents

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

Finding: Partners made some progress in reporting to relevant audiences, but there is considerable need for more reporting.

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

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

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

Inuit partner

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

Federal partner

3.3.6. Progress in Advancing Action in the Priority Areas

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

Finding: Progress in advancing action varied across the priority areas, with significant achievements in some but limited achievements in others.

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

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

Inuit partner

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

Perceptions of Key Achievements

The co-development of the Inuit Nunangat Policy was most frequently identified as a key achievement in Inuit and federal partner interviews and in survey responses. A few Inuit officials said it was an example of the transformative changes they hoped ICPC would achieve. Several Inuit and federal officials and leaders also highlighted the Inuit-Crown Co-Development Principles (PDF) and the UNDRIP Act as important, complementary achievements because they have the potential to transform how the federal government and Inuit partners work together.

The Inuit Nunangat Policy, if consistently applied, marks a significant turning point in federal-Inuit relations.

Inuit partner

[In regard to key achievements,] no one could understand INP at first, but it has helped change the government's thinking.…The collective Inuit policy space is new.

Federal partner

Inuit-specific federal funding allocations were the second-most frequently noted achievements in interviews and survey responses. Many respondents highlighted the significance of the Inuit-specific funding allocations for Inuit-led infrastructure and housing initiatives and the co-developed needs assessments and strategies that informed the funding allocations.

[In regard to the Housing Priority Area,] we have strategy, federal funding has been identified, and plans are in place for how the funding should be delivered. It's a new mechanism for delivering funding [to Inuit LCOs] and that's a major accomplishment.

Federal partner

Many Inuit and federal officials and a few survey respondents drew attention to the Nanilavut (TB epidemic) and Ahiarmiut Relocation Apologies in 2019 and the Qikiqtani Truth Commission Apology and Memorandum of Understanding in 2020 as important reconciliation achievements.

Numerous Inuit and federal officials and survey respondents highlighted achievements associated with the Health and Wellness Priority Area, including joint planning and federal funding allocations in many areas of work.

A few Inuit officials and survey respondents noted the creation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard's Arctic Regions as an achievement. One person described it as "thinking outside the box." However, a few Inuit officials said it had not yet resulted in tangible benefits at the regional level.

Perceptions of Limited Progress

Several Inuit and federal officials said progress was limited in some areas of the Reconciliation and MMIWG Working group, as illustrated by the quotation below.

We were hoping that [the Reconciliation Measures and MMIWG priority area] would address all the reconciliation reports, such as TRC and MMIWG, and that their recommendations would be included in the workplan, that it would be comprehensive, and it would be worked on collectively. There has been success [on the Ahiarmiut, Nanilavut, and Qikiqtani Truth Commission apologies] and because of that, I think we could work to address this priority area more comprehensively.

Inuit partner

Several Inuit officials and a federal official said progress was made in the Land Claims Implementation Priority Area, including completion of the working group's two major deliverables—co-developed proposals to establish a modern treaty implementation policy and a modern treaty implementation review commission. However, several Inuit officials said progress had been slow and that the deliverables, although potentially beneficial, did not fulfill the working group's broad mandate.

Regarding the Education, Early Learning, and Skills Development Priority Area, several Inuit and federal officials noted achievements in relation to Inuit post-secondary and early childhood education, but observed that progress had stalled in relation to K-12 education.

The problem on some files [such as land claims and K-12] is that government never says no, but then never finds a pathway to yes.

Inuit partner

Many Inuit leaders and officials expressed frustration about federal funding, which they perceive to have been helpful but inadequate given the level of need in some priority areas. For example, a few noted that federal investments in infrastructure did not match the need identified in the joint priorities report.

We have identified solutions to our problems, but in some cases, we need better follow-up and adequate funding. Implementation is not what it ought to be.

Inuit partner

3.4. Strengths

Finding: Key factors in ICPC's effectiveness were the strong commitment of leaders, officials, and technical staff, the formal structure and processes for collaboration, strong coordination among Inuit partners, joint coordination by ITK and CIRNAC, and hard-working technical and administrative staff.

