Sannijaqpuq: A parallel vision for territorial intergovernmental relations? David M. Brock Circumpolar Consulting Paper for the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meetings Congress of Social Sciences and Humanities London, Ontario June 1st – 4th 2005 1 Introduction The Premiers of Canada’s northern territories – Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories – are signatories to a tripartite political pact. The Northern Co-operation Accord was first negotiated between the three territories in 1999, and was later renewed in 2003. Generally speaking, the purpose of this Accord is to advance pan-territorial political objectives through unified representation to the Government of Canada. In recent times, as a result of this unity, the territories have managed to leverage additional federal funding for areas such as health care and economic development, as well as attain increases to the annual territorial funding transfer. For the most part, one may reasonably conclude that this intergovernmental agreement has benefited all three territories. One might view an alliance between Canada’s territories as either natural or inevitable. Common perceptions of the territories often bind them into an image in which they are scantly indistinguishable: they share the northern region of Canada and embody its cold climate, economic dependency, quirky constitutional status, influential Aboriginal populations, and geographic distance from the majority of Canadians. Despite such common perceptions (or misconceptions), each of the territories exhibit marked differences in their history, demographics, and political culture. In fact, a closer examination of these elements might lead one to conclude that unified political co- operation is less inevitable than first assumed. The purpose of this paper is to identify and examine variables essential to the successful continuation of the Northern Co-operation Accord. Toward that end, the following criteria are put forth as primary variables: 2 • Leadership • Policy Objectives • Financial Dependence Each of these variables will be discussed in the following pages to elucidate their importance, show how they have impacted the success or failure of co-operation to date, and reasonably speculate as to the influence they may have on future co-operation. I argue that each variable is elastic: they are not absolutes, but rather can endure stresses and fluctuations to a loosely defined point that, if reached, may undermine the spirit of pan-territorial co-operation. Regional Co-operation in Canada As an object of study in 1973, interprovincial co-operation was deemed by one researcher to be “much neglected.”1 This is not overly startling in light of the evolution of intergovernmental relations as an exclusive government function. Richard Simeon notes that it was not until the 1970s when provinces such as Saskatchewan and Ontario, as well as the Government of Canada, created independent ministries for intergovernmental affairs.2 In his monumental The Structure of Canadian Government, Mallory notes the growing sophistication of provincial capabilities and the corresponding growth of federal consultation with the provinces, but makes no mention of interprovincial relations.3 Since the 1970s, intergovernmental relations – and its study - 1 Johnathan N. Benson, “Interprovincial Cooperation” in ed. Donald C. Rowat, Provincial Policy-Making: comparative essays, (Ottawa: Carleton University, 1973), 83. 2 Richard Simeon, Intergovernmental Relations and the challenges to Canadian Federalism Discussion Paper no.7 (Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, 1979), 9. 3 J.R. Mallory, The Structure of Canadian Government (Toronto: Macmillan, 1971), intergovernmental matters are discussed on pages 386-393; equally silent on the subject is Norman Ward, Dawson’s Government of Canada 6th ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1987). 3 have evolved significantly. However, regional interprovincial co-operation remains a neglected object of study. Possibly the most notable and enduring example of regional interprovincial co- operation arose in the Maritimes during the early 1970s. Initiated by the Deutsch Report, the Council of Maritime Premiers resulted from a willingness to embrace more formal co-operation in the region.4 Towards this end, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island signed a co-operation agreement in 1971; in the late 1980s all three provinces enacted mirror legislation entitled The Council of Maritime Premiers Act, to legislate recognition of the agreement and enable budgeting of a secretariat to support the Council.5 Historically, the Council has held, primarily, an economic focus; although education policy has since arisen as a contemporary concern. The relevance of the Council has ebbed and flowed since its inception. Its relative importance to each maritime province has been dependent upon economic trends, political leadership, and the state of the Canadian federation as a whole. Today there are two larger, and more broadly based, forums for regional co- operation: the Western Premiers’ Conference and the Atlantic Premiers’ Conference. These First Ministers’ conferences provide a forum for regional members to support individual or sub-groups of provinces and territories as they make representations to the Government of Canada. For example, during their annual meeting in 2004, the Western Premiers supported efforts to negotiation the devolution of federal land and non- 4 John J. Deutsch and Fred R. Drummie, The Report on Maritime Union Commissioned by the Governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island (Fredericton: Maritime Union Study, 1970). 5 See: <www.cap-cpma.ca> (Retrieved 15 April 2005). 4 renewable natural resource responsibilities to the territorial governments.6 For all practical purposes, the Atlantic Premiers’ Conference has subsumed the original Council of Maritime Premiers, although that latter body still functions at an operational level. It is also worth mentioning, that, since 2003, all of Canada’s sub-national jurisdictions have employed interprovincial (and territorial) co-operation through the Council of the Federation.7 In the end “[a]ny particular form of coordination…depends ultimately on the belief by the participants that in the long run such procedures provide benefits for them.”8 One North? In December 2004, the Government of Canada and the territorial governments jointly announced the development of a Northern Strategy for Canada. The intent of this Strategy is to provide for a “first-ever comprehensive” long-term vision for the North.9 Although the North has undergone previous regional planning exercises, these have almost exclusively been led by a single federal department, and excluded territorial input or federal interdepartmental coordination. As a consequence, national political direction for the North has tended to be generally uncoordinated and myopic.10 Prior to this December announcement, the last time Canada’s northern region received concerted 6 See “News Release” for Western Premiers’ Conference, Inuvik, NWT, 7-9 June 2004: <www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo04/850097007_e.html> (Retrieved 2 May 2005); all three territories are members of the Western Premiers’ Conference. 7 For understanding of conception, see: Andre Burelle, “The Council of the Federation: From a Defensive to a Partnership Approach,” from series of commentaries Constructive and Co-operative Federalism? (Montreal: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations Queen’s University, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2003). 8 Richard Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy: the making of recent policy in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1977), 312. 9 <www.northernstrategy.ca> (Retrieved 6 January 2005). 10 For example: Canada, “A Report by the Honourable Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the Government’s northern objectives, priorities and strategies for the 70’s.” House of Commons, no.3, 28 March 1972, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 4th session, 28th Parliament, 1972, 3:29-38; or, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, “A Northern Political and Economic Framework,” June 1988. 5 federal policy attention John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister, was speaking of “One Canada.”11 Each of these federal planning exercises has conceptualized the North as a cohesive region that justifies a single policy approach. The distance between Old Crow, Yukon and Pangnirtung, Nunavut is comparable to the space between Victoria, British Columbia and Quebec City, Quebec. However, one cannot ride a train nor drive a car across the Canadian North; factors that enhance interregional homogeneity in the rest of Canada, like transportation corridors, are limited or non-existent in the North. Tellingly, a 2002 study of intergovernmental affairs in Nunavut found that relations between the territories did occur, but to a “lesser extent” than with, say, Canada or Greenland.12 With the geographic distance that exists between the territories, one is left to ask whether regional policy making is a reasonable approach in the expansive and unconnected North? The separate political history of each jurisdiction has resulted in three regimes that currently exhibit a diverse range of powers and political structures. “By definition,” writes Mark O. Dickerson, “a territorial government is a government in transition.”13 The