Results at a Glance - Evaluation of The Northern and Arctic Governance Partnerships Program
Prepared by: Evaluation Branch
Table of contents
Program Overview
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) supports Canada's Arctic and Northern organizations, individuals, communities and governments in the pursuit of a strong, inclusive, vibrant prosperous and self-sufficient North. This includes federal coordination, effective delivery of federal programming and territorial relations. The program activities and outputs in support towards the achievement of the ultimate outcome: Political, economic, social and cultural development in Canada's Arctic are North are Advanced.
Key Activities
- Lead negotiation process for devolution of lands administration and resource management in Nunavut;
- Support, coordinate, inform, and promote strong federal-territorial Indigenous relations;
- Support Territorial priority areas, including critical housing and infrastructure; and
- Support and coordinate Canadian engagement in circumpolar affairs.
Program Grants and Contributions
- Grants for the Political Evolution of the Territories, particularly as it pertains to Devolution;
- Grants to the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut for health care of Indians and Inuit;
- Contribution for promoting the safe use, development, conservation and protection of the North's natural resources and promoting scientific development; and
- Contributions to promote social and political development in the North.
Summary of Findings
NAGP is a complex program. There is a need to integrate the contextual factors influencing program activities including the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (ANPF) and tri-lateral relationships into the activities to strengthen program performance.
Relevance
- The program is aligned with Government and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) priorities including the Northern and Arctic Policy Framework.
- The NAGP targets current, ongoing and pressing needs in the Arctic and the North and can be positioned to collaborate with territorial and Indigenous partners to address those needs.
- The program has an opportunity to more fulsomely contribute to advancing the renewed Crown-Indigenous and Inuit-Crown relationships by moving away from a historical tendency to prioritize territorial needs through bilateral processes, especially regarding the Health Care Grants.
Design and Delivery
- The logical sequencing of activities intended to support territorial priorities is not reflected in the actual sequencing and therefore there should be a limited assumption that there is linkage with the outcomes pertaining to multilateral relationships.
- There is no evidence that the performance measurement framework is generating valid and reliable performance data that supports decision-making.
Effectiveness
- Support for the negotiation process of devolving responsibility for lands and natural resources to the Government of Nunavut has been effective.
- The absence of reliable performance data limits the ability to measure the extent of the impact of the activities on improving the lives of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Northerners. However, most program officials were confident that the program activities contributed to improvements.
- Despite the uncertainty of funding to support circumpolar affairs activities, the Program has been able to provide leadership and facilitate space for Canadian IPPs to have a voice at the SDWG.
Economy and Efficiency
- Reduced reporting requirements for recipients, increased availability of multi-year funding, and the creation of intergovernmental working groups have helped in responding to the needs of the Territorial governments. Conversely, for the Circumpolar Affairs area, the absence of predictable long-term funding has led to difficulties in building and maintaining organizational capacity.
Recommendations and actions
Recommendation 1:
Recalibrate program activities to ensure that Indigenous peoples are represented in decision-making, and more specifically in the development and funding allocation process, which will support the recognition and implementation of key policies such as but not limited to the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework and the Inuit Nunangat Policy.
Action:
The program is committed to revisiting its key program activities and to identifying (where applicable) areas where Indigenous viewpoints, traditional knowledge and foresight can be integrated into its core activities. Furthermore, a performance management framework will be developed and implemented to reflect its strategic objectives and to identify quantitative and qualitative performance indicators to assess the impact of NAGP initiatives.
Recommendation 2:
Develop options for modernizing the Grants to the Government of the Northwest Territories and to the Government of Nunavut for the Health Care of Indians and Inuit, which includes Indigenous self-determination, while reflecting the devolved status of health programming and services in the territories.
Action:
The program will consider alternative delivery mechanisms and will consult with appropriate federal central agencies and departments. NAO will also initiate discussions at the strategically appropriate times with the governments of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut on possible design and delivery alternatives.
Recommendation 3:
Review and revise the performance measurement system to ensure that the measurement of relationship related outcomes are being tracked across time.
Action:
A revised logic model and corresponding expected results and outcomes as well as associated indicators, data sources and methodologies will be developed and aligned with the on-going Nunavut Devolution Implementation Process.
About the Evaluation
In accordance with the departmental Five-Year Evaluation Plan and in compliance with the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Results, this evaluation also meets the requirements for evaluation of ongoing grants and contributions under Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act. The evaluation assessed the program's relevance and performance for the period between April 2016 to March 2023.
The evaluation relied on several lines of evidence, including 25 key informant interviews, three case vignettes, a performance indicator review, and a document review.