Committed Inuit and Federal Leadership

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

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

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

Inuit partner

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

Federal partner

In-Person Leaders Meetings

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

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

Formal Structure and Processes for Collaboration

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

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

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

    Federal partner

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

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

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

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

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

    Inuit partner

Strong Collaboration Among Inuit Partners

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

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

Federal partner

Joint, Central Coordination by ITK and Reconciliation Secretariat

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

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

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

Inuit partner

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

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

Federal partner

Hard-working Technical and Administrative Staff

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

3.5. Challenges

Finding: Partners' progress was hindered by limitations in the staff capacity allocated to ICPC, shortcomings in the convening and coordination of federal partners, and management and administrative systems that have not kept pace with the rapid development of ICPC.

Staff Capacity

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

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

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

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

Inuit partner

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

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

Management and Administrative Systems

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

Managing the Number of Priority Areas

The increasingly large number of ICPC priorities has become difficult to manage, according to many Inuit and federal officials interviewed and several Inuit leaders. Many survey respondents also expressed this concern.

If anything, it's keeping the number of shared priorities to a manageable quantity that has been the biggest challenge. There are capacity constraints on our end, on ITK's end, and within the multitude of federal departments.

Inuit partner

Many Inuit and federal officials interviewed wanted to reduce the number of priority areas. However, several Inuit officials disagreed, suggesting instead to increase capacity to work on them. Other Inuit and federal officials recommended "pausing" priorities and selecting a smaller number to focus on at any one time. A few suggested establishing criteria for moving priority areas into a holding pattern when they no longer needed the full attention of ICPC to maintain progress, an approach that has already been taken for components under the Health and Wellness Priority Area. A few Inuit and federal officials suggested priority areas could be managed more efficiently, such as by bringing each priority to the Leaders Committee less often.

While the evaluators cannot determine which of these solutions would be best, it is clear that partners need to strike a better balance between the flow of work and the capacity to manage it.

Work Planning Processes

As discussed in Section 3.3.2, there is room to improve many of the joint workplans. In interviews and survey responses, officials also identified the following areas for improvement in work planning processes.

  • Technical guidance – Several Inuit and federal officials said co-leads, particularly those new to ICPC, need more guidance on the development of workplans and ICPC processes. A few suggested that guidelines for workplans and navigating the partnership process would be helpful.
  • Funding for workplan implementation – Several Inuit and federal officials said greater clarity was needed about funding for the work of working groups, such as costs associated with working group in-person meetings, support from consultants to conduct jointly commissioned research and needs assessments, and any stakeholder engagement needed.
  • Involvement of federal co-leads – A few ITK co-leads suggested that more active involvement from their federal senior official counterparts was needed to strengthen the joint workplans. They perceived senior officials delegating too much strategic planning work to technical staff.
  • Timelines for Inuit partners' involvement – Several Inuit regional officials said the target dates in workplans had not provided enough time for appropriate engagement of leadership and regional partners on some of ICPC's major deliverables.

We are coordinating things with ITK, but we need time to address issues with people in our region. With a deadline of a week or two weeks sometimes, there is not enough time…. We want to put pressure on the feds to advance files, but at what point do we sacrifice quality for quantity? Is the timeline so important when the work itself is so crucial?

Inuit partner
Leaders and Senior Officials Committee Meetings

Leaders and Senior Officials Committee meetings have been essential to ICPC's success, but many Inuit and federal leaders and officials would like to see the meetings more strategically focused.

The original intent was to have a table where difficult conversations could take place.… We still haven't totally figured out how to have these engaged discussions.

Federal partner

Overpacked agendas have been the key challenge, according to several Inuit and federal officials and leaders. A few said it would be ideal to have only a few major items for each meeting to allow more in-depth discussion. Several Inuit leaders also said at times there was too much focus on region-specific issues that federal and Inuit partners would ideally resolve through their bilateral relationships. Several leaders also said that some priority areas did not get enough attention because of the time constraints and the nature of the discussion, particularly the Reconciliation Measures and MMIWG Priority Area in recent meetings.

If the time runs out by people talking and there is less time for the ministers to respond, it is kind of an easy out for [ministers]. I think it would be better to have a lighter agenda …so there is time to have more fulsome discussion and transparent conversations.

Federal partner

Many Inuit and federal officials would also like to see the Senior Officials Committee meetings be more strategically focused, provide more direction to working groups, problem solve, and ensure coordination across working groups and departments. Officials said these meetings lacked such strategic focus because they were centered primarily on preparing for the Leaders Committee meeting, had overpacked agendas, were too large (150 to 200 people), and were sometimes missing senior federal officials with the authority to comment on difficult issues. A few federal senior officials said that, owing to the large agenda, they sometimes only participate for their items.

We need richer officials' meetings. …We need a much more free-flowing, open discussion without prejudice that is not too caught up in process.

Federal partner

Several federal officials and a few Inuit officials questioned whether the frequency of the Leaders and Senior Officials Committee meetings (three annually) was ideal. A few said three meetings annually were difficult to coordinate with the level of staff capacity. A few said the meetings created a "process burden" on working group members who needed to prepare joint briefing notes and participate in the preparatory meetings leading up to each. However, most Inuit officials and leaders who commented on this issue did not favour reducing the frequency of meetings given their importance to accountability and the need for deeper discussion in many priority areas. Several suggested scheduling meetings farther in advance and bringing each priority area to the Leaders Committee less often.

Scheduling Meetings and Distributing Documents

Many Inuit and federal officials would like to see meeting dates, agendas, and meeting materials finalized farther ahead of time to enable better planning and engagement. Many officials and survey respondents raised concerns about last-minute scheduling of meetings, which Inuit officials said disrupted other work underway, straining already limited staff capacity. Several regional officials said receiving documents late meant there was little time to provide meaningful comments on drafts and to brief leaders, which compromised the engagement of Inuit partners outside of ITK.

There is a clear ICPC cycle, but not having the meetings embedded into the calendar translates into a lot of last-minute work and missed opportunities for the Working Groups to constructively advance because they are in a reactive position.

Inuit partner

Several Inuit and federal officials recommended pausing all ICPC meetings during a fixed time each year. This would allow officials to plan for major events in other areas of work and schedule personal leave, which has been particularly challenging for Inuit officials who are responsible for multiple areas of ICPC work and other important files.

Information Management

Several Inuit and federal officials said improvements in information management would increase efficiency and improve collaboration. The evaluators noted the following limitations in information management.

  • Lack of a shared online workspace – Officials rely on email to coordinate ICPC's large meetings, manage the large number of jointly-produced ICPC documents, and conduct work at the technical level. This has caused version-control problems and is a barrier to collaboration.
  • Lack of a central repository and archive – There is no central portal where officials involved in ICPC can access core ICPC documents, upcoming meeting schedules and timelines, historical meeting materials, and working group products.
  • Limited documentation of operational processes – The ICPC Protocol Guidelines provide an overview of ICPC structures and their purposes, but there is no documentation of the working-level processes and guidelines for work planning, collaboration, and reporting.
  • Limited meeting records at the working level – Records of discussion are prepared for Leaders Committee meetings, but minutes are not consistently kept for Senior Officials Committee meetings and working groups. This gap hinders coordination and knowledge transfer.
Orientation

Officials and leaders said better orientation was needed to ensure senior officials and technical staff new to ICPC are well-informed about ICPC processes. Several praised the ICPC orientation workshop that ITK and CIRNAC began delivering in 2021. Suggestions for enhanced orientation included: more in-depth workshops; background materials on operational processes; and a resource binder with ICPC templates and core documents.

Additionally, some federal officials need training and information about Inuit policy contexts, according to several interviewees and survey respondents. A federal leader suggested there is also a need for briefing sessions and materials for leaders who may have limited knowledge of Inuit policy contexts.

Convening and Coordinating Federal Partners

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

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

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

Inuit partner

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

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

Federal partner

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

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

3.6. Gender-based Analysis Plus

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

Finding: Little explicit integration of gender considerations or GBA+ in ICPC processes.

GBA+ is a tool to analyze how a policy or program could affect diverse individuals, considering gender and other identity and socio-economic factors. The purpose is to identify any factors in the program design that could perpetuate inequities. The federal government requires the use of GBA+ in the development of all initiatives, as do many provincial and territorial governments.Footnote 8 Several Inuit interviewees and some survey respondents suggested that a systematic application of GBA+ across ICPC priority areas was needed.

Extent of Integration of GBA+

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

Challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.7. Sustainability

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

Finding: The federal government's commitment to ICPC is secure in the short-term, but ICPC has numerous short- and long-term vulnerabilities.

Government Commitment

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

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

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

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

Federal partner

Demonstrating Results

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

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

Inuit partner

Other Threats to ICPC's Sustainability

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

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

4.0. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1. Conclusions

ICPC is redefining the relationship between Inuit and the Crown. Through ICPC, Inuit and the federal government have established ground rules for working in partnership to advance action, including Inuit-specific, distinctions-based budgeting, on major issues. The Inuit Nunangat Policy—ICPC's most important product to date—has begun transforming how federal departments conceptualize their work with Inuit partners, with more departments now taking a distinctions-based approach. ICPC has also shown merit in facilitating whole-of-government responses to complex issues, such as housing, infrastructure, and health and wellness—issues that have in the past fallen between the cracks when no one department could resolve them. The evaluation has also shown ICPC to be highly relevant and complementary to other processes of Inuit-government relations.

This is the most progressive model in the world involving minority Indigenous populations and national governments. Lots to celebrate here.

Inuit partner

That said, there is room for improvement. ICPC has evolved so quickly it risks becoming a victim of its own success, with more priority areas than adequate staff capacity to manage the workload. Limitations in its management and administrative systems could also jeopardize its continued effectiveness, and the long-term sustainability of ICPC is not assured. With Inuit-Crown relationships now on a strong foundation, it is time to address these shortcomings so that the partners can continue to achieve tangible, transformative progress in the work ahead.

4.2. Recommendations

Based on the evaluation findings, the evaluation team offers the following recommendations to improve ICPC's effectiveness and sustainability.

Recommendation 1: That Inuit and federal leaders direct senior officials to jointly prepare options to make ICPC a permanent and sustainable mechanism, to enhance Inuit involvement in decision-making and whole-of-government engagement.

Partners should jointly develop terms of reference for this work and ensure they allocate adequate resources. Partners should consider all possible options for sustaining ICPC, including:

Partners should provide recommendations to the Leaders Committee outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Recommendation 2: That Inuit and federal partners jointly increase efforts to strengthen the staffing capacity allocated to ICPC work, including the recruitment, retention, and long-term funding of staff in Inuit partner organizations, and ensuring that federal partners have dedicated the necessary resources to prioritize ICPC work.

Strengthening the staff capacity allocated to ICPC work would likely need to begin with partners conducting a thorough assessment of their staffing needs to keep pace with ICPC work. Among the issues noted in the evaluation, Inuit partners should consider the staff capacity needs of Inuit LCOs and permanent participants to engage in ICPC processes and the staff capacity needs of ITK to maintain its central coordination and facilitation role. Among federal partners, there is a need to ensure that each allocates sufficient senior official and technical staff resources to fully participate in ICPC processes.

All partners should allocate the resources needed to enhance onboarding, knowledge transfer, and learning opportunities to strengthen the skills and knowledge of staff and better prepare for turnover.

Recommendation 3: That Inuit and federal partners establish an ad-hoc committee to jointly review and enhance ICPC management and administrative systems, with a view to greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability for results in shared priority areas.

The evaluation has noted the following management and administrative issues that should be included in this review:

  • Federal partners' processes for convening and coordinating their involvement in ICPC;
  • Procedures for reviewing and managing shared priority areas, taking into consideration the need to balance the number of priorities with the capacity to manage them;
  • Joint workplan development;
  • Information management tools and processes;
  • Orientation of leaders, officials, and technical staff;
  • Scheduling of meetings and document distribution;
  • Focus of Senior Officials Committee and Leaders Committee meeting agendas; and,
  • Integration of monitoring, evaluation, and learning.

Recommendation 4: That Inuit and federal partners jointly integrate GBA+ into ICPC processes and devote resources to strengthening partners' capacity to apply GBA+ appropriately in Inuit contexts.

The evaluation team suggests that Inuit partners should lead this work to ensure GBA+ is integrated on Inuit terms. Inuit partners need to develop the in-house expertise to conduct GBA+ in a way that is appropriate for Inuit contexts and integrated into the workflow in ways that are appropriate for their organizations. This work will likely need to begin with assessing needs. Strengthening capacity will likely need to involve clarifying the roles and responsibilities of partners in relation to GBA+. Many lessons can be drawn from literature on implementing GBA+ in Canada and internationally. Adapting best practices to suit Inuit contexts will help to ensure GBA+ is integrated efficiently and appropriately.

Recommendation 5: That Inuit and federal partners jointly develop and implement a communications plan to reach a variety of internal and external audiences with timely information about ICPC and its progress.

Increased communication about ICPC and its progress is needed to inform the growing community of leaders and officials involved and to be accountable to Inuit and other Canadians. There is also a need to inform Inuit and federal leaders and officials who are not directly involved in ICPC but whose work is implicated or who should be involved in the future. Some of these important audiences include other parliamentarians, senators, business leaders, and leaders and officials of provincial/territorial governments.

The communications plan should include a budget and funding sources so that Inuit and federal partners have resources for successful implementation.

Appendices

A. Evaluation Matrix

Key Questions and Sub-Questions Indicators Methods
1. How relevant is ICPC to the needs of the partners? Evidence in ICPC-related documents of the partners' needs for an ICPC

Evidence in literature

Perceptions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members, and subject matter experts of the relevance of the ICPC when it was created and now
Document review

Literature review

Key knowledge holder interviews
2. To what extent does ICPC fit with other processes of Inuit-government relations?

Is ICPC in harmony with other processes and policies?

Does it add value to them?

Is there any overlap or duplication?
Evidence in ICPC-related documents

Evidence in the literature

Perceptions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members, and subject matter experts
Document review

Literature review

Key knowledge holder interviews
3. To what extent is ICPC making progress towards its four objectives:

Identify shared priority areas for action;

Develop work plans between members that structure partnership and action on shared priorities;

Create accountability by developing metrics for measuring success; and

Report on ICPC progress to relevant constituencies?
Evidence in ICPC-related documents (e.g., progress reports and records of discussion) in relation to each objective

Perceptions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members in relation to each objective
Document review

Key knowledge holder interviews

Online survey
4. To what extent is ICPC:

Advancing the relationship between the Government of Canada and Inuit, including the recognition and advancement of Inuit rights?

Advancing action in the priority areas?
Evidence in ICPC-related documents, including joint progress reports, funding announcements, policies and reports produced by ICPC

Evidence in the literature

Opinions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members
Document review

Literature review

Key knowledge holder interviews

Online survey
5. What factors contribute to and hinder ICPC's progress?

What are the strengths and weaknesses in planning, operations, governance, and reporting?

What challenges and opportunities do the partners face? (e.g., in relation to setting priorities, developing, and implementing practical work plans, adhering to ICPC principles, communicating internally and externally, and dealing with organizational, cultural, and jurisdictional complexities)
Evidence in ICPC-related documents

Opinions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members

Observations of evaluation team members attending WG meetings
Document review

Key knowledge holder interviews

Online survey

Observation of ICPC meetings
6. To what extent are gender considerations integrated into ICPC planning, governance, and reporting?

To what extent is gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) integrated into ICPC planning, governance, and reporting?

What challenges and opportunities do the partners face integrating gender considerations?
Evidence in ICPC-related documents

Opinions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members
Document review

Key knowledge holder interviews

Online survey
7. To what extent is ICPC sustainable?

What factors contribute to or hinder ICPC from producing enduring benefits over the short- and long-term in relation to its mandate?

What, if any, measures are needed to ensure that ICPC can produce enduring benefits over the short- and long-term?
Evidence in ICPC-related documents

Examples of relevant, sustainable models and mechanisms in the literature

Perceptions of elected leaders, senior officials, and staff of ICPC members, and subject matter experts
Document review

Literature review

Key knowledge holder interviews

Online survey

B. List of Documents Reviewed

The evaluation team reviewed 231 documents.

  1. ICPC foundational documents:
    1. Inuit Nunangat Declaration on Inuit-Crown Partnership
    2. ICPC Terms of Reference
    3. Protocol Guidelines
  2. Meeting documents from Leaders Committee meetings, 2017 to 2022:
    1. Agendas
    2. Joint briefing notes
    3. Records of discussion
  3. ICPC deliverables produced from 2017 to 2022, including:
    1. Documents establishing a change in priority areas and working groups
    2. Workplans
    3. Policies, strategies, and reports
  4. ICPC Annual Joint Progress Reports, 2017 to 2021
  5. Permanent Bilateral Mechanism Retrospective Meeting Notes (Aug. 6-7, 2019)
  6. Regional perspectives on ICPC: What we heard (Oct. 16, 2019)
  7. ICPC communication materials:
    1. Introductory slide deck and materials on ICPC for federal employees (CIRNAC)
    2. Media releases
    3. Web content on ICPC and permanent bilateral mechanisms produced by the Prime Ministers' Office, CIRNAC, and ITK
  8. Documents about the funding of ICPC processes, such as Contribution Agreements
  9. Mandate letters relevant to ICPC
  10. Key federal policy documents
  11. Federal budget announcements
  12. Speeches delivered by leaders about ICPC
  13. Major media articles about ICPC

C. Overview of Interview Process, Sample, and Analysis

As set out in the detailed technical plan for the evaluation, the evaluation team conducted semi-structured, in-depth individual and group interviews with Inuit and federal leaders, working group members, and other knowledgeable individuals. They used the interview guide in Appendix D.

Two evaluators conducted each interview. For most interviews, this included the ITK and CIRNAC co-leads or one of the co-leads and the external evaluation consultant. This allowed the evaluation team members to integrate their knowledge of Inuit and federal partners' organizational cultures. During each interview, one evaluator asked questions while the other took detailed notes.

The evaluation team invited participants to participate in Inuktut, English, or French. All participants chose to participate in English.

Sample

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

The sample included 70 people:

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

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

Category Inuit Leaders and Officials Federal Leaders and Officials Total
Leaders Elected leaders of ICPC members and permanent participant organizations (6) Elected federal leaders with core roles in ICPC (4) 10
Staff directly involved in ICPC processes Senior official co-leads and other senior officials of ICPC members and permanent participant organizations (23) Senior official co-leads of most working groups and other working group members (23) 46
Other knowledge holders Selection of others not directly involved in ICPC at the time of the evaluation but with rich knowledge of ICPC (3) Selection of others not directly involved in ICPC but whose roles are linked with ICPC (7) 10
Total 32 34 66

Analysis

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

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

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

Reporting

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

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

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

D. Interview Guide

Note: The interview guide reflects the flow and topics discussed in the interviews. However, the evaluators did not always ask each question in the same way or in the same the order. They followed the flow of conversation and adapted their approach to each participants' communication style.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevance

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

Coherence

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

Effectiveness

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

Gender

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

Sustainability

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

Lessons

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

Other

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

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

E. Overview of Survey Respondents

The evaluation team invited everyone listed as an ICPC working group member when the online survey was launched to participate (247 people). Seven invitations were returned undeliverable. The response rate was 40% with 96 responses. There were 60 responses on average to each open-ended question.

Affiliation

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

Identity

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

Gender

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

Not shown: One person self-identified as Two-Spirit

Did you find what you were looking for?

What was wrong?

You will not receive a reply. Don't include personal information (telephone, email, SIN, financial, medical, or work details).
Maximum 300 characters

Thank you for your feedback

Date modified: